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.

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
Simply don't know what to think of this news.

If they are to bring it back, all of it, a largely unchanged version of it... why get rid of it in the first place?

.

Let's see. Boss 1 decides to kill of top 3 selling miniature game hoping for new space marine success story. Boss 2 comes along and thinks maybe getting completely rid of game just because it doesn't sell as well as space marines might not optimize profits.


Gw isn't infallible. And boss changes generally change things to some way. Decision to kill fb and bring back were under different boss


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casbyness 782431 10630798 885a21eef3f602bebe3e211ac242c6b0.jp wrote:
This implies that you think people don't own 28mm scale armies that fairly represent the scale of Old World battles

Sure somebody might have 10000 model per size. Less people have 20'16' board and then need different ruleset. You don't get believable battle with 10000+ warrior per side with ruleset designed for fb sized battles.

Hope they manage to do a 2nd edition of Chaos in the Old World too! Especially if they can do a deal to get Lang on board again with the rebalanced game design -- he's come from strength to strength as a designer since.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Minis came in boxes of 16 or 20. Unit sizes were the same.
1 purchase = 1 unit.

If only they'd stuck with that instead of going down the greed route of making those sized units useless. Forcing 3 box purchases = 1 unit. Ultimately killing off their own game before they made it official.

16 was used in 5th but even then it was rare, 1 dead, rank goes. 6th-7th 20 was standard for combat block with cheaper guys on 25-30.

20-25 guys for a unit, as I remember it, was fairly good and not that expensive.
50 mini for a unit ? Let's just hope they learnt...

I really like the new stuff that come with AoS, but really miss the more realistic old school fantasy setting.
Im mostly hoping for some nice scenery like the old chapel and tower.
I remember the original skullvane manse at the time feeling over the top outrageous and ridiccolous, but these days it feels realistic and cozy because AoS happened.

tneva82 wrote:

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
Simply don't know what to think of this news.

If they are to bring it back, all of it, a largely unchanged version of it... why get rid of it in the first place?

.

Let's see. Boss 1 decides to kill of top 3 selling miniature game hoping for new space marine success story. Boss 2 comes along and thinks maybe getting completely rid of game just because it doesn't sell as well as space marines might not optimize profits.


Gw isn't infallible. And boss changes generally change things to some way. Decision to kill fb and bring back were under different boss

It's obvious that there has been a significant change in direction with the change in directors. Granted, the charm offensive of self-deprecating jokes combined with price hikes and customer-unfriendly releases and packaging methods does make me wonder if the culture is much different than before, just with better PR... But anyway, admittedly without having any knowledge of how GW is run, I just find it difficult to see how the company made such a dramatic decision just on the whims of one bloke at the top. There must have been reasons for people to even consider going down this path. If generic fantasy (if the IP disputes are relevant) was a bad idea then, what changed? Yes, other companies have flooded in to fill the gap. What a surprise. Does GW want to go back and compete with them now, while having a near-monopoly before wasn't working out for them?

Post-Kirby GW is certainly happier to bank in on nostalgia, but that seems to work much better with the other systems so far, than it would for WHFB. Necromunda has a reasonable shift in aesthetics, and new multipart plastics are obviously inviting. Titanicus and Aeronautica are in a different scale, meaning people can't easily use their old kits. Blood Bowl has a little bit of both of these. Most importantly, all of these were just phased out over time, rather than literally destroyed in a narrative event, then replaced with a new game and setting. To get old players to return will be much more difficult if they change something about it that makes old collections difficult to use - especially given the much larger costs of a new WHFB army compared to a little Aeronautica fleet or Blood Bowl team.


Finally, I wonder how the decision makes sense from the perspective of production capacities. If, as hypothesized, they will bring back plastic kits for which they already have the costly moulds (perhaps more feasible when they have their new facilities up and running), are they going to invest the money and hours into creating plastic for all the metal and resin options too? It would make sense with they way GW's releases work now. But why not first do this for the significant chunks of their flagship 40k line? And instead of focussing on bringing back WHFB, why not make something out of the game and setting that was supposed to replace it? AoS has seen a few significant releases of sometimes entirely new factions, but so much is lacking. We have yet to see more than glimpse of the light or shadow elves. Nothing new for the likes of the Lizardmen. Barely anything for the Ogres, or the (I believe fairly popular) Skaven.

