Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't say I love the concept art, but I don't get the concern about magic using units. One thing that never made sense to me is the seemingly binary nature of magic: either you had none, and were a pure fighter, or you had enough to be a battle wizard. It makes sense to me that some traditions would focus borderline wizards on creating units that use a handful of spells.

It might be weird to have a top notch archer/combat unit that also uses magic be from Kislev, but I also prefer super high end, high fantasy elements showing up as infantry, rather than monstrous cavalry or warmachines.

As for the somewhat predictable concerns over a female unit... in this case there's mythological precedent. The Amazons in much of greek myth lived in eastern europe or western/central asia, and are probably related to the scythian cultures, which did arm and train women to fight. Graves in their territory show that about 20% of female graves include weapons, and about 20% of warrior graves were female. Were I to guess, the short draw composite bows used on steppe ponies prior to stirrups would not give a huge advantage to men.

I generally like it when WHFB includes “high magic” units. However, I prefer that their weapons still seem functional. (I’ll never fully love Confrontation or Wrath of Kings Wolfen for this reason: their ridiculous weapons.) The Central Asian blades work for me, and an ice-coated bident might pass as a symbolic or ritualistic magic weapon. The bows still bother me, though.

Am I the only one tempted to make a not-Kislev army converted from Fireforge Mongols, Russians and Byzantines? Throw in some Frostgrave and Mantic Northerners bits, and it seems like an affordably close-enough army.

 Polonius wrote:
I can't say I love the concept art, but I don't get the concern about magic using units. One thing that never made sense to me is the seemingly binary nature of magic: either you had none, and were a pure fighter, or you had enough to be a battle wizard. It makes sense to me that some traditions would focus borderline wizards on creating units that use a handful of spells.

It might be weird to have a top notch archer/combat unit that also uses magic be from Kislev, but I also prefer super high end, high fantasy elements showing up as infantry, rather than monstrous cavalry or warmachines.

I suppose that could be an artifact of the old WHFB game; since Wizards were individual characters, never units, people sort of assume that the ability to use Magic at all is rare, not just a matter of the most powerful.

As for the aesthetic, I think it might be the face-concealing cloth and skirmisher/scout-looking armor that's throwing them off for me; something that looks more like a cross between an Ice Maiden and a Hussar might work better...

 Polonius wrote:
One thing that never made sense to me is the seemingly binary nature of magic: either you had none, and were a pure fighter, or you had enough to be a battle wizard. It makes sense to me that some traditions would focus borderline wizards on creating units that use a handful of spells.

Not if each spell attempt is very dangerous. In that case, either you decide spells are worth it, but you do focus on it a LOT, and then you can cast potent spells, or you don't, and then your weak spells are both more dangerous (less mastery of magic) and give less in return for the risk (same risk, lower reward)...

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it suggests that anything 'new' is a detriment to the design and feel of the Old World.

Not everything new. Just the new things that are more over the top than everything that came before.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
One thing that never made sense to me is the seemingly binary nature of magic: either you had none, and were a pure fighter, or you had enough to be a battle wizard. It makes sense to me that some traditions would focus borderline wizards on creating units that use a handful of spells.

Not if each spell attempt is very dangerous. In that case, either you decide spells are worth it, but you do focus on it a LOT, and then you can cast potent spells, or you don't, and then your weak spells are both more dangerous (less mastery of magic) and give less in return for the risk (same risk, lower reward)...

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it suggests that anything 'new' is a detriment to the design and feel of the Old World.

Not everything new. Just the new things that are more over the top than everything that came before.

More over the top than everything that came before?

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120206017_SKAStormfiends01.jpg

... okay.

Weren't Stormfiends an Age of Sigmar thing?

 vipoid wrote:
Weren't Stormfiends an Age of Sigmar thing?

End Times.

 vipoid wrote:
Weren't Stormfiends an Age of Sigmar thing?

Nope End times

and of course

Hey, you leave the Skycutter alone! It worked quite well conceptually.

And it gave us the best elven prince miniature ever. For Lothern armies at least.

Also don't forget some of the low-magic - like Greater Demons only being the size they were; was due to resource limits of the material (metal). In the lore Greater Demons were always massive monstrocities. The bigger and more elaborate models we got later were only possible because by then GW had shifted too and could do plastics of that scale and could sell models way above their old rough maximum of £35 or so.

 Mangod wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I can't say I love the concept art, but I don't get the concern about magic using units. One thing that never made sense to me is the seemingly binary nature of magic: either you had none, and were a pure fighter, or you had enough to be a battle wizard. It makes sense to me that some traditions would focus borderline wizards on creating units that use a handful of spells.

