Hi there!

Curious what people's thoughts are… Not sure how to set up a poll but if someone could I think it would be interesting to see

No intention myself of going back to that era, or those rules.
(might buy some figures that look nice for other game systems)

I really wish that they had just used Warmaster in 28 mm! THAT would've been fantastic!

I don't know if I'll play it much, but I'll probably buy and paint an army (currently thinking Orcs and Goblins). The Old World has a powerful nostalgia pull for me, just looking at those ranked up squares and rectangles does something for me that the AOS skirmish style doesn't. I have 2 AoS armies, to be clear, it's just a different vibe.

It'll be interesting seeing if people take it up; I think there's a fair few people who would be interested in rank and flank. As I get older, it's nice to not have to move lots of fiddly models around. I like that GW is keeping the rules in one place and relatively simple, I hope they don't make it a living game like AoS or 40k where things are constantly being added to, updated, restarted, etc..

The local Oldhammer/9th Age/KoW community seems to be intending to switch over en masse.

I'm waiting for the release of Dwarves to decide whether to jump in, which will let me see if the game has staying power.

I personally just hope that in 5 years time they will roll out a new edition of Warmaster ala Legions Imperialis.

I'll be playing it, I already have a Goblin army (needs to be rebased) and a Warriors of Chaos army (I bought a large collection of NIB chaos warriors models for AoS right before they started the range refresh for Slaves to Darkness, I ended up just sitting on the old sculpts not sure what to do with them, but now I'll be using the old models for TOW and the new models for AoS). Bought Bretonnian and Tomb Kings armies with the launch, and depending on what happens with chaos dwarves in AoS I may end up repurposing my Legion of Azgorh army as a TOW legacy army.

Possibly. Not for a while but that's because the army I'm interested isn't available yet(and no interest hunting down on ebay). However once high elves comes out I'll see what sort of box they get and how much army would cost.

Locally there seems to be players more than enough so it's not lack of those that stops. Just lack of models.

I don't even know if I'll be able to find anyone to play with (there's enough stores nearby it shouldn't be too hard), but I'm stupid enough to buy into it anyway.

I fully intend to. I still have my Empire, Chaos and Skaven armies from before on square bases as I never moved to rounds. (For AOS I decided to go with something new in Kharadron.) I need to source some adapter movement trays as I have no intention of rebasing anything.

Of course, using my old stuff isn't helping the game succeed sales wise. There are some things I want to add to each of these that I never got previously, so I'm looking forward to potential model re-releases.

I also have some armies I've always wanted to do but never got around to. The main one is Wood Elves, so I expect that most of my model purchases will be that, but I've always had notions of doing some others like Tomb Kings, Dark Elves or Vampire Counts.

Maybe? Opponents/place to play is a bigger obstacle than anything else.

I could do Empire or Bret exiles with minimal to no extra purchases and a bit of rebasing. (I never actually based my old empire army properly in the first place, thanks teenage me)

And similar with either Chaos force (though I'd probably want more monsters for Beasts).

(re-)painting time could be an issue, however. A lot of its real bad, and a very...odd... mismatch of cities and states. Talabecland, Nuln, what was probably supposed to be Altdorf and a blue & green that looks decent but isn't associated with anything.

I'm planning on doing a map-based narrative campaign with people from the Blood Bowl group that I run. One of the FLGS is my area is getting hard Into it with at least a dozen people. I'm planning on playing in their league as well. I am not sure about tournaments yet.

I slowly gathered GW wood elves kits over the past few years about have enough for a 2K army now using the new base sizes. I'll probably leave my WoC army on their old bases for legacy purposes (but really because I don't want to do any more rebasing).

If it has a little success locally (i.e. 3 or 4 players that I could play with get in), I will probably build a small Beastmen or Undead army.

I do not know if I will play it or not.

I will rebase my Bret Knights, and Bestigors as i think they will look better on 30mm bases, but my Ungors and men at arms will stay on 20mm.

I will see what develops in the community.

I want to see a few games in person, and see the rules myself, before I make any decisions. There's some stuff I have real problems with that has come out in the rumors, but if they work out okay IN MY OPINION then I might be convinced to come around.

But the sheer price of it is not making it easy.

Took a glance out of curiosity for ebay prices. Sheesh. The fact stuff coming soon from GW hasn't made prices any saner

Not often when I think GW prices as the reasonable ones...

...yeah. Not hunting down ebay for models and just wait for GW ones.

(oh and those prices would have been BEFORE postage. Couple purchaces from ebay and postage alone would buy me GW kit or two...)

Funnily enough on Tradera (like swedish ebay) Empire models have been much cheaper than they were a couple of years ago. I bought and sold stuff 2-4 years ago for about twice what they have been selling for the last 3 months. Already have everything I want for my Empire army and sold off everything I don't need so had not checked prices in a while so when a friend asked me for fair prices on some empire stuff he had that he wanted to sell I quoted him prices that almost got him laughed at. I wondered why and then had to do a quick look.

Probably a lot of people who with TOW are looking through their piles of shame and unfinished armies and putting what they don't want or need up for sale. Since Empire was in a starter and quite popular a ton of people have unfinished Empire armies to get rid off and now when adults buy everything at once for whatever army they actually want to play. More people with some empire models than people who actually want to complete their Empire armies at this point. That is my guess.

Absolutely playing TOW. Fantasy is my favorite game of all time, and our community is one of the oldest and most stable I’ve known. My 7 main fantasy gamer friends have been playing since the 90’s, we play regularly, and travel often for events so we can support the games and community


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cirith wrote:
I do not know if I will play it or not.

I will rebase my Bret Knights, and Bestigors as i think they will look better on 30mm bases, but my Ungors and men at arms will stay on 20mm.

I will see what develops in the community.