Something I'm very curious about, is whether Games Workshop will take the chance to delve into more areas of the Warhammer World. Albion, Vampire Coast or Cathay, for instance.



Nippon in the 1980s, not seen in miniature form ever since.

This could be especially doable if the new Warhammer Fantasy take is more limited in scope than the vast army books of the past, with all their demands for miniature kits. The army book format in and of itself became a creative straitjacket for the GW studio. In the 1980s, they were free to release a handful of new figures whenever they felt like it, and thus explore Nippon, Halflings, Norsca, Fimir or a plethora of monsters with small investment of resources. In the 1990s-2000s, they were increasingly bound up in the demands of the army book threadmill. If they wanted to release something new, it had to either be a complete new army, or just something small on the spin-off side such as specialist games and Dreadfleet (for which the market wasn't good in those days, or at least marketing under Kirby wasn't up to the task) or summer campaign miniatures such as the Hellcannon, Middenheim and Albion miniatures delving into niche concepts.



Kislev during 6th edition: A mini-army, later unsupported.

We did see Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs as a small new army in the 1990s (unsupported after 5th edition up to 8th), and a small army for Kislev in 6th edition, unsupported thereafter. Warmaster sported Araby, but Warmaster was not a great hit. Ogre Kingdoms was the one new big army, or one of two if you count the Daemons of Chaos' expanded range, and it needed an entire miniature range.



Chaos Dwarfs: 1990s army, yet left out in the cold for most of Warhammer Fantasy.

Then there were fun thematic armies in White Dwarf, such as Kemmler's Barrow legion, Vampire Coast, Clan Moulder and the Gnoblar Horde. Building on existing modelling ranges and often requiring conversions: Which was part of the fun, for sure, but ensured it stayed a tiny niche and opened up for small companies to produce models GW weren't. This problem of inviting in the small competition to open new niches was much exacerbated when studio designers during 7th edition introduced new units in army lists which did not yet sport official models, such as Forsaken.



Dreadfleet: One last exploratory hurrah before the End Times.

This commercial bind ultimately put dampeners on Warhammer's creative potential: It is huge, and can be explored to much greater extent with a more limited setup than army book-threadmill WHFB of old. But ultimately GW would want to produce models for anything peripheral they delve into, and that mean they may well shy away from introducing more things on the periphery of the background, to not give competitors possible bones to snatch.



Fimir: A weird 1980s creation because the CEO wanted Warhammer to have its very own fantasy race. Resurrected lately by Forgeworld after decades of hibernation.

So there may be little in the way of brand new additions to the glorious setting, such as Inca Dwarfs in Lustria, fantasy Songhai and so on. And there may potentially also be little in the way of covering already existing periphery stuff such as Khureshi Nagas, Albion, Ind, Norsca and so on; this obviously depends on commercial success, how limited in scope the new game and miniature ranges will be, and on budget or will within the studio.

This is a long-standing limit to driving the creative potential of Games Workshop's own grimdark, historically based, classic fantasy smörgåsbord setting to the hilt. It remains to be seen if and how GW will tackle this obstacle.

Cheers

overtyrant wrote:
No idea how they are going to handle this. Where will they store and sell what will have to be a large range?

Remember they're in the process of a big expansion of manufacturing and warehousing, so by the time this is out the new spaces will have come online, and if it's run like 30K they'll be selling direct only (with the odd starter like Calth/Prospero in store)

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Oh... joy...

Boxes of 10 plastic infantry for £25+
And we'll need them in blocks of 50 for 1 unit.

Ah... the excitement of the old world again.

