xttz wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
When are the next events with GW previews? Adepticon is end of March - anything before that?

LVO is in two weeks and usually has a Warhammer preview

Oh nice! So not long to wait now.

 Darnok wrote:
When are the next events with GW previews? Adepticon is end of March - anything before that?

Isn't LVO this month?

 Darnok wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
When are the next events with GW previews? Adepticon is end of March - anything before that?

LVO is in two weeks and usually has a Warhammer preview

Oh nice! So not long to wait now.

I doubt old world will get much more than a token "loose video non-announcement via artwork and noises" so soon after launch.

Depends on how quickly they're wanting to get more factions out there - there's the potential for a reveal of the next 1 or 2 (depending on if single or paired releases), and maybe a roadmap.

Of course, it's also possible there'll be nothing - we'll need to wait to see if TOW is in the list of games to be covered at the LVO.

 kodos wrote:


yet adding that the designers said they are going to release Kislev when they reach Praag and now have said that this event is rather far in future

They ***NEVER*** said any such thing.

 caladancid wrote:


You should, occasionally, let in some air to that hermetically sealed echo chamber.

I quoted for you what the company said- you came back with a different thing. Games Workshop said- the factions in the Forces of Fantasy....are the ones to collect and play." Which, in case you haven't found out, include neither Kislev nor Cathay.

You came back with "nuh uh, they are in the core rulebook!!! Gotcha!!" For the love, please tell me you are just trolling.

The quote you shared can be true in the context of discussing the topic of legacy factions without being exclusionary of further new non-legacy factions.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:


yet adding that the designers said they are going to release Kislev when they reach Praag and now have said that this event is rather far in future

They ***NEVER*** said any such thing.

 caladancid wrote:


You should, occasionally, let in some air to that hermetically sealed echo chamber.

I quoted for you what the company said- you came back with a different thing. Games Workshop said- the factions in the Forces of Fantasy....are the ones to collect and play." Which, in case you haven't found out, include neither Kislev nor Cathay.

You came back with "nuh uh, they are in the core rulebook!!! Gotcha!!" For the love, please tell me you are just trolling.

The quote you shared can be true in the context of discussing the topic of legacy factions without being exclusionary of further new non-legacy factions.

Also, for however long it takes to get all of the FoF/RH factions out (potentially 12-18 mths) they are the ones to collect an play, since collecting and playing Kislev/Cathay is somewhat hard before they are released!

Unlike the old WFB races people don’t have vast existing collections of them (well, some might have a bit of Kislev I guess) and GW are clearly not going to creat rules for two new races before they have something to sell themselves. And getting out the old WFB armies that they did have to provide rules for on launch is clearly the priority.

Dudeface wrote:


I doubt old world will get much more than a token "loose video non-announcement via artwork and noises" so soon after launch.

To get technical, LVO happens on the launch. The release date is literally 3 days into LVO.

 Overread wrote:
Lets also not forget Covid, Global shipping disaster and Cost of Living all reared their heads during the life of this project.


It might well be what GW envisioned at the start of this project is VERY different to what they have now. Perhaps at one time they were going to re-design all the core armies and then BOOM a bunch of delays and cost increases and suddenly those resources are eaten up by other elements of their company.

It's one reason GW rarely lets us know things are in development until they are at the point of starting marketing to build up toward sales. Because so so sooo much can happen over a products development cycle that can change the product from what was pitched at the start.


Even though GW are big they are not without budget limits and their size is spread over many product lines. Each one screaming for more resources.

So, you agree with us naysayers then? Because this has been the argument that posters like Tneva call ridiculous.

I'm not saying yay nor nay just that some of the plans might well have changed and the order things come in might be different to their original plan.

It's impossible for us to know - it could be all going exactly as they planned or might be totally different.

I’ll be shocked if we see Cathay in the next 5 years. And that’s well past my Kickstarter threshold for goodwill.

I'm sure the mods will still agree there isn't rampant negativity on these forums after this thread dies.

No product can be knocked up, produced and distributed to the scale with their limitations in under 12 months alongside the continued developments in their other product ranges.

Honestly the anti-wtfever GW does this week crowd seem to have drunk a little extra out their 3d printer tanks and seem to be just spouting random stuff.

Overread is spot on, we will never know what happened behind the scenes and how much was intentional vs situational.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm sure the mods will still agree there isn't rampant negativity on these forums after this thread dies.

No product can be knocked up, produced and distributed to the scale with their limitations in under 12 months alongside the continued developments in their other product ranges.

Honestly the anti-wtfever GW does this week crowd seem to have drunk a little extra out their 3d printer tanks and seem to be just spouting random stuff.

Overread is spot on, we will never know what happened behind the scenes and how much was intentional vs situational.

Exalted.

There's a ton of people just making gak up to fit their narrative, and they're twisting themselves into pretzels to convince us this is a 'low-effort' affair. All because, what, they don't understand what happens when they can't see it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 triplegrim wrote:


The internet, fb groups and social media has made playing strangers more common. The reach of my games early 2000s was my friends and the odd tournament. Have to be honest it felt like a chore to meet a new fellow nerd and listen to him rattle off all his 'brilliant house rules'. Half of which were not fixing half the problems they were creating.

Having strict and clear rules pregame reduces endless feelbad arguments at the table with strangers, mostlynin situ where both wants to jockey for the immediate reward and where the more socially normal player usually ends up bending over for the more socially inept (removed - no, just no.), setting awful precedents.

These Tomb Kings were designed in 1999 or close to it. The Old World has had one heck of a development time.

Your sarcasm isn't evidence.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Project plan:

Year 1: Panic about the joke an intern posted about the square bases aimed at mantic
Year 2: Show off loads of stuff to do with a computer game
Year 3: Argue with AoS bosses about which mini's they can't use
Year 4: Dig out the old moulds and put together a rulebook based on 8 existing rulebooks.

I regret that I have but one Exalt to give!

Cyel wrote:
Year 5: create a FOMO scheme based on artificial scarcity to sell old models at premium prices in a matter of hours

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...that they came up with the lore and narrative for a different setting/time period...

We've been over this. Writing lore for an established time period in an existing setting is nowhere near creating an entirely new one - and even then, just how much actually new lore are you expecting to see in this release, as opposed to reusing the history of each faction that has been reprinted a dozen times, plus maybe a few new throwaway snippets? Except, of course, that they can cut off the backstory sooner because of the 'historical' nature of the project. Please stop trying to use this as an excuse, because it is no more work than they would do for any other game at this point.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...designed and made multiple brand new miniatures...

But fewer than previous starter sets. Fewer than Legions Imperialis at launch. Fewer than Horus Heresy at launch. I'm yet to see anyone explain how that is reasonable given that everything else they had to do (make books, physically produce models, distribution etc) for the launch is no different to those games.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...found and retooled old stuff...

And gave people the privelege of paying modern prices for them despite their age and comparative quality, and the fact that their main overheads are no longer a factor. There is no valid justification for that.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...figured out what the rules would be...

Again, the comparison to Legions Imperialis is an apt one. They had to do the exact same thing there, with the exact same basis of pulling rules ideas from older versions of the same game, the exact same need to write a few new lore snippets for an established setting for it, and an even longer time gap between LI and the last version of Epic, undoubtably with the same issue of a completely different team.

 Overread wrote:
Lets also not forget Covid, Global shipping disaster and Cost of Living all reared their heads during the life of this project.

I think we need to stop trying to use Covid as an excuse for GW given how long it has been and how many other miniatures companies don't seem to have the same problems. If they havn't got their metaphorical [Redacted] together by now, what are they playing at?

 Overread wrote:
It's one reason GW rarely lets us know things are in development until they are at the point of starting marketing to build up toward sales.

And yet they announced TOW nearly five years ago. If it was that early in its life, why did they announce it then at all? The only answer I can come up with stems back to Gimgamgoo's list I quoted earlier; GW saw that RnF fantasy was doing fine outside of their ecosystem and tried to dampen that success by promising something they had no concrete plans for, to try and get old WHFB players to put aside their money and wait. For the exact reasons you yourself cite, they shouldn't have been announcing it until *much* further into development.

 Overread wrote:
Even though GW are big they are not without budget limits and their size is spread over many product lines. Each one screaming for more resources.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have embarked on another one if it was going to end up as half-arsed as this. If it started out as more and something changed, tell the customers that. GW chose to have everything shrouded in secrecy. They chose to make a big announcement but then keep their (potential) paying customers in the dark for over four years. So why should we make excuses for them when the result is underwhelming? Of course people were going to form certain expectations about the release, because GW gave them nothing to go on.

And when it finally materialises, what do we see? A tonne of recycled old models with no accounting for their age in the pricing, a pittance of new ones that are mostly characters, but plenty of expensive books splitting the rules up in a way to maximise profit. It is not a good look - and the now-standard GW release strategy of minimal production and FOMO driven pre-orders (I mean for goodness sake, a queue to even get into the website in order to join the actual queue?!) for a greater chance of selling all of it makes it worse.

After the way WHFB was treated, GW should be bending over backwards to get old players to come back to their brand if they're going to try and revive it, and we as consumers should be holding them to that kind of standard. If the project's focus shifted or the whole thing has been downsized but they arn't going to explain that to us, why should we care beyond the final result, and make a bunch of assumptions or excuses in order to justify it for them? They don't owe us anything, but we don't owe them anything either.

Based on just the facts at hand, TOW has failed to meet the same standards as even other specialist games in terms of release, and presents itself not as a carefully crafted revival of a beloved old game, but a shameful attempt to cash in on nostalgia for that game as much as possible. Whether or not that was the original intent or who ultimately made the decisions that led it there is irrelevent: GW won't tell people anything about it, so we can only take the release at face value.

Manglers Squigs on 50x75s

Hang on - haven't Mangler Squigs always been on a round base?

Wayniac wrote:
As expected, I asked GW if they had any idea of the release for other factions, and got the standard "When we have info we'll post it to warcom!" marketing BS answer.

Dear gods. That isn't a BS answer. Just because you sent an email, they're not going to share the undisclosed release schedule with you. Marketing happens on a schedule. It doesn't happen simply because someone asks.

Rules on pre order, you tube crowd reading from books, I guess the first FAQ/Errata. drops anytime now

 MalusCalibur wrote:

I think we need to stop trying to use Covid as an excuse for GW given how long it has been and how many other miniatures companies don't seem to have the same problems. If they havn't got their metaphorical [Redacted] together by now, what are they playing at?

Other miniature firms are still reeling from Covid in their own ways.

Privateer Press's Warcaster was almost dead on arrival even though they got 2 kickstarters funded and delivered on time (an amazing feat in itself for miniature Kickstarters in general). They have their own suit of problems but I'm sure the Covid situation and rapid riding of metal prices are what's forced them into going the 3D printed pathway (as well as some other issues).

Mantic Games are also jumping into 3D printing - I suspect again partly because of rising material costs.

Dystopian Wars was cancelled at the start of the Pandemic and they used the time to invest into plastics instead. Granted they've grown fairly steadily, though they also have Wayland Games behind them so solid miniature sales have likely helped a lot for their investments. However they did lose at least a year of natural game growth and are only now just starting to market that they'll be doing the ground game and haven't touch on the other Spartan owned IP they have.

In general Covid, shipping and cost of living are still very much with is as a rollercoaster of impacts on the market. Yes the miniature market did really well during that time, but at the same time it also messed up a lot of things. Firms had to shut down; change plans; shift things around and are still having to adjust. Heck you could even throw in that GW doing really well during and after has had a negative impact on other firms because whilst GW growing means more market, it also means more people focusing on GW over other firms.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...that they came up with the lore and narrative for a different setting/time period...

We've been over this. Writing lore for an established time period in an existing setting is nowhere near creating an entirely new one - and even then, just how much actually new lore are you expecting to see in this release, as opposed to reusing the history of each faction that has been reprinted a dozen times, plus maybe a few new throwaway snippets? Except, of course, that they can cut off the backstory sooner because of the 'historical' nature of the project. Please stop trying to use this as an excuse, because it is no more work than they would do for any other game at this point.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...designed and made multiple brand new miniatures...

But fewer than previous starter sets. Fewer than Legions Imperialis at launch. Fewer than Horus Heresy at launch. I'm yet to see anyone explain how that is reasonable given that everything else they had to do (make books, physically produce models, distribution etc) for the launch is no different to those games.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...found and retooled old stuff...

And gave people the privelege of paying modern prices for them despite their age and comparative quality, and the fact that their main overheads are no longer a factor. There is no valid justification for that.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...figured out what the rules would be...

Again, the comparison to Legions Imperialis is an apt one. They had to do the exact same thing there, with the exact same basis of pulling rules ideas from older versions of the same game, the exact same need to write a few new lore snippets for an established setting for it, and an even longer time gap between LI and the last version of Epic, undoubtably with the same issue of a completely different team.

You seem to have taken what I said out of its context just to argue against something that wasn't being talked about. Price has no relevance to the time it took to make this, and the amount of miniatures doesn't make a difference when regardless of it they needed 1 miniature or 20 to coincide with the release, it would still take those miniatures 2-3 years to be ready. Being based on previous lore and rules doesn't mean they didn't have to go through their usual process at the least, either - which from what I can find, new editions get started right after the last one releases.

It's strange how so many are extremely eager to claim this is a very low-effort release that they must have done pretty much nothing with for 4 years because this should only have taken them 12 months at the very most, yet that sort of thing wasn't spouted about Necromunda, Legions Imperialis, Titanicus or Aeronautica at their releases despite them being based on previous games, rules and lore too, and even the miniatures being shrunk-down 40k models in several cases.

Somehow the Horus Heresy epic game being rumoured in 2021 (playtesting at that stage) and therefore likely having took about 3 years at least is perfectly fine, but when TOW was announced right when they started it (with only a month and half left of the year) and then takes about 4 years to release, that's just terrible and there's no way a game could take that long, 12 months at the most!.

Not sure if it's been brought up yet (also wow I haven't been on Dakka in years!) but Mountain Miniatures have done a stream today talking about TOW.

The highlight (for me) is the reveal that the rules for the legacy armies are as fleshed out as the rules for the core factions in e.g. Forces of Fantasy. This means decent unit rules, magic items, spell lores and unique army rules.

Seems that aside from the Arcane Journals there's very little difference between core factions and legacy factions. Just the fact that one is allowed in GW tournaments and the other isn't.

Mountain Minis and Miniwargaming have the legacy army rules, they've mentioned they've already filmed all faction reviews (including legacy) and have played Lizards vs Dwarfs.

It's a nice surprise given the less than hopeful tone of the WarCom article.

That’s really interesting thanks for the heads up on that. Won’t rebase anything not allowed in tourneys but glad I’ll get to enjoy playing fun games with them.

leopard wrote:
don't forget how long the extensive play testing and feedback plus resolution of issues and repeating the cycle will have taken...

Can't tell if serious or taking the piss, I'll assume the latter

Aren73 wrote:


Seems that aside from the Arcane Journals there's very little difference between core factions and legacy factions. Just the fact that one is allowed in GW tournaments and the other isn't.