It might be weird to have a top notch archer/combat unit that also uses magic be from Kislev, but I also prefer super high end, high fantasy elements showing up as infantry, rather than monstrous cavalry or warmachines.

I suppose that could be an artifact of the old WHFB game; since Wizards were individual characters, never units, people sort of assume that the ability to use Magic at all is rare, not just a matter of the most powerful.

Wasn't there a magic casting unit way back in Vengeance of the Lichemaster at the Battle of La Maisontaal? Pretty sure Bagrian's monks were a unit of casters.

Yes there were units that could cast as if they were wizards. They were not common but they existed.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I generally like it when WHFB includes “high magic” units. However, I prefer that their weapons still seem functional. (I’ll never fully love Confrontation or Wrath of Kings Wolfen for this reason: their ridiculous weapons.) The Central Asian blades work for me, and an ice-coated bident might pass as a symbolic or ritualistic magic weapon. The bows still bother me, though.

Am I the only one tempted to make a not-Kislev army converted from Fireforge Mongols, Russians and Byzantines? Throw in some Frostgrave and Mantic Northerners bits, and it seems like an affordably close-enough army.

I have a small Kislev force using Fireforge Russians as Kossars, with Warlord Polish Lancers as Winged Lancers and a few riding toy bears as the compulsory bear cavalry.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
If each new release continues a trend of over the top things that we can argue "could have existed" will the final product look like the old world at all?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it suggests that anything 'new' is a detriment to the design and feel of the Old World.
Let's use Bretonnian's for example. Hadn't been updated (models or mechanics) since 2003/2004. Adding something like flying Grail Knights on Hippogryphs would be pretty awesome, however it would be 'new' and 'over the top' compared to there classic design (which again, hadn't been touched in near 2 decades).
Should the decision then be that you 'can't' add something 'new' and just reskin/re-release/re-make (in the same style) the original range then... we both know it'll get panned on sites like this one for just being a re-release. But if they do add something 'new' then they also get ripped into for not respecting the setting (or variations on this line).

Forgoworld doesn't have unlimited resources. When they launch, it's not going to be everything that was previously in the game. it's going to be about selling the new stuff. So it's totally possible that the entirety of the game will be new stuff that all sort of maybe fits in the old world.

i'm not talking about people ripping into them in a damned if they do, damned if they don't. i'm talking about how if we add together a bunch of "could have existed" units and they want to sell those units, then the game is going to not be very old world at all.

Someone mentioned it earlier, the old range was in the state it was partly because of the technology at the time. GW have advanced since then, allowing them now to go and do things like these Kislev models/designs that still fit into the faction as well as giving hope for suitable range updates to other factions that warrant that kind of expansion.

this is where things could get exciting.



Imagine if existing units that were solid parts of armies got redone with new tech. that would be much cooler than the same goblin wolf riders getting super charged mork/gork waaagh energy weapons

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mangod wrote:
I suppose that could be an artifact of the old WHFB game; since Wizards were individual characters, never units, people sort of assume that the ability to use Magic at all is rare, not just a matter of the most powerful.

Wasn't there a magic casting unit way back in Vengeance of the Lichemaster at the Battle of La Maisontaal? Pretty sure Bagrian's monks were a unit of casters.

Dude, I have no idea; Vengeance of the Lichemaster is 4 years older than I am.

 Overread wrote:
Also don't forget some of the low-magic - like Greater Demons only being the size they were; was due to resource limits of the material (metal). In the lore Greater Demons were always massive monstrocities. The bigger and more elaborate models we got later were only possible because by then GW had shifted too and could do plastics of that scale and could sell models way above their old rough maximum of £35 or so.

Daemons were never low-magic, even if the greater daemons were small. They were literally made of magic, all of them!!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
One thing that never made sense to me is the seemingly binary nature of magic: either you had none, and were a pure fighter, or you had enough to be a battle wizard. It makes sense to me that some traditions would focus borderline wizards on creating units that use a handful of spells.

Not if each spell attempt is very dangerous. In that case, either you decide spells are worth it, but you do focus on it a LOT, and then you can cast potent spells, or you don't, and then your weak spells are both more dangerous (less mastery of magic) and give less in return for the risk (same risk, lower reward)...

that's actually a fair point.

Thats not how it works. The "bigger" the spell the more energy tou need to use and the harder it is to get it right. Thats why big rituals were much more dangerous.

 Galas wrote:
Thats not how it works. The "bigger" the spell the more energy tou need to use and the harder it is to get it right. Thats why big rituals were much more dangerous.

Depends on which edition and which game (WHFB or WHFRP). At least one edition of the latter had a 'screw you' die that had to be rolled for every single spell.