I think this is one the reasons why WHFB died in the first place. GW got greedy and put infantry in boxes of 10 and wrote rules that benefitted large units. Battallion boxes had been discontinued and Start Collecting! boxes had not been introduced yet. There was no affordable way to start the hobby for new players and and they made new models that no-one asked for instead of updating older models that were showing their age. By killing the sales they killed the game.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Warhammer: Old World, but one thing is for sure. They are not advancing it three years in advance if they do not expect it to generate massive sales. Writing rules that allow players to use their old collections does not make much of a profit nor take three years. There will be metric ton of new models, big boxed sets and I will be shoveling money at their general direction. I expect the game to be focused in Old World and armies that are most likely to fight there and several old units will be dropped.

Interesting times are ahead. Warhammer: Old World can be massive success or massive failure and for the sake of hobby, I hope it will be successful even if it means a massive black hole in my wallet.

As much as it pains me to say this, this is not a game I need.

Warhammer Fantasy is the game that drug me into wargaming over 20 years ago. I'd dabbled with 40K, as it was more popular at the FLGS, but I finally gave in and traded in my Eldar for the old 4th-5th edition Undead army box. I've had a rank and file Undead army, updated as needed, ever since.

But it works in KoW just fine and, while it took some adjustment, I just like that ruleset better than any WHFB except maype 5th. And I'm pretty sure that's the nostalgia goggles, because 5th was when I started and helped kick off a return of WHFB at the store. Those were the days you could just show up on a Saturday afternoon with your fantasy army and get in 1-2 games, no pre-scheduling required.

I think there's also going to be an undead faction in Oathmark, too. And anything buy the guy who wrote Frostgrave is something I'm going to check out. Plus, out there in the non-GW world, boxes of rank and file plastics tend to cost $1 - $1.50 a miniature, and they don't have giant heads and hands like GW minis.

I'm sorry, Warhammer Fantasy Battles. You were my first love. But when GW forced me out during the worst of the Kirby years, I discovered other games, and I can't trust GW to do well enough by you now to overcome my new loves. Time marches on.

*sigh* Maybe I should pick up two last boxes of GW skeletons and a box of wraiths before all their undead turn into the faction that look like guys wearing bone suits.

 Karak Norn Clansman wrote:
Something I'm very curious about, is whether Games Workshop will take the chance to delve into more areas of the Warhammer World. Albion, Vampire Coast or Cathay, for instance.



Nippon in the 1980s, not seen in miniature form ever since.

This could be especially doable if the new Warhammer Fantasy take is more limited in scope than the vast army books of the past, with all their demands for miniature kits. The army book format in and of itself became a creative straitjacket for the GW studio. In the 1980s, they were free to release a handful of new figures whenever they felt like it, and thus explore Nippon, Halflings, Norsca, Fimir or a plethora of monsters with small investment of resources. In the 1990s-2000s, they were increasingly bound up in the demands of the army book threadmill. If they wanted to release something new, it had to either be a complete new army, or just something small on the spin-off side such as specialist games and Dreadfleet (for which the market wasn't good in those days, or at least marketing under Kirby wasn't up to the task) or summer campaign miniatures such as the Hellcannon, Middenheim and Albion miniatures delving into niche concepts.



Kislev during 6th edition: A mini-army, later unsupported.

We did see Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs as a small new army in the 1990s (unsupported after 5th edition up to 8th), and a small army for Kislev in 6th edition, unsupported thereafter. Warmaster sported Araby, but Warmaster was not a great hit. Ogre Kingdoms was the one new big army, or one of two if you count the Daemons of Chaos' expanded range, and it needed an entire miniature range.



Chaos Dwarfs: 1990s army, yet left out in the cold for most of Warhammer Fantasy.

Then there were fun thematic armies in White Dwarf, such as Kemmler's Barrow legion, Vampire Coast, Clan Moulder and the Gnoblar Horde. Building on existing modelling ranges and often requiring conversions: Which was part of the fun, for sure, but ensured it stayed a tiny niche and opened up for small companies to produce models GW weren't. This problem of inviting in the small competition to open new niches was much exacerbated when studio designers during 7th edition introduced new units in army lists which did not yet sport official models, such as Forsaken.