Just get conversion trays. If you aren’t playing in tournaments, it doesn’t matter anyway, really, but it’s simple and effective.

Added a poll to the OP.

In due course, I will be.

I’m stoked to see it back, and I’m sure I’ll grab the rule book sooner rather than later. But between Age of Darkness, Legions Imperialis and 40K I’ve a fairly full plate hobby wise.

That being said, whilst Brets and Bones haven’t solidly grabbed my attention, let’s be honest. Few of us are anymore than a single distraction away from rejigging plans

Not impossible but I'm more likely to pick up Hobgoblin first.

I promised myself back in high school I would buy a bretonnia army once they got a rules update, so I finally bought a bretonnia army!

Possibly, in time I will although a lot depends on how it plays. I'll watch and wait.
I'll be concentrating on LI for a while along with AOD. It took a lot to convince me to play AOS after they blew up the Old World so for once I'm not rushing in.

I'd like to, but as a single parent I need to have a certain level of confidence in it before I throw $ at it so I'll wait until the gameplay/balance has shaken out..... but also because I'm leaning into doing that project that I've always wanted to do (Beastmen), rather than rebuying a comfortingly familiar one (TK or HE - since I have a lot of Elves and Undead in other games).

If someone in my group brings the rules I'd give it a shot. However, my old school Chaos army plays so fast and fun in KoW and Age of Fantasy, just don't see the upside in what is essentially going back in time to chunked-up rules from a decade ago.

Found local players already.

I am going to reduce my investment in Legions Imperialis, and build an army for ToW.

Considering that WFB was the first game that got me into tabletop miniatures in the first place, and I love the Tomb Kings; yes.

If nothing else, the nostalgia gets me. The game looks great! Pre-ordered and ready for it!

Age of Sigmar is far more attractive, but I'm looking to dabble in some Bretonnian Full Tilt between other games, and optimistic that The Old World is going to lead to the return of Mordheim, classic Warhammer Quest and especially Warmaster. Afterall, The Horus Heresy enjoys no less than four(ish) games right now...

Are we still counting Aeronautica Imperialis and Adeptus Titanicus as being separate games from Legions Imperialis? I know they are certainly separate rulesets, but it seems that GW is treating them as a single product line (everythings getting repackaged into LI boxes) with 3 different ways to play.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Are we still counting Aeronautica Imperialis and Adeptus Titanicus as being separate games from Legions Imperialis? I know they are certainly separate rulesets, but it seems that GW is treating them as a single product line (everythings getting repackaged into LI boxes) with 3 different ways to play.

For the time being yes, they are separate games, with all three sharing the same model range. The Titan and Knight kits now come with Terminals and cards, so its killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Aeronautica is still being supported with the recently released 6-pack of dial bases, and I'm guessing that both Titanicus and Aeronautica will get new releases later in the year - a campaign book and starter set, respectively...

I did not say this...I am not here...

Aeronautica is as good as gone. You can still play the rules but the only updated ones will be for the units in LI.
The only kits remaining are those that are in LI and all the 40k units or 40k factions have had their kits removed from the range.

Not at all. Almost everything about 8th that drove me out of the game seems to be back, some doubly so, so I'll be sticking with 6th. I'll be following the news threads to see if some kits become available that will help me finish out my 6th Ed. armies, but that's where it stops.

I have to fill in undecided because I have never found a single player in my area for 40k and.or AOs either so..
but atleast a local store just made a contract to start selling WH products again so who knows.

I'll try it out for sure.

But right now I don't see the point in sticking with it. Its removed enough from the old game to not make it worth while, and anything new it brings ie: the narrative/campaigns will be backwards compatible but without anyone having to be excluded due to the weird limitations they've put decided to put on the game.

I'm 100% in.

My FLGS is definitely going to support it.

I have an additional 5 armies or so that I'm interested in completing, which will give me enough armies that I can play at home - solo or with my oldest kid.

In addition an ex-colleague who lives a few blocks away is in and he paints at a rate of about one unit a week (bastard!). He's said he wants me to teach him to play - and I have enough terrain etc to play home games.

So yeah, I'm in.

I don't like to say "no" because there's always a chance and WHFB was my main game back in the day, but at this point I have no plans. Friends don't seem interested, I don't want to rebase my models, and old me is less patient than young me for excessively complicated GW rules.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That being said, whilst Brets and Bones haven’t solidly grabbed my attention, let’s be honest. Few of us are anymore than a single distraction away from rejigging plans

Wise words, Doc, wise words...

For myself I fully intend to get playing. I'm fortunate, in that loads of players in my Blood Bowl league are also prepared to spend silly money to recreate the old ranked battles of the past, so I should be able to get a good bunch of games in.

Really, the question for me will be - can I restrain myself, and stick to just one army?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't like to say "no" because there's always a chance and WHFB was my main game back in the day, but at this point I have no plans. Friends don't seem interested, I don't want to rebase my models, and old me is less patient than young me for excessively complicated GW rules.

Yeah the size and absolute trash editing of the rulebook is putting me off the most right now. Model wise I don't really have a barrier to entry, I have whole fantasy armies in the pile of shame and I can print spaced trays easily.

I do have two friends intent on giving it a shot because nostalgia.

I will give it a shot.

I wanted Brettonians since 1996. When i finally managed to collect a small army GW cancelled Fantasy. By Jove I will play my Brettonians!

Not rebasing and can't be arsed with making special movement trays atm for it. If it really took off and was really good, I might put some together.

That said I might well pick up some of the older models that would fit better with my armies than the newer stuff. If they re-released old Chaos Warriors that rank up properly, and some of the Orc and Goblin stuff I still want, I would pick it up and use it in my armies as they exist.