For now. Arcane Journals aren't the only form through which core armies will be updated. The concern many have is that the legacy armies will fall behind as the core armies get updated.

It's nice to see Mountain Miniatures (probably the foremost WHFB influencers covering both old editions and fan rewrites) so optimistic about it. But sounds like the rulebook is again a scattered mess of nested rules, exceptions to exceptions, redundant fringe abilities (why are there two version of Flammable?), and an utterly worthless index.

Well my friends have now entered the "Well, this is a success... so clearly they're going to scrap it all and just do 9th Ed WHFB instead, with Dark Elves and Lizardmen!" phase of cope.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well my friends have now entered the "Well, this is a success... so clearly they're going to scrap it all and just do 9th Ed WHFB instead, with Dark Elves and Lizardmen!" phase of cope.

Oh, yeah... WAY too early for that.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:


The internet, fb groups and social media has made playing strangers more common. The reach of my games early 2000s was my friends and the odd tournament. Have to be honest it felt like a chore to meet a new fellow nerd and listen to him rattle off all his 'brilliant house rules'. Half of which were not fixing half the problems they were creating.

Having strict and clear rules pregame reduces endless feelbad arguments at the table with strangers, mostlynin situ where both wants to jockey for the immediate reward and where the more socially normal player usually ends up bending over for the more socially inept (removed - no, just no.), setting awful precedents.

These Tomb Kings were designed in 1999 or close to it. The Old World has had one heck of a development time.

Your sarcasm isn't evidence.

I dont even know where you're trying to go with that comment.

Established 40k players flat out caught at cheating in top games at tournaments shows the need for clear and consise rules for even casuals when playing people outside your group. If people will cheat mechanically, they'll squeeze and argue to get the rules swing their way too. Its my belief this is more common in the 2020s than late 90s due to the game being more globalized now. God bless you if you never experienced this. Please let me know your decret.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's nice to see Mountain Miniatures (probably the foremost WHFB influencers covering both old editions and fan rewrites) so optimistic about it. But sounds like the rulebook is again a scattered mess of nested rules, exceptions to exceptions, redundant fringe abilities (why are there two version of Flammable?), and an utterly worthless index.

In a way I'm glad it's like this. It might be clunky but at least it has some charm and soul to it, unlike 40k or AoS. Generally I'm happy with what I've seen, it's only the legacy rules which had me worried. Sure, I'll have to search through pages of the rulebook for references and hop between rules linking to other rules but it's fine with me, as long as I like the game I'm playing.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well my friends have now entered the "Well, this is a success... so clearly they're going to scrap it all and just do 9th Ed WHFB instead, with Dark Elves and Lizardmen!" phase of cope.

Oh, yeah... WAY too early for that.

Cope and denial is a hell of a drug.

We don't even know it really was a success. It sold out the launch wave, sure, but we don't know if it's overwhelming demand, production throughput limitations, or intentional underproduction to induce FOMO. The available evidence would indicate that it was a very small production run relative to a lot of other recent releases. Its been a while since I've seen such heavy limitations and allocations, even the holiday battleforces didn't seem to have such limited stock availability and lasted longer than the TOW stock.

"charm" and "soul" aren't a reasonable excuse for a badly laid out book and redundant rules. Again.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well my friends have now entered the "Well, this is a success... so clearly they're going to scrap it all and just do 9th Ed WHFB instead, with Dark Elves and Lizardmen!" phase of cope.

Oh, yeah... WAY too early for that.

Cope and denial is a hell of a drug.

We don't even know it really was a success. It sold out the launch wave, sure, but we don't know if it's overwhelming demand, production throughput limitations, or intentional underproduction to induce FOMO. The available evidence would indicate that it was a very small production run relative to a lot of other recent releases. Its been a while since I've seen such heavy limitations and allocations, even the holiday battleforces didn't seem to have such limited stock availability and lasted longer than the TOW stock.

Selling out is selling out. GW can't sell more than what they've got so if they've sold out on a lot of lines it doesn't matter if it was a tiny release or a massive one; it means they've sold out of what they've predicted to sell, put into production and put on the shelves.

I think GW might have been stricter with limits on this one simply because its a new game and there's nothing else on the market for it; whilst for something like Holiday Battleforces those are purely a short term sales boon. Everything in them is already on general sale so if a customer misses the holiday boxed set they can still get all the contents from GW anyway. They are missing a discount rather than a product.

IT might also just be part of GW and 3rd party stores policies to try and discourage scalpers from harming the market and getting as many products into as many individual customer hands so hitting a broad market sweep rather than letting those with deeper pockets steal the thunder from the launch too much. Whilst we cry scalpers as a huge blame, I'm fairly sure those who can afford 3 or 4 boxed sets in one go can also be to blame as they are likely way more numerous than the scalpers and as a result those multi-box buyers can mean that they eat up stock that could have gone to different people.


Only the fullness of time and how sales are when things get into general circulation and when the "its new" wears off a little. This is still a very new project and even if it sells well anyone shoudl know it will take time to rise up. Even AoS and 40K have taken time to rise from dips in sales now and then and grow/mature as games.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
"charm" and "soul" aren't a reasonable excuse for a badly laid out book and redundant rules. Again.

And yet it definitely draws me in better than the streamlined and optimised AoS and 40k.

I'd rather have fun rules laid out badly than boring rules laid out well. I'm glad they didn't put presentation above a decently crafted game, which this seems to be.

Come back to me when we've both played 20+ games and maybe we'll both have some new insight, maybe then I'll agree with you but for now, I see the gameplay and I like it.

Fun is in the eye of the beholder. I'd rather have a clean and well laid out book than a rulebook that has to be marked and tagged just so you have a chance of actually finding what you need.

I absolutely miss the older style of rules where they have a sentence or short paragraph putting some fluff on the abstraction behind the rule before the actual rule text. But that's just like my opinion man.

Going to be honest, the prices for the minis out of the box has kicked a lot of enthusiasm here down.

The change in base size is expensive as well for me with so much fantasy. Probably going to be a new edition before I am done.

The rules so far seem ok, the battle they did to show the game off sucked.
Honestly bad game, the mini wargaming one was a better showing.
Hopefully the game doesn’t become a yolo charge issue.

Will need to get test army’s down, but ehh. So much work on just bases. For hopefully the unit footprints not to be too big for fun movement game.

Otherwise I am glad it’s back, hopefully it’s positive in 6 months time.

 Overread wrote:


it means they've sold out of what they've predicted to sell

We simply don't know that. We don't know what determined their lot size for production or anything like that at all. Their sales estimates are likely built out over a year rather than just a release day estimate - its entirely possible they sell out on day 1 but fail to meet sales projections over an extended period.

They certainly sold out of what they produced and shipped, but that doesn't immediately correlate to it being a roaring success, especially when this community can't go more than 5 minutes between commenting about how GW supposedly has severe production issues and can't produce enough product for their customers. It's tough to make an argument that they are meeting numbers when they are also supposedly struggling to produce goods in meaningful quantities.

Ideally, I would assume the size of the initial production run would be scaled to meet ot exceed the breakeven point on investment into the project (otherwise what's the point of not producing enough goods to achieve profitability?), but that isn't the same as meeting projected sales, that's just setting a target for achieving ROI.

It's probably worth pointing out that while ToW has sold well, it hasn't sold out completely. The Tomb kings box is still in stock in several regions including America. The rulebook and the Bretonnia box have sold out pretty much everywhere as has all the resin but that's probably because it's mostly shipping from the UK.
This isn't a Cursed City or Indomitus situation.

We might learn more in the next financial report. They reported Dominion as their most successful fantasy launch ever. It will be interesting to see if ToW beats it.

I would kind of expect it to. Not every AoS player bought Dominion, you're basically comparing the sales of a single product to that of an entire game system.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would kind of expect it to. Not every AoS player bought Dominion, you're basically comparing the sales of a single product to that of an entire game system.

But GW are kind of starting from scratch again. Each edition of AoS has sold better than the last.
How many of those total war players are actually going to bother putting the time and money into playing a table top game? I'm sure GW has no idea, hence the low supply.
Even though Dominion did well, they overproduced it. I doubt GW are going to make that kind of bet again.

I sold off my massive unbuilt Empire and half built High Elves a couple years ago.
I still have Lizardmen and vampire counts but they will be the PDF army list only and not sure if I will bother doing anything with the armies.

I still have all my O&G with >300 NGs and even 4 snotling pump wagons.
Now for these guys I have absolutely no issue in changing bases and realise it will take months with everything else I have going on.
The army has enough variety that it never gets old with hordes, semi-elite, fast cav, heavy artillery, monsters, or a balanced approach.

For the first time in years I feel really hopeful for a GW game as I loved WHFB.

I’m making a rebasing guide in excel. Have 5 of the 9 armies done. I’ll share when it’s completed. Probably won’t do the legacy armies since they won’t be allowed in tourneys.

beast_gts wrote:

Manglers Squigs on 50x75s

Hang on - haven't Mangler Squigs always been on a round base?

no, if I recall they were released some time around end times?

 McDougall Designs wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

Manglers Squigs on 50x75s

Hang on - haven't Mangler Squigs always been on a round base?

no, if I recall they were released some time around end times?

Like Night Goblin Fanatics, they were round-based: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xl6ypBw0eD4/TswNDijnb3I/AAAAAAAAPDw/hgAnLdT5n_g/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Mangler_squigs_citadel_Games_Workshop.jpg

 McDougall Designs wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

Manglers Squigs on 50x75s

Hang on - haven't Mangler Squigs always been on a round base?

no, if I recall they were released some time around end times?

They were on round bases as you picked a direction and rolled, and had no flanks or rear.

Simliar to NG fanatics who rolled a random direction and moved - but they were more of a damage causing token than an actual model for your opponent to interact with.

Squig hoppers were on square bases as they ranked up when in combat.

I expect this Sunday to say that next weeks pre orders are the second wave of Bretonnia and Tomb Kings stuff. I expect February to announce the next factions coming.

Rebasing guide compiled today for everyone with old armies for main factions:

Unit type / Old base size / New Base size / Rebase required or not.

You can zoom in to your army to make it easier to read if needed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

Chikout wrote:
It's probably worth pointing out that while ToW has sold well, it hasn't sold out completely. The Tomb kings box is still in stock in several regions including America. The rulebook and the Bretonnia box have sold out pretty much everywhere as has all the resin but that's probably because it's mostly shipping from the UK.

the models no one wanted to by 10 years ago, bundled with a shiny new model that is controversial (as it does not fit in the theme for lot of people) not sell well is not a real surprise

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:

yet adding that the designers said they are going to release Kislev when they reach Praag and now have said that this event is rather far in future

They ***NEVER*** said any such thing.

In the very beginning ~8 months ago, that we start with the Borderprincess and the factions present there and will end in Praag and therefore Kislev will be present when that happens
but time will tell

 kodos wrote:

Chikout wrote:
It's probably worth pointing out that while ToW has sold well, it hasn't sold out completely. The Tomb kings box is still in stock in several regions including America. The rulebook and the Bretonnia box have sold out pretty much everywhere as has all the resin but that's probably because it's mostly shipping from the UK.

the models no one wanted to by 10 years ago, bundled with a shiny new model that is controversial (as it does not fit in the theme for lot of people) not sell well is not a real surprise

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:

yet adding that the designers said they are going to release Kislev when they reach Praag and now have said that this event is rather far in future

They ***NEVER*** said any such thing.

In the very beginning ~8 months ago, that we start with the Borderprincess and the factions present there and will end in Praag and therefore Kislev will be present when that happens
but time will tell

The first article about the BPs says nothing like that at all.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/10/07/discover-warhammer-the-old-worlds-ultimate-getaway-for-exiled-lords-and-rotten-princes/

Also, there’s a Kislevite faction *in* the BPs

 nathan2004 wrote:
Rebasing guide compiled today for everyone with old armies for main factions:

Unit type / Old base size / New Base size / Rebase required or not.

You can zoom in to your army to make it easier to read if needed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

Thanks! Nice work.
Just one comment, I think the Bretonian hippogriff was already on 50 mm base, but I'll check when I get home.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ideally, I would assume the size of the initial production run would be scaled to meet ot exceed the breakeven point on investment into the project (otherwise what's the point of not producing enough goods to achieve profitability?), but that isn't the same as meeting projected sales, that's just setting a target for achieving ROI.

"They're so popular they can't make stuff fast enough to meet demand" is usually an argument of GW defenders.

Who are then unable to explain if a new game can even achieve ROI if GW just keep splitting up an already too small production capacity into more and more product. Isn't any new project a pure loss at that point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The bandwagon has begun


https://maxminishop.com/collections/fantasy-miniatures/fantasy-undead?page=1
Damn, Ushbti for 14€ for 3? I think that's less than what I paid in the Kickstarter.

Actuve wrote:
I expect this Sunday to say that next weeks pre orders are the second wave of Bretonnia and Tomb Kings stuff. I expect February to announce the next factions coming.

GW's usual approach is to leave at least a month between releases for the same system/range. That allows time for anyone on monthly pay to recover their wallet for the next purchase. Generally only 40K/AOS get exceptions to that, and when they do it's typically for smaller releases like MTO or separarely boxed models from a previous bundle.

Next up will be the DA 40K box, Legions Imperialis second wave, and AOS flesheater courts. I would not expect any further TOW releases before February.

No, because keeping fresh releases coming is a staple of their business model and keeping a stable of enough things so that each one doesn't get boring is important.

You can see this issue in their Marine line for example. It's obviously their best selling thing, but a while back they were getting to a point where they'd fleshed it out - so HH got plastics and the main range was basically completely redone.

At some point they will have all the marks done in the new larger scale for HH, they will have been back around for all the new chapter upgrades and Terminators etc for the main chapters and all the viable primarchs will be done.

There's only so many times they can redo a line like they did with Primaris and there's only one Heresy they can do.

Having several games gives them more stuff they can do without each one getting to their logical end point.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Rebasing guide compiled today for everyone with old armies for main factions:

Unit type / Old base size / New Base size / Rebase required or not.

You can zoom in to your army to make it easier to read if needed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

looking at the list empire now has to types of griffin a smaller and lager one the larger is the "new" plastic kit and does need a base change, the smaller griffin uses a 50x50 base and is interestingly enough what the old metal count on griffin comes on.

 RustyNumber wrote:
I absolutely miss the older style of rules where they have a sentence or short paragraph putting some fluff on the abstraction behind the rule before the actual rule text. But that's just like my opinion man.

My personal preference is for the rules to be as streamlined as possible so I don't have to carry a giant fecking tomb around with me and spend hours playing my first dozen games because I have to keep flipping back through said tomb (my ideal rulebook is the Epic 40k rulebook, 50 pages in A5 format, can be read in one sitting and tossed into my gaming case no worries). But I could deal with fluff snippets. Especially if they were in italics to make it clear they're not actually part of the rule.

The problem with GW rules is they are just flat out poorly written. There's no fluff or flavour, they're just using too many words to say a thing. It makes them painful to read and there's more than one GW game where I never got beyond the rule-reading part of the game because I got sick of reading the awfully written rules.

