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.

If nothing else they could re-reveal the Cities of Sigmar renders as TOW renders

chaos0xomega wrote:

I admittedly can't tell what GW will do - but they will want me to buy new minis. Not use the ones I bought 10-25 years ago.

GW released a short FAQ about the Old World game last year. In it, they wrote: «We want people to be able to use their old armies if they wish, or to start new ones, or to add new miniatures to old armies – whatever they want.»

So yeah, they want to sell new minis, but also want us to be able to use our existing armies.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/21/square-bases-and-kislev-ascendant-see-your-questions-about-warhammer-the-old-world-answered/

but it was the same with AoS, people could use their old armies (but with the silly rules in an open play game mode), or buy the new ones that got the real rules

and yes, AoS was not that bad if you got 2 new armies playing with the provided scenarios

the problem simply was that there were only 2 armies that were playable although GW said you can use your existing collection (just not with the game mode that works)

so there is a good chance that the old armies can be used but to get the full (or good) experience of the new game, you need the new armies

Absolutely. But that’s fine 😀 All I expect is to be able to use (some of) my old Fantasy minis to get me going. If persisting with old minis gives me a disadvantage on the battlefield… well, that wouldn’t exactly be anything new. In my head, Warhammer has always been like that. To a certain degree, you’re going to have to keep buying new minis to keep up.

Also, this may turn out to be naive, but I choose to believe that GW of 2022 will treat oldblood hobbyists like myself with less contempt than GW of 2015 did. Lots of things seem to have changed for the better since the days of the initial AoS launch. I’m pretty sure W:ToW is going to be a better game than AoS was on release, and it’s not going to be «silly rules for legacy stuff, proper rules for new stuff» this time.

The hype we’ve had for W:ToW so far seems heavily aimed at hobby veterans with an affection for square bases and the fantasy editions of yore. To me, that means that the game will be fairly «veteran friendly», at least to a greater degree than AoS was.

Tbh I expect that we’ll get rules for all the old armies with all the stuff you could use before, but when they start writing army books for the armies set in that era they’ll simply be more powerful to encourage buying them. So you can use your old armies forever, they just won’t be as good.

Potentially as well they’ll be different enough that it’ll discourage using old models for the new set up - e.g. we know there’s multiple different Empire factions- if they’re significantly different from each other then you’re not really going to be able to just use a WFB Empire army to represent them, especially with all the modern stuff missing.

Similarly all the Von Carsteins are dead in this timeframe but Hellsnitch and Drachenfels are active- perhaps the main undead faction with have a different focus as well?

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,

No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.

Boats. I can't see how it's THIS difficult for people to understand.

some people simply struggle with the idea that war between countries that do not share a border is possible

there are people who even complain that a battle between Empire and Bretonia is not immersive at all because with mountains in between it is impossible that an army of knights will ever cross the border
(just looking at T9A were one goal of the background team was drawing a map that made wars between all factions "immersive")

not like in the real world were we had Austrians fighting French in the Middle East or Prussians against Indian in Africa

 kodos wrote:
some people simply struggle with the idea that war between countries that do not share a border is possible

there are people who even complain that a battle between Empire and Bretonia is not immersive at all because with mountains in between it is impossible that an army of knights will ever cross the border
(just looking at T9A were one goal of the background team was drawing a map that made wars between all factions "immersive")

not like in the real world were we had Austrians fighting French in the Middle East or Prussians against Indian in Africa

Those people don't know the lore - there have been various battles between the two nations even in the time of Karl Franz - there is a disputed border.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,

No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.

Boats. I can't see how it's THIS difficult for people to understand.

There are also Lizardmen temples in the Southlands. There's an entire Khemrian city that fights them on the regular.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Sure, their stats are different, but the stats are still based off of rule books. Skaven are fast in the books, so they're fast in the game. And them there's army rules they'd need to translate. It would be harder for Games Workshop to work with a system they don't understand, so they communicated in a system they both understand. What's so weird about that? Why do so many forum users speak English when they have their own languages that work just fine? Some concepts are better explained in different languages, too. But we need to understand each other, and English is common enough to use as a baseline for communication, even if you're German or Russian. This is just a small scale, non language version of that.

They don't understand all the stats and baselines, and how everything interacts, so they wrote an army book to bridge the gap.

I don't speak Japanese, like, at all, if someone's speaking Japanese I have zero idea what they're saying.