Also looking at the Brets made me look at alternatives and I probably will pick up a Forgotten Worlds Albion's Knights box and some Conquest Infantry and Archers to make a Bretonian force. I'll have Undead, Orcs and Goblins, Dwarves, Chaos and Brets then, which is more than enough to do some fun games with.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't like to say "no" because there's always a chance and WHFB was my main game back in the day, but at this point I have no plans. Friends don't seem interested, I don't want to rebase my models, and old me is less patient than young me for excessively complicated GW rules.

Yeah the size and absolute trash editing of the rulebook is putting me off the most right now. Model wise I don't really have a barrier to entry, I have whole fantasy armies in the pile of shame and I can print spaced trays easily.

I do have two friends intent on giving it a shot because nostalgia.

It seems like a lot of people just don't care if rules are written horribly, but for my group several games have been dropped before they got off the ground because no one could be arsed learning the rules, me and my mates must just be lazy

The new kill team was another one, bought the DKOK vs Kommandos starter and just couldn't wade through the horribly written rules to discover if the game was worth getting the others to pick up their own kill teams.

Aeronautica is also written horribly but luckily the game is so simple that even with badly written rules it's not too hard to pick up, so that's one game that has recently caught hold with us.

voted "undecided", I have multiple Warhammer armies however the rules for this are too expensive to be a "yeah whatever" purchase on the off chance so want to see if the game has legs locally before spending money.

not even that fussed if the rules are excellent or rubbish, its purely down to "will I be able to play this locally?"

I will never slog through playing bad rules. Ever. I won't touch modern 40K because of it, and TOW seems to be cut of the same cloth. I'd rather be stuck with 5 or fewer opponents in a game I enjoy than to have 50 opponents in a game that takes effort to suffer through.

8th Edition basically killed the Fantasy scene where I live, or at the very least really cut down the player base. Old World will most likely bring it back so I will definitely play. I wont be rebasing though as I put a lot of work into the old armies and they are half an art project.

Plus 6th edition is still my favorite edition and I want to easily be able to still play it.

Time will tell. Sooner or later. Time will tell...

l check what city's other players do. Until then, l play 5th edition in my small group.

Very probably? Not many people in my small town left with an interest but I have a pile of Tomb Kings and a smattering of other armies so I'd love an excuse to get 'em ranked up again.

I'll be playing. As I was excited for the The Old World to be back. But lately reading through Facebook Group posts about re-basing has me hesitant on what kind of people I'm up against. I'm not going to re-base my army, I'm playing my army as is. I don't need to jump through hoops. I just want to play WHFB. I'm still going to play 6th edition no matter is ToW tanks or does really well.

Then you're not really playing TOW, are you? 6th edition is a different game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Then you're not really playing TOW, are you? 6th edition is a different game.

Base sizes don't really matter. An extra 5mm isn't going to change how the game is played. Oh definitely 6th edition is and I enjoy playing it. Why give up something you still enjoy playing?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

I'll leave this article up as a reminder that re-basing isn't really necessary.

Here's a quote from the article.

Do I need to rebase my old army?
If you’re playing at home there’ll be no requirement to rebase anything. For casual play, the size of base will make a minimal difference to gameplay. The rules will be written assuming the new larger base sizes – so if you’re planning to play competitively, you might want to upgrade to larger bases,

Voted undecided, but leaning no.

Will wait to see what they do with the other armies for TOW.

Mainly excited for modelling and painting new mini’s(Foot Knights!) and getting my hands on some formerly OOP kits(Tomb Kings stuff).

I'm rebasing my army, and looking forward to joining or helping create a local community for organized play.

From what I've seen so far, I am strongly encouraged by the core rules, magic lores, magic items - the things I've seen look well thought through and an improvement over past editions.

Only thing I'm apprehensive of is SPAM potential of some lists (Gyros, WE archers, probably ethereals & similar stuff), but this is much easier to work around than bad core rules, and only impacts tournament play.

I will be playing for sure.

My community already has a facebook group up and there are already 35 people, which is a good early signal that the game will find support in the community.

Grensche wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Then you're not really playing TOW, are you? 6th edition is a different game.

Base sizes don't really matter. An extra 5mm isn't going to change how the game is played. Oh definitely 6th edition is and I enjoy playing it. Why give up something you still enjoy playing?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

I'll leave this article up as a reminder that re-basing isn't really necessary.

Here's a quote from the article.

Do I need to rebase my old army?
If you’re playing at home there’ll be no requirement to rebase anything. For casual play, the size of base will make a minimal difference to gameplay. The rules will be written assuming the new larger base sizes – so if you’re planning to play competitively, you might want to upgrade to larger bases,

So to clarify you will be playing tow AND 6e and don't hence rebase because you figure not rebasing matters less on TOW front than disruption rebase would cause for 6e?

IF there is a possibility to field an estalian type army or mercs of tilea and estalia, i think i will do join and cram out my old WOC army out.

I am curious what they think deserves to be in an army box there.

I'll be collecting a Tomb Kings army, as I always wanted one as a kid but couldn't afford it. Turns out an Ork army and Imperial Guard army is very expensive to own as someone relying on pocket money and Christmas.

By the time I could afford another army on top of everything in life, they were gone and I refused to pay eBay prices.

If my mates decide to get armies then I'll play against them, but otherwise my skellies will be display only. Which I'm not mad about.

tneva82 wrote:

Grensche wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Then you're not really playing TOW, are you? 6th edition is a different game.

Base sizes don't really matter. An extra 5mm isn't going to change how the game is played. Oh definitely 6th edition is and I enjoy playing it. Why give up something you still enjoy playing?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

I'll leave this article up as a reminder that re-basing isn't really necessary.

Here's a quote from the article.

