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.

Star Trek famously didn't do it and keep people happy. The Kelvin timeline still gets huge amounts of hate and its like a decade later.

Thought it was ballsy to blow up the old world.
Just wish that age of sigmar was a better replacement. Folks on here are right it lacks meaning and coherencey. Like a dream. Wich could be cool but the people writing it forgot to ground it in reality. All of the most popular fantasy setting are grounded in reality.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Sure but I think there's a tangible difference between a setting being loosely construed in the 1980s as a side-angle to use models being made for D&D then gradually, organically, becoming more distinct over time as it gained popularity (and the company gained commercial success) and one that was (in theory...) consciously built from the ground up by a modern, concentrated design focus as a direct replacement of the previous, beloved setting. It's baffling that the regime at the time couldn't see where it would lead by having practically nothing of substance. I agree that there was an understandable desire to have a world with less constraints (and opportunity for more expansive model design) but the execution was utterly dire in that first instance. There's having a broad, open canvas to work with in terms of building a setting and then there's asking players to just draw stick-figures using the ashes of the Old World whilst they're still a bit warm.

Indeed, the circunstances weren't the same but I don't necessarily agree AoS's world was created the way you describe it (sure it was meant to replace the Old World, but I don't think everything was planned from the beginning). I recently read the old rules of Man'O War, their naval game...and while the maps are sure similar to Warhammer Battle's latest editions, you can totally see the differences of tone (if not in depth) in the background - especially about the use of magic and fantastic mounts.

Actually your intervention made me think about an important question on world building : what is the best way to present a totally new universe ? There's the "macro and micro approaches", to me. The macro approach is when you start with presenting the whole world in its globality and generality, then build the details as you go in the parts where the action plays. It has the advantage to give you a general idea of its shape and main points, but is intently vague until you explore the concerned parts. The micro approach is the opposite : it starts with the location where the action plays, detailing its immediate surroundings but doesn't say much about what is out of its limits. It helps building things as the story moves on and is more in details since you focus on very specific parts with intended limitations, but you don't really know what the world really is or what's the role of the described parts in it.

I think Warhammer Battle at its beginning used more the micro approach and AoS is more focused on the macro approach. The advantage with the Old World project is that it's using an existing world as base, so it can directly go into the details to make the difference and add new stuff.

Which is your preference for a more 'fantastical fantasy' setting (which is fine by the way); I don't necessarily agree that it allows for more imagination on the players' part or that having nods to historical sources (or literary pop culture in many instances) negated the relevance of the Old World as a fantasy setting. Far from it; it was arguably a significant part of its charm.

That's true, and I admit it was very handy when playing the roleplaying game at that time. You usually don't need to describe what a cow or a horse is the same way than a gryphhound for sure.

Whatever The Old World ends up being, I'm sure it will disappoint many people. Will it be the majority? No idea, but I'd guess yes.

When I think of WHFB (the game) one of the defining characteristics of it to me is granularity. Picking the weapons of your units and adjusting the unit cost accordingly. Picking an exact number of models for the unit so you can rank them as you want. Want to take 18 Chaos Warriors with great weapons, you can do that and run them in 3 ranks of 6. Want to take 20 Chaos Warriors with hand weapon and shield and run them in 4 ranks of 5? Sure! Want to give your character a cool weapon? Okay! Just might have to shave point off a unit somewhere. Maybe lose light armor, or drop a rank. Everyone's army list was their own (or a net-list) and that made it more special. AoS made unit building very streamlined, but that was not what many WHFB players wanted or liked. It seems like it's great of AoS and people enjoy it, but different games have different audiences.

Sarouan wrote:
Actually your intervention made me think about an important question on world building : what is the best way to present a totally new universe ? There's the "macro and micro approaches", to me. The macro approach is when you start with presenting the whole world in its globality and generality, then build the details as you go in the parts where the action plays. It has the advantage to give you a general idea of its shape and main points, but is intently vague until you explore the concerned parts. The micro approach is the opposite : it starts with the location where the action plays, detailing its immediate surroundings but doesn't say much about what is out of its limits. It helps building things as the story moves on and is more in details since you focus on very specific parts with intended limitations, but you don't really know what the world really is or what's the role of the described parts in it.

I think Warhammer Battle at its beginning used more the micro approach and AoS is more focused on the macro approach. The advantage with the Old World project is that it's using an existing world as base, so it can directly go into the details to make the difference and add new stuff.