I do find it a bit telling that when people attempt to justify the big ultra-high-fantasy stuff being commonplace rather than a rarity, they have to reach for late-8th/ET units(which were quite evidently coming from the same place that gave us AoS, creatively), the videogames(which include a lot of ill-fitting contrivances due to the form) or go full on Days of Yore and invoke Oldhammer stuff from a time where ~90% of the setting was essentially nothing like what the vast majority of people would recognise in the words "Warhammer Fantasy".

Magic in WHF is, for pretty much everyone except elves, either dangerous or very rare or both. Most of the bigger and more outlandish magical creatures are also quite rare. It's that quality of the IP that allows it to construct a pastiche that contains such ultra-high-magic elements alongside all the other parts without collapsing under its own weight. That's true of all the elements; none can exist in a greater proportion than any of the others can bear. Some comedy, some pop-culture references, some super-magical high fantasy concepts, but too much of any of them and the pseudohistorical "glue" of the human societies that anchor the setting and give it verisimilitude comes apart. By the same token, if you push the grimdark dirtpeasant side too far, it makes the other elements look too silly and it stops working.

It's essentially the opposite problem that AoS had in the beginning - it was all so ill-defined and mystical and OTT that essentially the only answer that was available to most questions was "erm, magic?". How did they feed people in a continent-size city without modern logistics and refridgeration - it's magic or nothing. But with WHF, the more magic and magical things you put in, and the more commonplace you make them, the more it's justifiable to ask "Well, hold on, why aren't they just using those all the time then? Why are they still living like a version of a historical culture when they could use [insert overdone tech and/or magic here] instead?".

And you know, it's possible that this is it. That they've decided to add a single late-8th/ET-style ultra-high-magic unit to each of the armies they'll be covering that don't yet have one, and the rest of the setting will remain as it was, in which case I will be happy enough. The trouble is trust. I don't trust GW, because they've already run WHF into the ground and killed it once, and I'm not convinced they understand what they did wrong. The fact they chose a brand new high-magic human unit as their first proper reveal rather than a revamp of a classic is, to me, telling. I look at the makeup of the modern company and while their business side doesn't look the same as it did in the bad old Kirby days, when it comes to WHF being brought back the creative side looks a bit worse if anything. Almost none of the "old guard" are left and certainly most if not all of the guys who had some grounding in and passion for the historical side of the pastiche are long gone, and without anyone to say "No" to the "it's fantasy fiction so literally anything goes" impulse that clearly emanates from the design studio I don't feel confident that the revived WHF is going to actually resemble the WHF that got me into wargaming and fantasy fiction.

 Yodhrin wrote:
they have to reach for late-8th/ET units(which were quite evidently coming from the same place that gave us AoS, creatively), the videogames(which include a lot of ill-fitting contrivances due to the form) or go full on Days of Yore and invoke Oldhammer

So basically for you Warhammer Fantasy is 6th and 7th edition. Ok. I mean thats my favourite period of Warhammer Fantasy but people should stop using it as some kind of high horse and claim that it was the golden age of fantasy or the "proper" fantasy.


And I think is obvious that without the Perry Brothers the "new" fantasy will be much muuuch less historical.

3rd to 7th was fairly consistent with the quality of miniatures changing far more than the tone and content of the setting.

 Galas wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
they have to reach for late-8th/ET units(which were quite evidently coming from the same place that gave us AoS, creatively), the videogames(which include a lot of ill-fitting contrivances due to the form) or go full on Days of Yore and invoke Oldhammer

So basically for you Warhammer Fantasy is 6th and 7th edition. Ok. I mean thats my favourite period of Warhammer Fantasy but people should stop using it as some kind of high horse and claim that it was the golden age of fantasy or the "proper" fantasy.


And I think is obvious that without the Perry Brothers the "new" fantasy will be much muuuch less historical.

When the rulebook launched with Ravening Hordes for the army lists it was most assuredly the most balanced version. Do I think it was the best? Yep, a couple fixes to 6th Ed. army books would have a totally tight edition.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
they have to reach for late-8th/ET units(which were quite evidently coming from the same place that gave us AoS, creatively), the videogames(which include a lot of ill-fitting contrivances due to the form) or go full on Days of Yore and invoke Oldhammer

So basically for you Warhammer Fantasy is 6th and 7th edition. Ok. I mean thats my favourite period of Warhammer Fantasy but people should stop using it as some kind of high horse and claim that it was the golden age of fantasy or the "proper" fantasy.


And I think is obvious that without the Perry Brothers the "new" fantasy will be much muuuch less historical.