Do I need to rebase my old army?
If you’re playing at home there’ll be no requirement to rebase anything. For casual play, the size of base will make a minimal difference to gameplay. The rules will be written assuming the new larger base sizes – so if you’re planning to play competitively, you might want to upgrade to larger bases,

So to clarify you will be playing tow AND 6e and don't hence rebase because you figure not rebasing matters less on TOW front than disruption rebase would cause for 6e?

Simply put, no. I will not be rebasing so I can play two games.

Definitely not.
GW is leaning into what put me off getting into WHFB back in the day as well as what put me off GW.
I have no interest in fussing about with rules that maybe sound cool but have little effect other than bogging the game down and I'm not paying that much for that many books.

Not when better games are available.
The only thing that ToW offers that I can't get from another game for less money and fuss is Warhammer nostalgia and brand.

Just Tony wrote:I will never slog through playing bad rules. Ever. I won't touch modern 40K because of it, and TOW seems to be cut of the same cloth. I'd rather be stuck with 5 or fewer opponents in a game I enjoy than to have 50 opponents in a game that takes effort to suffer through.

 DarkBlack wrote:

I have no interest in fussing about with rules that maybe sound cool but have little effect other than bogging the game down and I'm not paying that much for that many books.

I just watched Mountain Miniatures spend 5 minutes figuring out if a marching flying monster is entitled to the free pivot after movement.

Just like the opinions above -I don't deny the nostalgia bait is strong and I'm not immune to the dorky appeal of vintage models, but the expense of
-$$$
-time one game takes
-amount of rules to learn*
just isn't worth the tactically shallow and emotionally flat, non-interactive experience.

*-most of which seem to be there not to offer more options and choices to players but rather tell them when and how to roll even more dice

Did a quick count with the online the old world armybuilder (no rules but at least point costs) and came up with that I have almost 4k points in Mantic Empire of Dust models that work fine as Tomb Kings. With magic items and unit upgrades it should be closer to 5k pts. Just need to build and paint it all... Have cleaned up 220 lower bodies of plastic skeleton warriors, 100 metal shields, 80 metal bows + quivers and over halfway done with the archer bodies over the last 7 days (took an entire evening just to clip them off their sprues). Should get my 300 25mm bases from Renedra today or tomorrow (they got stuck in customs :( or I would have had them last week).

My Empire army is already at around 3,2k without any characters, magic items/banners of command units or veteran upgrades. With all the upgrades and heroes I should be close to 7k points. Only a little bit over half is built and painted so far but should still be able to field at leas a decent 2k list without any problems. Already had extra larger and more flexible sized movement trays so this army could be fielded in 6th, 7th, 9th age or KoW so probably don't even need to get extra trays for now for this army.

When I tallied everything up and realized that I have way more models than I need and don't need to actually buy anything else other than some bases, movement trays and magnets (which I won't buy from GW) my interest and motivation spiked even more.

At worst I will just paint and build models I already have had for a while and any monetary cost will be minimal if the game flops. With 2 armies I can demo it for others and I will post updates on my army building on the club discord to drive some interest and hopefully we will get a good sized group to try it out in the near future. 1 player already bought my old Wood Elf army and I know 1 player who is 3d printing some stuff for his Empire army.

I'll give the rules a go, but will not rebase anything.

Nope. The game bored the hell out of me after a couple of years playing and nothing I've seen is convincing me it won't again. As said earlier, there's nothing it offers that can't be found for better and cheaper in other places.

It's a hard pass for me. I've played 3rd - 8th. 8th is still my favorite and that's what I'm sticking with. After watching plenty of preview videos and battle reports, I find the rules too similar to 5th & 6th, and that's a big pass for me. To each their own and for those that are looking forward to it, I wish them well, but it's not for me.

That's funny because I've watched the gameplay and, whales notwithstanding, it seems far more 8th than anything else. But I can admire you sticking with the edition you prefer as I am also doing.

 Just Tony wrote:
That's funny because I've watched the gameplay and, whales notwithstanding, it seems far more 8th than anything else. But I can admire you sticking with the edition you prefer as I am also doing.

The TOW rules seem to contain elements from most editions as well as new innovations, so tbh anyone who vehemently dislikes a particular edition is likely to find enough of that to complain.

Wrt 8 though, most of the big changes from that (the changes to the magic phase, steadfast, ‘step-up’, the removal of unit strength) have been excised. It’s only really pre-measuring and random charges that have stayed, and the latter have been substantially toned down.

And i just learnt that Chaos warriors have merely heavy armor... And basically all the hq can't Upgrade to full plate either...
Yeah no, all the dragon spam aside, nope, the army is called warriors of Chaos and not "dragonlord spam with marauder cheerleaders" and yet that is what this is likely to turn into...

Well, as I had mentioned in the past, I had heard from some *unreliable* sources that TOWs interpretation of warriors of chaos would be less heavily armored than in the past and more Norscan in vibe, to represent that prior to the rise of Asavar Kul full plate chaos armor was not yet a widely established thing as the chaos gods were not yet as powerful as they would be after the great War in terms of being able to bestow it unto their followers en masses and/or chaos dwarves were not actively in cahoots with the warriors in forging it (depending on which interpretation you go for).

I had thought maybe that meant they would just cut proper warriors/knights and chosen entirely and leave them in AoS and focus on a marauder army, instead they kept the units but downgraded the armor and limited the availability of chosen

I'm playing

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, as I had mentioned in the past, I had heard from some *unreliable* sources that TOWs interpretation of warriors of chaos would be less heavily armored than in the past and more Norscan in vibe, to represent that prior to the rise of Asavar Kul full plate chaos armor was not yet a widely established thing as the chaos gods were not yet as powerful as they would be after the great War in terms of being able to bestow it unto their followers en masses and/or chaos dwarves were not actively in cahoots with the warriors in forging it (depending on which interpretation you go for).

