We know that The Old World (TOW) is supposed to be a return of the classic WFB with Cathay and Kislev joining the party.
I think many of us in exuberance expect this means all factions back with new models (or least old models in production) on Day 1 but we also know that ain't gonna happen. So realistically what can we expect?
At time of death WHFB had 15(!!) major factions
1-Elves, High
2-Elves, Dark
3-Elves, Wood
4-Dwarves
5-Humans, Empire
6-Humans, Brettonian
7-Humans, Vampiric
8-Humans, Skeletal
9-Humans, Chaotic
10-Humans, Lizard
11-Humans, Rat
12-Humans, Beast
13-Ogres
14-Orcs and Goblins
15-Daemons
And to be viable each would need at least 5 kits (2x infantry, cavalry, monster, leader/elite) and we'd want many more.
Ain't gonna happen, even if they just bring back OOP kits and put some square bases in AoS kits.
So what is realistic?
Launch box with 2 newish factions (Kislev vs Chaos let's say). Some Grand Alliance books (say 3, good guys, bad guys, chaos) with lists for old armies and guides to using AoS models (for new players).
This has the problem that GW would putting out rules for armies that are long OOP and practically telling people to buy from ebay, 3rd parties or (gulp) 3d print.
My impression is that GW is wiping the slate clean for Old World.
That is to say they are moving to a new period in the timeline and to forces that previously were either under supported or not supported at all.
This isn't them putting out a new edition of the oldgame and is more of them rebooting the setting not the model lines themselves.
So right now I do not expect them to put out army books for original armies. In GW's view those models and armies were either retired or moved to AoS.
Now will some old armies come back? Most likely yes. However because GW isn't selling those armies and models any more with square bases (even if they are sold under AoS now) then I don't see GW releasing big army books for forces that might never see a battlefield from GW or might be a decade or more away.
I think the concept of rank and file fantasy combat and the setting are coming back; but the characters will change (new time period); the models will change; heck we'll likely see some shift in scale of things (larger mounts) and of style (a touch more high fantasy and flamboyant styling).
It will be interesting to see how GW handles it. In theory armies like Chaos don't even need any new models and GW could get around having to re-list AoS kits by simply releasing movement trays with round slots on them
I think a huge huge huge part depends on what intentional cross over between Old World and AoS is. What kind of provision GW makes for this is going to be huge in how its taken up.
Accepting that in the last year or so AoS seems to have fallen a bit to the side - however the last two years have been exceptionally abnormal
Another thing to consider is the visual and experience of the game. AoS 3.0 has pushed heavily for smaller unit numbers. Heck at 2K points you can only field 2 full troop blocks and everything else is minimum numbers. I wonder if GW will push AoS 4.0 even more toward a skirmish style game whilst pushing Old World toward the big rank and file infantry blocks and such. Creating not just different models, setting, lore and styles but also different types of visual game experience and model count
This has the problem that GW would putting out rules for armies that are long OOP and practically telling people to buy from ebay, 3rd parties or (gulp) 3d print.
There's precedent from Specialist Games with this. Blood Bowl did(still does?) it with each of the Season books containing OOP teams.
I'm still of the opinion that they'll do it HH1.0 style with "campaign" books featuring specific armies during specific historical re-fights rather than setting the game in any one era. So you'll get the releases for the 2 featured armies plus a small number of army lists for OOP factions that fit into that era. So like a "Siege of Praag" book with Kislev(new army they can release everything for) vs Chaos Warriors with additional lists for Empire, Beastmen, and Daemons(all of which still have most of their models available from AoS).
My dream scenario is that GW releases a kit or two for most factions, and they release them alongside big faction index books while we wait for range refreshes. Wood Elves, for example, really just need a nice basic or dual archer kit and cavalry kit to be in decent shape. I think most other factions are in a similar boat, assuming we can get old kits back. This is in line with GW's current practices of only having rules for kits and weapon options that are out. High Elves and Skaven will struggle without Island of Blood and other older factions are likewise screwed.
Realistically I don't think that's going to happen. I think we'll get a nice Kislev starter box vs. Chaos as you say, and a fleshed-out Kislev range. Then nothing for a long while until Cathay. AoS updates like the upcoming chaos warriors and the rumored Cities updates will keep us satiated.
I think as long as we get rules for most armies and a couple of factions you can build with kits you can buy off the shelf, we'll survive until we get the updates some factions rightly deserve. Praying to the lady for you, Bretonnia. Assuming the game actually sells well and GW doesn't put it on life support.
Well, to me it's obvious we won't have this number of factions at launch. First because "the Old World project" isn't called "the Old World" for nothing, and the reason they focused their maps on the very Old World part of the...well, Warhammer Battle world. Pretty obvious the high elves, Lustria and dark elves just to name them will stay in their respective lands for a while.
So yeah, a starter box involving Kislev and something else, a few other boxes for others factions in the following months and the rest will be revealed in due time.
As for rules, books for the factions covered at launch in a near future, maybe the rest will have a Savage Horde treatment so that they can wait their turn, but otherwise I don't see GW rushing things and certainly not launching 15 army boxes at the same time.
See Horus Heresy. We're still waiting for the Imperial Guard like book, aren't we. Well, I believe the Old World will be the same...on a whole other scale, of course.
Overread wrote: My impression is that GW is wiping the slate clean for Old World.
So right now I do not expect them to put out army books for original armies. In GW's view those models and armies were either retired or moved to AoS.
One of the limited pieces that they have leaked out about the Old Word was that our old armies will be playable. They didn't dance around it, they weren't vague, they didn't hedge their bets. They directly stated the the old armies would be good to go.
So leads me to believe that we will get a book like Ravening Hordes with rules (albeit basic) for all factions at launch, and then GW will go on their merry way releasing new kits or full books for old armies as they see fit. It is entirely possible some factions don't ever get an update past that book, but I believe at launch all will be playable.
I also think its likely we see kits similar to heresey where there is a base kit and then an upgrade sprue for your specific chapter. I expect multiple empire factions given the time period, and little resin sprues to make them all unique. A knight sprue could also serve Bretonnians, and you could get a lot of mileage out of an elf kit + upgrade sprues for wood, high and dark.
I'd expect a new rulebook alongside a get-you-by Ravening Hordes set of streamlined rules for the old 15 armies.
I'd then expect original releases brought out slowly, in waves of 1-4 factions similar to the Horus Heresy books. A modest initial release of 6-8 kits per faction with the aim of backfilling later.
Completely spitballing, but say:
- The Old World core rulebook, Ravening Hordes Mk2 and a (Good vs Bad) starter
- The Old World Part 1: 4 core factions detailing the Empire civil war and subsequent development to the Great War against Chaos
- The Old World Part 2: Pad out the game with some fan-favourites
- The Old World Part 3: Round out the game with the smaller or more niche factions
- Several filler/campaign books with scenarios to justify new releases for everyone.
- The Great War against Chaos summer mega campaign: SoC2 Electric Boogaloo
I'm interested to see how they resolve Old kits updated to a new scale. The AoS models sometimes fit aesthetically, but there is no way you are getting new Chaos Knights to rank up on a 25*50mm cavalry base.
I expect old world will mirror the latest horus heresy release.
My expectation is that it'll be focused on empire civil war, with other factions being sideshow to that. (Like in 30k marines are #1, everything else is less supported).
There will be a score of universal plastic kits for empire, with resin upgrades, characters and unique units.
Non-empire factions will be slowly released over time, but with much more limited plastic kits.
One (exceedingly unlikely) possibility is the initial series of releases covers, let's say, 2 types of core troops per army, with skirmish style rules. And you can also make your low-level hero(es) out of pieces from those boxes. Yes, there is already Warcry for fantasy skirmish, but the word very early would be "we're doing this to give everyone something to buy and play with as we build to army-size battles."
This would get you set up in to old world with the promise of big, ranked battles coming later, and you'd be able to use all these troops in your armies later on.
Then GW releases more elaborate sets as we go to fill out armies. Like the story enters into big, open plains or chaotic wastes, so all the armies get their cavalry unit. Then another focusing on sieges, so you get your artillery units for everyone. It would be nice if they did releases giving a little to each army as they go, but that would mean campaign-style books rater than army-specific ones.