Someone who understands WHFB rules can tell at a glance what the TWW3 stats mean.

But as I said, ' they could write the WHFB statline (M/Ws/Bs/S/T/W/I/A/Ld) as a starting point to ballpark get units in the right location, but that's far from "an army book" '.

A full army book is simply not needed. Maybe they wrote one anyway, but it's far from needed.

So because you don't think it's needed means they didn't do it even though they said they did?

Good to know that you know better than GW what GW did.

I feel like people just don't want to accept that a lot of matchups between armies were only plausible within the content of a certain region, or by creating an excuse. It isnt the how--yeah we all know how boats work, it's the why. How many Tomb King amulets ended up in Kislev? How many crusades did Brettonia mount upon Ulthuan? How many Dwarf expeditions into Lustria? Very few factions had real narrative freedom to fight anyone and needing to come up with a narrative that is more or less an embellished asspull (or less, depending on writing ability) totally works once or twice, but it gets old fast. Some players can glaze over it, and that is great! But for others it dampens the fun, trying to say it's invalid 'because boats' is simply a reflection of the level the speaker wishes to communicate on.

Well 90% of all GW games ever played in all of history were probably loyalist space marines vs loyalist space marines...

Heresy I know, but I'd probably just retcon in some sort of lost/isolated Lizardmen jungle city somewhere in the Old World (a crater in the mountain ranges of Tilea/Estalia perhaps, as they have never had much detail). They can then use that as a base of operations to go wherever you want.

Beyond that I guess it depends on how "asspull" you feel it is. Just about every faction I feel can show up in say the Border Princes (except as said possibly the Lizardmen, but even then) without too much narrative skew.

"Why is this army at the gates of Altdorf/Lothern/Itza?" etc is a difficult one to answer. But you don't really have to do it that way.

I suppose a more 'game aware' map maker might have added colonies all over the place or a lazier one would have throw in teleport gates that worked semi randomly, but really, it's not that big an issue.

One thing common throughout history is allies, colonial armies and mercenaries travelling far. George Washington fought Germans in the New World, Trinidadians fought in France in WWI, Indians in Iraq in WWII. A Roman Legion is supposed to have made it as far as China.

So Frenchy knights fighting Egyptian skeletons on the Russian Steppes really does not bother me.

I do so wish we'd got plastic Ushabti.

The models go for an absolute mint on eBay these days...

 Just Tony wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,

No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.

Boats. I can't see how it's THIS difficult for people to understand.

Don't even need boats. The Wood Elves can travel through the worldroots of the Oak of Ages, which are spread all over the world.

https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Worldroots

Boats, Magic, Airships, Chaos - there are a lot of ways you can formally and accidentally end up invading other nations.

Also don't forget time is a huge factor too. Whilst the lore might have a few fixed focal story points, the world itself will have had factions moving all over the place over time. So it might be that at the core single point in time that most of the lore focuses on, certain factions might have not been within easy striking distance. However in the past they might well have had greater reason to fight.


That said I think everyone accepts in lore there will always be factions who never fight each other; who never encounter each other; or who only ever stand united as allies or have small skirmish fights etc... That's just part of the nature of wargames. Heck considering how many mirror matches there are most factions have been at intense civil war too which is often very rare to happen in lore

 kodos wrote:
but it was the same with AoS, people could use their old armies (but with the silly rules in an open play game mode), or buy the new ones that got the real rules

and yes, AoS was not that bad if you got 2 new armies playing with the provided scenarios

the problem simply was that there were only 2 armies that were playable although GW said you can use your existing collection (just not with the game mode that works)

so there is a good chance that the old armies can be used but to get the full (or good) experience of the new game, you need the new armies

While these things are true. GW is much different than they were in the Kirby era and while not perfect, have been much more consumer friendly. There is no reason to expect a repeat of Kirby's greatest hits.

the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it

so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing

 kodos wrote:
the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it

so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing

I don't know about care less. They push the boat out more - but equally, try to fix it on a vaguely sensible time schedule.

I feel a major factor behind WHFB's decline was their refusal to try and "fix" the game. In the past they had got away with being the only game in town - but in 8th they now they faced competition from X-Wing, Warmahordes etc, and the playerbase melted. (There was I guess also division over 8th's changes - but 7th edition was something of a mess by the end too.)

Hero Hammer gave way to Cavalry hammer gave way to "just 6 dice dwellers".