I had thought maybe that meant they would just cut proper warriors/knights and chosen entirely and leave them in AoS and focus on a marauder army, instead they kept the units but downgraded the armor and limited the availability of chosen

And also Cut an attack, and got more full plate in other armies and Made marks far worse and denied upgrades for full plate for hq.

Not Online!!! wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, as I had mentioned in the past, I had heard from some *unreliable* sources that TOWs interpretation of warriors of chaos would be less heavily armored than in the past and more Norscan in vibe, to represent that prior to the rise of Asavar Kul full plate chaos armor was not yet a widely established thing as the chaos gods were not yet as powerful as they would be after the great War in terms of being able to bestow it unto their followers en masses and/or chaos dwarves were not actively in cahoots with the warriors in forging it (depending on which interpretation you go for).

I had thought maybe that meant they would just cut proper warriors/knights and chosen entirely and leave them in AoS and focus on a marauder army, instead they kept the units but downgraded the armor and limited the availability of chosen

And also Cut an attack, and got more full plate in other armies and Made marks far worse and denied upgrades for full plate for hq.

For the actual warriors they’ve just dialled back the stat creep to how they were in 6th where normal warriors/knights had 1A and heavy armour and only chosen had 2A and full plate.

The lesser HQs not having full plate as an option is weird though.

Stat creep on a unit that more often got avoided than fielded even with the stat creep?
Because it drew very unfavourable ammounts of fire?

Fun Way to say that gw wants to sell lords and very little else.

It's only a stat creep if you take 6th as the reference point. The modern iteration of the rules (ie from the first starter box edition) had CW with higher stats, they've been messed with a lot whilst the core archetypes of most other armies still have the same stats from back then.

If the background justifications are true, weird that they would stick rigidly to the background there and retcon to allow more steam tanks elsewhere, no?

My main issue with this change is that the Chaos Warrior models are obviously wearing plate, and are more heavily armoured than most other models wearing heavy armour (thought Black Orcs give them a run for their money, but I always felt the newer plastics were a bit over-armoured.)

 Da Boss wrote:
If the background justifications are true, weird that they would stick rigidly to the background there and retcon to allow more steam tanks elsewhere, no?

My main issue with this change is that the Chaos Warrior models are obviously wearing plate, and are more heavily armoured than most other models wearing heavy armour (thought Black Orcs give them a run for their money, but I always felt the newer plastics were a bit over-armoured.)

Black orcs aren't the issue here, greatswordsmen with their helmetless 3/4 plate ( basically not a full Set of plate but Arms and tighs)counting as full plate are. Sorry not sorry but this is Grade A bs.


Edit: just looked up the greatswordsmen models.... Actually they are not even 3/4 they don't even have tigh protection...

Greatswords are modelled after their historical counterpart but got merged in the rules with the Reiksguard and therefore having models that don't fit the rules

something that always causes confusion, when the rules don't fit the background and both don't fit the models but background and models are used as justification why the rules must be in a certain way

so just accept that it does not fit together instead of trying to find ways to explain why model A having better armour saves than model B despite both models are identical in look (it is magic)

Good point on the Landsknecht Greatsword dudes, I had forgotten they were classified as full plate. Those puffy sleeves are hardier than they look!

The strength and AP on attacks has been lowered a lot though so T4 and 3+ is better than it used to be. Very few things that have AP better than 2. Most monsters, melee heroes and heavy cavalry units will still give a Chaos Warrior a 5+ save in the old world and quite a few models that used to have both high S and high T, like a lot of monsters and creatures, now have their S value lowered by 1. So a S6 model that would wound a Chaos Warrior on 2+ and have them save on 5+ now wounds on 3+ and have them save on 5+.

Klickor wrote:
The strength and AP on attacks has been lowered a lot though so T4 and 3+ is better than it used to be. Very few things that have AP better than 2. Most monsters, melee heroes and heavy cavalry units will still give a Chaos Warrior a 5+ save in the old world and quite a few models that used to have both high S and high T, like a lot of monsters and creatures, now have their S value lowered by 1. So a S6 model that would wound a Chaos Warrior on 2+ and have them save on 5+ now wounds on 3+ and have them save on 5+.

Or more realistically 6+ armor, because you Made the mistake of Building a squad without shields and or dared to go with halberds.

No matter how you slice it, Chaos warriors got shafted and you only get a single unit of them in the Form of chosen when you want the old statline back. Regardless of points of the game.....

I for one Look forward to people complaining about only seeing marauders and a dragonlord/ marauders of tzeentch with sorcerer spam from WoC.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Klickor wrote:
The strength and AP on attacks has been lowered a lot though so T4 and 3+ is better than it used to be. Very few things that have AP better than 2. Most monsters, melee heroes and heavy cavalry units will still give a Chaos Warrior a 5+ save in the old world and quite a few models that used to have both high S and high T, like a lot of monsters and creatures, now have their S value lowered by 1. So a S6 model that would wound a Chaos Warrior on 2+ and have them save on 5+ now wounds on 3+ and have them save on 5+.

Or more realistically 6+ armor, because you Made the mistake of Building a squad without shields and or dared to go with halberds.

No matter how you slice it, Chaos warriors got shafted and you only get a single unit of them in the Form of chosen when you want the old statline back. Regardless of points of the game.....

You got a 2+ save if you didn't take shields and took halberds/great weapons in earlier editions? I think I must have missed that. If that is the case I understand the cries about nerfs.

I used to have plenty of models with +1 saves, I could build almost an entire list of those with the models I have in my collection, but now 2+ is the best and some of those models are 3+ now. But I can see that Strenght and Armour Penetration have been nerfed in about the same amount so I am not upset just due to stat changes. I will have to play with them a couple of times and see what the meta will be before I declare that the game designers fethed up on this point.

No you had a 4+/
3+ against shooting with halberds and shield.