I'm thinking battle sets. Something like a repressing of Skull Pass and Island of Blood to get some starter sets out. I could see them hammering out the 6th Ed. set as well unless they wanted to throw some Chaos models for the Empire to fight. We have enough kits to do some vs. sets with about 3 units per side. Skimpy units, but units nonetheless. A single character model per side for each box, GW's typical outlandish pricing, and you're set for release.
jaredb wrote: I expect old world will mirror the latest horus heresy release.
My expectation is that it'll be focused on empire civil war, with other factions being sideshow to that. (Like in 30k marines are #1, everything else is less supported).
There will be a score of universal plastic kits for empire, with resin upgrades, characters and unique units.
Non-empire factions will be slowly released over time, but with much more limited plastic kits.
I'm expecting similar. However, I think it depends. If they want a big audience early, they need enough kits to get people in to buy new stuff. They made it clear that you can freely use your old edition WFB. Maybe the reason for the length of time between updates and release is that they are producing a lot for release.
I kind of wish they would do 1 army specific Made To Order selection each month for metal and plastic units. There's so much legacy material out there and if people know Febuary is Orcs and Goblins month they can plan to save up in advance. It isn't sustainable to have the entire Warhammer catalog available at all times, but by just focusing on one faction a month they can make the old stuff available and manageable.
I just cannot see GW putting money and shelf space into a game they killed 5 years ago and which would be their 3rd 28mm fantasy wargame.
You mean like they killed then resurrected Necromunda and Blood Bowl ?
Joke aside, depends of their expectations and sale numbers when it will be out in the end, I'd say. After all, we know they weren't expecting Adeptus Titanicus to be that popular when it was released.
Shelf space management has changed a lot since Warhammer Battle days, even core games don't have everything anymore in the stores. Who knows what other changes will come until the day the Old World project is fulfilled ?
To me, the comparison with Horus Heresy is the most accurate we can relate with this Old World project.
Honestly i think there's two possibilities how this can go:
A: it is square, same base size, in order to make the playerbase big from the start, allowing for older models to be used.
GW will make new models but also add squares to certain AoS ones.
The money will be made with rules.
B: GW will not tap into the vets and throw out a whole slew of new models and square sizes to NOT be compatible with the old models..
I'm unlikely to be a buyer, but as someone who is currently playing a campaign now set in the Old World, but with KoW rules, I'm very interested to see how this plays out.
I really have my doubts that we're going to see something that looks like WHGB. A core issue is that GW seems dead-set against lowering the price-per-mini for their games, and rank-and-flank games (if they're going to make anything like WHFB) generally require ALOT of minis. WHFB was already becoming prohibitively expensive when it was phased out and the cost-per-fig from GW has only gone up. Cadians are now $5 each. If that's a guide, is there anybody out there wanting to spend $80-100 per-regiment just to play a new version of WHFB?
Regardless of what kind of bases are used I suspect we might see something in scope that is more like AOS and less like WHFB.
This is not even really a prediction, but one way that they could go is to keep round bases and go with a system like Runewars where it still is a rank-and-flank game with block-unit tactics, but uses far fewer figures. It basically died the moment Legion was released, but it was a very tight ruleset and really managed to fit the mass-battle feel into less space and fewer figures. You can get an idea for what it looked like with the Daqan army I painted for it.
Also, I don't have the game, but I hear that Song of Ice and Fire is a similar system. but with bigger bases.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly i think there's two possibilities how this can go:
A: it is square, same base size, in order to make the playerbase big from the start, allowing for older models to be used.
GW will make new models but also add squares to certain AoS ones.
The money will be made with rules.
B: GW will not tap into the vets and throw out a whole slew of new models and square sizes to NOT be compatible with the old models..
i tend to think it will be B.
The Old World being compatible with old armies, and GW wanting people to be able to use their old armies was one of the very first things said about the project. So I wouldn't bet a lot of money on your prediction.
Definitely a reduction of unit sizes. As others have mentioned the 8th edition paradigm simply isn't viable.
New named characters. It is set in a different time period; many factions iconic characters do not yet exist, and their creative team will be looking to fill in the lineup.
Ceaseless bitching from the community for the dumbest possible reasons. Legitimate complaints too, but the majority boiling down to 'I personally do not like this so it is objectively bad.'
I'm hoping they use 6th or 7th core rules as a base, and not 8th.
But my biggest wish is no dice rolling for running and charges, and very few attacks. Very few dice being rolled until you pull out your heavy hitters.
Clanrats in ranks of 5 moving up, getting 5 attacks, versus Plaguemonks in ranks of 6 getting in and getting 24 attacks feels a lot better than every unit rolling tons of dice.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly i think there's two possibilities how this can go:
A: it is square, same base size, in order to make the playerbase big from the start, allowing for older models to be used.
GW will make new models but also add squares to certain AoS ones.
The money will be made with rules.
B: GW will not tap into the vets and throw out a whole slew of new models and square sizes to NOT be compatible with the old models..
i tend to think it will be B.
The Old World being compatible with old armies, and GW wanting people to be able to use their old armies was one of the very first things said about the project. So I wouldn't bet a lot of money on your prediction.
What gw says and gw does are two separate things entirely.
They specifically said that it'll be a rank-and-flank game with square bases. They also said that Kislev will be a full faction, with bear cavalry and other weirdness as seen in Total War Warhammer 3.
They implied (through a map of the Empire with icons dotted across it) that the Empire will be broken up into multiple factions.
It seems weird to me that people here think they won't do any of that. They haven't said much about it, and you reckon that they'll go back on what little they have definitively announced?
antia wrote: They specifically said that it'll be a rank-and-flank game with square bases. They also said that Kislev will be a full faction, with bear cavalry and other weirdness as seen in Total War Warhammer 3.
They implied (through a map of the Empire with icons dotted across it) that the Empire will be broken up into multiple factions.
It seems weird to me that people here think they won't do any of that. They haven't said much about it, and you reckon that they'll go back on what little they have definitively announced?
"The game will suck. It won't be remotely old Warhammer. It'll be AOS Warmaster, or AOS Apocalypse, or something else that is simply AOS so why don't you guys just play AOS already, guys?!?!?!?!?"
Pretty much all the naysaying to this project to date.
antia wrote: They specifically said that it'll be a rank-and-flank game with square bases. They also said that Kislev will be a full faction, with bear cavalry and other weirdness as seen in Total War Warhammer 3.
They implied (through a map of the Empire with icons dotted across it) that the Empire will be broken up into multiple factions.
It seems weird to me that people here think they won't do any of that. They haven't said much about it, and you reckon that they'll go back on what little they have definitively announced?
Where am i going back on? I just expect them to be Interessed in return from investment and i therefore doubt that old armies will be portable 1:1.
Warhammer Fantasy has already died once and GW are not going to go through the investment of bringing it back unless they expect it to be more profitable than how it ended up. Every old army brought out of storage is an army that GW did not make any profit on. While I fully expect every existing army to be playable initially to get the community foundations down, the long-term game plan is going to be based on selling more of the new which means the obsolescence of the old.
GW will provide rules for your 6/7/8E armies in the most basic sense, but ultimately they are here to sell you a new army because the game will not survive on the strength of veterans alone. This was already proven with the death of WFB8E.
Exactly what form that takes, I don't know. It might be as simple as new sculpts like 30k, or it could be new units based on historical rosters. The bases might well change and I'm pretty certain that in the event of a clash, they will choose alignment with AoS bases rather than old WFB.
Support for old armies does not mean indefinitely and I think it is naive to think that GW have any intentions beyond baiting players with nostalgia to buy back in.
One final note, I think it's important to note that, last I checked, every single person involved with TOW appears to be part of Forge World rather than the core studio. It was revealed by the head of FW, the maps are being created by FW artists and Neil was interviewed for the faction design. TOW being run by FW seems believable and I can imagine a similar attitude to old armies; while you can use your Mk7 Tacticals and Mars tanks to play 30k, you are expected to buy in with Mk2-6, Cataphractii Terminators and Deimos vehicles.
New centre piece models for characters - epseically those that could also work in AOS either as the named character - pretty much any non human faciton or as a generic Lord in AoS - but GW tries to make as little money as possible with crossover items.... Tie in with Total War - although the bad launch for this has not helped - GW did do a (very half hearted) attempt at mutual support for it
Selling new models is obviously what they do - its their buisiness - as others have said - limited support for legacy models may be there but little else.