I naturally write too many words myself, so I can appreciate that... BUT, if I'm going to publish something, then I damned well go back through and edit out all the superfluous bits, let alone if I was going to charge $50 for said publication.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Rebasing guide compiled today for everyone with old armies for main factions:

Unit type / Old base size / New Base size / Rebase required or not.

You can zoom in to your army to make it easier to read if needed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

Much obliged, thank you. Looks like I need to rebase my cannon if I want it to be OW-compliant (which I might as well). I had it on a plastic base of indeterminate size, with slots cut for the three gunners' standard square bases. Are crew members now treated as a part of the model?

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am currently watching the battle report from GW and it doesn't look too great. It looks like they move units pretty quickly and then the dice autopilot turns on and they roll and roll and re-roll, and roll again, charge range, fear tests, hits, wounds, saves, regeneration, wards... Looks terribly boring tbh to see a game where players are needed for like 20% of playing time, and the rest of the time they just perform the menial role of being living random number generators for the game.

Sounds like standard GW game design then!

A year ago I would agree with you but since then my friends managed to convince me to try out Kill Team. I didn't want to, because I thought that's GW design, players make trivial decisions and then just fall asleep rolling dice for hours on end,waiting for something they can do again.

I was wrong. In KT most time is spent on non-trivial decision making and resolution is very quick with just a single roll of a few dice per player in most cases. And even resolution is also riddled with little decision points, like for example in close combat after rolling attacks players alternate assigning them as hits or parries, and you can absolutely make good or bad decisions with that.

So yeah, GW are totally capable of designing a game that revolves around players being active decision makers not passive performers of long and monotonous, non-interactive processes.

Cyel wrote:
I am currently watching the battle report from GW and it doesn't look too great. It looks like they move units pretty quickly and then the dice autopilot turns on and they roll and roll and re-roll, and roll again, charge range, fear tests, hits, wounds, saves, regeneration, wards... Looks terribly boring tbh to see a game where players are needed for like 20% of playing time, and the rest of the time they just perform the menial role of being living random number generators for the game.

Didn't you have a post 6 months back to the tune of "did people really play 6th edition like this?" - cue video of people shuffling infantry across the table for two turns, charging, and then rolling lots of dice to determine what happens.
The answer was always "typically, yes."

Given the extent of the rules and the time to play Fantasy shouldn't really be a beer and pretzels game - but arguably its only ever seriously worked with that mentality. There aren't that many decisions to be made. Most strategy is just "do you know the trick, yes/no". Beyond writing a completely different game its unclear how TOW could be radically different.

You are absolutely right! Perception changes with every new experience.

Wfb at that time (before wargaming conpetition or the golden age of board games showed how different it can be) was a game that I loved dearly. But I hardly had anything to compared it to.

A quarter of a century later it is not enough, though. The world of tabletop games design made enormous leaps forward


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To sum up my stance - I liked the game a lot (started in 5th) but even then I expected improvements with every new edition. Like, for example, making the arduous process of resolution faster, so that it isn't a 20min long pause in the game every turn or introducing more strategy.

But the game went in exactly the opposite way of what I hoped for and, apparently still does.

So my opinion " I liked 6th edition but expected evolution not stagnation or steps back" isn't that much of a contradiction

 kodos wrote:

In the very beginning ~8 months ago, that we start with the Borderprincess and the factions present there and will end in Praag and therefore Kislev will be present when that happens
but time will tell

No they didn't. You're welcome to prove me wrong - by providing a link or a photo or any sort of documentation that indicates that the release of Kislev was tied to the Siege of Praag. They never made that connection at all.

 xttz wrote:

Actuve wrote:
I expect this Sunday to say that next weeks pre orders are the second wave of Bretonnia and Tomb Kings stuff. I expect February to announce the next factions coming.

GW's usual approach is to leave at least a month between releases for the same system/range. That allows time for anyone on monthly pay to recover their wallet for the next purchase. Generally only 40K/AOS get exceptions to that, and when they do it's typically for smaller releases like MTO or separarely boxed models from a previous bundle.
Next up will be the DA 40K box, Legions Imperialis second wave, and AOS flesheater courts. I would not expect any further TOW releases before February.

I agree. I think TOW will be on pace for once per month releases. Next month will be wave 2 of Bretonnia/Tomb Kings, March will be (in my opinion) the first wave of the next 2 factions, April will be wave 2 of those factions, etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am currently watching the battle report from GW and it doesn't look too great. It looks like they move units pretty quickly and then the dice autopilot turns on and they roll and roll and re-roll, and roll again, charge range, fear tests, hits, wounds, saves, regeneration, wards... Looks terribly boring tbh to see a game where players are needed for like 20% of playing time, and the rest of the time they just perform the menial role of being living random number generators for the game.

Sounds like standard GW game design then!

A year ago I would agree with you but since then my friends managed to convince me to try out Kill Team. I didn't want to, because I thought that's GW design, players make trivial decisions and then just fall asleep rolling dice for hours on end,waiting for something they can do again.

I was wrong. In KT most time is spent on non-trivial decision making and resolution is very quick with just a single roll of a few dice per player in most cases. And even resolution is also riddled with little decision points, like for example in close combat after rolling attacks players alternate assigning them as hits or parries, and you can absolutely make good or bad decisions with that.

So yeah, GW are totally capable of designing a game that revolves around players being active decision makers not passive performers of long and monotonous, non-interactive processes.

BuT sHaPeS iNsTeAd Of NuMbErS = aWfUl GaMe DeSiGn!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am currently watching the battle report from GW and it doesn't look too great. It looks like they move units pretty quickly and then the dice autopilot turns on and they roll and roll and re-roll, and roll again, charge range, fear tests, hits, wounds, saves, regeneration, wards... Looks terribly boring tbh to see a game where players are needed for like 20% of playing time, and the rest of the time they just perform the menial role of being living random number generators for the game.

Didn't you have a post 6 months back to the tune of "did people really play 6th edition like this?" - cue video of people shuffling infantry across the table for two turns, charging, and then rolling lots of dice to determine what happens.
The answer was always "typically, yes."

Given the extent of the rules and the time to play Fantasy shouldn't really be a beer and pretzels game - but arguably its only ever seriously worked with that mentality. There aren't that many decisions to be made. Most strategy is just "do you know the trick, yes/no". Beyond writing a completely different game its unclear how TOW could be radically different.

Hmm.

You're kinda right. Somehow Conquest and ASOIAF have managed to make rank and file games that aren't just beer and pretzel RNG dice-fests, so sophisticated and tactical rank and file games are certainly possible to design, but thinking about it... yeah WHFB was always kind of an exercise in "square bashing", dice chugging, and model removal first and foremost. I do wonder though if that wasnt to some extent the result of game size being too large relative to the table size. There was never enough room for sufficient terrain to make maneuver truly tactical, and too often both sides of the table would basically have their entire army more or less lined up shoulder to shoulder with no real room to do anything other than to move forward - flank attacks and rear attacks had rules but I never encountered them myself and it always seemed practically impossible to actually pull off. Even then, if you did pull it off once combat was joined that was basically it - the meaningful decisionmaking was gone and it was just dice chugging, RNG, and resolution modifiers, etc. There wasn't much else to do after that point.

The most funny things I found in the army books yet.

Empire can have infinite amounts of Lvl 4 sorcerers (6 at 2000).
Dwarf Gyros with up to 6 a unit. Which can drop 6D6 bombs AP1 and additionally shoot 6D3+6 S5 AP2 shots. Oh and can flee and shoot... XD

I was quite excited for this until I saw it was based around a significant number of veteran sculpts (at least from what I saw, open to be corrected).

I get it - allow fans to use existing models and get something out sooner rather than later. It's commendable and I can almost see it as something of an apology letter.

However, I was looking for a total re-fresh. I don't own any fantasy armies (a few scattering of models) and I don't want to buy 20yo sculpts for a new game, especially when they're so expensive. I'll probably start Conquest LAK instead.

Edit: If they wanted to sell me 2003's models, they should offer them at 2003's prices.

I don't get the complaints about FOMO. From what I understand everything will be back and continued to be sold with the exception of the die and probably the cards.

Am I missing something?

FOMO can be triggered by "difficult to get" just as much as it is "limited production".

Look at the PS5 for example - not sure if its currently still in the realm of "you need to line up 3 days in advance to buy it and hope you get lucky" or if they finally have enough stock to meet demand, but for a long time even though it wasn't a limited release item there was a mad rush by people to get them and people were spending unreasonable amounts of money to get them secondhand on ebay, etc. when they missed out. Even though if they just waited patiently they would have a better chance of getting one later.

Thats FOMO.

Semper wrote:
I was quite excited for this until I saw it was based around a significant number of veteran sculpts (at least from what I saw, open to be corrected).

I get it - allow fans to use existing models and get something out sooner rather than later. It's commendable and I can almost see it as something of an apology letter.

However, I was looking for a total re-fresh. I don't own any fantasy armies (a few scattering of models) and I don't want to buy 20yo sculpts for a new game, especially when they're so expensive. I'll probably start Conquest LAK instead.

Edit: If they wanted to sell me 2003's models, they should offer them at 2003's prices.

a) full refresh too many SKU's unless you want to start with like just 2 armies and get new one maybe once a year
b) you don't get anything in 2003 prices anymore even if it hasn't been changed so good luck with that hope.

When something is difficult rather than limited FOMO does change somewhat. For those happy to wait then it more becomes an inconvenience which can still leave a bad taste in the mouth of the consumer but is forgotten over time. These people are also taken out of the potential market for scalpers.

For some however they need the product and difficult to get is as bad as FOMO. This can be down purely due to excitement for the product or it can have more practical reasons. Lets say two friends want to play and intend to get a box each. If one gets hold of one but the other doesn't the one who doesn't may end up feeling bad at letting the other friend down, jealous the other friend was able to get something or any other myriad of social and personal pressures.

Personally I assumed these would be one and done so I let fate decide if I'd get a box and join the game. I missed out so assumed I was out. The one time I wouldn't mind if GW didn't do re-prints and they are (though I am pleased for those who missed and really want them). Where were the reprints when they made all of three copies of Ashes of Faith and sent them out to influencers only.

Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

 Astmeister wrote:
The most funny things I found in the army books yet.

Empire can have infinite amounts of Lvl 4 sorcerers (6 at 2000).
Dwarf Gyros with up to 6 a unit. Which can drop 6D6 bombs AP1 and additionally shoot 6D3+6 S5 AP2 shots. Oh and can flee and shoot... XD

Where are you getting a decent look at them? All I can see are fuzzy videos where I can't even make out enough to work out how to build my Anachnarok to fit it in a 2k list with a giant!

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

Man, the negativity here, on top of the outright nonsense being spouted (low effort game, less than a year, whaaaaaaa things are expensive) is absolutely ridiculous.

The ruleset is fantastic. If you wanted a streamlined ruleset, they literally already have games for you. Both AOS and 10th edition 40k couldn’t be simpler. The rest of us actually wanted Warhammer Fantasy, and that’s what we got.

The seven factions that are “legacy” are literally all available to buy, whether original models or updated scults, and who gives a gak what GW says? TO’s will do what needs to be done just as we have for literally decades now to ensure they are playable.

This is a specialist game made by a small team. The game has been in play testing for over a year now, and after having seen people go through the rulebook, it seems like they did a great job fixing a lot of the problems WHFB had at the end of its life.

Almost everything is sold out everywhere, so people saying we don’t know idf launch was a success are being ridiculous. Selling out is the definition of success, and everyone I know was able to get everything they wanted except for the resin models that seem to have been delayed in America for whatever reason. Stuff happens.

The hilarious thing is that those who aren’t happy seem to feel the need to scream about it as loudly as possible. Not happy? Don’t play. The rest of us will be having a blast playing the game we love with the models we want to play it with.

And the people who don’t like old sculpts realize there are dozens of STL’s online, and even if they don’t have a printer, I guarantee all but the smallest towns now have a printing service. Seriously, every single fantasy army has beautiful models out there you can buy and use. Nobody is holding s gun to your head and making you play GW models. Except for GW’s own events, I have never seen a TO stop anyone from playing 3rd party models.


The ruleset looks great. The FoF/RH are great indexes, and the Arcane Journals are completely unnecessary. Otherwise, MM/MWG have said the Legacy PDF factions are just as fleshed out as the official factions, and that they are very playable.

Also, making models is expensive. I don’t know why people think old sculpts should be cheaper because they aren’t new? They take the same manpower, time, storage, and shipping costs (more in the case of metal). Saying otherwise is the dumb opinion of people who have never run a business and don’t understand the costs associated with production and retail.

Some of you really need some joy in your lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

Yes, because working with and shipping metal is far more expensive than it was in 2003. Smaller production runs also increase costs. I’m sorry simple business realities escape you?

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Man, the negativity here, on top of the outright nonsense being spouted (low effort game, less than a year, whaaaaaaa things are expensive) is absolutely ridiculous.

The ruleset is fantastic. If you wanted a streamlined ruleset, they literally already have games for you. Both AOS and 10th edition 40k couldn’t be simpler. The rest of us actually wanted Warhammer Fantasy, and that’s what we got.

The seven factions that are “legacy” are literally all available to buy, whether original models or updated scults, and who gives a gak what GW says? TO’s will do what needs to be done just as we have for literally decades now to ensure they are playable.

This is a specialist game made by a small team. The game has been in play testing for over a year now, and after having seen people go through the rulebook, it seems like they did a great job fixing a lot of the problems WHFB had at the end of its life.

Almost everything is sold out everywhere, so people saying we don’t know idf launch was a success are being ridiculous. Selling out is the definition of success, and everyone I know was able to get everything they wanted except for the resin models that seem to have been delayed in America for whatever reason. Stuff happens.

The hilarious thing is that those who aren’t happy seem to feel the need to scream about it as loudly as possible. Not happy? Don’t play. The rest of us will be having a blast playing the game we love with the models we want to play it with.

And the people who don’t like old sculpts realize there are dozens of STL’s online, and even if they don’t have a printer, I guarantee all but the smallest towns now have a printing service. Seriously, every single fantasy army has beautiful models out there you can buy and use. Nobody is holding s gun to your head and making you play GW models. Except for GW’s own events, I have never seen a TO stop anyone from playing 3rd party models.


The ruleset looks great. The FoF/RH are great indexes, and the Arcane Journals are completely unnecessary. Otherwise, MM/MWG have said the Legacy PDF factions are just as fleshed out as the official factions, and that they are very playable.

Also, making models is expensive. I don’t know why people think old sculpts should be cheaper because they aren’t new? They take the same manpower, time, storage, and shipping costs (more in the case of metal). Saying otherwise is the dumb opinion of people who have never run a business and don’t understand the costs associated with production and retail.

Some of you really need some joy in your lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

Yes, because working with and shipping metal is far more expensive than it was in 2003. Smaller production runs also increase costs. I’m sorry simple business realities escape you?

I agree, but this is an awfully confrontational first post.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

It's a £10 difference with inflation from their last price, £31.50 for them as Finecast in 2015 to £52.50 as Metal in 2024.