Now you got a 5+/
4+ against shooting because you don't have full plate anymore only heavy armor in Chaos warriors if you fork over points aswell for a shield and halberd.

At Max you get a 4+ armor in warriors now.

Which isn't a problem at all if you don't take more damage in the end and it might end up that they are equally survivable despite 1 worse save.

If they are equally survivable to 6-7th ed Warriors it just means terrible survivability for the points investment and a really bad unit. They needed significant improvement, not staying the same.

Ap was massively reduced across the entire game and so armour was also somewhat reduced.

Cav no longer gets mount bonus but strength does not impact armour at all so many many units will get saves when before they did not.

Not played yet but watching actual battle reports Chaos Warriors seem strong.

Asmodai wrote: let me see if the game has staying power.

You will be the reason that it fails, then.

Until you run into crossbows/ muskets at which point that "reduction" very much isn't felt.

I did run Warriors of Chaos before 8th ed, and I think they are good enough. 1 pip lower in armour but AP is also lower.

I wouldn't worry about crossbows, only 1 every 6 HITS has armourbane. Gunpowder weapons work similar but they have always been good against this kind of heavy infantry units.

I definitely want some re-released minis for various gaming projects but so far I am undecided if I want to play TOW.

Undecided. I read over the rules and I dunno if its just me but the game seems fiddlier than ever (lots of small things to keep track of like Heavy or Regular infantry, Close/Open Order, Warband, Horde etc). Not keen on Give Ground and Fall Back In Good Order as rules and I feel like they'll result in a lot of weird situations. Many, MANY rules result in just giving an extra AP or Armourbane (X) or rerolling 1s, which is something I didn't like in 8/9/10th 40k (a lack of variety in special rules). I dunno. It just feels very mechanically safe and armies feel kind of bland.

Then there's odd stuff that might get FAQ'd and might not and some odd stuff by design. Screaming Bells don't join units but just hover close by, no Verminlord or skavenslaves or poison wind globadiers, the giant magical lightning cannon doesn't have Magical attacks (neither does the Doomwheel), dwarf Runelords can't get the Rune Of Spellbreaking, khorne daemons can buy magical heavy armor that gives them a 5+ ward save for 40pts...

Maybe in time if TOW does well and they update the armies so they feel a bit more complete and revisit their decision to Legacy half the armies I'll have another look but for now I'm sticking with 8th.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Undecided. I read over the rules and I dunno if its just me but the game seems fiddlier than ever (lots of small things to keep track of like Heavy or Regular infantry, Close/Open Order, Warband, Horde etc). Not keen on Give Ground and Fall Back In Good Order as rules and I feel like they'll result in a lot of weird situations. Many, MANY rules result in just giving an extra AP or Armourbane (X) or rerolling 1s, which is something I didn't like in 8/9/10th 40k (a lack of variety in special rules). I dunno. It just feels very mechanically safe and armies feel kind of bland.

It's not you.

I think, without an ounce of snark or irony or whatever, that this is the single most difficult ruleset to penetrate that GW have published since I started playing in 1998. By a mile.

Sure these were some horridly fiddly/slow bits in the past (lapping around, killing 1 horse from a chariot, killing a dragon's rider, etc) but this is certainly an edition that tries to overwhelm with all the moving parts, nested rules, minor rules variations and a book that breaks all records in interdependent rules being completely disjointed and scattered across 250 pages with absolutely no regard for either the first time reader or a player trying to look something up during the game, and I dare say that most players will not in their lifetime play a single game to completion entirely according to the rules as written with no mistakes.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Undecided. I read over the rules and I dunno if its just me but the game seems fiddlier than ever (lots of small things to keep track of like Heavy or Regular infantry, Close/Open Order, Warband, Horde etc). Not keen on Give Ground and Fall Back In Good Order as rules and I feel like they'll result in a lot of weird situations. Many, MANY rules result in just giving an extra AP or Armourbane (X) or rerolling 1s, which is something I didn't like in 8/9/10th 40k (a lack of variety in special rules). I dunno. It just feels very mechanically safe and armies feel kind of bland.

It's not you.

I think, without an ounce of snark or irony or whatever, that this is the single most difficult ruleset to penetrate that GW have published since I started playing in 1998. By a mile.

Sure these were some horridly fiddly/slow bits in the past (lapping around, killing 1 horse from a chariot, killing a dragon's rider, etc) but this is certainly an edition that tries to overwhelm with all the moving parts, nested rules, minor rules variations and a book that breaks all records in interdependent rules being completely disjointed and scattered across 250 pages with absolutely no regard for either the first time reader or a player trying to look something up during the game, and I dare say that most players will not in their lifetime play a single game to completion entirely according to the rules as written with no mistakes.

That's an....interesting take on the rulebook. Seems pretty easy to navigate to me. It's even got the more recent better laid out examples that newer 40k and AoS have that make understanding easier. It's definitely a dense product but I found HH and LI much more complex and annoying. Having played from 5th-8th it's VERY familiar so I'm probably biased on the simplicity though. Where as I wanted LI to be laid out more like Epic:A