Dreadfleet: One last exploratory hurrah before the End Times.

This commercial bind ultimately put dampeners on Warhammer's creative potential: It is huge, and can be explored to much greater extent with a more limited setup than army book-threadmill WHFB of old. But ultimately GW would want to produce models for anything peripheral they delve into, and that mean they may well shy away from introducing more things on the periphery of the background, to not give competitors possible bones to snatch.



Fimir: A weird 1980s creation because the CEO wanted Warhammer to have its very own fantasy race. Resurrected lately by Forgeworld after decades of hibernation.

So there may be little in the way of brand new additions to the glorious setting, such as Inca Dwarfs in Lustria, fantasy Songhai and so on. And there may potentially also be little in the way of covering already existing periphery stuff such as Khureshi Nagas, Albion, Ind, Norsca and so on; this obviously depends on commercial success, how limited in scope the new game and miniature ranges will be, and on budget or will within the studio.

This is a long-standing limit to driving the creative potential of Games Workshop's own grimdark, historically based, classic fantasy smörgåsbord setting to the hilt. It remains to be seen if and how GW will tackle this obstacle.

Cheers

As this seems to be purely a nostalgia moneygrab, I doubt it. You will get a bunch of "iconic" units and heroes for each army, and that'll be it.

The real reason behind this is the success of WoW Classic.

 Galas wrote:
The real reason behind this is the success of WoW Classic.

... what?

Cronch wrote:

 Karak Norn Clansman wrote:
Something I'm very curious about, is whether Games Workshop will take the chance to delve into more areas of the Warhammer World. Albion, Vampire Coast or Cathay, for instance.



Nippon in the 1980s, not seen in miniature form ever since.

This could be especially doable if the new Warhammer Fantasy take is more limited in scope than the vast army books of the past, with all their demands for miniature kits. The army book format in and of itself became a creative straitjacket for the GW studio. In the 1980s, they were free to release a handful of new figures whenever they felt like it, and thus explore Nippon, Halflings, Norsca, Fimir or a plethora of monsters with small investment of resources. In the 1990s-2000s, they were increasingly bound up in the demands of the army book threadmill. If they wanted to release something new, it had to either be a complete new army, or just something small on the spin-off side such as specialist games and Dreadfleet (for which the market wasn't good in those days, or at least marketing under Kirby wasn't up to the task) or summer campaign miniatures such as the Hellcannon, Middenheim and Albion miniatures delving into niche concepts.



Kislev during 6th edition: A mini-army, later unsupported.

We did see Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs as a small new army in the 1990s (unsupported after 5th edition up to 8th), and a small army for Kislev in 6th edition, unsupported thereafter. Warmaster sported Araby, but Warmaster was not a great hit. Ogre Kingdoms was the one new big army, or one of two if you count the Daemons of Chaos' expanded range, and it needed an entire miniature range.



Chaos Dwarfs: 1990s army, yet left out in the cold for most of Warhammer Fantasy.

Then there were fun thematic armies in White Dwarf, such as Kemmler's Barrow legion, Vampire Coast, Clan Moulder and the Gnoblar Horde. Building on existing modelling ranges and often requiring conversions: Which was part of the fun, for sure, but ensured it stayed a tiny niche and opened up for small companies to produce models GW weren't. This problem of inviting in the small competition to open new niches was much exacerbated when studio designers during 7th edition introduced new units in army lists which did not yet sport official models, such as Forsaken.



Dreadfleet: One last exploratory hurrah before the End Times.

This commercial bind ultimately put dampeners on Warhammer's creative potential: It is huge, and can be explored to much greater extent with a more limited setup than army book-threadmill WHFB of old. But ultimately GW would want to produce models for anything peripheral they delve into, and that mean they may well shy away from introducing more things on the periphery of the background, to not give competitors possible bones to snatch.



Fimir: A weird 1980s creation because the CEO wanted Warhammer to have its very own fantasy race. Resurrected lately by Forgeworld after decades of hibernation.