Really rather than worrying about whether there will be support for TK, I just hope they can make a "good" rank and file ruleset - where blocks of infantry and cavalry do most of the work. Magic and monsters etc should undoubtedly be there - but they should be a desirable supplement, not the core of the game.

Tyel wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it

so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing

I don't know about care less. They push the boat out more - but equally, try to fix it on a vaguely sensible time schedule.

I feel a major factor behind WHFB's decline was their refusal to try and "fix" the game. In the past they had got away with being the only game in town - but in 8th they now they faced competition from X-Wing, Warmahordes etc, and the playerbase melted. (There was I guess also division over 8th's changes - but 7th edition was something of a mess by the end too.)

Hero Hammer gave way to Cavalry hammer gave way to "just 6 dice dwellers".

Really rather than worrying about whether there will be support for TK, I just hope they can make a "good" rank and file ruleset - where blocks of infantry and cavalry do most of the work. Magic and monsters etc should undoubtedly be there - but they should be a desirable supplement, not the core of the game.

Death Knell for WHFB was weight of models needed and high price. You can´t lower the number of models for a R&F game but the price tag. Needless to say whatever comes in the future will need to address this.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it

so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing

I don't know about care less. They push the boat out more - but equally, try to fix it on a vaguely sensible time schedule.

I feel a major factor behind WHFB's decline was their refusal to try and "fix" the game. In the past they had got away with being the only game in town - but in 8th they now they faced competition from X-Wing, Warmahordes etc, and the playerbase melted. (There was I guess also division over 8th's changes - but 7th edition was something of a mess by the end too.)

Hero Hammer gave way to Cavalry hammer gave way to "just 6 dice dwellers".

Really rather than worrying about whether there will be support for TK, I just hope they can make a "good" rank and file ruleset - where blocks of infantry and cavalry do most of the work. Magic and monsters etc should undoubtedly be there - but they should be a desirable supplement, not the core of the game.

Death Knell for WHFB was weight of models needed and high price. You can´t lower the number of models for a R&F game but the price tag. Needless to say whatever comes in the future will need to address this.

For full 2K point style games I agree you can't really lower the model count too far otherwise it loses the feel and visual impression of the game. That said you can very much make smaller point value rules systems. That was the real issue - there was just no real gateway products to get you into the game. You had to jump in the deep end and gun for that 2K point game or at least 1.5K game. The 500 point games worked but were rather dull for most forces and rather limited in scope; plus some armies just didn't really work well at that point value. It needed a Warcry/Killteam style game to get people over the introduction hurdle so they didn't burn out on money/building/painting to hit 2K points

Warcry does not get people into AoS, 1 box of models being 1 unit is hence the starting problems of AoS as not only the rules were bad, but a box of Stormcast with 3 models were you needed 5 to play
Warhammer had Mortheim to get people into the setting, but not many started big R&F because of Mortheim, same as not many who like Unbderworlds or Warcry go full 2k AoS

 Strg Alt wrote:
Death Knell for WHFB was weight of models needed and high price. You can´t lower the number of models for a R&F game but the price tag. Needless to say whatever comes in the future will need to address this.

AoS is running fine, with the same amount of models and much higher prices

WHFB died because of bad rules, no support and price hikes combined with increasing size of standard units

and this is a difference for AoS, there is rules support, the rules are good (within the GW environment) and 1 box of models makes a minimum sized unit that is playable
needing 120 models to play is different if those are 12 units each 40€, or if those are 3 units each 120€

and this is part of marketing, being able to start small and grow is easier to get people into than start big even if the outcome is the same
which was something GW killed with the 8th Edi point system as the cool and expensive heroes could not be used in less than 2-3k games
(it started with 7th were the minimum sized unit raised from 16 to 20 models but the boxes were reduced from 16 to 10 but you still could play 1000 point games rather easy)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like people just don't want to accept that a lot of matchups between armies were only plausible within the content of a certain region, or by creating an excuse. It isnt the how--yeah we all know how boats work, it's the why. How many Tomb King amulets ended up in Kislev? How many crusades did Brettonia mount upon Ulthuan? How many Dwarf expeditions into Lustria? Very few factions had real narrative freedom to fight anyone and needing to come up with a narrative that is more or less an embellished asspull (or less, depending on writing ability) totally works once or twice, but it gets old fast. Some players can glaze over it, and that is great! But for others it dampens the fun, trying to say it's invalid 'because boats' is simply a reflection of the level the speaker wishes to communicate on.