I thought Old World models wouldn't be in metal anymore?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

£31.50 for them as Finecast in 2015 to £52.50 as Metal in 2024 is not "triple the price".

It's a £10 difference with inflation.

They were £6 each when i last bought them. That's triple to me.

Having now seen Arcane Journals in GMG's review I'd agree they're nowhere near essential. They just add slight skew lists and some more elite versions of the units the list is skewing towards. If anything, they might be too conservative and struggle to maintain long term sales (a good thing for the health of the game in my opinion, but might lead to Journals either being discontinued or to Journal power creep...)

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

£31.50 for them as Finecast in 2015 to £52.50 as Metal in 2024 is not "triple the price".

It's a £10 difference with inflation.

They were £6 each when i last bought them. That's triple to me.

Good, sell them for a profit and stop complaining.

Forgive me if i think £55 for three models is a touch excessive.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

My point is that someone claimed for old sculpts you should not pay 2023 prices. Well you are not doing this for some units (plastic) but paying the old price.
That it's quite expensive for them to recast the old metal things is logical. They are probably only made to order because independent dealers don't even have them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I got most rules because someone snipped them out of the Guerilla Wargames videos.

The LVO is in two weeks and The Old World is already out of the hype cycle. I do wonder when new armies and army sets will become available. Maybe one new army a quarter until 2026. Kislev and Cathay get all new ranges to be completed between 2027 and 2030. With unforeseen delays of course to change those dates. This way the anticipation for The Old World to come out never really ends!

Probably two opposing forces every X months, with Orcs and Goblins being split up for an even 5 waves.

 frankelee wrote:
The LVO is in two weeks and The Old World is already out of the hype cycle.

With the exception of 40K after a big release games do tend to skip the next prview stream if it's within a month or so. Considering the stream is one/two (region dependant) days ahead of TOW stock hitting stores they likely don't want to trample on the release, with shiny new before many have even gotten their hands on it.

LI is also not featured in LVO but that's easy to justify as they've already skipped ahead with showing probably half a year of releases.

What else is there to reveal for Old World? Everything they're going to make is already out j/k

Though I do gotta say, the low-effort BS people are spouting on reddit 'is AoS dead?? Old World forever???' just makes Old World fans look even more insufferable.

The reality that a lot of Old Worlders gotta make their bed with is this: It's going to take a DECADE for Old World to mature. If it does, you'll see it like 30k is now, with more support and new edition and more plastic models.

If, in a Decade, nobody's playing it or buying it? Well, it'll just die again.

So if you want to keep this game around, support it. If you don't, don't.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

They were £6 each when i last bought them. That's triple to me.

Their launch price in White Dwarf 280 is £9, did GW discount them at some point?

The price of Metal skyrocketed back in 2007 which is why Metal was discontinued in favour of plastic/Resin. So metal models will be expensive compared to those other mediums. The fact that the USahbti are back and ALSO in metal means it was always going to be expensive. If you factor in the GW tax, even more so.

So if you don't want to buy GW don't, I don't blame you. Feel free to 3rd party or 3d print yourself alternatives. I certainly wouldn't complain if you turned up to a game without GW models, this is a game of toy soldiers and no ones toys are superior to anyone elses toys.

Santtu wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

They were £6 each when i last bought them. That's triple to me.

Their launch price in White Dwarf 280 is £9, did GW discount them at some point?

So £27 for 3 in 2003 prices?

That would be £57 in todays money. Looks like you are getting them for the same price as 2003 after all lol

MaxT wrote:

Santtu wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

They were £6 each when i last bought them. That's triple to me.

Their launch price in White Dwarf 280 is £9, did GW discount them at some point?

So £27 for 3 in 2003 prices?

That would be £57 in todays money. Looks like you are getting them for the same price as 2003 after all lol

It works out as if they'd been sold at about £29 instead of £27 for the 3 back in 2002. So an increase of about 65p each back then.

Doesn't sound like the huge extravagant price increase some are making it out to be. Certainly not triple the price.

how did you calculate Inflation, as 27 would be 44 in 2023 with EU numbers

Hargreaves Lansdown inflation calculator, was at the top of google. It says:

The cost of goods and services increased by 110.4% over this period.
Your £ 27 would need to have grown by an average of 3.7% per year, just to have kept pace with inflation. If you achieved a lower rate of growth, the real value of your money would have fallen.
*Figures based on the Retail Price Index (RPI) as at November 2023. Source: Office for National Statistics

How much did paychecks ncrease by over the same period?

No, back on topic, take it somewhere else.

Removed - stop it.

EDIT - NVM. Seems verboten discussion, didn't see it before posting.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
A whole bunch of stuff...

I find myself in a peculiar position...

Your post has some important merits in some of the points, but the way you come off like a ... not nice person... drowns them out.


I find the release of this game refreshingly interesting. I see that they pretty much picked up where they left off in 8th'/ 9th edition and release schedules seems to continue at the same point. I've seen some of the rules, and they are as well cleaned up, but there are some glaringly odd points that need some reevaluation.

I'm focused on Mordhiem, so with the releases, I look at them as "What can I use in Mordheim, rather then in AOS, or "Old World".

It's fantasy to me. As far as I'm concerned it will be Fantasy, and I will hook or crook my figures and lists as I see fit.

After it is all said and done, the effort is fine, seeing as the GW personnel and department heads are all pretty much new, and do not know the ins and outs of WFB that came before them as far as releases and development...

To end with positivity, I would like to see the game continue to improve, and even if there are scale creep issues, and craptastic base issues, I will be supporting this in different places, but I won't be jumping on any new armies anytime soon, with a closet of stuff to enjoy.

Great Job for a change, GW. You hit it out of the park on the herculean effort to bring this game to the market.

"Two bulls sat on top of a hill, looking down on thier local GW Shop..."

Thanks everyone for feedback on my rebasing guide (linked below), I just started with the 8th basing guide I found online created for the swap from 8th to AOS ages ago.

I actually sent the PDF to GW also to see if they wanted to post it to WarCom to further assist the transition to Old World for us veterans.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

Was so excited to hear old Warhammer was coming back and especially Brits!

Was at GW and heard price of Pegasus at $65 and 3 cavalry for $60 from manager and I said-

“Wow, GW is selling painted miniatures now?”

He and the others in store started laughing. Then I understood. ?

 nathan2004 wrote:
Thanks everyone for feedback on my rebasing guide (linked below), I just started with the 8th basing guide I found online created for the swap from 8th to AOS ages ago.

I actually sent the PDF to GW also to see if they wanted to post it to WarCom to further assist the transition to Old World for us veterans.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KmYEa0r7tr-6fuHJRVfUQayMa7nl_h6/view?usp=sharing

Thanks for doing this!

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Man, the negativity here, on top of the outright nonsense being spouted (low effort game, less than a year, whaaaaaaa things are expensive) is absolutely ridiculous.

If you disallow discerning voices, you'd have an echo chamber and render discussion pointless. People have a right to criticise - particularly when it comes to pricing. If you disagree, present counter arguments.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The ruleset is fantastic.

Citation needed. You have not played a single game of it yet, the same as everyone else who didn't get the books ahead of time for marketing content.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
If you wanted a streamlined ruleset, they literally already have games for you. Both AOS and 10th edition 40k couldn’t be simpler. The rest of us actually wanted Warhammer Fantasy, and that’s what we got.

Wanting the rules to be clearly, consistently and concisely worded doesn't mean 'streamlined' - and it's something GW are notoriously bad at. By all accounts thus far, this ruleset is no improvement in terms of its technical writing.
I wouldn't touch AoS or 10th 40k with a barge pole for a number of reasons, but that's not relevant here.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The seven factions that are “legacy” are literally all available to buy, whether original models or updated sculpts

A cursory glance at the AoS section of the website shows the relevant models as 'online only', a lot of which are out of stock, and in a model count/price ratio that is far from practical for the TOW ruleset; charging £25+ for 10 when you would need at minimum 20 for a reasonable unit in most cases. Wasn't that one of the main issues that caused WHFB to be ended in the first place?
As GW themselves say, those factions are for all intents and purposes not part of the game. The legacy rules provided will let players who already have those factions use them, which is fine: but it's highly unlikely anyone is going to be starting up new armies for them.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
and who gives a gak what GW says? TO’s will do what needs to be done just as we have for literally decades now to ensure they are playable.

Which is fine for individual groups, but having a common unified version of the rules that is at least reasonably balanced is preferred for the game to get any kind of traction, for the kind of 'pick-up play' that for a lot of people is the primary way tabletop games are played.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
This is a specialist game made by a small team.

So are the other specialist games; and yet many of them have more substantial launches than this. Horus Heresy did. Legions Imperialis did. TOW has had, at best, the same development times they did. So what's the excuse?

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The game has been in play testing for over a year now

Citation needed.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
and after having seen people go through the rulebook, it seems like they did a great job fixing a lot of the problems WHFB had at the end of its life.

Problems 8th edition created by being...well, dreadful. The fact that random charges still exist for everything (even if it's been mitigated), and the fact that combat resolution has no bearing on actually breaking an enemy, are big red flags for me.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Almost everything is sold out everywhere, so people saying we don’t know if launch was a success are being ridiculous. Selling out is the definition of success, and everyone I know was able to get everything they wanted except for the resin models that seem to have been delayed in America for whatever reason. Stuff happens.

First of all, there have already been reports that the Tomb Kings box has not sold out everywhere - but even so, selling out isn't indicative of anything beyond 'they sold the stock they had' since we've no idea at all how much they actually produced for it. TOW being a success or not is something that can't be determined until further down the line, where we see if it's still being supported or if it is relegated to the same treatment as Necromunda. From my recollection, Aeronautica Imperialis sold out when it launched, too - and look what happened to that.
Your anecdotal evidence and 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude don't prove anything, either. Quite a lot of people, even just here, reported being stuck in queues for queues and ultimately not being able to buy anything. They way GW handle big releases like this is undeniably a 'FOMO' strategy, and clearly it still works.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The hilarious thing is that those who aren’t happy seem to feel the need to scream about it as loudly as possible. Not happy? Don’t play. The rest of us will be having a blast playing the game we love with the models we want to play it with.

Nobody has been 'screaming' anything, and the idea that there is an overwhelming silent majority is a very old, tired argument. Your attempt to characterise anyone voicing criticism as some hysterical troll does not lend your position any creditability.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
And the people who don’t like old sculpts realize there are dozens of STL’s online, and even if they don’t have a printer, I guarantee all but the smallest towns now have a printing service. Seriously, every single fantasy army has beautiful models out there you can buy and use. Nobody is holding s gun to your head and making you play GW models. Except for GW’s own events, I have never seen a TO stop anyone from playing 3rd party models.

If the majority of models on offer are so poor or so outdated that people are encouraged to go to 3rd party sites/services for their armies, it's not exactly going to send a message to GW that the game is worth supporting - their only concern is the money it makes them. And it would have been nice to see these neglected and discontinued armies get a little more than a unit each and a few character models.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The ruleset looks great

To you. Others are not so keen.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The FoF/RH are great indexes

Citation needed. Why do they exist as two entirely seperate books at all? Why are the army lists not part of the main rulebook? These are rhetorical questions, of course: this way you are required to buy at least two expensive hardbacks instead of one.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
and the Arcane Journals are completely unnecessary

You said it. They are the definition of day one DLC - just because they arn't absolutely required to play does not justify their existence. Why is their content not included in the main army lists? Again, a rhetorical question.

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Otherwise, MM/MWG have said the Legacy PDF factions are just as fleshed out as the official factions, and that they are very playable.

For now. But as the rest of the game progresses and the 'main' factions gain new content, those legacy factions will fall behind until they are no longer so playable. We've seen that happen as far back as WHFB 6th ed - remember Wood Elves and Bretonnians prior to their books?

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Also, making models is expensive. I don’t know why people think old sculpts should be cheaper because they aren’t new? They take the same manpower, time, storage, and shipping costs (more in the case of metal)

Perhaps it's something to do with the fact that the costs associated with designing and sculpting those models would have been paid off long ago, and they no longer meet the same standards of quality that GW are supposed to offer for their premium prices? How is it that other companies can offer better, more recent models for less than GW are expecting for thirty-year old skeletons?

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Saying otherwise is the dumb opinion of people who have never run a business and don’t understand the costs associated with production and retail.

Perhaps if you made an attempt to address the actual arguments, rather than resorting to childish name calling and attempting to shout down all criticism, your position could be taken more seriously.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
The ruleset is fantastic.

Citation needed. You have not played a single game of it yet, the same as everyone else who didn't get the books ahead of time for marketing content.

But by the same virtue you must also discredit all those saying its a "poor nostalgia cash grab rulset that's poorly written" etc. As they too have not yet played a game.

The axe some people have to grind in this thread, I don’t get it. Where on the doll did GW touch you, can you point?

 nathan2004 wrote:
The axe some people have to grind in this thread, I don’t get it. Where on the doll did GW touch you, can you point?

I love how it's meant to be N&R thread but instead has devolved into an argument between for and against TOW.

 nathan2004 wrote:
The axe some people have to grind in this thread, I don’t get it. Where on the doll did GW touch you, can you point?

When GW nuked the game. Many are still bitter....I was bitter as all hell when they threw the game I enjoyed in the bin. I got over it however and came to the realization that GW didn't know what they were doing with Fantasy anyway, so maybe tossing it for something new was for the best. I am quite happy for GW to treat this like a specialist game and I can live with limited releases since, well, I have 6 armies.

tarnished wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
The axe some people have to grind in this thread, I don’t get it. Where on the doll did GW touch you, can you point?

I love how it's meant to be N&R thread but instead has devolved into an argument between for and against TOW.

This happens in all news threads when they run out of news





and when the mods haven't given us an Old World section to argue in

 Overread wrote:

tarnished wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
The axe some people have to grind in this thread, I don’t get it. Where on the doll did GW touch you, can you point?

I love how it's meant to be N&R thread but instead has devolved into an argument between for and against TOW.

This happens in all news threads when they run out of news





and when the mods haven't given us an Old World section to argue in

Fair call

 nathan2004 wrote:
The axe some people have to grind in this thread, I don’t get it. Where on the doll did GW touch you, can you point?

Jokes aside, I'm very critical about GW releases but from what I've seen of the books so far (waiting to get them so I can actually read them) is pretty good. I do think they could have been consolidated into single volumes & I would like to have seen a bit more hobby content in the arcane journals but overall, three books to play every old world army isn't so bad.

I know they have maximised books to increase profit, it could have been worse. They could have changed the scale or something similar to invalidate old collections but unlike Epic/legions they instead went the book route.

I'm a bit annoyed they are dropping armies which are (to me) quintessentially the spirit of warhammer, but whatever. If the legacy stuff sucks, then I'll just play another edition. I'm not precious about rules (and as my group play on my tables & I have several 'loaner' armies, they tend to play what I have available). If the pdfs turn out to be decent against the published lists then I'll just invest in getting them printing into another volume and keep them together as a 'complete' version of TOW. At the end of the day, GW are the only ones that loose out here as I'll buy more 2nd hand minis or alternatives. Or maybe even paint the insane backlog I already have!