So there may be little in the way of brand new additions to the glorious setting, such as Inca Dwarfs in Lustria, fantasy Songhai and so on. And there may potentially also be little in the way of covering already existing periphery stuff such as Khureshi Nagas, Albion, Ind, Norsca and so on; this obviously depends on commercial success, how limited in scope the new game and miniature ranges will be, and on budget or will within the studio.

This is a long-standing limit to driving the creative potential of Games Workshop's own grimdark, historically based, classic fantasy smörgåsbord setting to the hilt. It remains to be seen if and how GW will tackle this obstacle.

Cheers

As this seems to be purely a nostalgia moneygrab, I doubt it. You will get a bunch of "iconic" units and heroes for each army, and that'll be it.

Every business ever only does something because its a money grab. Its not particularly insightful to point out that a company in capitalist economics is making a business decision that is a money grab. They all are, it is the entire point of business.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The real reason behind this is the success of WoW Classic.

... what?

His point is that WoW Classic was not meant to be a major success and was more done as a financially viable fan-service. However the nostalgia is powerful and its become very profitable for Bliz. Thus Old World might have the same reasoning behind it. I think that that is part of it; nostalgia is a major seller of products (just look how many ancient computer games are getting re-released and remastered); however I think for the Old World its also because of two key things:

1) GW Staff WANT to make it. Yes its got to turn a profit, but at the same time GW has always been very creative led in what comes out (to a degree); so with 30 years and a good chance many of the GW staff grew up with Old World; there's likely a good body of staff that would argue the case to bring it back.

2) GW can see that rank and file as a game concept has a viable market that can turn a decent profit. Thus they are re-creating their own game to bring it back to feed that segment of the market. Likely because "new GW" is happier to chase smaller profit projects; whilst "Old GW" kept looking for quick fixes (Dreadfleet) and golden goose egg returns on investments. Of course with the right marketing many of GW's niche projects have turned very healthy profits and often exceeded GW's production and supply levels.


In the end it can likely turn a healthy profit on the investment GW will put into it; even more so now that GW is really getting to grips with effective marketing and sales tactics to help drive sales.


As an aside I kinda hope that all this renewed AoS and Old World energy and focus might mean we see Warmaster and Dreadfleet/ManOWar return. Even if they are for AoS, the concepts of both games are fantastic (and I always think the Dreadfleet ships looked really great and wished they'd done full fleets not one ship per faction).

This is so far out and we know so little about what it will end up being that I can't really get excited about it.

The only thing to come out of it that makes me happy is seeing so much love for Warmaster; it just warms my heart.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Every business ever only does something because its a money grab. Its not particularly insightful to point out that a company in capitalist economics is making a business decision that is a money grab. They all are, it is the entire point of business.

Every business wants to make a profit off their product. That is however not the same as every business only releasing "money grabs" aka poorly thought out trend-chasing products. In wargaming, take Infinity for example. It's clearly a product, designed to make money, but there is coherent artistic vision behind it, and the company cares about the IP. Compare it to this announcement of "we heard you love Old World, well, we're here to capitalize on it! seeya in 2-3 years!". There is clearly no overarching vision for the product, nor any deep love, at least so far. It's just being squirted out because TW:W sold real well, and nostalgic 90s things are in.

Either that, or everyone at GW loves WFB, and despises AoS secretly, and we can expect all their passion to go into Old World.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

Most people just get on with it. You only really hear from people who feel strongly either way, but that doesn’t mean they represent the majority.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

Most people just get on with it. You only really hear from people who feel strongly either way, but that doesn’t mean they represent the majority.

There was a majority like that right when AoS launched and GW killed off the Old World.

Today its far less the case and is more the minorities making a lot of noise. Those that disliked AoS have moved onto other games or just play old editions of Old World; meanwhile others have moved on and tried and liked AoS and started playing it. The big turn around was, I think, when AoS 2.0 launched and the game started to get organised and have a structure to it in terms of rules.


Right now the hate and anger is either trolls; people with websites who want traffic; a group who express their displeasure at GW badly when talking to other gamers and a very tiny minority who are just bitter/angry at everyone about it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

Now that AoS found its footing (you know, points and combos), I like both!! I’d happily play both too.