Some conflicts are easier to explain narrative wise than others but most of these factions are actually quite large and the small armies that are fielded in Warhammer can be commanded by indivudals going out on their own - the army books and novels have plenty of these and unusual conflicts/team-ups. You can forge the narrative if you want or not - but its there if you want to use it.otherwise you are going to end up having to say certain armies don't fight each other which causes issues with gaming groups. Even a battle between natural allies can be considered a training exercise if you want.

Go anywhere - fight anyone with the tech, magic or stuborness to do it.
Dark Elves, Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Vampires, Orcs and Goblins, Norsca, High Elves,

The Tomb Kings have gone as far as Norsca on several vengeance quests and often go raiding or conquering sometimes in conjunction with the Dark Elves and others

Most factions are respresented in the Border Kingdoms and so can fight each other .

Dwarfs - you just need the right Grudge and they will move mountains to right it.

Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Cathay, Kislev and The Empire tend to stay closer to home but thats because mostly the enemies come to them! However all of these have lorewise sent armies and expeditions across the world

Its the same as why does Karl Franz, Malekith, Morathi, Nefarata, Vlad, Grimgor, Tyrion etc turn up to every little skirmish people fight.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like people just don't want to accept that a lot of matchups between armies were only plausible within the content of a certain region, or by creating an excuse. It isnt the how--yeah we all know how boats work, it's the why. How many Tomb King amulets ended up in Kislev? How many crusades did Brettonia mount upon Ulthuan? How many Dwarf expeditions into Lustria? Very few factions had real narrative freedom to fight anyone and needing to come up with a narrative that is more or less an embellished asspull (or less, depending on writing ability) totally works once or twice, but it gets old fast. Some players can glaze over it, and that is great! But for others it dampens the fun, trying to say it's invalid 'because boats' is simply a reflection of the level the speaker wishes to communicate on.

Some conflicts are easier to explain narrative wise than others but most of these factions are actually quite large and the small armies that are fielded in Warhammer can be commanded by indivudals going out on their own - the army books and novels have plenty of these and unusual conflicts/team-ups. You can forge the narrative if you want or not - but its there if you want to use it.otherwise you are going to end up having to say certain armies don't fight each other which causes issues with gaming groups. Even a battle between natural allies can be considered a training exercise if you want.

Go anywhere - fight anyone with the tech, magic or stuborness to do it.
Dark Elves, Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Vampires, Orcs and Goblins, Norsca, High Elves,

The Tomb Kings have gone as far as Norsca on several vengeance quests and often go raiding or conquering sometimes in conjunction with the Dark Elves and others

Most factions are respresented in the Border Kingdoms and so can fight each other .

Dwarfs - you just need the right Grudge and they will move mountains to right it.

Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Cathay, Kislev and The Empire tend to stay closer to home but thats because mostly the enemies come to them! However all of these have lorewise sent armies and expeditions across the world

Its the same as why does Karl Franz, Malekith, Morathi, Nefarata, Vlad, Grimgor, Tyrion etc turn up to every little skirmish people fight.

Sure, but when it comes to GW deciding which factions to cut from the start of their relaunch of the game, my money's on those that aren't firmly based in the Old World itself.

In the context of one game or even one campaign it really isn't an issue--one can come up with SOME reason to be there. But it gets old when having to be done repeatedly, which for some armies definitely happened. Each successive reason for why Tomb Kings and Dark Elves are in the region of Kharak Eight Peaks, or Dwarfs and Lizardmen are fighting it out in Norsca, feels a bit less authentic and more like a thin excuse to cover real word practicalities. A few years of doing that and narratives which would have worked before feel like repeating asspulls.

Compare to factions like Wood Elves, Skaven, BoC, etc. Where they can easily be showing up anywhere and focus on involving themselves in the local narrative. It is a factor--not insurmountable, but it exists in a not-insignificant way.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In the context of one game or even one campaign it really isn't an issue--one can come up with SOME reason to be there. But it gets old when having to be done repeatedly, which for some armies definitely happened. Each successive reason for why Tomb Kings and Dark Elves are in the region of Kharak Eight Peaks, or Dwarfs and Lizardmen are fighting it out in Norsca, feels a bit less authentic and more like a thin excuse to cover real word practicalities. A few years of doing that and narratives which would have worked before feel like repeating asspulls.