I think it's worth point out that there is a middle ground in the form of short stories like Conan, which while are 'Micro" in nature (in your terminology) but have references to distant places never explored in the story itself that help flesh out the setting as a whole. AoS could have used a lot more of that.

Carlovonsexron wrote:


I think it's worth point out that there is a middle ground in the form of short stories like Conan, which while are 'Micro" in nature (in your terminology) but have references to distant places never explored in the story itself that help flesh out the setting as a whole. AoS could have used a lot more of that.

Absolutely, but since you can't do everything at the same time, you have to start by something. So IMHO, either you start by the big part of the picture, or the small part of the picture.

I understand the complaint of a poster who tried to buy High Elves but learned these are not Elves anymore. Instead of for elven archers he should probably have asked for Sylverbow Swyftarrows or something like that Honestly, it's as if they were giving bonuses at GW for anyone who can come up with the dumbest name.

Compared to the Old World grim, low fantasy "Holy Roman Empire-ish" stuff, the new "He-man meets princess Xena" world is an embarassment.

I think it's a case of having the idea to do it. Like at this point there are vastly more words printed about the AoS setting than there are words printed about the Hyborian Era setting of Conan (as written by the original author) and yet the Hyborian setting is vastly more fleshed out, while still feeling huge and unexplored with myriads of dark corners filled with unnatural things along side great kingdoms and empires and everything in between.

Cyel wrote:
I understand the complaint of a poster who tried to buy High Elves but learned these are not Elves anymore.

What ? Since when high elves are not elves anymore ?

Aren't they Aelves(TM) now?

Sarouan wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Sure but I think there's a tangible difference between a setting being loosely construed in the 1980s as a side-angle to use models being made for D&D then gradually, organically, becoming more distinct over time as it gained popularity (and the company gained commercial success) and one that was (in theory...) consciously built from the ground up by a modern, concentrated design focus as a direct replacement of the previous, beloved setting. It's baffling that the regime at the time couldn't see where it would lead by having practically nothing of substance. I agree that there was an understandable desire to have a world with less constraints (and opportunity for more expansive model design) but the execution was utterly dire in that first instance. There's having a broad, open canvas to work with in terms of building a setting and then there's asking players to just draw stick-figures using the ashes of the Old World whilst they're still a bit warm.

Indeed, the circunstances weren't the same but I don't necessarily agree AoS's world was created the way you describe it (sure it was meant to replace the Old World, but I don't think everything was planned from the beginning).

You misunderstand; I agree that not everything was planned in detail (or at least if it was, that wasn't presented well enough); my point was that maybe they should have given a more cohesive idea of what this new world is from the beginning, especially given the time and resources they had available. The sheer vagueness of the Mortal Realms was part of the distaste a lot of people had for AoS at the start; especially compared to the richness and depth of the world that had just been blown up, with multiple, wide reaching narratives and characters seemingly cut short or killed off arbitrarily to service this transition. Which wouldn't have been such an issue if there was a tangible indication what was being transitioned to. There's undoubtedly appeal in having a 'blank slate' in terms of being able to create new stories and build a completely fresh sandbox to set wargames in but, at the time, I'd argue GW did a terrible job of conveying that approach to the players (the rules and the Stormcast being the focal point didn't help...) and having no real detail at all to build context around just emphasised what had just been 'lost'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:


I think it's worth point out that there is a middle ground in the form of short stories like Conan, which while are 'Micro" in nature (in your terminology) but have references to distant places never explored in the story itself that help flesh out the setting as a whole. AoS could have used a lot more of that.

Absolutely, but since you can't do everything at the same time, you have to start by something. So IMHO, either you start by the big part of the picture, or the small part of the picture.

Sorry to sound like I'm dunking on you in particular (not the intent); just on this point I'd argue that they didn't do either. It took far too long for even the 'big picture' stuff to come out when they started doing the articles with specific explorations of the individual Mortal Realms. That content should have been built up before the game even launched.

 Just Tony wrote:
You stated that Large units started in 6th, which was wrong, and you inferred that template/high casualty war machines stopped at 6th. Both of which were wrong.

No they didn't. You seem to be lacking reading comprehension so lets break down their post.

Well, at least until 6th, cannons and most other seige weapons affected larger units more, through the use of templates (cannons impacted in a straight line, so unless flanking a target pretty much just hit one model per row).