Well, the best case scenario is they pull a 30k, which means loads of new models, but support for all the others in big swaaths. Because if the new models are good even the most overswamped vet is going to grab some new shiny things.
That would make me a very happy camper.
As has 30k done.
While the time period includes the Empire civil war, I don't think it's big or epic enough to warrant its own game in the same way that the Horus Heresy did. That would only really appeal to Empire players and leave the majority of factions either left out, or effectively NPCs.
The Great War against Chaos feels like a much more natural event to build up to and includes gems like the rise of Asavar Kul and the Battle of Finuval Plains as additional content.
Having a boxed set of 40 Space Marines beating each other up with Dreadnoughts and Spartans is visually very cool; 60 State Troops in pyjamas with some Knights and Cannons is less so and very mistakeable for a generic historical wargame. The Empire roster might well be divided into subfactions based on their loyalty, but I think the core needs to be bigger than Empire vs Empire.
The Great War against Chaos would need to allow for Empire, Kislev, High Elves, Warriors, Daemons, Beastmen, Dark Elves and Dwarfs as core factions (9, spread over 2-3 books). Norsca is also a very easy addition, as is Cathay with some expanded lore of the eastern theatre.
You could have it in 3-4 books like the Horus Heresy Isstvan campaign:
- The Time of 3 Emperors and Asavar Kul crosses the Lynsk (Empire, Warriors and Kislev)
- The invasion of Ulthuan (High Elves, Dark Elves and Daemons)
- The Dwarfs relief of Praag (Dwarfs, Greenskins and Beastmen)
Plus extra content for what Cathay was up to (involving Kurgan and Ogres), the adventures of Louen Orc-Slayer and Mousillon's undead, and the actions of the Lizardmen and Skaven to influence the war from afar.
antia wrote: They specifically said that it'll be a rank-and-flank game with square bases. They also said that Kislev will be a full faction, with bear cavalry and other weirdness as seen in Total War Warhammer 3.
They implied (through a map of the Empire with icons dotted across it) that the Empire will be broken up into multiple factions.
It seems weird to me that people here think they won't do any of that. They haven't said much about it, and you reckon that they'll go back on what little they have definitively announced?
Where am i going back on? I just expect them to be Interessed in return from investment and i therefore doubt that old armies will be portable 1:1.
Since when did you have to invalidate old models to sell new ones? Regular Space marines are still valid, no? Your rogue trader space marines can sill be put on a base and played alongside of updated kits, so why should it be different than fantasy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote: If we assume Empire civil war, what does that make the game?
Launch Box of Empire vs Empire (maybe with a land ship or steam tank center piece?)
Cathay
Kislev
Chaos?
Army books for old factions
Does that seem realistic?
Thats about what I am thinking. Human focused box with a Ravenous Hordes type book. I expect a lot kits that can be used for multiple factions with upgrade kits - humans could share a lot of the same boxes. Build a basic knight kit and with a few upgrade sprues you have several knightly orders for Empire, and the lions share of Bretonnia done. Similar things can be done for a lot of human infantry and basically every flavor of elf. Cost effective on their end, and as an end user I was happy how it worked in 30k, so I imagine it can work here.
Another teaser article on the warhammer community site.
I'm not quite sure what to make of it. The artwork is very clearly based on old models, but I don't think that means anything other than 'we're advertising this based on nostalgia'.
Also, *not* related to the news, I took a closer look at the map and realised that there's a very clear difference in how filled in areas are (and it's exactly the same on the last map they put out). Based on that, there will be nothing for Estalia and Tilea (but they have got stuff for the Border Princes, bizarrely), and it will eventually feature Norsca and the Chaos Dwarves. Norsca seems a pretty safe bet, given that Kislev is getting promoted.
N.B. this is based on very thin evidence, and I'd love to hear a different extrapolation from the same map.
Index/Ravening Hordes with not much adjusted list of units from 8th (so some armies get their large centerpiece models, others don't)
an Empire Civil War core box, with models that are generic and can be used for 2 players/factions or combined into one
Resin Upgrades to turn the generic core box plastic into the different Empire factions, maybe even expanding them into Border Princess
a campaign books featuring the specific wars, like a Empire Civil War book introducing new units/forces
over time new 2-player sets going along with new campaign books, like Norsca-Kislev, Bretonia-Orcs
So we're hearing confirmation that there are new models inbound AND of old models back in production.
Going back to the issue of shelf space and the possibility of cannibalizing AoS or Middle Earth maybe they will go with limited edition armies.
So Brettonians are back, but only in an army box and only for a limited time (one weekend or maybe a few weeks). They could then reissue each of the 16 legacy factions (less since armies like Daemons are still around just with a new coat of paint), in a year or two and keep whatever new models are coming in production for longer.
well, not having up to date core models (as in models for core units that were required) in addition to newly designed elite units was one of the reasons both armies did not sold well (specially TK as they got a new army book in 8th but were still stuck with old skeletons and an upgrade sprue)
so just producing the old models will not do them a favour and while the hype is real, it might not transfer into sales if you need to buy models that were already outdated back than as core of a new army
Olthannon wrote: Depends then. It's not that great a rumour really. It's at best..
a suitable hedge.
I'm not sure quite why, but I love this as an expression. So many questionable things I hear (and perhaps some I say...) could be called "A suitable hedge".
Could you also call it "an acceptable shrubbery" or would that itself be "a suitable hedge" regarding the quality of the thicket?
I digress...
Olthannon wrote: Depends then. It's not that great a rumour really. It's at best..
a suitable hedge.
I'm not sure quite why, but I love this as an expression. So many questionable things I hear (and perhaps some I say...) could be called "A suitable hedge".
Could you also call it "an acceptable shrubbery" or would that itself be "a suitable hedge" regarding the quality of the thicket?
I digress...
Interestingly, "hedging your bets" has nothing to do with plants.
Olthannon wrote: Depends then. It's not that great a rumour really. It's at best..
a suitable hedge.
I'm not sure quite why, but I love this as an expression. So many questionable things I hear (and perhaps some I say...) could be called "A suitable hedge".
Could you also call it "an acceptable shrubbery" or would that itself be "a suitable hedge" regarding the quality of the thicket?
I digress...
Interestingly, "hedging your bets" has nothing to do with plants.
kodos wrote: well, not having up to date core models (as in models for core units that were required) in addition to newly designed elite units was one of the reasons both armies did not sold well (specially TK as they got a new army book in 8th but were still stuck with old skeletons and an upgrade sprue)
so just producing the old models will not do them a favour and while the hype is real, it might not transfer into sales if you need to buy models that were already outdated back than as core of a new army
definetly more of a problem with TK - whos skeleton models sucked. But the Bret Men-at-Arms kit was great and still holds up very well.
Olthannon wrote: Depends then. It's not that great a rumour really. It's at best..
a suitable hedge.
I'm not sure quite why, but I love this as an expression. So many questionable things I hear (and perhaps some I say...) could be called "A suitable hedge".
Could you also call it "an acceptable shrubbery" or would that itself be "a suitable hedge" regarding the quality of the thicket?
I digress...
Interestingly, "hedging your bets" has nothing to do with plants.
I know I shouldn't bite. I should let the joke stand as is. No one likes a defensive semantic explainer. Errrrrr, but I just can't help myself....
It does relate to plants. At least in as much as the origins of the term "to hedge" derives meaning from the metaphor of the protective properties of a thick thorny row of bushes or trees.
Regadless, surely we can all agree though that post-Python, the word "Shrubbery" is far funnier than "Hedge".
Just Tony wrote: Mixed run is rather ingenuine, he had a pretty reliable accuracy record.
Indeed. There was a time where if Hastings chimed in on a rumor, everyone paid attention.
like 10 years ago hastings was telling us that there were plastic primarchs coming (probably not the ones we ended up getting given the stark differences in sculpting style between those models and what was en vogue at the time he shared that), a plastic thunderhawk (doubt he meant the Aeronautica one), and new bretonnian sculpts for a 9th edition WHFB core box (snort, chortle). He had a lot of hits, but he had his fair share of misses, especially with regards to certain really big things (like, yknow, the fact that WHFB never got a 9th edition).