And as White Dwarf is....not very good any more I'd rather have a couple of new Arcane Journals with limited content every now and then, rather than have to go around chasing the odd issue of white dwarf for small updates for the game like an extra infamy army list etc.

I might change my mind when the game actually arrives and I go over the books, but tbh there is still a ton of old warhammer fantasy content which I've never read/used/enjoyed , so at worst tow might make me pull out the old rulebooks instead.

 Mallo wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
it could have been worse. They could have changed the scale or something similar to invalidate old collections but unlike Epic/legions they instead went the book route.

Agreed. I think many of the people critical of 1 or 2 things about TOW, are like me generally happy with the rerelease. Its closer to classic Warhammer than I dared believe, hasnt invalidated anything of value (I'll accept the pdf's), and genereally seems like a solid release, all in all. We're never going to be top dog in our life time anyway, that all 40k for now.

As long as they have an Old World ongoing specialist game, it also gives new shelf life and some synergy to anything classic warhammer, 6th purists, 7th grognards, 8th fanbois, WAP, Reneissance and whater else there is.

I consider TOW to have become paritally vaporware, uneccesarily late in getting released and more, but all I really care about is that there are actually a rulebook to play with. Must add the rules looks solid so far, from what I could squint from a youtube paused screen

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I agree, but this is an awfully confrontational first post.

Perhaps, but at least they read the room. This thread has become a cesspool of negativity. Personally, I'm excited to have my favorite game back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frankelee wrote:
The LVO is in two weeks and The Old World is already out of the hype cycle. I do wonder when new armies and army sets will become available. Maybe one new army a quarter until 2026. Kislev and Cathay get all new ranges to be completed between 2027 and 2030. With unforeseen delays of course to change those dates. This way the anticipation for The Old World to come out never really ends!

You do know that the next preview is technically BEFORE any Old World products release, right?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I agree, but this is an awfully confrontational first post.

Perhaps, but at least they read the room. This thread has become a cesspool of negativity. Personally, I'm excited to have my favorite game back.

Personally, I feel 80% of the negativity in GW circlejerks are people complaining about negativity, patting themself on the back for calling out some ghost he conjures up for the occassion.

On a rumor note, anyone seen anything from the PDF's thinking about skaven in particular? I'll be happy to squint at youtube stills if thats what it takes. Are very uplifted and positive for the pdf after seeing the Dwarfen mountain holds army list, which all in all seemed a decent work (despite a few possible ugly combos).

 triplegrim wrote:
On a rumor note, anyone seen anything from the PDF's thinking about skaven in particular? I'll be happy to squint at youtube stills if thats what it takes. Are very uplifted and positive for the pdf after seeing the Dwarfen mountain holds army list, which all in all seemed a decent work (despite a few possible ugly combos).

You're not gonna hear a peep about legacy armies until the pdfs are out, NDAs are serious business. But at least Mountain Miniatures seems to have seen them and has videos ready to fire on release day.

 Grot 6 wrote:
I'm focused on Mordhiem, so with the releases, I look at them as "What can I use in Mordheim, rather then in AOS, or "Old World".

I'm basically in the same boat.

I never really liked WHFB, and whilst certain factions (Lizardmen, Brets, Undead, Wood Elves) garnered a certain amount of interest, I never wanted to play the game.

However, along came a little game called Warhammer Quest, and I adore that game, and still play it to this day. I have tons of fantasy stuff (and AoS stuff), and it's all been purchased for Quest purposes. So TOW for me is just a place to get more stuff for Quest, and it's why I was really looking forward to new plastic Ushabti... and not hyper-expensive ancient metal Ushabti.

tarnished wrote:
I love how it's meant to be N&R thread but instead has devolved into an argument between for and against TOW.

I am distinctly reminded of a Penny Arcade comic from 23 years ago.

 triplegrim wrote:
Personally, I feel 80% of the negativity in GW circlejerks are people complaining about negativity, patting themself on the back for calling out some ghost he conjures up for the occassion.

Happened in a recent 40k thread. The people complaining the most and being the most dour were the people complaining about everyone being negative. Kind of a self-fulfilling (not to mention self-defeating) prophecy.

Looking back a few pages and I'm really not sure where this idea that everyone's negative and critical is coming from.

Now that we've got a pretty complete picture of what TOW is, I'm cautiously interested in the game system. But I have to say, putting 2024 prices on kits from 2004, with the design and mold costs long since paid off, is a lot. WHFB was never a cheap game to get into but at GW prices for two-decade-old models it's going to be a hard sell to anyone not already invested in WHFB or at least in the GW sphere.

Maybe just appealing to grognards is the entire raison d'etre for this product and will be enough to keep it going, time will tell. I'll certainly be pulling my Ogres out of storage and giving it a try.

I would love to hear from anyone that has played the game how Elite high Ld vs chaff low Ld plays out - the rules as described so far give me little indication your chaff units are going to be very useful.

I've not seen any rules to indicate the game won't split the effectiveness of these units bimodally, rather than in a normal distribution - ie that the rules now make elite units even better and chaff units even worse, pushing further apart.

This is the aspect of the game that will make or break my interest. So far, the WS, I and Ld rules as advertised by GW only support a bimodal worsening of chaff and improving of elite.

The lack of step up further compounds this already compounded scenario.

Oh no.

Oh no no no no no.

I realized I can fill the 25% core requirement at 2000pts with a unit of 35 upgraded tomb guard or a unit of 12 upgraded sepulchral stalkers at 2500 pts....

I *can* build a Tomb Kings army with using only the newer kits....

If you can sit through the torture of building that many Stalkers, that is...

Are they not a pleasant kit to build?

The riders are a pain in the neck, but honestly the part that was most frustrating was actually something that should be simple: Sticking them to the bases. They might look flat, but they're not, so it took a bit of pressing (and holding) to get them to stay there, and not bend back up and detach themselves from the bases.

Plus they're fiddly. Not current-year-GW-jigsaw-puzzle-Terminators-with-8-piece-bodies-but-no-posability fiddly, but as they're spindly and have lots of small parts it makes things unnecessarily painful.

I've built 6 (3 of each type), and that was more than enough for me.

What are the chances they’ll re release the old plastic fanatic kit? It was full of fun bits

Dudeface wrote:

But by the same virtue you must also discredit all those saying its a "poor nostalgia cash grab rulset that's poorly written" etc. As they too have not yet played a game.

You don't need to play a game to know if it's written poorly. You just need to read the rules, which the folk doing video reviews have done. All indication is that TOW's follow the usual GW pattern of having terrible technical writing.
As for the 'nostalgia cash grab' part, I've already outlined the reasons for that conclusion, and none of them require playing the game to see.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Oh no.

Oh no no no no no.

I realized I can fill the 25% core requirement at 2000pts with a unit of 35 upgraded tomb guard or a unit of 12 upgraded sepulchral stalkers at 2500 pts....

I *can* build a Tomb Kings army with using only the newer kits....

Thanks for this Chaos, Tomb Kings here I come!

chaos0xomega wrote:
Oh no.

Oh no no no no no.

I realized I can fill the 25% core requirement at 2000pts with a unit of 35 upgraded tomb guard or a unit of 12 upgraded sepulchral stalkers at 2500 pts....

I *can* build a Tomb Kings army with using only the newer kits....

Or, If you don’t mind going in debt, you use tomb guard as basic skeletons and give them the spear heads from the stalkers riders

Cyel wrote:
Ah, yes, I get it Not bragging, though, it was pretty obvious for anyone with even a little experience that Frenzy=trouble (hence "kids with Khorne" because only newbies could fall into that trap).

Even if I could brag about some of my experiences back than, beating a Khorne army is like the complete opposite of anything even remotely "braggable" More a synonym of taking a lollypop from a kid, so a bit embarassing, really, when you needed to do it at a tournament for example...


I kind of remember some ambitious projects from really good players, who were trying to work around the problem by carefully corraling (by blocking LOS or charge corridors) these frenzied Khornate Knights with non-frenzied units until they were ready to charge, but I don't think I have ever seen it actually work. It was jumping thorugh a lot of hoops for a very unreliable result.

I did it a lot with my Khanite DE army. You just keep something cheap and expendable in front of your frenzied troops on the crucial turn. After that, they're in combat and doing what they need to be doing.

If that sounds simple, that's because it is. Of course, simple is not the same thing as easy, mind you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Better to be safe than fight Disney.

Did Marvel create their Malekith before GW did? I was never a big Thor fan.

Sometimes life is about learning which fights are important to make; which are not worth it and which are best to just avoid the potential of one happening entirely.


Because even if you can win, if there's an easy way to just not have to fight at all; that can sometimes be the right course of action to take.


It also might have nothing to do with that at all. It might be GW just went with the new name because its easier brand wise to link things up; heck perhaps the person in charge of that choice is newer or just forgot the old name because the new one was being used all the time.

Sometimes being a fan makes it easier to keep track of the lore because you just have the lore; whilst a person employed has the lore; and all the revisions of that; and the parts that never got published; and the parts coming next week; and those deadlines for other projects; and this and that that are all related.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

£31.50 for them as Finecast in 2015 to £52.50 as Metal in 2024 is not "triple the price".

It's a £10 difference with inflation.

They were £6 each when i last bought them. That's triple to me.

When I bought them in 2007-2009 in metal, they were $20 USD/ model. When I bought the ushabti archers, they were $25 USD/model in fine cast. So I don't see too much of a change - they are selling for $85 per the recent rumor mill so I think they are going to be $28.33 each now. Still, much cheaper than eBay. It's still less than inflation for once. The grail knights were $10-$12 back in 1996-1998 and they have doubled per model which isn't too bad since a number of models have doubled in cost since then and they still hold up.

 Vulcan wrote:
Did Marvel create their Malekith before GW did? I was never a big Thor fan.

Marvel Malekith is from 1984. Not sure when GW Malekith came about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Did Marvel create their Malekith before GW did? I was never a big Thor fan.

Marvel Malekith is from 1984. Not sure when GW Malekith came about.

Google suggests the 1992 High Elf army book was the first mention.

Having now watched the GMG reviews, I see there are a few stat tweaks to units across the range.

Initiative has been dropped from high I units - elves are only max I6 now instead of I8.

WS is also down. Chaos lords have been trimmed a lot.

The Initiative charge bonus being +1 per inch charged to a max of 3 means will most likely see charging units get relatively high I.

Dwarfs will be charging at I5 most of the time.


They've given elves lower I and then given them either +1I in the first round, or strikes first (I10) to get around these charging I values.

These initiative shenanigans seem a bit convoluted to me.



But it's the Bretonnian Baron that confuses me the most - since when are they chaos lord juniors? More wounds and attacks than any other lord level character that isn't a chaos lord... just seems really weird and arbitrary, knightly grand masters don't get similar statlines.

 Hellebore wrote:

But it's the Bretonnian Baron that confuses me the most - since when are they chaos lord juniors? More wounds and attacks than any other lord level character that isn't a chaos lord... just seems really weird and arbitrary, knightly grand masters don't get similar statlines.

Maybe trying to differentiate Bretonnians from the Empire. Which is hard to do if the Empire gets everything the Brets do plus more, which was sorta how it was for most of the existence of WFB.

Something about being able to take the grail vow, meaning they’re supped from the holy grail bestowing on them Chaos like powers is what someone said several pages back. I don’t really know but that was the reason given I think. Someone that knows Bret lore better can probably provide a better explanation.

I'm fairly interested in trying a Brettonia army - is the box set they are offering a good starting army for them?

I'm also cautious about ruleset - are the new rules a continuation of 8th, altogether new or a "best of" older editions? I still have my 8th ed rules (and my High Elf, Lizardman & Vampire army) and I'd like to get some feedback on ruleset I should go with - forward with the new, back with an older set or sideways - with Kings of War or what.

 catbarf wrote:
Looking back a few pages and I'm really not sure where this idea that everyone's negative and critical is coming from.

Now that we've got a pretty complete picture of what TOW is, I'm cautiously interested in the game system. But I have to say, putting 2024 prices on kits from 2004, with the design and mold costs long since paid off, is a lot. WHFB was never a cheap game to get into but at GW prices for two-decade-old models it's going to be a hard sell to anyone not already invested in WHFB or at least in the GW sphere.

Maybe just appealing to grognards is the entire raison d'etre for this product and will be enough to keep it going, time will tell. I'll certainly be pulling my Ogres out of storage and giving it a try.

Well pegasus knights got whopping 2.5 pound more.

You didn't expect to not get inflation adjusted did you?

 Stormonu wrote:
I'm fairly interested in trying a Brettonia army - is the box set they are offering a good starting army for them?

I'm also cautious about ruleset - are the new rules a continuation of 8th, altogether new or a "best of" older editions? I still have my 8th ed rules (and my High Elf, Lizardman & Vampire army) and I'd like to get some feedback on ruleset I should go with - forward with the new, back with an older set or sideways - with Kings of War or what.

Seems to be a "best of" with some tweaks, there was a long and pointless debate if this was 9th edition a few pages back, but it is distinct from 8th. But as people keep noting nobody has played it yet really to answer properly. I would add though that what rules you use is up to you regardless, why not try all 3?

 Hellebore wrote:
I would love to hear from anyone that has played the game how Elite high Ld vs chaff low Ld plays out - the rules as described so far give me little indication your chaff units are going to be very useful.

I've not seen any rules to indicate the game won't split the effectiveness of these units bimodally, rather than in a normal distribution - ie that the rules now make elite units even better and chaff units even worse, pushing further apart.

This is the aspect of the game that will make or break my interest. So far, the WS, I and Ld rules as advertised by GW only support a bimodal worsening of chaff and improving of elite.

The lack of step up further compounds this already compounded scenario.

Well you could borrow page from aos players and flank elite units. Chaff being cheaper you outnumber them in models and　units.

Or have all who know classic tactics of flanking moved on to aos? Aos players will rule tow tournaments if tow players don't understand to flank and just march head on.

Also ability to force rout rather than orderly fallback by outnumbering enough is neat. Flanked you lose and roll lower than ld sooner or later.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I would love to hear from anyone that has played the game how Elite high Ld vs chaff low Ld plays out - the rules as described so far give me little indication your chaff units are going to be very useful.

I've not seen any rules to indicate the game won't split the effectiveness of these units bimodally, rather than in a normal distribution - ie that the rules now make elite units even better and chaff units even worse, pushing further apart.

This is the aspect of the game that will make or break my interest. So far, the WS, I and Ld rules as advertised by GW only support a bimodal worsening of chaff and improving of elite.

The lack of step up further compounds this already compounded scenario.

Well you could borrow page from aos players and flank elite units. Chaff being cheaper you outnumber them in models and　units.

Or have all who know classic tactics of flanking moved on to aos? Aos players will rule tow tournaments if tow players don't understand to flank and just march head on.

Also ability to force rout rather than orderly fallback by outnumbering enough is neat. Flanked you lose and roll lower than ld sooner or later.