They say that at least until 6th edition (this wording is not exclusive of 6th, 7th or 8th by the way, just that it was true until 6th) that siege weapons were more effective against larger units which made larger units unappealing. This is completely accurate, larger units are affected more by templates by being easier to hit, and getting more hits with some templates and weapons such as cannons and bolt throwers which deal more potential damage against units with more ranks.

Also, I'm pretty sure most of the massive units started after 6th due to changes to flanking and rank bonus.

Here they say that it was the changes to ranks and flanking, after 6th edition not in 6th edition, that caused the increase in unit sizes. This does not mean that war machines and template weapons stopped being more effective against large units, just that the bonuses to having a large unit now outweighed the negatives.

How can they be arguing that large units started in 6th when the cause for it, put forth in their own post, was the changes to ranks and flanking brought in after 6th edition?

Some of the guys on here not getting into the AoS fluff yet, I think you just haven't got the right combination of edibles yet to fully appreciate it.

 Pacific wrote:
Some of the guys on here not getting into the AoS fluff yet, I think you just haven't got the right combination of edibles yet to fully appreciate it.

I did note that GW wasn't just poor in developing the world but also in communication too

I've read Pestilens, Big Rulebooks, the Gotrek books and audio dramas and I've done about 50% of the Realmwars (it kinda got a little heavy going after a while). Alongside a few battletomes and the Inferno collected novels.

I do have my eye on the RPG game and will pick up some of their material over time, however as a 3rd party side product the world building elements should be appearing more regularly in the AoS stories themselves.

Those AoS realms reminded me of the Planescape D&D setting. Most of the planes are pretty fantastic in nature and also infinite. However TSR back in the day didn´t blow up the Forgotten Realms or the Ravenloft setting but they coexisted with Planescape. The overall animosity towards AoS stems from stupid renaming of established races, silly new races and petty insults towards the fan base such as:

"The Old World had been on the precipice of disaster for centuries and it is only good and proper that it finally got destroyed. Make room for something new."

Yep, I am not holding my breath for anything new regarding the Old World as GW has lost me as a customer in that regard.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Those AoS realms reminded me of the Planescape D&D setting. Most of the planes are pretty fantastic in nature and also infinite. However TSR back in the day didn´t blow up the Forgotten Realms or the Ravenloft setting but they coexisted with Planescape. The overall animosity towards AoS stems from stupid renaming of established races, silly new races and petty insults towards the fan base such as:

"The Old World had been on the precipice of disaster for centuries and it is only good and proper that it finally got destroyed. Make room for something new."

Yep, I am not holding my breath for anything new regarding the Old World as GW has lost me as a customer in that regard.

Googling comes up with no sources for that quote. Mind sharing it?

Sarouan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Besides, the devs have expilcitly said they don't want a calendar because they don't want to be boxed in.

Exactly. A tight calendar doesn't leave much place to insert your own battles for coherency within the world. Otherwise, the Empire would have already be left in the dust if you had to put all of your battles without time to replenish all these losses.

Not with the tiny skirmishes gw 28mm games are.

scarletsquig wrote:


If Star Trek can do it and keep everyone happy...

I'm not happy.

JJ Abrams

But alternate universe shenanigans might not be necessary. The End Times are supposed to have gone on for years, and I think there was some timey-wimey twisty stuff too where an army may fight for years but find only hours have passed.

A campaign set on a world completely falling apart might be pretty cool.

But as noted that's not what they're making.

Is the problem that the Realms are just too huge? Relative to the speed people move at, I mean. Yeah the 40K galaxy is huge but the tricks to cross it in no time are nearly universal, and most every planet has a way of signalling distress. Random towns full of humans who are mostly stuck at medieval peasant means of both travel and communication just can’t realistically deal with being tens of thousands of miles from the next settlement yet this seems to be how they are presented in AoS.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Those AoS realms reminded me of the Planescape D&D setting. Most of the planes are pretty fantastic in nature and also infinite. However TSR back in the day didn´t blow up the Forgotten Realms or the Ravenloft setting but they coexisted with Planescape. The overall animosity towards AoS stems from stupid renaming of established races, silly new races and petty insults towards the fan base such as:

"The Old World had been on the precipice of disaster for centuries and it is only good and proper that it finally got destroyed. Make room for something new."

Yep, I am not holding my breath for anything new regarding the Old World as GW has lost me as a customer in that regard.

Googling comes up with no sources for that quote. Mind sharing it?

Sales pitch of my local GW manager at the time in my presence. This was also the tone of the WD when AoS was released. Happy now?