It does relate to plants. At least in as much as the origins of the term "to hedge" derives meaning from the metaphor of the protective properties of a thick thorny row of bushes or trees.
It comes from a 1600's meaning of hedge meaning "avoid commitment".
It does relate to plants. At least in as much as the origins of the term "to hedge" derives meaning from the metaphor of the protective properties of a thick thorny row of bushes or trees.
It comes from a 1600's meaning of hedge meaning "avoid commitment".
It does relate to plants. At least in as much as the origins of the term "to hedge" derives meaning from the metaphor of the protective properties of a thick thorny row of bushes or trees.
It comes from a 1600's meaning of hedge meaning "avoid commitment".
Me: refusing to hedge the bit.
Just went down the etymological rabbit hole on this one and it appears we may both be partially right and partly wrong.
Looks like the original West Germanic (then old english) term goes back to before the 14th century and refers to any fence, living or artificial. Then it acquires the metaphorical use of any protective separation.
Out of interest, where have we heard that old models are back in production?
Someone quoted a post on the Old World Facebook group to the effect that old Brett and Tomb King kits had been put back in production for painting.
For what it's worth.
If old brettonian and Tomb King models are going to be for sale then I need another mortage....
How I love to have multiple Tomb Guard and Khemrian Warsphinx kits in my hands, not to mention the the Perry brothers Bretonnian knights and even those pesky peseasnts.
Oh boy, GW is going sqeeze another big chunk of money out of me, if they do this.
1. Warhammer was not a failing product. Games Workshop was a failing company; on a life support of IP licensing free money. This was due to cretins at the top, never forget this. If handled competently WHFB will be profitable, not a profitable as 40K, but good enough.
2. Nostalgia is the market here, expect continuity. We have already had multiple rumours supporting this.
3. At GW Nottingham the thinking amongst the studio was, WHFB is the game we actually play, and 40K is where we make our living. Many in GW were deeply upset when Warhammer was binned, these people are still influential and post top management cretins (good riddance) may get their way.
1. Warhammer was not a failing product. Games Workshop was a failing company; on a life support of IP licensing free money. This was due to cretins at the top, never forget this. If handled competently WHFB will be profitable, not a profitable as 40K, but good enough.
Games Workshop was never a "failing" company and never hit life support. Even at its worst point it was still posting tens of millions of GBP of profit and free cash annually. I'll have to dive through my post history to find it, but I once did an indirect analysis of the financial impact on GWs bottom line between pre WHFB and post WHFB to try to gauge the profitability of the game - surprise, there was no significant or noticeable impact.
1. Warhammer was not a failing product. Games Workshop was a failing company; on a life support of IP licensing free money. This was due to cretins at the top, never forget this. If handled competently WHFB will be profitable, not a profitable as 40K, but good enough.
Games Workshop was never a "failing" company and never hit life support. Even at its worst point it was still posting tens of millions of GBP of profit and free cash annually. I'll have to dive through my post history to find it, but I once did an indirect analysis of the financial impact on GWs bottom line between pre WHFB and post WHFB to try to gauge the profitability of the game - surprise, there was no significant or noticeable impact.
Pre WHFB? So before the company started? Absolute gibberish. I'd also love to see when in WHFB's tenure you cherry picked your data from, as the profits from early to mid 2000's is likely WORLDS different than a year before its cancellation.
I can only guess he might mean AoS instead of Warhammer Fantasy? Because yeah if you go back to before fantasy as a formal game you're going way back to the Rogue Trader days when it was a garage company and all doing all kinds of odd printing jobs and projects and such.
Pre-WHFB is the ime were GW was the European distributior for D&D and WD a generic Tabletop Magazine
I doubt they made the same money before and after Warhammer
That it did not run well in the USA is known, but the US was not GWs main market for a long time anyway
PS: and GW was failing once as by the time Kirby took over he wanted to make money fast and invested heavily into Specialist Games to grow
All of them seeing translations but did not sell equal in all countries, resulting in leftovers from one country that could not be sold in others were stock run out because all the paper/card stuff was in the wrong language
A lot of things we have with GW today are a direct result of this
Yeah GW was an entirely different beast back then. Heck I doubt even they have the records for their finances from back then - I mean they might but it wouldn't shock me if they didn't considering all the changes, expansions and the fact that you only need to keep finance data for X number of years (6-10 years depending on the nature of it - from my 5 mins of googling).
And yeah many forget that Kirby turned GW's finances around. When he first came on board he did a lot of great things with the financial side. Perhaps some were not always popular with gamers and things like the 1 staffer in highstreet stores was a huge shift from when they used to have 3 or 4 even in the smaller ones; but they kept the company functional and heck even now they are one of the few highstreet names that aren't constantly predicting the downfall of their entire company (or selling food/mobile phone contracts)
chaos0xomega wrote:It occurred to me last night that we can estimate how relevant WHFB was to GW's finances in its final couple years of life. Observe:
So it doesn't mark when WHFB died, but it was August 2014. Because the chart is based on annual and half-year reports, theres not a good place to actually measure from that would completely or accurately capture the lost sales, but if we consider the WHFB "maximum" to be before that point at Jan 1 2014 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of 40k 7th), at which point The End Times hype cycle was in full swing, and consider the WHFB "minimum" to be Jan 1 2016 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of AoSGHB), we can very generously get a gauge of how much sales of WHFB minis and books contributed to GWs top line. So, marking the maximum with a red line, the minimum with a purple line, and marking the area we are focused on with the orange circle we get this:
Roughly speaking, it looks like WHFB was between 5-10 million GBP/year of revenue, lets call it 7.5 million, or about 5-6% of GWs total annual revenue at the time.
One key assumption made here is that WHFB was not already in a downward sales trend on Jan 1 2014 (and indeed the fact that the End Times books had started being released sometime prior to this, which was supposedly driving sales* would imply that WHFB sales would have been on an upswing at this time). Another key assumption here, which is intended to be as generous to WHFB as posslbe, is that the downward trend that continued from Jan 1 2014 onwards was 100% entirely due to the loss of WHFB and had nothing to do with 40k or the lackluster response to 7th ed 40k whatsoever. Likewise, final key assumption here is that the lowest point measured after WHFB was axed on Jan 1 2016 is due entirely to the loss of sales from WHFB and that Age of Sigmar was barely selling anything at all at this point. In essence, the idea here is that WHFB was undergoing a sales renaissance up until Jan 1 2014, and then it was killed and everyone stopped buying that product range until AoSGHB was released, and every lost dollar in that timeframe is 100% due to WHFB.
Again, the assumptions made are designed to be as generous to WHFB as humanly possible and in reality would probably indicate WHFB generated significantly more top-line revenue than it actually did. Even if we dial this up to 11 and assume the WHFB "maximum" was at Jan 1 2013 (i.e. GWs top line revenue maximum prior to the post AoSGHB peak) indicated with the yellow line/focus area in grey circle, you still only get about 20 million GBP max (in reality closer to 16-18, but Im being generous) or around ~16% of Revenue total - but for that to be true would require 40k to not have been on a sales and popularity downtrend at the time, which it was, so its hard to justify attributing that entire decline solely to WHFB.
In short, WHFB had just a fraction of 40ks popularity.
*Note that the longstanding recurring narrative among WHFB apologists is that The End Times generated some massive uptick in interest and sales for WHFB - the inferred data from this chart would seem to imply otherwise, while there may have been an increase in interest in WHFB there certainly was not a meaningful or significant change in the financial trends as a result of its release.
Presumably this one? The first image being lost to time is sad. Interesting data points.
Overread wrote: I can only guess he might mean AoS instead of Warhammer Fantasy?
Yes, that. But Tony never misses an opportunity to run wild misinterpreting an obvious gaffe.
Overread wrote: Yeah GW was an entirely different beast back then. Heck I doubt even they have the records for their finances from back then - I mean they might but it wouldn't shock me if they didn't considering all the changes, expansions and the fact that you only need to keep finance data for X number of years (6-10 years depending on the nature of it - from my 5 mins of googling).
It doesn't take much effort at all to find whats being discussed:
Last full year that was 100% WHFB, pre End Times (first End Times book released Aug 2014, well after GWs fiscal year ended).