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Careful with that rational thinking round here, it’ll never catch on!

I don't think we will see much of things like Nippon. Vampire coast would be a great hit I'm sure, what with total war giving it a huge spot in the limelight recently, plus the models (would/could) work in both settings easily. I think the problem with things like Nippon is that some of the ideas are grounded too much in reality and some use a little too much stereotyping. I'd love too see both halflings come back and then later on (when ever they work on lustria) see pygmies work as their tropical counterparts, but I think those sort of models will never be seen again due to how sensitive people like to act nowadays. I don't think there is a copyright issue, otherwise there'd be a hundred and one historical companies in trouble. Albion maybe. I don't see anyone getting to knotted up over Celtic legends.

Psychopomp wrote:As much as it pains me to say this, this is not a game I need.

Warhammer Fantasy is the game that drug me into wargaming over 20 years ago. I'd dabbled with 40K, as it was more popular at the FLGS, but I finally gave in and traded in my Eldar for the old 4th-5th edition Undead army box. I've had a rank and file Undead army, updated as needed, ever since.

But it works in KoW just fine and, while it took some adjustment, I just like that ruleset better than any WHFB except maype 5th. And I'm pretty sure that's the nostalgia goggles, because 5th was when I started and helped kick off a return of WHFB at the store. Those were the days you could just show up on a Saturday afternoon with your fantasy army and get in 1-2 games, no pre-scheduling required.

I think there's also going to be an undead faction in Oathmark, too. And anything buy the guy who wrote Frostgrave is something I'm going to check out. Plus, out there in the non-GW world, boxes of rank and file plastics tend to cost $1 - $1.50 a miniature, and they don't have giant heads and hands like GW minis.

I'm sorry, Warhammer Fantasy Battles. You were my first love. But when GW forced me out during the worst of the Kirby years, I discovered other games, and I can't trust GW to do well enough by you now to overcome my new loves. Time marches on.

*sigh* Maybe I should pick up two last boxes of GW skeletons and a box of wraiths before all their undead turn into the faction that look like guys wearing bone suits.

yeap, this is pretty much my feeling on the whole thing. I'd love to have WFB back but I don't need it, I've made do without it for long enough now and I certainly don't need it to be brought back overpriced. I'm really looking forward to oathmark. The kits they have already are smashing, their dwarves are some of the best things I've painted. Oathmark has already gotten good reviews from people who have play tested it- it really sounds like the game works well both as a starter game (of like 30 models) up to huge games of hundreds of models. You can mix and match units from armies as you want and apparently the game remains balanced (if that is your thing). The first expansion is already being worked on and the main rules are not out yet! (yes, the undead will be in it but not until the first xpac is out, but I don't think that will be long after the main game!)

At less than a €1 per model, their kits are a bargain. Coupled with warlord games, fantasy already has a huge selection of models to play as old world substitutes. They are not overly designed like GW stuff either. I like a lot of AoS models, but damn if most of them are still on my desk, party finished as there are just so many details to do. I knocked up a couple of oathmark dwarves in one evening and I'm a super slow painter (Like, really, really slow!)

I don't need another WFB ruleset. I'd certainly be up for new books & models, so won't say no to it. But I won't be buying into the game like I would have done 10 years ago. I'll take anything with nice maps & art and I'd certainly take nice models. But most of my WFB armies will continue to be made from warlords & oathmark/frostgrave kits. My advantage is that I only play at home and not with an outside group, so I don't have to bend to anyone else's hobby, But I do see why this might be a factor for some people.

AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

From what I've seen on facebook in the last 24 hours, it feels like these people are only pooping on the other game as to reinforce their own opinion of their chosen game, as if they have to convince themselves that their game is the best and won't be removed. I don't blame them though. AoS-only people must be a little on edge, seeing as they have already seen that GW are happy to get rid of main line game as they see fit.

Sources on the internet (i.e. one post I made on my blog with exactly 0% basis in anything) predict that the new game will be in 15-18 mm.