Compare to factions like Wood Elves, Skaven, BoC, etc. Where they can easily be showing up anywhere and focus on involving themselves in the local narrative. It is a factor--not insurmountable, but it exists in a not-insignificant way.

Agree with all of this. Yet I still prefer it to the portal shenanigans of AOS. The whole «anyone can show up anywhere at any time» just makes it impossible for me to care about the setting. It’s just a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief.

xenofexx wrote:
Agree with all of this. Yet I still prefer it to the portal shenanigans of AOS. The whole «anyone can show up anywhere at any time» just makes it impossible for me to care about the setting. It’s just a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief.

Yea same, there's just no meaning to anything you do.

I have to agree. I think we will see AoS get a bit more strict here and there, lets not forget its original inception was just to be fully open because GW weren't really being serious with it at almost any level save selling models. So some of AoS's is issues are almost dealing with going back to Rogue Trader era levels of lore building.

Eg at inception realms were almost endless in size and travelling to the rim was a huge undertaking of many years travel coupled with constant creation of new land on the boundaries. These days it feels like GW has reined in that aspect somewhat, though the Realms are still vast.

Maps have also started coming out slowly; but I do agree they have an uphill struggle. It's made worse when there are realms like the Metal Realm where there are whole (and fairly regular it seems as every story has at least one) storms of rust-dust and mineral wealth on the surface for the taking and lakes of quicksilver. Ergo its a scene out of the band album covers of the 70s metal music; but at the same time not only is the distance and concept of land battles and territory hard to visualise; its also really hard to visualise how people live there.

The setting went from an Old World where GW felt creative constriction (which is odd considering how many factions they didn't explore and how most AoS factions could easily have setup with minimal lore work) to one where its so utterly open its hard to consider things.




I think the other angle is time. There really isn't a chronological system in place. We have events happening in an order, but its really hard to date things. This makes it really hard to understand the importance of territory changes because you've no idea how it really settles in the story unless its near to major landmarks - like the NecroQuake. Even then you have a hard time working out if two characters you know are alive or dead at the same time. Or place a network story like the new Gotrek stories in any kind of order - has Gotrek really managed to spend perhaps decades being drunken between books or is it just a few months and if so that means a lot of major events are happening very fast etc..


It's "messy" to say the least. Visually its amazing, but it needs some kind of overlord to put order to the Chaos.

Realistically speaking the Lizardmen are the only ones with the power to open those kinds of portals, but they did not do that very often. I can only think of them doing it twice, once in the Dark Shadows campaign and once in the Storm of Chaos. For the most part, the Lizards fight against colonists and invaders instead leading campaigns in other lands.

As to the ships, nearly every nation in Warhammer has a navy, with the Wood Elves (only 4th edition army not to get a Man-o-war fleet, land locked nation), Lizardmen and Ogres (Too new to get fleets) being the exceptions. The Skaven did not need a fleet since they could travel any where in their tunnels, but still had one. The Tomb Kings had/has a navy, they have used it to attack Brettonia a few times. The Vampires have the ghost fleets the patrol the Vampire Coast and in recent years in or near the Sea of Pirates off the coast of Sarcosa. So the conflicts by ship is more then possible. Raids and Slave runs by the Dark Elves, Araby, Norse, Chaos Dwarves, and Chaos are well know. Empire, Tilea, High Elves get in to a fight because of trade dispute of some kind which was also common. Dwarves have come into conflict with the other nations while looking for trade goods or raw materials. Greenskins in ships raided Ulthuan and Albion. In 2nd edition, Nippon had several ships off the coast of the Empire. So for the most part I would not rule out Man-O-War Fleets causing problems for any nation that has a coast.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the first source book for The Old World would only be limited to the Old World, you would have the Empire (Possibly 3 different armies for each Emperor), Brettonia, Kislev, Tilea/ DoW, Vampire Counts (They did rise to power during this period), Skaven, Greenskins, Dwarfs, Norsica, Chaos and Wood Elves. So that would be 11 armies to start, and two of them would be completely new with new models. Not a bad start.

Since i do not see GW making any new models other then heroes or a monster here and there, i am sure that GW will just re-release the plastic sets for the models and go finecast or resin to replace the metals. If i remember correctly, GW also said that very few of these armies would be available in the stores and we would have to order them on line.