Half Year 2013-2014 Revenue = 60.5 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 6.6 million GBP
Full Year 2013-2014 Revenue = 123.5 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 15.4 million GBP
The last End Times book was released March 2015, Age of Sigmar was not released until early July 2015. Technically this is a full year of WHFB, 100% during the End Times era, but given the abrupt end of the setting in fiction 3 months prior to the end of the fiscal year and the chilling effect that has, we give it the benefit of the doubt. Note that the popular narrative is that The End Times serious resulted in a massive uptick in sales and popularity for WHFB. Lets see how that plays out.
Half Year 2014-2015 Revenue = 56.5 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 5.5 million GBP
Full Year 2014-2015 Revenue = 119.1 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 15 million GBP
So, there was actually a general (but not significant) decrease in cash flows through the End Times era. This doesn't mean the End Times was a bust - these numbers include 40k sales performance after all, but if we assume that the decline was due to 40k, then we can safely assume that WHFBs performance was not strong enough to offset it. In my view, if The End Times was the big kicker that everyone claims it was, these numbers would not be that big, and realistically the ~3 months of lost sales following End Times: Archaon probably would not have made that big of an impact, as there were still many people buying stuff up under the assumption that the game would continue into a new edition of WHFB in some capacity.
It is worth mentioning that at this point in time GW was in a multiyear long revenue/profit downtrend - WHFB wasn't the reason for it, but it certainly played a part in it. Note that 40k 7th was released in May 2014, technically at the very end of the prior fiscal year - its unclear what impact this would have had on revenue/profit for 2014-2015, as one would assume much of the hype-purchasing was not captured in this fiscal year. This could explain, in part, the decline from 2013-2014 if the edition was released a bit early to try to front-load those sales and make their books look good for the current fiscal period (a common practice in publicly traded companies struggling to hit their numbers). As the "big summer release" mostly hit the prior period, GW missed capturing some of its revenue in 2014-2015.
2015-2016 Financial Year
Technicaly the first full year of Age of Sigmar, though no Age of Sigmar prodcut was available until 1-2 months into the fiscal year.
Half Year 2015-2016 Revenue = 55.3 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 4.7 million GBP
Full Year 2015-2016 Revenue = 118.1 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 10.9 million GBP
So, the first "full year" of Age of Sigmar mostly saw no meaningful or significant change from the End Times era. Note, I am using significant in this discussion in a statistical context - these numbers represent a less than ~2% change in performance on the Revenue side of things, which is within margin of error. Interestingly, the full year profit *did* see a fairly significant change in performance (~30% decline) - interrogating the annual report tells us this is primarily due to a decline in direct sales via GW retail stores and online/mail order sales, which was not adequately made up for by the increase in indirect sales which carry smaller profit margins for GW.
Its worth keeping in mind that during this period, Age of Sigmar saw extremely vicious backlash from the community, and aside from the Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound, all the AoS releases during this period were books with which to use existing models, with the exception of the Fyreslayers and Ironjawz, which launched with extremely limited model ranges. There weren't necessarily many people buying, and there wasn't really much to buy. For the declines in revenue/profit to be so generally small here, during a time when 7th edition 40k was (supposedly) hemmoraging players, I think says a lot about the performance of AoS relative to WHFB.
2016-2017 Financial Year
First actual 100% full year of Age of Sigmar, pre Generals Handbook (released August 2017). 40k 8th released in June 2017, so this year does not capture that, though The Gathering Storm (or whatever it was called) lead-up releases were in full swing through the last 6 months of the year (i.e. represented in full year financials but not half year financials), which may have driven hype-sales.
Half Year 2016-2017 Revenue = 70.9 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 9.7 million GBP
Full Year 2016-2017 Revenue = 158.1 million GBP, Operating Profit pre-royalties = 30.8 million GBP
So, some interesting stuff here. This was still the 7th edition era of 40k, a time that is widely regarded as having been the worst edition of the game to date. There were no meaningful or significant releases for it (in my view - I highly doubt the release of Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch moved the needle that much) through the half-year that would account for a very significant 28% increase in revenue (33% for full year) and 106% increase in profit (182% for full year) vs prior year. Comparing back to our WHFB baseline, we see a similar 28% increase in revenue, and a 100% increase in profit. While you could attribute strong growth through the second-half in the annual report to 40k hype-cycle via Gathering Storm, that performance was built on the back of something else in the 6 months prior.
During this period, the backlash against AoS began to die down, and additional new model releases for the game began to trickle out. Additionally, competitive events started using various homebrew points systems and rules mods in order to fix the mistakes that GW had made, which likely contributed to some interest there. Its not unreasonable to assume that some of this growth came via Age of Sigmar. For that to occur, would mean that Age of Sigmar would have had to be outselling WHFB, especially if we accept the idea that GW was seeing declining 40k sales during a period of particular unpopularity in the game. To some extent this is corroborated by the profit growth. If GW was previously spending $x per year to produce WHFB content and products but generating only small sales on it (potentially a loss as has often been rumored), that would logically cut into their profit margins. If that same investment was instead being applied to Age of Sigmar and was generating greater sales, then you would have growing margins as a result, particularly if those sales were net positive vs the investment vs the rumored net negative of WHFB in its twilight years.
Again, far from conclusive, as this is only an indirect measurement of WHFB vs Age of Sigmar, but it certainly challenges narratives.
As an aside, to put data to the previous claim of GW "surviving on" licensing fees, you can also see the royalties (i.e. licensing fees) receivable for each period through this - its pretty clear that claim is untrue. Their royalties amounted to all of 1-2 million GBP annually up until annual report 2016 when it jumped (probably on the back of Total War: Warhammer, ironically enough), at which point royalties made up 33% of GWs total operating profit (which was a record high, it never got above about ~25% in prior years. note year following, this declined to less than 20%, despite growth in dollar value of royalties receivable).
chaos0xomega wrote:It occurred to me last night that we can estimate how relevant WHFB was to GW's finances in its final couple years of life. Observe:
So it doesn't mark when WHFB died, but it was August 2014. Because the chart is based on annual and half-year reports, theres not a good place to actually measure from that would completely or accurately capture the lost sales, but if we consider the WHFB "maximum" to be before that point at Jan 1 2014 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of 40k 7th), at which point The End Times hype cycle was in full swing, and consider the WHFB "minimum" to be Jan 1 2016 (marked with the note pertaining to the release of AoSGHB), we can very generously get a gauge of how much sales of WHFB minis and books contributed to GWs top line. So, marking the maximum with a red line, the minimum with a purple line, and marking the area we are focused on with the orange circle we get this:
Roughly speaking, it looks like WHFB was between 5-10 million GBP/year of revenue, lets call it 7.5 million, or about 5-6% of GWs total annual revenue at the time.
One key assumption made here is that WHFB was not already in a downward sales trend on Jan 1 2014 (and indeed the fact that the End Times books had started being released sometime prior to this, which was supposedly driving sales* would imply that WHFB sales would have been on an upswing at this time). Another key assumption here, which is intended to be as generous to WHFB as posslbe, is that the downward trend that continued from Jan 1 2014 onwards was 100% entirely due to the loss of WHFB and had nothing to do with 40k or the lackluster response to 7th ed 40k whatsoever. Likewise, final key assumption here is that the lowest point measured after WHFB was axed on Jan 1 2016 is due entirely to the loss of sales from WHFB and that Age of Sigmar was barely selling anything at all at this point. In essence, the idea here is that WHFB was undergoing a sales renaissance up until Jan 1 2014, and then it was killed and everyone stopped buying that product range until AoSGHB was released, and every lost dollar in that timeframe is 100% due to WHFB.
Again, the assumptions made are designed to be as generous to WHFB as humanly possible and in reality would probably indicate WHFB generated significantly more top-line revenue than it actually did. Even if we dial this up to 11 and assume the WHFB "maximum" was at Jan 1 2013 (i.e. GWs top line revenue maximum prior to the post AoSGHB peak) indicated with the yellow line/focus area in grey circle, you still only get about 20 million GBP max (in reality closer to 16-18, but Im being generous) or around ~16% of Revenue total - but for that to be true would require 40k to not have been on a sales and popularity downtrend at the time, which it was, so its hard to justify attributing that entire decline solely to WHFB.