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Is the problem that the Realms are just too huge? Relative to the speed people move at, I mean. Yeah the 40K galaxy is huge but the tricks to cross it in no time are nearly universal, and most every planet has a way of signalling distress. Random towns full of humans who are mostly stuck at medieval peasant means of both travel and communication just can’t realistically deal with being tens of thousands of miles from the next settlement yet this seems to be how they are presented in AoS.

Travel is a huge issue. Both across and between realms. Some of the early lore had the time measured in lifespans to move across the realms. That's a vast amount of distance when you consider that with the level of technology, chances are you could go around the real world we live on in 80 days with a Khadoran airship (honestly probably a bit faster). So the amount of span of landmass for each realm is huge.

I has reduced over time I think, but its almost like the Chaos Realm in some of them. Eg some have major tiers to them meanwhlie the Death Realm is kind of one solid realm but also made up of loads of smaller ones - each their own "Afterlife". Eg there's an entire one for the Skaven.


I think there has to be a bit of Tardis stuff going on in certain areas of some realms to "fit" things. Which is why I argue that the realms are closer to the Chaos Realm than the living realm.

Time to get back to the News and Rumors for Warhammer the Old World now folks, if someone wishes to make threads discussing the various tangents discussed here then feel free.

Unfortunate. I thought there was some good compare/contrast going on until someone took over with complaints that they didn't like the discussion so it was bad.

Maybe a recap of what we know do far would be helpful?

When the game was first announced a reference was made to square bases and a picture of a 25mm square base was used. GW later released a statement that they want everyone's old armies to be usable. Then further stated that the scale will remain as it alway was in the Kislev update. They couldn't be more clear in saying that the scale will be the same.

A map of the old world continent was released with a fractured empire and 4 named factions - Marienburg, Altforf, Wolf Emperors, and Ottilian Emperors

A small map of Kislev was released along with some concept art

We got a map of Bretonnia where it look slike the current king is from Bastonne. The preview made many references to orcs and there are marks of Orc incursions all along Bretonnia. High elf colonies were also mentioned. Worth mentioning that are called orcs. Not orruks(tm)

A map of the Borderlands Princes was released and appears to have faction based on empire, kislev, and Bretonnia. A Harkon heraldry on the map appears to suggest vampires.

Cathay map was revealed, but we don't really know how it will connect with the game seemingly mostly focused on the old world continent.

As far as I know, we haven't seen references to Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Lizardmen and only vague mentions of Chaos with no faction placement.

Thats my understanding. But I am 100% certain if I am wrong someone below will correct me.

Grail Seeker wrote:
Maybe a recap of what we know do far would be helpful?

Cathay map was revealed, but we don't really know how it will connect with the game seemingly mostly focused on the old world continent.

The Old World focus is just something people are assuming mostly because of the map (which has been slowly revealed) but it hasn't actually been mentioned by GW.

Perhaps, but given that the focus has been on The Old World outside of a disconnected map to tie in with a game launch and that the name of the game is "The Old World" I am inclined to leave it in for now.

Grail Seeker wrote:
Perhaps, but given that the focus has been on The Old World outside of a disconnected map to tie in with a game launch and that the name of the game is "The Old World" I am inclined to leave it in for now.

The Term "The Old World" doesn't just refer to the area of "The Old World", GW have used it on multiple occasions to refer to the WHFB setting as a whole.

Cathay was said to be coming to the game and wasn't done just for TW:W3, therefore it's already been shown not just to be restricted to that area of the map.

I suspect that Cathay will be a later addon, not in the original release.

A lot of the recent discussion in this thread seems to have ignored what GW have said so far about the release. That being said, there's still next to feth all to know. We do know the rules will be taken from several of the old editions, my hope is that they use 6th edition as the basis.

We also know it's around the Age of the Three Emperors, so I suspect the initial releases will be mainly human factions plus a compendium for the other races so people can use their old armies. Given the extended time this is taking before release, I hope to see a pay off in that there is a big release when it launches. Even if you think GW are just a useless bag of crap, purely from a business stand point and to get as much money as possible, this has to be a good release. They have an opportunity here to make it succeed.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, I am just happy to have Fantasy back. AoS is just not my cup of tea and it still has a bitter taste and always will.


Also, I thought that we were meant to be getting an update on the Old World this week?

Yup. Looks like they saved it for Friday so we all would check the website every day for a week.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/10/14/warhammer-the-old-world-orcs-bretonnians-tomb-kings-arrive/

Sounds like Andy has been on here recently