I haven't played much sigmar 3rd ed admittedly, but I don't remember any advantage for flanking in it unless I'm missing something? Largely because units don't have ranks or facings.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I would love to hear from anyone that has played the game how Elite high Ld vs chaff low Ld plays out - the rules as described so far give me little indication your chaff units are going to be very useful.

I've not seen any rules to indicate the game won't split the effectiveness of these units bimodally, rather than in a normal distribution - ie that the rules now make elite units even better and chaff units even worse, pushing further apart.

This is the aspect of the game that will make or break my interest. So far, the WS, I and Ld rules as advertised by GW only support a bimodal worsening of chaff and improving of elite.

The lack of step up further compounds this already compounded scenario.

Well you could borrow page from aos players and flank elite units. Chaff being cheaper you outnumber them in models and　units.

Or have all who know classic tactics of flanking moved on to aos? Aos players will rule tow tournaments if tow players don't understand to flank and just march head on.

Also ability to force rout rather than orderly fallback by outnumbering enough is neat. Flanked you lose and roll lower than ld sooner or later.

I haven't played much sigmar 3rd ed admittedly, but I don't remember any advantage for flanking in it unless I'm missing something? Largely because units don't have ranks or facings.

Sure there's no rule called "FLANK ADVANTAGE". And to be specific AOS players have learned to attack weakest direction of a unit. Flank is convenient term for it(and seeing units tend to be line wider than deeper it also usually is on the side rather than rear/front)

But there's definitely advantage to be gained by attacking from weakest direction aka where you don't want opponent to want. I learned it the hard way when opponent charged me and from my murder unit that would have annihilated enemy unit only 2 models were able to legally attack(out of 10) and found myself in situation where I can't win combat(or at least not in time frame that would allow me to win the game).

It's subtle use of rules but when you attack from direction oppponent doesn't want to attack and gain advantage what is that if not flank attack? It's just not rammed in your throat "+1 combat result" type of rule.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I would love to hear from anyone that has played the game how Elite high Ld vs chaff low Ld plays out - the rules as described so far give me little indication your chaff units are going to be very useful.

I've not seen any rules to indicate the game won't split the effectiveness of these units bimodally, rather than in a normal distribution - ie that the rules now make elite units even better and chaff units even worse, pushing further apart.

This is the aspect of the game that will make or break my interest. So far, the WS, I and Ld rules as advertised by GW only support a bimodal worsening of chaff and improving of elite.

The lack of step up further compounds this already compounded scenario.

Well you could borrow page from aos players and flank elite units. Chaff being cheaper you outnumber them in models and　units.

Or have all who know classic tactics of flanking moved on to aos? Aos players will rule tow tournaments if tow players don't understand to flank and just march head on.

Also ability to force rout rather than orderly fallback by outnumbering enough is neat. Flanked you lose and roll lower than ld sooner or later.

I haven't played much sigmar 3rd ed admittedly, but I don't remember any advantage for flanking in it unless I'm missing something? Largely because units don't have ranks or facings.

Sure there's no rule called "FLANK ADVANTAGE". And to be specific AOS players have learned to attack weakest direction of a unit. Flank is convenient term for it(and seeing units tend to be line wider than deeper it also usually is on the side rather than rear/front)

But there's definitely advantage to be gained by attacking from weakest direction aka where you don't want opponent to want. I learned it the hard way when opponent charged me and from my murder unit that would have annihilated enemy unit only 2 models were able to legally attack(out of 10) and found myself in situation where I can't win combat(or at least not in time frame that would allow me to win the game).

It's subtle use of rules but when you attack from direction oppponent doesn't want to attack and gain advantage what is that if not flank attack? It's just not rammed in your throat "+1 combat result" type of rule.

Not to make light of it but that's a factor in a lot of games? AoS aren't going to be old world wizards any more than a 40k player would be for example. You still want to pick on isolated units and attack from angles and model placements that minimise return damage.

 Hellebore wrote:


But it's the Bretonnian Baron that confuses me the most - since when are they chaos lord juniors? More wounds and attacks than any other lord level character that isn't a chaos lord... just seems really weird and arbitrary, knightly grand masters don't get similar statlines.

I think you mean the Dukes. They are suppose to be imbued with the most powerful grail powers so they are kind of super human, but yeah, I was also surprised by the strength 5.

Anyway, the biggest problem for me are the incoherency, the Paladin has I 4 (lower than in 6th) and Ld 8 but the Grail knights have I 5 and L 9, so a paladin with the Grail Vow has a couple of stats lower than the Grail knights.

Also the Green knight should have been a little better, now that we know he's Guilles he should have at least the same strength as the Dukes but more WS and I.

They also toned down the Empire Captains. I think they do not want the battle standard bearers to be too strong.
A BSB with Pegasus, First Charge and the Banner would be quite annyoing otherwise.
People used to play lonely BSBs on horses in 7th edition already on tournaments.

Darkial wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:


But it's the Bretonnian Baron that confuses me the most - since when are they chaos lord juniors? More wounds and attacks than any other lord level character that isn't a chaos lord... just seems really weird and arbitrary, knightly grand masters don't get similar statlines.

I think you mean the Dukes. They are suppose to be imbued with the most powerful grail powers so they are kind of super human, but yeah, I was also surprised by the strength 5.

Anyway, the biggest problem for me are the incoherency, the Paladin has I 4 (lower than in 6th) and Ld 8 but the Grail knights have I 5 and L 9, so a paladin with the Grail Vow has a couple on stats lower than the Grail knights.

Also the Green knight should have been a little better, now that we now he's Guilles he should have at least the same strength as the Dukes but more WS and I.

Do we know for sure that taking the Grail Vow doesnt add to the Paladins stats? If the Duke has to have taken the Grail Voe they could have baked that in to the stat line, while the Paladin can probably take any of the Vows, and therefore could get a bonus if they take the Grail Vow (for an increased cost).

As far as I could see in the kind of blurry pages of a YouTube video, there was nothing like that. In a Warhammer Armies Project (fan army book) there was something like that "if a character gets the Grail Vow he gets +1 Ld".
Maybe it's what Astmeister said and it's to avoid a BSB too powerful but yeah, it's still weird in my mind.

After having seen various reviews, I'm being cautiously optimistic. To me, TOW feels at a first glance as 50% 7th, 25% 8th and 25% "new" (or LoR) mixed together.
I'm also quite surprised, I thought for sure that GW was gonna focus on making it a updated variant on 8th, but it seems like the main focus has been 7th (and I suppose, to some extent 6th)

 Hellebore wrote:
Having now watched the GMG reviews, I see there are a few stat tweaks to units across the range.
Initiative has been dropped from high I units - elves are only max I6 now instead of I8.

Out of curiosity, what "edition of stats" are you comparing TOW to?
In 7th, regular elven units where all either I5 (the majority) or I6 (the really speedy ones, like Witch Elves and Phoenix Guard).

 MinscS2 wrote:
After having seen various reviews, I'm being cautiously optimistic. To me, TOW feels at a first glance as 50% 7th, 25% 8th and 25% "new" (or LoR) mixed together.
I'm also quite surprised, I thought for sure that GW was gonna focus on making it a updated variant on 8th, but it seems like the main focus has been 7th (and I suppose, to some extent 6th)

 Hellebore wrote:
Having now watched the GMG reviews, I see there are a few stat tweaks to units across the range.
Initiative has been dropped from high I units - elves are only max I6 now instead of I8.

Out of curiosity, what "edition of stats" are you comparing TOW to?
In 7th, regular elven units where all either I5 (the majority) or I6 (the really speedy ones, like Witch Elves and Phoenix Guard).

Princes were i8. They appear to be i6 now although they also have strikes first so not sure what the point is.

But the normal elves are i4 (+1 in first round of combat) and most elites are i5 - theyve all taken an I cut. So have chaos warriors and lords.

Normal orcs are i3 now.

 Hellebore wrote:
Princes were i8. They appear to be i6 now although they also have strikes first so not sure what the point is.

Always Strikes First only applies when fighting in combat while I6 matters for Initiative tests and the like

Is there a comprehensive list of the Elven Honours anywhere and what they give? I'm sure I've watched a vid with them all mentioned but double checking GMG it seems Ash goes to go through them but just goes over the lore master before getting distracted by the unique weapons.

Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

Strike first and two handed weapon strike last cancels, so the Ini 6 comes into play from the High Elves General when you use a two handed weapon.

 Astmeister wrote:
Strike first and two handed weapon strike last cancels, so the Ini 6 comes into play from the High Elves General when you use a two handed weapon.

Well. A Lion Axe or a generic great weapon. A magic weapon, a lance if mounted or, if on foot, a Sword of Hoeth is far more likely unless you're leaning into a Chrace theme.

Though with the ways the rules work, 'Strikes Last' is... deceptive. Charging White Lions are striking at I5 (unless the target is very close), so still going before most non-elf units.

 Astmeister wrote:
They also toned down the Empire Captains. I think they do not want the battle standard bearers to be too strong.
A BSB with Pegasus, First Charge and the Banner would be quite annyoing otherwise.
People used to play lonely BSBs on horses in 7th edition already on tournaments.

In the past that sort of worked when there was just 1 or 2 attacks coming back. Now with the entire front rank fighting it could be 4, 5 or more attacks back easily. Plus a solo char is never outnumbering a unit by 2 to 1 so FBIGO would kick in a lot of the time. Then the following turn the infantry unit get full ranks and the BSB is in trouble - and the BSB will not be able to FBIGO itself.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

How big is your pile of shame? Or are you just a machine that paints armies for breakfast?

I was mildly tempted to get the Bret box to finish off my old Bret force.... but then I remembered I still have unpainted Brets that I bought 20 years ago

MaxT wrote:

In the past that sort of worked when there was just 1 or 2 attacks coming back. Now with the entire front rank fighting it could be 4, 5 or more attacks back easily. Plus a solo char is never outnumbering a unit by 2 to 1 so FBIGO would kick in a lot of the time. Then the following turn the infantry unit get full ranks and the BSB is in trouble - and the BSB will not be able to FBIGO itself.

That... is a terrible, overly long acronym that conveys nothing. 'Fall back' actually provides coherent information, as does 'Break'

For give ground, I'd just suggest 'push'

Sorry but I played WAB back in the day, so FBIGO it is!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

How big is your pile of shame? Or are you just a machine that paints armies for breakfast?

I was mildly tempted to get the Bret box to finish off my old Bret force.... but then I remembered I still have unpainted Brets that I bought 20 years ago

My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area.

Fun, innit?

I could open a small store with what's under my bed.

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Has anyone compiled a list of potential returning kits based off the photos from the rule books? For example, I feel confident in saying the dwarf kits include:

Longbeards/hammerers
Ironbreakers/iron drakes
Trollslayers
Warriors
Thunderers/quarrelers
Miners
Cannon/organ gun
Grudge thrower
Bolt thrower
Flame cannon

Characters:
Plastic Troll slayer
Plastic runesmith
Metal runesmith
Thorek (anvil of doom)
(Metal?) BSB
Metal engineer with dual pistols
Metal thane with shield and hammer
Metal thane holding helmet

Likely to return/currently available in aos:
Belgar Ironhammer
Gyrocopter/gryobomber
grimm burloksson
(I didn’t see these models in any army shot but they’ll likely stuck around)

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Bold of you to assume that I don't play or paint? Having a backlog doesn't mean I don't hobby, it means that I buy at a faster rate than I hobby. Although, its true that I haven't played anything for the past year as both my locals closed down within the span of a month for altogether different reasons and the next closest gaming space being over an hours drive from me.

High quality review of Wood elves army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9dwmoXfqGs
Man Glade guard can have AP (2) bows with 32" range. I remember this army being very toxic in 6th. You could not engage them if they were not willing. They would just shoot you and envelop you with Dryads. But Dryads are weaker now with only S3 and no AP.

Also a cool idea that wood elfs can cast a magical vortex that is a wood terrain feature.

I think the changes in terrain are going to be a big part of this. Terrain now just reduces movement by an 1" if I remember correctly (not half) and los of sight is very different. So actually using terrain is going to matter. It also means that unless you're using they, and dwarves, will smash you. If you are using it they need it to be that strong so that the 1-2 shots they get before being engaged count.

 Baragash wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Did Marvel create their Malekith before GW did? I was never a big Thor fan.

Marvel Malekith is from 1984. Not sure when GW Malekith came about.

Google suggests the 1992 High Elf army book was the first mention.

Back then, it was a niche in-joke for an obscure comicbook character that 90% of the play base would never have heard of...

Was it actually an intentional reference or did they just name the elf villain 'Bad Neighbor/Bad Friend'

He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Bold of you to assume that I don't play or paint? Having a backlog doesn't mean I don't hobby, it means that I buy at a faster rate than I hobby. Although, its true that I haven't played anything for the past year as both my locals closed down within the span of a month for altogether different reasons and the next closest gaming space being over an hours drive from me.

That said if you are buying vastly beyond your capacity to build and paint then you are engaging in a form of hobby engagement that includes an element very different to many who buy and operate closer to "within their hobbying means". Especially when you're very much at an outlier where you've vast amounts of unbuilt.

It's normal to have a "pile of shame" but at the same time someone who builds that up into a very big component of their hobby is, on some level, most likely engaging differently to a "player/painter" before collector. Esp if you're only focusing on big boxed sets and, for the most part, avoiding single model purchases.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.

Maybe, but it’s not like they could have googled it to check back then.

 Overread wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Bold of you to assume that I don't play or paint? Having a backlog doesn't mean I don't hobby, it means that I buy at a faster rate than I hobby. Although, its true that I haven't played anything for the past year as both my locals closed down within the span of a month for altogether different reasons and the next closest gaming space being over an hours drive from me.

That said if you are buying vastly beyond your capacity to build and paint then you are engaging in a form of hobby engagement that includes an element very different to many who buy and operate closer to "within their hobbying means". Especially when you're very much at an outlier where you've vast amounts of unbuilt.

It's normal to have a "pile of shame" but at the same time someone who builds that up into a very big component of their hobby is, on some level, most likely engaging differently to a "player/painter" before collector. Esp if you're only focusing on big boxed sets and, for the most part, avoiding single model purchases.

On the one hand, I kinda see your point. On the other hand, it seems a little arbitrary and unnecessarily discriminatory. Does the fact that I engage with the hobby by sourcing the best possible value to avoid GWs otherwise extortionate pricing (and consequently ended up with a hording habit as a result of trying to stay on top of every possible deal that comes my way) render me a different class of hobbyist? Im certainly a different type of customer (of the cetaceous variety), but I build, paint, and play the same as anyone else. My pile of shame isn't for the sake of collecting, the intent is to very much build/paint/play with everything I own, so labeling me a "collector" I think is erroneous.

Shakalooloo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.

Also: GW is (or at least was for a long time) known for having many historic, sci-fi/fantasy, and and pop culture references in Warhammer (both Fantasy and 40K). I'd say the chance is way higher (about 100% would be my guess) that GW was "inspired" by a comic book than them completely independently coming up with the same name. Their history is littered with way too many punny names and other references for it to be a coincidence. Sure, it really could be one but it's not likely given the era during which he was named.