In short, WHFB had just a fraction of 40ks popularity.
*Note that the longstanding recurring narrative among WHFB apologists is that The End Times generated some massive uptick in interest and sales for WHFB - the inferred data from this chart would seem to imply otherwise, while there may have been an increase in interest in WHFB there certainly was not a meaningful or significant change in the financial trends as a result of its release.
Presumably this one? The first image being lost to time is sad. Interesting data points.
Good find. Not sure this is the one I was thinking of, I recall a similar one that did a lot more number crunching, but it may have been on reddit instead. Either way, my most recent post I think covers the hard numbers better.
Id imagine to begin with, it’s going to be the in fed books like we had with 30k, lists will probably be based on total war and reuse as much as it can from AoS (which is a lot).
It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.
RustyNumber wrote: It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.
GW has always been awful for crossover models - stupid but true
RustyNumber wrote: It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.
GW sculpting doctrine has changed massively, it is a whole new thinking.
A good example being the in store models. I made a Guardsman in my local GW last week. Previously the store manager would take a box set of a faction, allow you to cut out one model and either put the bits in a little box, or build it there and then. Now there has been one formal change, the miniature must be cut out and assembled in store. Why? because Gw no longer provides a sprue from a regular box set, they have a miniature of the month on its own spruelike a character miniature. So they produced a character miniature of a standard guardsman with lasgun.
This says a whole lot. They produced a sculpt a metal tool for molding and made a full production run of a rank and file miniature that would normally fit in a character boxset and released it for free. They insist that you cut up the sprue on the spot so it has no eBay value. Confirming this is a very limited run. And they will be doing this every month.
The fact that GW can just throw away plastic miniature tooling, normally a heavy investment, is a strong indicator of the resource level the company has and how it is effecting their thinking. I had a discussion with the store manager about new lizardmen and Old World specifically. Apparently they are resculpting everything or seperating the base contained Old World line from the looser poses AoS miniatures. There will be crossover, but not intentionally such. It looks like GW are potentially doubling their tooling to have factions in both rank and file and skirmish format, sculpts will also change as we are seeing. Expect Seraphon to be different from Lizardmen as they are in the lore. Expect a distinction between the two model lines, though crossovers are expected. I cant wait to get hold of the new astrolith bearer as my BSB, but I wont be trying to fit new Saurus into ranked blocks. I had enough troubles adapting Blood Knights.
RustyNumber wrote:It would be *really* bizarre if they're not using crossover models, like the new Lizardmen Saurus, yet it seems they're not sculpted for rank and file? Seems very strange for GW to leave money on the table for a crossover market.
32mm square bases, maybe...? Or would that represent more of an investment than they're planning to make?
From what Orlanth is saying, GW might well be going to invest a lot more into separate lines of minis instead of making a new size base so AoS players can use the AoS minis for TOW. That way (in theory) an AoS player wanting to get into TOW has to buy a whole new army, even if they want to play the 'same' army for both.
We all know that will either get the AoS player to get creative when playing TOW, or just not bother playing TOW, rather than spend the money on a whole new 'same' army, but GW doesn't seem to think that way.
They see that there is demand for 2 different communities, without much crossover potential
there are rather people coming from 30k playing 40k with the same models, than people wanting to play 30k with their 40k models
If GW would think there is enough potential to get the main game players into the side game, we would have seen rules for Eldar and Orks on release of 30k
the same for TOW, hence also the focus on factions that don't exist in AoS (as Empire is soon gone too)
there is no need to grow the playerbase by making it compatible with existing AoS armies, it is simply there to catch those that would otherwise go to other companies
Oh I'll not complain if we, for example, get the new Saurus sculpts for TOW but slightly different so they rank and file, but it'd be a very odd decision.
And they can't exactly offer value for money if they flog minis 10 at a time for AoS for a premium price, but you want 20 for a basic TOW unit which would be absurdly expensive.
@Orlanth: It depends on the manager. I've never once been asked to assemble the monthly model in store old way or the new purpose boxed ones. He just tosses one or two(when I bring my son in with me) into the bag and off we go.
Vulcan wrote: From what Orlanth is saying, GW might well be going to invest a lot more into separate lines of minis instead of making a new size base so AoS players can use the AoS minis for TOW. That way (in theory) an AoS player wanting to get into TOW has to buy a whole new army, even if they want to play the 'same' army for both.
This is correct from what I observed and on result of leading questions. It doesn't make it necessarily true.
They are however 'starting over' with The Old World.
We all know that will either get the AoS player to get creative when playing TOW, or just not bother playing TOW, rather than spend the money on a whole new 'same' army, but GW doesn't seem to think that way.
However I do not share that conclusion. AOS players use round bases. Dual function armies will be from the statistical few who plat AOS with square based armies with the army itself pulling double duty, or more for 9th Age or Kings of War. Those people are a statistical anomaly who can be ignored for marketing purposes, or are wealthy enough or entrenched enough to recommit.
One thing to add. We all know and GW acknowledges that the thirst for the a return to WHFB is fueled by Total War Warhammer. They recognise that getting ride of the setting was a mistake. More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.
The point being all the Cathay minis exist in 3d somewhere in GWHQ including the gun balloon. You can see AOS era scaling in these larger miniatures. It also explains why you cant give Skaven a rat ogre bodyguard or war litter mount, it was in 8th, but GW never made a miniature for it, and Thanquol isn't released yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: @Orlanth: It depends on the manager. I've never once been asked to assemble the monthly model in store old way or the new purpose boxed ones. He just tosses one or two(when I bring my son in with me) into the bag and off we go.
My manager wasn't being a dick, we get on OK and normally I cut the pieces off and leave. So I can use my knife on them at home. He was following new doctrines.
Evidently your local manager didn't care about that. Save one or two of the solo sprues, they might be worth something to a collector later.
More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.
The Vampire coast did not have offical miniatures only conversions in WD
I haven't been following too closely, but is there any indication that the The Old World might follow the basing pattern of games like Runewars and Song of Ice and Fire? That is to say, ranked games with individually based miniatures but larger bases and more spread out on their movement trays Seems to me like this is the only way GW can keep anywhere near it's current price-per-figure and the size and style that folks raised on AoS are used to while still producing a ranked-unit, "mass battle" game that players can (relatively speaking) afford.
When you compare traditional 20mm WHFB basing to 30mm SOIAF the math is pretty Stark (heh, heh...) and depending on whether you use SOIAF figs on their own trays or just fitting them on a WHFB tray it's something like 10-20% of the number of SOIAF figures vs the old WHFB standard.
I've got no basis for any of this, but it's an interesting thought experiment when you consider the quickly increasing amount of space taken up by larger figures on larger bases.
More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.
The Vampire coast did not have offical miniatures only conversions in WD
We don't know this. There were several unreleased lines with advanced prototypes made.
Also some were Forgeworld minis seen in Storm of Magic that are now in the Vampire Coast roster. It would not surprise me if conversions by GW staff in White Dwarf was official enough to permit a digital reconstruction and inclusion. We have characters and ship models from Dreadfleet. Perhaps there never was a Noctilus and Aranesss Saltspite model, but there was one of this ships which was included, plus artwork, and that might have been enough for an include.
Eh? Total War has all sorts of weird stuff like the chameleon stalker skinks for Lizardmen or red crested skinks. And yeah the whole Vampire Counts thing.
I know they worked hand in hand with GW for everything but I don't ever recall reading a hard rule for "only stuff we actually had planned/modelled"
More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.
The Vampire coast did not have offical miniatures only conversions in WD
We don't know this. There were several unreleased lines with advanced prototypes made.
Also some were Forgeworld minis seen in Storm of Magic that are now in the Vampire Coast roster. It would not surprise me if conversions by GW staff in White Dwarf was official enough to permit a digital reconstruction and inclusion. We have characters and ship models from Dreadfleet. Perhaps there never was a Noctilus and Aranesss Saltspite model, but there was one of this ships which was included, plus artwork, and that might have been enough for an include.
Yes buts thate very different from what you said - "only include units for which there was a real model for." We know that CA and C7 have to run everything by GW.
The Vampire Coast WD conversions did not have all the units and there are some in TW - like the Gunnery Wight and Depth Guard which are not even mentioned in the army list.