When the rulebook launched with Ravening Hordes for the army lists it was most assuredly the most balanced version. Do I think it was the best? Yep, a couple fixes to 6th Ed. army books would have a totally tight edition.

Out of interest what army did you play in WHFB 6th? I played Empire and I remember them being rather low tier.

 Galas wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
they have to reach for late-8th/ET units(which were quite evidently coming from the same place that gave us AoS, creatively), the videogames(which include a lot of ill-fitting contrivances due to the form) or go full on Days of Yore and invoke Oldhammer

So basically for you Warhammer Fantasy is 6th and 7th edition. Ok. I mean thats my favourite period of Warhammer Fantasy but people should stop using it as some kind of high horse and claim that it was the golden age of fantasy or the "proper" fantasy.

I thought the same thing! Even 4th/5th edition was magic heavy, with the whole casting mini game, generals on flying monsters, and magic items until Tuesday.

The flip side to the argument that say, video games portray the Old World as more high fantasy is that the best source on gritty, low fantasy fluff are the role playing games.

The Empire is really the epicenter of the gritty part fo the old world, where even on the table top it relied on simply blocks of fighting men, including rag tag milita and fanatical zealots. But this is also the same army that always had pegasi and (at least one) griffon(s), and for all but a brief window in 6th edition had steam tanks (!). To get even the grittiest army in the Old World to a real low world standard, you basically have to ride and die with the original 6th edition army book, which admittedly gutted most of the goofy/high fantasy stuff. Earlier, you had war wagons and the imperial dragon and steam tanks and the war altar. Even in Ravening Hordes, Empire kept Ogres, dwarves, and halflings. By later in 6th, the steam tank crept back in, and later the War Wagon.

I think we need to be careful in defining the Old World so strongly for what it is not, meaning not the high fantasy wonderland of AOS, that we lose sight of how rich with magic and essentially magic the old world was.

That all being said... sure, I think we can be a bit apprehensive that the first content we've seen for this project is a super special elite unit for a fringe faction, which has abilities and gear in a combination never seen in WFB.

 Polonius wrote:

That all being said... sure, I think we can be a bit apprehensive that the first content we've seen for this project is a super special elite unit for a fringe faction, which has abilities and gear in a combination never seen in WFB.

Ice Guard carrying Ice Weapons in the Ice Court of the Ice Queen

Its safe to say that I'm not convinced by this initial preview.

 Polonius wrote:
I thought the same thing! Even 4th/5th edition was magic heavy, with the whole casting mini game, generals on flying monsters, and magic items until Tuesday.

Yep...it was Herohammer, usually involving beatstick characters on flying monsters. And magic was a whole game within the game as you said!

Like with most long-running IPs, people just have their personal favorite eras that they think define that IP. #NotMyFillInTheBlank

Tygre wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
they have to reach for late-8th/ET units(which were quite evidently coming from the same place that gave us AoS, creatively), the videogames(which include a lot of ill-fitting contrivances due to the form) or go full on Days of Yore and invoke Oldhammer

So basically for you Warhammer Fantasy is 6th and 7th edition. Ok. I mean thats my favourite period of Warhammer Fantasy but people should stop using it as some kind of high horse and claim that it was the golden age of fantasy or the "proper" fantasy.


And I think is obvious that without the Perry Brothers the "new" fantasy will be much muuuch less historical.

When the rulebook launched with Ravening Hordes for the army lists it was most assuredly the most balanced version. Do I think it was the best? Yep, a couple fixes to 6th Ed. army books would have a totally tight edition.

Out of interest what army did you play in WHFB 6th? I played Empire and I remember them being rather low tier.

Eventually all of them except Tomb Kings and Wood Elves. Started with High Elves and Brets while my brother started with Lizardmen right off the bat. Eventually, as stated, we got every army. Anybody claiming Empire was low tier wasn't using the Detachment rule to their benefit. Block of Spearmen or Swordsmen with a Detachment of Handguns who get to stand and shoot at the unit charging the parent unit while your Free Company or Halberds get a free countercharge in the flank. I charge you and I'm down 5 CR PLUS S&S shots before I even roll my first hit. Wait, the flanking Detachment goes first, add THOSE to how far I'm behind.

Man, you guys are making me all nostalgic for 6th edition. I think you can make a fair argument that 6th edition was the peak/golden age of WHF. Great grimdark tone, magic was rare and dangerous, and solid rules with just enough flavor.
Those were the days.
I get chills just thinking about what they could do with Brettonians or Puff and Slash Empire if they would just remake some of the core kits with modern technology.
Imagine all the armies getting the Island of Blood treatment...