Because that would totally make sense.

 Psychopomp wrote:
As much as it pains me to say this, this is not a game I need.

Warhammer Fantasy is the game that drug me into wargaming over 20 years ago. I'd dabbled with 40K, as it was more popular at the FLGS, but I finally gave in and traded in my Eldar for the old 4th-5th edition Undead army box. I've had a rank and file Undead army, updated as needed, ever since.

But it works in KoW just fine and, while it took some adjustment, I just like that ruleset better than any WHFB except maype 5th. And I'm pretty sure that's the nostalgia goggles, because 5th was when I started and helped kick off a return of WHFB at the store. Those were the days you could just show up on a Saturday afternoon with your fantasy army and get in 1-2 games, no pre-scheduling required.


I'm sorry, Warhammer Fantasy Battles. You were my first love. But when GW forced me out during the worst of the Kirby years, I discovered other games, and I can't trust GW to do well enough by you now to overcome my new loves. Time marches on.

*sigh* Maybe I should pick up two last boxes of GW skeletons and a box of wraiths before all their undead turn into the faction that look like guys wearing bone suits.

I agree. I like Kings of War, and I am not going to ride this GW roller-coaster anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aesthete wrote:
Sources on the internet (i.e. one post I made on my blog with exactly 0% basis in anything) predict that the new game will be in 15-18 mm.

Because that would totally make sense.

This I would love, I wanted a re-launch of Warmaster. Even 10mm again. The company could really crack into the smalle scale market as a supplement to AoS. But it will piss off fans who are (not realistically) thinking GW is going to return to square basing and let theme use all their old figs exclusively.

 Overread wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

Most people just get on with it. You only really hear from people who feel strongly either way, but that doesn’t mean they represent the majority.

There was a majority like that right when AoS launched and GW killed off the Old World.

Today its far less the case and is more the minorities making a lot of noise. Those that disliked AoS have moved onto other games or just play old editions of Old World; meanwhile others have moved on and tried and liked AoS and started playing it. The big turn around was, I think, when AoS 2.0 launched and the game started to get organised and have a structure to it in terms of rules.


Right now the hate and anger is either trolls; people with websites who want traffic; a group who express their displeasure at GW badly when talking to other gamers and a very tiny minority who are just bitter/angry at everyone about it.

Yeah, 2.0 was a pretty big turning point. I was pretty mad when the Old World got killed off at the time, and I had zero intention of starting AoS. It doesn't help that AoS should be the textbook example of how not to launch a new product line as well.

Once it found it's footing, it seemed to explode in popularity. I now much prefer AoS then I would a rank and file game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to like both settings?

Not sure. Everyone I hear talk about the WHFB/Sigmar divide seems intent on promoting one side by dumping poo on the other side.

Meh. I don't have a problem with the AoS setting... what I've seen of it looks kind of cool, and so many of the models are bonkers in just the right way. I just have no interest in a fantasy skirmish game... and by 'skirmish' in this case, I'm referring to units running about in blobs, rather than ranked infantry. I have various sci fi games to scratch that itch, as sci fi (IMO) does that style of game better.

What I want from a fantasy game is a generic high fantasy setting with elves and dwarfs and all those familiar fantasy tropes, and ranked blocks of infantry butting heads up close and personal. So while I have no particular reason to look down on AoS, it was never going to be a game that I was remotely interested in playing, as it just doesn't fill the gaming niche that WHFB did.

Thinking about this I hope they go down the warhammer forge route before they were gak canned. I.E. have a campaign book and a bunch of armies introduced through the campaign. We had Tamurkan released with Battle for Skull Pass in the works before it was cancelled.

I would love to see a 10-15mm release for the old world. I don't think I could contain my joy at plastics in that size range. Warmaster release would be amazing. The only downside would be no "warmaster" style release in AoS which would be epic give that it feels even more suited to mass apoc sized battles than wfb.

It actually makes financial sense to do WFB in the 10-15mm and not AoS. That way it wouldn't in theory cannibalize sales from AoS but they could use the old world.