There are also the Eshin Triads and Sorcerer - alot of 6th Ed stuff in variant armies never had (or needed) models!
I have a copy of 'The Art of the Games' released for Total War 3 and they very much go against that. Loads of references to where they came up with original designs, ran ideas past GW and generally worked alongside their IP rather than being slaved to it. Apparently they had massive influence in updating older kit designs or even redesigning in-production kits, such as making Grimgor much bigger and scarier than his tabletop model.
Yes buts thate very different from what you said - "only include units for which there was a real model for." We know that CA and C7 have to run everything by GW.
No, its exactly the same, you just cropped the quote to remove most of the information. I don't not accuse you of this being deliberate.
More importantly I learned that Creative Assembly can only include units for which there was a real model for. Yes that includes Cathay and Kislev. GW apparently has a whole range of unreleased lines for which they made prototype miniatures and nothing more, these are includable in the Total War canon.
You don't recognise many of the unit used in Total War Warhammer 2 because they were never released. That doesn't mean they were never sculpted or assembled by Citadel studio staff.
The Vampire Coast WD conversions did not have all the units and there are some in TW - like the Gunnery Wight and Depth Guard which are not even mentioned in the army list.
There are also the Eshin Triads and Sorcerer - alot of 6th Ed stuff in variant armies never had (or needed) models!
Eshin Sorcerer existed as a released model in Mordheim.
I cannot personally confirm this, other than what was on record as released, but my source is good and it is well enough known that not everything GW sculpts becomes a released miniatures line. Apparently this extends to whole factions.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I would be all over a book of unused GW concept art. It's been a decade or more since we got those great Jes Goodwin and John Blanche books.
I'm still better we never got an army of Jes Goodwin scribes.
I WISH GW would do more of that kind of book and actually sell them for more than a 1-2 week period.
Back in the day there was a lot of discussion about how LotR was pulling people away from WHFB and cutting it off from new players.
LotR was a huge cash cow, and a lot of folks (like me) assumed that when the boom faded, the "lost generation" of WHFB players would hurt GW. I think we vastly underestimated the profit potential of 40k, particularly in light of GW's accelerated product cycle.
I wonder what the actual product numbers show. On the one hand, I get GW decided to "go small" and try for a skirmish game whose IP they have locked down as much as humanly possible. On the other hand, a lot of GW's fantasy sales certainly went to people who had no interest in the game but used them for D&D or Pathfinder or other things. Fantasy/historicals are the most fungible miniatures segment, and it's no great stretch for GW to realize that the outflow (to other games) exceeded the inflow (non-standard models in private gaming settings).
In addition to LOTR, I think the sales of WHFB minis to folks not interested in the GW setting (not counting GW figure collectors who don't play) probably dropped off due to a combination of:
-Increasing mainstream figure alternatives.
-Increasing Price of WHFB miniatures.
-Decreasing availability of relatively affordable, low model count, WHFB blister packs.
Back in the day a RPGer could visit the FLGS and compare blister packs from WHFB, Reaper and likely a couple other games /companies to choosing their fantasy minis. Citadel always came at a premium but not outrageously so. GW has abandoned that market. Today a well stocked FLGS will have a plethora of fantasy minis on offer for less than 10 bucks, but they won't be GW.
Eilif wrote: Back in the day a RPGer could visit the FLGS and compare blister packs from WHFB, Reaper and likely a couple other games /companies to choosing their fantasy minis. Citadel always came at a premium but not outrageously so. GW has abandoned that market. Today a well stocked FLGS will have a plethora of fantasy minis on offer for less than 10 bucks, but they won't be GW.
This was the "gateway drug" for my gaming group. Citadel Miniatures were often very affordable, especially when you wanted the party to face more than one monster (say a dozen orcs). Over time, we started thinking about having our "lord-level" characters build retinues and wage bigger battles, and for all its faults, WHFB was far superior to the old TSR Battlesystem.
How much that still applies I'm not sure, but some of the new fantasy kits could be "boss monster" types and therefore worth a premium price tag.
We still don't know much about the planned WFB rank-and-file game, do we?
I wonder if they might opt to keep round bases, while introducing trays like A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game? (large rectangular trays with holes for round, individually based models, for those who don't know ASOIF). I recently discovered this game, and it's absolutely fantastic - but I'm missing my 'high fantasy'. What kept me away from ASOIF initially was that it's (mostly) an all-human focus, very few monsters and no elves/dwarves/etc.
But the off board machinations of your non combat units and the cardplay of ASOIF are just genius, and make it so fun and interesting relative to other wargames I've played. It feels a bit like Deadzone (a little) or maybe the way 40K might play (with strategems, but I've not played 40K in a long time). I sure hope they're able to integrate these more "modern" gameplay elements, as they've really made table top wargaming much more fun, IMO!
pancakeonions wrote: We still don't know much about the planned WFB rank-and-file game, do we?
I wonder if they might opt to keep round bases, while introducing trays like A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game? (large rectangular trays with holes for round, individually based models, for those who don't know ASOIF). I recently discovered this game, and it's absolutely fantastic - but I'm missing my 'high fantasy'. What kept me away from ASOIF initially was that it's (mostly) an all-human focus, very few monsters and no elves/dwarves/etc.
But the off board machinations of your non combat units and the cardplay of ASOIF are just genius, and make it so fun and interesting relative to other wargames I've played. It feels a bit like Deadzone (a little) or maybe the way 40K might play (with strategems, but I've not played 40K in a long time). I sure hope they're able to integrate these more "modern" gameplay elements, as they've really made table top wargaming much more fun, IMO!
The very first thing they ever told us about the game is that it will be square - not round - bases.
Eilif wrote: Back in the day a RPGer could visit the FLGS and compare blister packs from WHFB, Reaper and likely a couple other games /companies to choosing their fantasy minis. Citadel always came at a premium but not outrageously so. GW has abandoned that market. Today a well stocked FLGS will have a plethora of fantasy minis on offer for less than 10 bucks, but they won't be GW.
This was the "gateway drug" for my gaming group. Citadel Miniatures were often very affordable, especially when you wanted the party to face more than one monster (say a dozen orcs). Over time, we started thinking about having our "lord-level" characters build retinues and wage bigger battles, and for all its faults, WHFB was far superior to the old TSR Battlesystem.
How much that still applies I'm not sure, but some of the new fantasy kits could be "boss monster" types and therefore worth a premium price tag.
It's a stretch these days, especially with Reaper offering multiple sculpts many of the baddie minions in the Bones line.
The boss monster scenario is possible if you have a particularly deep pocketed GM. However, I think it's far more likely that when in need of a big baddie, they will reach for a Bones or Deep Cuts figure for 1/4 the price.
pancakeonions wrote: We still don't know much about the planned WFB rank-and-file game, do we?
I wonder if they might opt to keep round bases, while introducing trays like A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game? (large rectangular trays with holes for round, individually based models, for those who don't know ASOIF). I recently discovered this game, and it's absolutely fantastic - but I'm missing my 'high fantasy'. What kept me away from ASOIF initially was that it's (mostly) an all-human focus, very few monsters and no elves/dwarves/etc.
But the off board machinations of your non combat units and the cardplay of ASOIF are just genius, and make it so fun and interesting relative to other wargames I've played. It feels a bit like Deadzone (a little) or maybe the way 40K might play (with strategems, but I've not played 40K in a long time). I sure hope they're able to integrate these more "modern" gameplay elements, as they've really made table top wargaming much more fun, IMO!
The very first thing they ever told us about the game is that it will be square - not round - bases.
This exact exchange will happen once a month until release, and wouldn't shock me if it takes place AFTER the release.
GW already had this style of bases for War of the Rings, and as this game did not work out well for GW I doubt to go back to it
as in general to a system were you would use the majority of models from a different gaming system, like GW has no problem that people use the models from a small game to get into the main game, but don't want people to play the small game without buying the dedicated models
yet if we see a different size of square bases, well last Edition of Warhammer did not have a fixed size at all and old armies are still playable of the new standard is 28mm instead of 20/25mm (and GW for sure will use some strange number to make 3rd party stuff incompatible)
pancakeonions wrote: We still don't know much about the planned WFB rank-and-file game, do we?