Black Library still sells products with the name "Malekith" in it, including a book or novel (or eBook) titled "Malekith" by Gav Thorpe. I suspect that the name change was done purely internally to differentiate GWs brand from others and not because of some direct legal concern (otherwise the continuing usage and sale of products bearing said name would probably be verboten). Where the name originated is kinda irrelevant IMO, it certainly wasn't the first usage (nor the last, apparently theres an Elden Ring boss also named Malekith), and was likely inspired by something (directly or indirectly) rather than just originated whole cloth from the minds of one of GWs staffers.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Black Library still sells products with the name "Malekith" in it, including a book or novel (or eBook) titled "Malekith" by Gav Thorpe. I suspect that the name change was done purely internally to differentiate GWs brand from others and not because of some direct legal concern (otherwise the continuing usage and sale of products bearing said name would probably be verboten). Where the name originated is kinda irrelevant IMO, it certainly wasn't the first usage (nor the last, apparently theres an Elden Ring boss also named Malekith), and was likely inspired by something (directly or indirectly) rather than just originated whole cloth from the minds of one of GWs staffers.

The Elden Ring boss is actually Maliketh, not Malekith. No idea how much swapping two letters would change things in terms of legal concern.

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the one hand, I kinda see your point. On the other hand, it seems a little arbitrary and unnecessarily discriminatory. Does the fact that I engage with the hobby by sourcing the best possible value to avoid GWs otherwise extortionate pricing (and consequently ended up with a hording habit as a result of trying to stay on top of every possible deal that comes my way) render me a different class of hobbyist? Im certainly a different type of customer (of the cetaceous variety), but I build, paint, and play the same as anyone else. My pile of shame isn't for the sake of collecting, the intent is to very much build/paint/play with everything I own, so labeling me a "collector" I think is erroneous.

Yeah... I'm sort of drawing a blank on the difference.
I mean I have an extensive pile of shame - and am happy to admit most of it will probably never be painted. I'd like it to be - and it might be, but it almost certainly won't be.
Because odds are, I'll buy more.

I don't know about you - but I think the real clash (and this applies to the whole economics of the hobby) are how people's circumstances change.

When I was 15 or so - I had plenty of time for painting if I wanted to, but no money. Today I'm rapidly closing in on 40, I have far less free time (and what I have I want to use to play games, not paint models). But dropping £150~ on a TOW starter (not that I did in this case as neither army overly interests me), or a starting a new 40k army, or whatever every 6 months or so, really isn't some terrible financial imposition. And I suspect this is why, despite the very high prices, GW's sales seem to go up and up.

 ImAGeek wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Black Library still sells products with the name "Malekith" in it, including a book or novel (or eBook) titled "Malekith" by Gav Thorpe. I suspect that the name change was done purely internally to differentiate GWs brand from others and not because of some direct legal concern (otherwise the continuing usage and sale of products bearing said name would probably be verboten). Where the name originated is kinda irrelevant IMO, it certainly wasn't the first usage (nor the last, apparently theres an Elden Ring boss also named Malekith), and was likely inspired by something (directly or indirectly) rather than just originated whole cloth from the minds of one of GWs staffers.

The Elden Ring boss is actually Maliketh, not Malekith. No idea how much swapping two letters would change things in terms of legal concern.

Maliketh is also a giant wolfman who does acrobatics around his arena. He's a bit more distinct that evil elf king or other evil elf king.

Tyel wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the one hand, I kinda see your point. On the other hand, it seems a little arbitrary and unnecessarily discriminatory. Does the fact that I engage with the hobby by sourcing the best possible value to avoid GWs otherwise extortionate pricing (and consequently ended up with a hording habit as a result of trying to stay on top of every possible deal that comes my way) render me a different class of hobbyist? Im certainly a different type of customer (of the cetaceous variety), but I build, paint, and play the same as anyone else. My pile of shame isn't for the sake of collecting, the intent is to very much build/paint/play with everything I own, so labeling me a "collector" I think is erroneous.

Yeah... I'm sort of drawing a blank on the difference.
I mean I have an extensive pile of shame - and am happy to admit most of it will probably never be painted. I'd like it to be - and it might be, but it almost certainly won't be.
Because odds are, I'll buy more.

I don't know about you - but I think the real clash (and this applies to the whole economics of the hobby) are how people's circumstances change.

When I was 15 or so - I had plenty of time for painting if I wanted to, but no money. Today I'm rapidly closing in on 40, I have far less free time (and what I have I want to use to play games, not paint models). But dropping £150~ on a TOW starter (not that I did in this case as neither army overly interests me), or a starting a new 40k army, or whatever every 6 months or so, really isn't some terrible financial imposition. And I suspect this is why, despite the very high prices, GW's sales seem to go up and up.

This certainly fits me to a T. In my younger days I could build and paint an entire 1500-2000pt army in a week (provided I saved my lunch money up and collected gift cards and birthday cash and all that stuff so I could actually buy the kits). These days, I struggle to build (let alone paint) in a year what I used to be able to do in a day.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

Hey are you running a grand army or army of infamy? Cause grand army still requires either archers or warriors I think.

The pile of shame discussion might be an interesting one to take to Discussions, but isn't news for this thread.


Likewise discussion of alternative miniatures - that's an appropriate topic for general discussion or modeling sections, not for clogging up a news thread.

 nathan2004 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

Hey are you running a grand army or army of infamy? Cause grand army still requires either archers or warriors I think.

Grand army, I don't see a 1+ in the super blurry screenshot I've been working from, although looking at it more closely maybe you're right. Bummer if so :/

I think it'd be cool to have one of the half spearmen/half archer units. Just cause it'll look cool.

I was going to take a unit of archers for some extra shooting with the Ushabti or take 1 or 2 units as detachments for the tomb guard. Not sure if detachments fulfill the min requirement or not, that’s not something I’ve seen addressed in the leaked rules yet.

What are the rules for fielding detachments? Haven't seen those, only know they work similar to old empire sets.

I would also lean towards a unit of archers over warriors, or maybe archer skirmishers if that's an option?

I used to play WFB back in ...er...about 1990 and before(edit...well before that on reflection)

I just got told these new sets arnt new models....they looked it to me as the Brettionians look very updated from the Brettonians I remember....but I presume if they arnt new, they must be from later editions down the line?

Very disappointed to hear its being re released but not using new models.

Edit again to say I remember having a set which had some dwarves on an expedition to the south and they were fighting Slaan in various scenarios. Name of the lead dwarf is on tip of my tongue but cant quite remember it.

VAYASEN wrote:
I used to play WFB back in ...er...about 1990 and before(edit...well before that on reflection)

I just got told these new sets arnt new models....they looked it to me as the Brettionians look very updated from the Brettonians I remember....but I presume if they arnt new, they must be from later editions down the line?

Very disappointed to hear its being re released but not using new models.

Edit again to say I remember having a set which had some dwarves on an expedition to the south and they were fighting Slaan in various scenarios. Name of the lead dwarf is on tip of my tongue but cant quite remember it.

They're 6th edition Bretonnians, Bretonnians never got an update after 6th edition so these are those same models (other than the foot knights and a few characters that are new). I believe they came out in 2004.

I started in the mid 90's, when the 5th edition Bretonnians were out, those are the ones that came in the starter set, overall I tended to prefer the 5th edition ones as they were better proportioned models.

There were some Bretonnians prior to that that were before my time.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:
I used to play WFB back in ...er...about 1990 and before(edit...well before that on reflection)

I just got told these new sets arnt new models....they looked it to me as the Brettionians look very updated from the Brettonians I remember....but I presume if they arnt new, they must be from later editions down the line?

Very disappointed to hear its being re released but not using new models.

Edit again to say I remember having a set which had some dwarves on an expedition to the south and they were fighting Slaan in various scenarios. Name of the lead dwarf is on tip of my tongue but cant quite remember it.

They're 6th edition Bretonnians, Bretonnians never got an update after 6th edition so these are those same models (other than the foot knights and a few characters that are new). I believe they came out in 2004.

I started in the mid 90's, when the 5th edition Bretonnians were out, those are the ones that came in the starter set, overall I tended to prefer the 5th edition ones as they were better proportioned models.

There were some Bretonnians prior to that that were before my time.

This is what I had

What are GW doing with AoS replacement kits for old WHFB models that are just separated by time? For example, River Trolls vs Stone Trolls.

River Trolls got a plastic kit before GW killed WHFB. Stone Trolls did not, then became "Rockgut Troggoths" in AoS, and then they got a plastic kit.

Do River Trolls use their plastic kit whereas WHFB Stone Trolls go back to their ancient models?

(By the same token, only the plastic Bloodthirster made the cut-off for WHFB, with the remainder coming out once AoS was underway. Ditto for Be'lakor and his updated mini - what minis will TOW use for these?)

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.

Unless they were both drawing from a pre-existing myth.

Can you find Malekith in mythology?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What are GW doing with AoS replacement kits for old WHFB models that are just separated by time? For example, River Trolls vs Stone Trolls.

River Trolls got a plastic kit before GW killed WHFB. Stone Trolls did not, then became "Rockgut Troggoths" in AoS, and then they got a plastic kit.

Do River Trolls use their plastic kit whereas WHFB Stone Trolls go back to their ancient models?

(By the same token, only the plastic Bloodthirster made the cut-off for WHFB, with the remainder coming out once AoS was underway. Ditto for Be'lakor and his updated mini - what minis will TOW use for these?)

Potentially part of the reason they broke the factions up the way they did? To my eye, Daemons, Skaven and Lizardmen all look exactly the same in AoS as they would in WFB, GW haven't really developed anything unique for them at all, despite the Lizardman refresh offering them that opportunity - the entire Seraphon range looks like it came straight out of WFB.


It seems they focused on those factions that either don't exist in AoS but had an army in WFB (tomb Kings and Bretonnians), or ones that have since had distinct AoS armies built for them so there is less duplication.


As they aren't officially releasing those 7 factions, it doesn't matter if there are technically overlapping units with AoS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can you find Malekith in mythology?

It can be hard to tell, in the early days GW did draw on mythology or other works but changed the names enough that'd be hard to trace without asking the person who did it. And then other things were just fully made up. Like, Nurgle comes from a Babylonian god Nergal, Khorne comes from a Celtic god Krom/Khram, but Slaanesh and Tzeentch were made up to sound like some breathy erotic sound for the former and the the latter the imagined sound a magic spell might make.

Old school GW folk from the early days were history enthusiasts in addition to general nerdy folk, so it wouldn't surprise me if there's some historic origin for Malekith.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can you find Malekith in mythology?

I don't think directly, but it's GW so you know they lifted it from somewhere.

Fact remains Marvel appearance 1984 and GW Dark Elves appeared in 1987, then his first mention by name was 1992.

There are people that think DUNE was lifted from GW because anything invented before the internet doesn't seem to exist.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can you find Malekith in mythology?

I haven't found any, but I'm not exactly an expert either.

 Vulcan wrote:
I haven't found any, but I'm not exactly an expert either.

Every reference to Malekith I can find comes in one of three flavours:

1. Marvel comics (90% of references).
2. Warhammer (9% of references).
3. "There's no Malekith in Norse Mythology. Dark Elves, yes. Malekith, no." (the remainder).

I think GW made him up. Or were "inspired" by Marvel's Dark Elves in the same way they were "inspired" by Dune and Judge Dread.

 TalonZahn wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can you find Malekith in mythology?

I don't think directly, but it's GW so you know they lifted it from somewhere.

Fact remains Marvel appearance 1984 and GW Dark Elves appeared in 1987, then his first mention by name was 1992.

There are people that think DUNE was lifted from GW because anything invented before the internet doesn't seem to exist.

I think GW naughty elves actually appeared in 1983, but were called Night Elves, and later renamed Dark Elves.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I haven't found any, but I'm not exactly an expert either.

Every reference to Malekith I can find comes in one of three flavours:

1. Marvel comics (90% of references).
2. Warhammer (9% of references).
3. "There's no Malekith in Norse Mythology. Dark Elves, yes. Malekith, no." (the remainder).

I think GW made him up. Or were "inspired" by Marvel's Dark Elves in the same way they were "inspired" by Dune and Judge Dread.

But did you try a few dozen mispellings of the name? I think the only reason we know Nurgle = Nergal and Khorne = Crom/Kram/Khram is because Brian Ansell said as much in an interview many years later.

there is no Malekith or anything close/similar in mythology not just by spelling but also as theme (and dark elves in norse mythology are something very different)

more like this is inspired by LotR and Marvel rather than taken from myth

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What are GW doing with AoS replacement kits for old WHFB models that are just separated by time? For example, River Trolls vs Stone Trolls.

River Trolls got a plastic kit before GW killed WHFB. Stone Trolls did not, then became "Rockgut Troggoths" in AoS, and then they got a plastic kit.

Do River Trolls use their plastic kit whereas WHFB Stone Trolls go back to their ancient models?

(By the same token, only the plastic Bloodthirster made the cut-off for WHFB, with the remainder coming out once AoS was underway. Ditto for Be'lakor and his updated mini - what minis will TOW use for these?)

the TOW Promo Pics we got so far (and army pics that are leaked) show the old metal (and plastic) models in place for past 8th Edi plastic updates
be it tree-folk, trolls or infantry

the most intresting part here is that Beastmen have no army pictures in the book

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What are GW doing with AoS replacement kits for old WHFB models that are just separated by time? For example, River Trolls vs Stone Trolls.

River Trolls got a plastic kit before GW killed WHFB. Stone Trolls did not, then became "Rockgut Troggoths" in AoS, and then they got a plastic kit.

Do River Trolls use their plastic kit whereas WHFB Stone Trolls go back to their ancient models?

(By the same token, only the plastic Bloodthirster made the cut-off for WHFB, with the remainder coming out once AoS was underway. Ditto for Be'lakor and his updated mini - what minis will TOW use for these?)

My guess is that both Trolls will revert back to their 6E metals because the plastics are now considered AoS models. Similarly I think the 7E Common Troll metals will probably come back.
The Bloodthirster and Belakor probably won't appear at all outside of a stat block. There's no official model because they're not part of the core game.

As always, Beastmen are the outlier and I think the rumours of being ported out of AoS are probably true now.

I've seen someone put the plastic trolls on squares alongside the updated Squig Hoppers and they both looked fine.

I’d consider Belakor a special char and we know there isn’t any of those in the 2 army books, so the chances of him being in the daemon pdf is just about zero.

There are daemon princes in the Chaos Warrior list and almost certainly in the daemon pdf too. So thats an option for peeps to use the model. Just not as “Belakor”.

MaxT wrote:
I’d consider Belakor a special char and we know there isn’t any of those in the 2 army books, so the chances of him being in the daemon pdf is just about zero.

There are daemon princes in the Chaos Warrior list and almost certainly in the daemon pdf too. So thats an option for peeps to use the model. Just not as “Belakor”.

If I had to guess, we'll see entries for the four generic greater daemons based off their current models when the daemons PDF drops. I'm not expecting any named daemons at all.

I think trolls are a bit weird.