HH certainly has USRs scattered across like 7 sections and some... creative... alphabetizing (Melta bombs are under G, for grenade! Neutron Blasters are under Las weapons, which you have absolutely zero way of knowing unless you're a fluff pedant, but Lascutters aren't, they're under Exotic weapons...) but the core rules are much simpler just by the virtue of not having block movement, and the units are 80% the same statline with 2-3 USRs... ToW is pretty much all unique profiles with north of a dozen USRs on pretty basic units. Forthermore I find that ToW has a lot of issues with important exceptions not being mentioned at all in the main section dealing with that aspect of game resolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A particularly blatant example are rules governing how slain models attack in melee. Firstly, that slain or stepping forward models can't attack isn't mentioned under the heading "Who Can Fight". That models that stepped forward into the Fighting Rank don't make attacks is stated under a separate heading two pages later "We Can't All Fight". You only find out that models that stepped into the supporting rank also can't make attacks another 4 pages later, under "Excess Casualties" which is definitely not a heading you'd examine if someone asked you to confirm how many attacks a block of spearmen gets. You would literally have to read in detail the entire combat section.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Undecided. I read over the rules and I dunno if its just me but the game seems fiddlier than ever (lots of small things to keep track of like Heavy or Regular infantry, Close/Open Order, Warband, Horde etc). Not keen on Give Ground and Fall Back In Good Order as rules and I feel like they'll result in a lot of weird situations. Many, MANY rules result in just giving an extra AP or Armourbane (X) or rerolling 1s, which is something I didn't like in 8/9/10th 40k (a lack of variety in special rules). I dunno. It just feels very mechanically safe and armies feel kind of bland.

It's not you.

I think, without an ounce of snark or irony or whatever, that this is the single most difficult ruleset to penetrate that GW have published since I started playing in 1998. By a mile.

Sure these were some horridly fiddly/slow bits in the past (lapping around, killing 1 horse from a chariot, killing a dragon's rider, etc) but this is certainly an edition that tries to overwhelm with all the moving parts, nested rules, minor rules variations and a book that breaks all records in interdependent rules being completely disjointed and scattered across 250 pages with absolutely no regard for either the first time reader or a player trying to look something up during the game, and I dare say that most players will not in their lifetime play a single game to completion entirely according to the rules as written with no mistakes.

I didn't think the Darklands rules could ever meet their match, now I am really excited to crack open TOW on Thursday night.

If only these bloated, baroque rules translated into something more than simplistic, shallow, non-interactive gameplay... I have watched a few video battle reports and I am yet to see any single example of tactical depth in how people play.

If I wasn't so busy with Battletech (as well as had a bigger budget), I'd be interested.

Losing Tomb Kings and Bretonnians are one of the things which made me not like Age of Sigmar.

Undecided if I want to get in or not. If it gains traction locally and the eventual release of High Elves looks nice I can probably be swayed into it.

Not going to bother trying to build a group from the ground up though, hard enough keeping up the motivation locally for Star Wars Legion group to keep growing and doing demo games.

Edit. Well, this post hasn't aged well, less than a day from it and I now own a Dark Elves army. Forgot I had this laying around and went ahead and just finished off the army around it.

Its going to e huge here in DFW good line of people to get into the store on launch day and everything other then movement trays sold out almost instantly.

Got a dedicated discord that already has 103 members and know there are a lot more considering i know 7 people playing that haven't joined on discord

Cyel wrote:
If only these bloated, baroque rules translated into something more than simplistic, shallow, non-interactive gameplay... I have watched a few video battle reports and I am yet to see any single example of tactical depth in how people play.

That might not be the fault of the game. I've seen many a player whose whole concept of tactic and maneuver begins and ends with 'move forward and fight whatever's there' regardless of the game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Undecided. I read over the rules and I dunno if its just me but the game seems fiddlier than ever (lots of small things to keep track of like Heavy or Regular infantry, Close/Open Order, Warband, Horde etc). Not keen on Give Ground and Fall Back In Good Order as rules and I feel like they'll result in a lot of weird situations. Many, MANY rules result in just giving an extra AP or Armourbane (X) or rerolling 1s, which is something I didn't like in 8/9/10th 40k (a lack of variety in special rules). I dunno. It just feels very mechanically safe and armies feel kind of bland.

It's not you.

I think, without an ounce of snark or irony or whatever, that this is the single most difficult ruleset to penetrate that GW have published since I started playing in 1998. By a mile.

Sure these were some horridly fiddly/slow bits in the past (lapping around, killing 1 horse from a chariot, killing a dragon's rider, etc) but this is certainly an edition that tries to overwhelm with all the moving parts, nested rules, minor rules variations and a book that breaks all records in interdependent rules being completely disjointed and scattered across 250 pages with absolutely no regard for either the first time reader or a player trying to look something up during the game, and I dare say that most players will not in their lifetime play a single game to completion entirely according to the rules as written with no mistakes.

check Legions Imperialis, it is worse.

And it seems like new design style for GW games. Disgusting...

 Vulcan wrote:

Cyel wrote:
If only these bloated, baroque rules translated into something more than simplistic, shallow, non-interactive gameplay... I have watched a few video battle reports and I am yet to see any single example of tactical depth in how people play.

That might not be the fault of the game. I've seen many a player whose whole concept of tactic and maneuver begins and ends with 'move forward and fight whatever's there' regardless of the game.

Oh, certainly, I have written about what 6th ed battle reports on YT look like even before ToW - it was the same thing on every channel.

Having said that, all these pages of rules are very light on giving players options. And it's important, because with options comes choice. And players may choose well or badly. Every such instance of a choice (what I call "an opportunity for mistake") helps with differentiating between the better and the worse player - the result of the game being based on accumulating consequences of good and bad choices over the course of the game.

But so many of ToW rules don't offer a choice. Instead they just order players to perform a mechanical, compulsory action, like rolling yet another die to see if a model Regenrates, for example. This doesn't help differentiate players based on skill and tactical merit, just adds another instance where final result is affected by randomness. These rules might easily have been cut to reduce bloat, shorten time spent on passive upkeep and put player agency more forward.



Another thing I will be interested in seeing is how the community works with comp systems for this game this time, because lists seem to be extremely open to abuse. I took a look at the Lizardmen list, for example, and immediately thought how obsolete Sauruses (Sauri?) and big dinos seem, compared to massed Skinks with blowpipes - starting any list with 200 Skinks for mere 1200pts should end up with them melting anything with their poisoned shots over the 6 turns of the game, while staying out of trouble with 6M skirmish formations, or, in the worst case, not giving away many points when killed.