I wonder if they might opt to keep round bases, while introducing trays like A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game? (large rectangular trays with holes for round, individually based models, for those who don't know ASOIF). I recently discovered this game, and it's absolutely fantastic - but I'm missing my 'high fantasy'. What kept me away from ASOIF initially was that it's (mostly) an all-human focus, very few monsters and no elves/dwarves/etc.
Square bases definitely, not square movement trays with round holes for round bases. That's been officially confirmed I think, already more than a year ago.
But the off board machinations of your non combat units and the cardplay of ASOIF are just genius, and make it so fun and interesting relative to other wargames I've played. It feels a bit like Deadzone (a little) or maybe the way 40K might play (with strategems, but I've not played 40K in a long time). I sure hope they're able to integrate these more "modern" gameplay elements, as they've really made table top wargaming much more fun, IMO!
They haven't given any detail on rules yet, except they said it's going to be covering rules from all "wargamey" editions so far (3rd-8th E.).
That does not necessarily mean it will use the good old IGYG mechanic, but it's highly probable. It would surprise me if they used something else, like the card activation in ASOIAF. But we will find out in a few months from now I guess.
I'm starting a fantasy orc army and want try and make it game agnostic as far as I can. Round bases with trays sounds good to me. This also means I don't neccessarily have to have 20 dudes to rep a unit of 20; I can put 15 on an appropiately sized base. I beleive this is done in Kings Of War.
PaddyMick wrote: I'm starting a fantasy orc army and want try and make it game agnostic as far as I can. Round bases with trays sounds good to me. This also means I don't neccessarily have to have 20 dudes to rep a unit of 20; I can put 15 on an appropiately sized base. I beleive this is done in Kings Of War.
When I made my fantasy rules (link in sig), I generally followed GW's lead on bases, but noted that players could use whatever worked best for them, including round ones (though the game uses ranks). In the section on how to build your own units, I pointed out that bigger bases mean less potential models in contact, so larger infantry bases got a slight discount. For monster and cavalry models, this was factored into their base cost.
Design-wise, I wouldn't expect much of a change simply because it would be too much effort. One could argue that GW's biggest revisions are usually on the army lists rather than core rules mechanics. By that I mean that units (and factions) rise and fall not based on changes to combat or movement mechanics, but how GW decides to distribute special rules.
I'll be interested to see if this game also adheres to the current three-year cycle. If it does, that's even more reason for them not to create too much innovation.
At this point I think the old game has fractured too far in terms of base sizes and model scale for all parties to be brought back together. I do not believe that the new Saurus are going to rank up* on a 25mm base, and I also don't think GW are going to expand their stock to reintroduce every old kit. I also don't think or want base sizes to get bigger, both for the pain of rebasing old armies and also for the visual spectacle of closely-ranked regiments.
The simplest solution to me seems to be going Kings of War/Warmaster where units have a 'footprint', potentially made up of smaller movement trays, and you just fit as many models as you want. Neatly avoids any compatability issues with their older models and new lines existing in the same space.
*For the average/new gamer, at least. I'm sure there is someone out there who's going to get 10 overhanging in every arc in one specific orientation...
GW will not introduce new ranges for Chaos and Lizardmen or Vampire counts after their fairly recent releases in AoS.
So considering the scale creep that has been going on, they either have to use bigger bases alongside these new sculpts or use movement trays. Is there any other option that comes to mind?
BertBert wrote: GW will not introduce new ranges for Chaos and Lizardmen or Vampire counts after their fairly recent releases in AoS.
So considering the scale creep that has been going on, they either have to use bigger bases alongside these new sculpts or use movement trays. Is there any other option that comes to mind?
Yeah, the most obvious option is the new Chaos, Lizardmen and "VC" won't be in TOW at all.
There is wiggle room in "we're bringing back square bases." As I recall there wasn't any elaboration. Personally I'm hoping they will abstract the number of models in a unit, so you can have a decently large battle without having to buy, build, and paint a painfully large number of models. And it would make the game accessible for AoS players without require them to rebase their armies; they could just buy GW branded movement trays for £39.99 a pop (other brands are available).
I'm not a fan of AoS or the current editions of 40k, Kill Team, and Necromunda, so I'm not hugely optimistic that the game will be to my taste. (LotR is better designed imo but still has serious creep in the army rules.) I haven't heard who's designing it, and if they were bringing in a bunch of the old guard for a complete nostalgia edition I would have expected an announcement to that effect by now.
I think they chose a solid setting date but the emphasis on 5 factions (was it 5?) per army makes it look like 40k-style 'you can play Cadians, Catachans, Mordian Iron Guard, Armageddon Steel Legion, or Deathkorps, and this gives an armywide bonus but nothing weird or wonderful". I find that giving a list of options like that constrains the imagination rather than inspiring it to just come up with something.
GW tried their best to make AOS models incompatible with rank and flank WHFB.
They stopped selling square bases in most of the kits while at the same time newer kits were impossible to rank up without heavy conversion. They told WHFB players "we don't want your business" with their model designs.
How do you undo that? The bases would have to be huge because the models got bigger and the poses got more animated. A small base size increase is possible because it was needed anyway, but it still won't be enough for those models.
It's possible they were intentionally misleading about the announcement of squares and this is going to be AOS on movement trays or a Mantic clone but that seems like a recipe for failure. Anyone who likes AOS already buys the models.
Yeah to be clear I said "new" as in the new sculpts. I don't think there will be any official support with base size or rules design to accommodate new AOS models. If someone wants to convert that's on them.
Like others have said they might release an index of old armies to get people involved. Assuming it doesn't FLOP maybe there will be new models down the line that are appropriate for ranking.
-Starter box with new models
-legacy armies viable
-????
...Or something completely different because all the info they've been sharing for years is vague and useless
PaddyMick wrote: I'm starting a fantasy orc army and want try and make it game agnostic as far as I can. Round bases with trays sounds good to me. This also means I don't neccessarily have to have 20 dudes to rep a unit of 20; I can put 15 on an appropiately sized base. I beleive this is done in Kings Of War.
Kings of War has a defined unit base size and a defined unit tray footprint size. However, they don't have individual model removal and they really don't care how many figures you have on a unit tray or. Even "PMC" (Preferred Model Count) -which is their recommended minimum number of figures per unit- isn't really enforced.
I've got a KoW army that pretty closely adheres to WHFB and KOW square base and unit sizes. The army I'm currently working is on 25mm rounds and not nearly full size units.
Goose LeChance wrote: GW tried their best to make AOS models incompatible with rank and flank WHFB.
They stopped selling square bases in most of the kits while at the same time newer kits were impossible to rank up without heavy conversion. They told WHFB players "we don't want your business" with their model designs.
How do you undo that? The bases would have to be huge because the models got bigger and the poses got more animated. A small base size increase is possible because it was needed anyway, but it still won't be enough for those models.
It's possible they were intentionally misleading about the announcement of squares and this is going to be AOS on movement trays or a Mantic clone but that seems like a recipe for failure. Anyone who likes AOS already buys the models.
How do they undo it? You know that they were letting Revell run off new copies of Assault On Black Reach models, right? The old molds still exist, and all that needs happen is to press and box.
Point is the two model lines are incompatible, GW did everything they could to make sure of it. They're gonna have to pick sides. I couldn't care less about fluff or Cathay and I don't want this to be AOS. We need real info about the game because it's a whole lot of nothing right now.
The only precedent for "backwards compatible" army lists was Ravening Hordes, which remains the single greatest rules supplement GW ever produced. Yes, Bretonnians weren't happy, but overall it hit that sweet spot between brevity, scope and balance.
I've said this before, but when making the sample (or if you like, "WHFB conversion") army lists for Conqueror, I often turned to the 5th ed. books for flavor and feel, but Ravening Hordes was my road map.
My main hope for WH:TOW is that it'll release with a 6e Ravening Hordes or 40K 8e Indices style set of full army lists for all the factions.
I want this not to play TOW, but in hopes that it will inspire Patreon STL creators to do their own takes of the army lists in the gap before GW puts out minis, to provide alternate poses and new variety to my existing collections. I have no doubt in GW's ability to somehow make the rules less fun in a new iteration, and make new models in flailing poses leaping off tactical rocks supported by ribbon-thin blades of plastic grass.