Bringing back to old sculpts on a permanent basis seems weird when there are essentially 1:1 replacements. See also old squig hoppers etc.

But those models are also classic. They'd probably sell. Certainly more than Ushabti I'd have thought.

And what about chaos warriors, is there an option for "Lord on Karkadrak" for example?
Is there pics of the new range in the evil book, or will they bring back the "nostalgia" models of 2021

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What are GW doing with AoS replacement kits for old WHFB models that are just separated by time? For example, River Trolls vs Stone Trolls.

River Trolls got a plastic kit before GW killed WHFB. Stone Trolls did not, then became "Rockgut Troggoths" in AoS, and then they got a plastic kit.

Do River Trolls use their plastic kit whereas WHFB Stone Trolls go back to their ancient models?

(By the same token, only the plastic Bloodthirster made the cut-off for WHFB, with the remainder coming out once AoS was underway. Ditto for Be'lakor and his updated mini - what minis will TOW use for these?)

There are no Greater Daemons in TOW, so moot point on the bloodthirster. If you're using the legacy army list then.... kinda who cares? Use whatever mini you want that will fit on the specified base.

River trolls would presumably make their way back into WHFB (tbh I expect them to be cut from AoS next go round, the models have been direct only for ages and GW almost never feature them in photography and never feature them in bundles or anything. Theyre kinda just there), Stone Trolls go back to their old minis (just like how the Warriors of Chaos army shot uses all the old sculpts).

Tyel wrote:

But those models are also classic. They'd probably sell. Certainly more than Ushabti I'd have thought.

Ushabti are 22.50€ per model right now, Stone Trolls were sold for 20€ before they were discontinued. I'd happily pay 22.50€ for them, but GW might only bring back three of the six sculpts, like they left out the alligator-headed Ushabti.

 Fayric wrote:
And what about chaos warriors, is there an option for "Lord on Karkadrak" for example?
Is there pics of the new range in the evil book, or will they bring back the "nostalgia" models of 2021

No. They were very explicit that models released for factions in Age of Sigmar would not have rules in TOW.

Squighoppers get lances though, which I'm sure were just an AoS thing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Stone Trolls go back to their old minis (just like how the Warriors of Chaos army shot uses all the old sculpts).

That's so mind numbingly dumb/stubborn.

AoS trolls fit 40mm bases just fine, so you can always just use those if you like them better.

For those wanting the old models, it's great if they make a return. But, so long as you can fit the AoS models on the relevant old world base, I wouldn't worry about what's pictured in the book. The rules for Warhammer fantasy never cared what models you used. Just use the models you like.

Tyel wrote:
I think trolls are a bit weird.

Bringing back to old sculpts on a permanent basis seems weird when there are essentially 1:1 replacements. See also old squig hoppers etc.

But those models are also classic. They'd probably sell. Certainly more than Ushabti I'd have thought.

They could split the difference - bring the classic trolls back as Made To Order and not a regular direct stock item. Allows GW to show them in imagery, lets peeps buy them but doesn’t add effectively a duplicate SKU to the GW store.

Santtu wrote:
Ushabti are 22.50€ per model right now, Stone Trolls were sold for 20€ before they were discontinued. I'd happily pay 22.50€ for them, but GW might only bring back three of the six sculpts, like they left out the alligator-headed Ushabti.

Oh what the heck GW, that's the best one. I never got one at the FLGS when they came in random blisters.

I can't see anyone using the metal trolls over just rebasing the AOS plastics to be honest. There's a LOT of Orc and Goblin kits to bring back and it just doesn't seem a great use of a slot.

GW might still do it, and Oldhammer weirdos will snap them up. But yes, the vast majority will use the plastics.

I’ve got six of the classic stone trolls so they’d have to be cheap (ha!) for me to spring for anymore, but I’d pick them over the new troggoths personally.

Edit; I must be an Oldhammer weirdo.

 The Phazer wrote:
I can't see anyone using the metal trolls over just rebasing the AOS plastics to be honest. There's a LOT of Orc and Goblin kits to bring back and it just doesn't seem a great use of a slot.

Me either. They're the same models. Why would someone not use the plastic kit?

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 GenericLordOnPegasus wrote:
Man, the negativity here, on top of the outright nonsense being spouted (low effort game, less than a year, whaaaaaaa things are expensive) is absolutely ridiculous.

The ruleset is fantastic. If you wanted a streamlined ruleset, they literally already have games for you. Both AOS and 10th edition 40k couldn’t be simpler. The rest of us actually wanted Warhammer Fantasy, and that’s what we got.

The seven factions that are “legacy” are literally all available to buy, whether original models or updated scults, and who gives a gak what GW says? TO’s will do what needs to be done just as we have for literally decades now to ensure they are playable.

This is a specialist game made by a small team. The game has been in play testing for over a year now, and after having seen people go through the rulebook, it seems like they did a great job fixing a lot of the problems WHFB had at the end of its life.

Almost everything is sold out everywhere, so people saying we don’t know idf launch was a success are being ridiculous. Selling out is the definition of success, and everyone I know was able to get everything they wanted except for the resin models that seem to have been delayed in America for whatever reason. Stuff happens.

The hilarious thing is that those who aren’t happy seem to feel the need to scream about it as loudly as possible. Not happy? Don’t play. The rest of us will be having a blast playing the game we love with the models we want to play it with.

And the people who don’t like old sculpts realize there are dozens of STL’s online, and even if they don’t have a printer, I guarantee all but the smallest towns now have a printing service. Seriously, every single fantasy army has beautiful models out there you can buy and use. Nobody is holding s gun to your head and making you play GW models. Except for GW’s own events, I have never seen a TO stop anyone from playing 3rd party models.


The ruleset looks great. The FoF/RH are great indexes, and the Arcane Journals are completely unnecessary. Otherwise, MM/MWG have said the Legacy PDF factions are just as fleshed out as the official factions, and that they are very playable.

Also, making models is expensive. I don’t know why people think old sculpts should be cheaper because they aren’t new? They take the same manpower, time, storage, and shipping costs (more in the case of metal). Saying otherwise is the dumb opinion of people who have never run a business and don’t understand the costs associated with production and retail.

Some of you really need some joy in your lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Again the Tomb Guard models are effectively cheaper than they were when released first 10-12 years ago.

They were 32,50 Euro for 10
Now they are 60 Euro for 20

And the Ushabti are now triple the price. What's your point?

Yes, because working with and shipping metal is far more expensive than it was in 2003. Smaller production runs also increase costs. I’m sorry simple business realities escape you?

I agree, but this is an awfully confrontational first post.

You aren’t wrong, but I felt it needed to be said.

Not actually my first post, I just couldn’t get my password for my old one because I no longer work at the place where the email was associated (and don’t remember my previous name either).

Have the old river trolls been shown?

I know the old stone trolls have been - which makes sense as the new ones are different - but the plastic river trolls will surely be used in TOW

MaxT wrote:
I’d consider Belakor a special char and we know there isn’t any of those in the 2 army books, so the chances of him being in the daemon pdf is just about zero.

There are daemon princes in the Chaos Warrior list and almost certainly in the daemon pdf too. So thats an option for peeps to use the model. Just not as “Belakor”.

On top of this, at this point in history, Belakor is still in the process of freeing himself from the position he's trapped in by the Chaos gods and unable to physically manifest in the Old World.

Either that, or he's trapped in Mordheim as the Shadowlord possessing the body of Kharduun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Squighoppers get lances though, which I'm sure were just an AoS thing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Stone Trolls go back to their old minis (just like how the Warriors of Chaos army shot uses all the old sculpts).

That's so mind numbingly dumb/stubborn.

The trolls i agree, on the infantry and cav i do not. Old school chaos warriors look better.

I doubt anyone would care but I wonder if GW is keeping anything with stormcast/aos trophy bits strictly in aos?


Rockgut troggoths for example have a stormcast trophy necklace option, many warriors of chaos have similar bits, etc

 The Phazer wrote:
I can't see anyone using the metal trolls over just rebasing the AOS plastics to be honest. There's a LOT of Orc and Goblin kits to bring back and it just doesn't seem a great use of a slot.

I mean people will use whatever they want. For me, I have a bunch of the old Metal River Trolls and Stone Trolls. In fact I'm missing one of the Stone Trolls to complete my set of owning all of them. So for me, if they bring them back I'm probably going to snap the one I'm missing up right away.

It does seem silly on GW's part of actively not using the AoS sculpts for Old World as well. I mean, at the end of the day, a sale is a sale.

 GaroRobe wrote:
I doubt anyone would care but I wonder if GW is keeping anything with stormcast/aos trophy bits strictly in aos?


Rockgut troggoths for example have a stormcast trophy necklace option, many warriors of chaos have similar bits, etc

This is likely the correct reason

Luke82 wrote:
I’ve got six of the classic stone trolls so they’d have to be cheap (ha!) for me to spring for anymore, but I’d pick them over the new troggoths personally.

Edit; I must be an Oldhammer weirdo.

Sure. I’ll be using my classic mini’s too, 30 years of collecting (onnthis christmas past), I absolutely adore the stuff I own, and am excited to buy more of it.

But if people want to use new sculpts, I honestly don’t blame them. The new AOS models are stunning. But you better believe I also bought all the new models I could get for my armies as well. Those new Duke on Royal Pegasus and Paladin on Royal Pegasus are stunning. I couldn’t get the BSB on horse and foot, or the lady, but damned if im not getting them when they release. And I’ll take two units of 20 knights on foot please. I can’t wait to paint them up in unique liveries. New models are beautiful.

So I don’t blame anyone for proxying with newer, more detailed models. A stone troll is a stone troll if it’s on the right base.

drbored wrote:What else is there to reveal for Old World? Everything they're going to make is already out j/k

Though I do gotta say, the low-effort BS people are spouting on reddit 'is AoS dead?? Old World forever???' just makes Old World fans look even more insufferable.

The reality that a lot of Old Worlders gotta make their bed with is this: It's going to take a DECADE for Old World to mature. If it does, you'll see it like 30k is now, with more support and new edition and more plastic models.

If, in a Decade, nobody's playing it or buying it? Well, it'll just die again.

So if you want to keep this game around, support it. If you don't, don't.

I’ve seen the same gak from AOS fans on both Reddit and Twitter. “This game is dead because it sucks, it should have stayed dead.” Jealousy is nonsense both ways. Miniature gaming is bigger than ever,and both games will probably thrive at their intended purpose. AOS wasn’t for me. I love the models, but the game doesn’t do it for me. So instead I continued to buy fantasy models carried over. Squigs, Empire, beastmen, dwarf, and Lizardmen models.

Overread wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Bold of you to assume that I don't play or paint? Having a backlog doesn't mean I don't hobby, it means that I buy at a faster rate than I hobby. Although, its true that I haven't played anything for the past year as both my locals closed down within the span of a month for altogether different reasons and the next closest gaming space being over an hours drive from me.

That said if you are buying vastly beyond your capacity to build and paint then you are engaging in a form of hobby engagement that includes an element very different to many who buy and operate closer to "within their hobbying means". Especially when you're very much at an outlier where you've vast amounts of unbuilt.

It's normal to have a "pile of shame" but at the same time someone who builds that up into a very big component of their hobby is, on some level, most likely engaging differently to a "player/painter" before collector. Esp if you're only focusing on big boxed sets and, for the most part, avoiding single model purchases.

Not really. As I said in another post, I’ve been collecting WHFB since 1993. Outside of fishing, it’s my main hobby. I spend a lot on it, and don’t have time to get to everything right away. Especially sales. I bought 3500$ worth of WHFB models in 2017 from a flgs going out of business for 1000$ cash, then after the sale he gave me the books. I gave away a whole army each to two friends that Christmas and still had more than I could use. I paint a unit at least every month, sometimes two, and I still can’t imagine catching up. It’s bad enough that when we built our house, my wife was like “you may as well just take the basement and make it a games room”. She plays too though. A bit.

The Phazer wrote:I can't see anyone using the metal trolls over just rebasing the AOS plastics to be honest. There's a LOT of Orc and Goblin kits to bring back and it just doesn't seem a great use of a slot.

Like I said, I completely get why someone would use new plastic, but I’m hyped to have a new game to use my metal models in. Giants too. And my trebuchets. Though I mat replace the trebuchets with resin models so I don’t have to worry about them breaking when I transport them to tournaments. They are the worst, but I’ll still use the originals for the narrative campaigns we do.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I haven't found any, but I'm not exactly an expert either.

Every reference to Malekith I can find comes in one of three flavours:

1. Marvel comics (90% of references).
2. Warhammer (9% of references).
3. "There's no Malekith in Norse Mythology. Dark Elves, yes. Malekith, no." (the remainder).

I think GW made him up. Or were "inspired" by Marvel's Dark Elves in the same way they were "inspired" by Dune and Judge Dread.

I bow to the experts then.

I wound up getting 3 of the BfSP Stone Trolls in an Orc and Goblin lot so I don't have to worry about what trolls they use. I'll be holding out on plastics to see what I'll dive in on, but my main concern is tracking down older bases.

I can't imagine intentionally tracking down actual GW 20mm/40mm bases when there's so many amazing 3rd party plastic options that are just flat out better than GW. I've been tossing GW bases and using the 3rd party ones for my 6e armies just so everything is an actual consistent 20mm square and not 19mm. 40mm square are actually 40mm and not 38mm etc. All the GW bases were undersized, I hope the new bases are actual size, or the 3rd party bases come out soon

For bases printer go brrrrrr......

But yes, I haven't used a base in a GW kit for anything other than a paint stand in YEARS

Or just grab a bag of wooden 'Scrabble' tiles at Michaels. 60 for $5 or so.

Bases (and movement trays) are cheap and easy.

Or go on eBay where plastic square bases have been available for decades and buy a bag of a 100 of them for a couple dollars.

 GaroRobe wrote:
I doubt anyone would care but I wonder if GW is keeping anything with stormcast/aos trophy bits strictly in aos?


Rockgut troggoths for example have a stormcast trophy necklace option, many warriors of chaos have similar bits, etc

This is probably another reason why GW are rereleasing e.g. the metal stone trolls and 6th Ed Chaos Warriors- for consistency with not having AoS specific decorations like SCE helmets

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:
I doubt anyone would care but I wonder if GW is keeping anything with stormcast/aos trophy bits strictly in aos?


Rockgut troggoths for example have a stormcast trophy necklace option, many warriors of chaos have similar bits, etc

This is probably another reason why GW are rereleasing e.g. the metal stone trolls and 6th Ed Chaos Warriors- for consistency with not having AoS specific decorations like SCE helmets

And yet they specifically don't care about not re-doing other units to fit the times of the Old World, per their designer round table (state troops as an example)

Jonathan: As for how things change over time, look at Empire handguns. We could give soldiers of the Empire older style handguns with more primitive firing mechanisms, but they’d function pretty much identically in game. So we didn’t do that because we want people to be able to get their old armies out, use them, and expand upon them without having to worry that such models are anachronistic.

from: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/02/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-how-the-new-old-lore-was-written/

If the handguns are going to be out of place and THAT is fine, I don't see why they'd take a specific stand against Stormcast bits.