Well in your suggested case, chances are that the comp scene (official one) will just not allow legacy armies

And before people say that won't happen, yeah, how did that work out for Elysians and R&H in 40k?

Oh, I am quite sure the Polish scene will never disallow armies, they'd rather produce lengthy balancing patch documents, like in 7th or 8th.

I guess limiting all entries to be taken a maximum of twice should be a good starting point.

That remains to be seen. Specially when GW asserts itself.

Also hard limits are already a joke for some and an issue for other factions.

Found an army builder, already has Legacy

https://old-world-builder.com/

Not Online!!! wrote:


Also hard limits are already a joke for some and an issue for other factions.

As they have always been Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose That's why it will be interesting to see how communities approach this.

People spent 4 years clamoring for a return of WHFB style army building with percentages, etc. and GW delivered. Now people are wanting to insert 40k style hard limit restrictions on units to prevent unit spam as though that wasn't a think in previous editions of WHFB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

Having said that, all these pages of rules are very light on giving players options. And it's important, because with options comes choice. And players may choose well or badly. Every such instance of a choice (what I call "an opportunity for mistake") helps with differentiating between the better and the worse player - the result of the game being based on accumulating consequences of good and bad choices over the course of the game.

But so many of ToW rules don't offer a choice. Instead they just order players to perform a mechanical, compulsory action, like rolling yet another die to see if a model Regenrates, for example. This doesn't help differentiate players based on skill and tactical merit, just adds another instance where final result is affected by randomness. These rules might easily have been cut to reduce bloat, shorten time spent on passive upkeep and put player agency more forward.

100%. But that seems to be what GW thinks makes for a fun game, as that basically sums out how all their games are designed.

Me and three of my buddies dust off our old armies and played a game with the new rules. Was fun for nostalgia's shake but after playing Conquest and Song of Ice and Fire going back to that old rule mindset was not for us.

Asmodios wrote:
Its going to e huge here in DFW good line of people to get into the store on launch day and everything other then movement trays sold out almost instantly.

Got a dedicated discord that already has 103 members and know there are a lot more considering i know 7 people playing that haven't joined on discord

We may be the lucky ones. Since a lot of our fellows were into WAP and are excited to make the jump. Plus having a GW shop like the Cafe is a help.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Its going to e huge here in DFW good line of people to get into the store on launch day and everything other then movement trays sold out almost instantly.

Got a dedicated discord that already has 103 members and know there are a lot more considering i know 7 people playing that haven't joined on discord

We may be the lucky ones. Since a lot of our fellows were into WAP and are excited to make the jump. Plus having a GW shop like the Cafe is a help.

Been meaning to take a drive over to there myself since I am not too far away, been so out of the loop on most GW games it never felt worth heading over.

Just picked up my rulebook.

Wasn’t what I went in for, but it was there.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Wasn’t what I went in for, but it was there.

The same thing happened to me, but with a Bretonnian army.

Cyel wrote:
If only these bloated, baroque rules translated into something more than simplistic, shallow, non-interactive gameplay... I have watched a few video battle reports and I am yet to see any single example of tactical depth in how people play.

These rules are new. What do you expect? Even still, I have watched probably every batrep on YT and I see a ton of instances of complexity. Movement especially matters and knowing how/when to pursue/restrain and where to redirect and how to flank, etc. It is hardly a "simplistic, shallow, non-interactive" game.

which is the basis of every R&F game and not something special for TOW or were that game is more complex than others

movement is key and TOW adds that also having the right formation at the right time is important
and if people do not use the possibility of the formation change during the games to get advantages there is not much complexity left

I think I'm in a camp where what I want is "simple simulationism". I prefer a system that "feels" right to me, where things behave as I intuitively expect, to a game that always provides interesting choices at the expense of that.

At the same time, I am not a fan of games where loyalty to the simulation makes it over complicated. I like relatively simple mechanics to evoke the feel I'm talking about.

I think the LOTR game is a reasonably good example of that (although better examples exist, I'm just using LOTR because people probably know it). The way shields and spears work, along with the pushing mechanic, tends to pull units into formations naturally, and results in fairly natural feeling battles between those formations. At the same time, heroic characters are simulated with some simple rules to make them more effective and allow them to "lead" normal troops.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


These rules are new. What do you expect? Even still, I have watched probably every batrep on YT and I see a ton of instances of complexity. Movement especially matters and knowing how/when to pursue/restrain and where to redirect and how to flank, etc. It is hardly a "simplistic, shallow, non-interactive" game.

It depends what your point of comparison is. I think there are more (non-obvious and impactful) decision points when I play, say, Concordia, and that game has literally 4 pages of rules with basic decription of what a player does in his turn fitting within one short sentence.

GW peeps certainly love confusing fiddlyness with complexity. I think you could rewrite ToW to play almost the same with a 75% smaller word count (and probably play time). It's not rare to see in a battle report people rolling 10-20 dice in 3-4 rolls and end up doing absolutely nothing.

I was not interested in TOW at all, but I received the rulebook in pdf format and I made the mistake of reading it.

The nostalgia is intense in it and the army lists.

I'm completely trying it with at least 2 friends. It also helps that I have a 2.000 points wood elves army painted.

Talking about the rulebook, it seems pretty solid to me. The only point I'm not 100% sure about are the break tests. All units are pretty much Stubborn (in 8th edition terms): if you get under your Ld you are not fleeing. It has its positive effects, but I don't like that it may make maneuver pointless to a point.

I'd also like to see GW showing more commitment: 1 kit per army (or even les for orcs & goblins it seems) is a poor rate. They could renew some metal kits at least

Finally got my books. Now to find a game...