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.

 H wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:
It would be also good to know how WHFB minis do against AOS minis. Maybe GW sees that WHFB "armies" are still selling good and they want to sqeez a more out of them. Man what I would do for those numbers.

Yeah, unfortunately, there is no way we can or will ever know that.

My hypothesis would be that GW has noticed (it's hard to not) that the "generic" fantasy business is still alive and kicking, even growing, despite their up and abandoning it. In other words, that market has displayed a certain stability. We can only read the circumstantial evidence, but I really don't think the aim is to "compete" with each other, rather, they are related, but different games. HH has likely "taught" them that the two things really don't cannibalize each other.

I think broadly, you've got people that would only play AoS, people that would only play WHFB and people that would play both. In only making AoS, you literally lose 2/3rd of sales in the potential markets. Not exactly good business sense. I think the biggest key though is that there are likely people in GW who just like the old RnF, "realism" of the Old World and just would rather work on that.

Yeah, but there's a strong probability that this new game ends up stealing a lot of sales from AOS (market cannibalism). As I said before, I'm not sure the fantasy market is big enough to support two main games by GW (though I'd like to be wrong). And while it's true that HH didn't cannibalize 40k, the 2 games are a lot more similar, aesthetically speaking, than WHFB and AOS are. The last thing AOS need is more units that are cross compatible with the OW, since it would really hinder it ever becoming its own thing

But personally, I don't think it will be as supported as the 2 main games, and will mostly be a side game (a la Epic and Necromunda). GW put way too much effort in AOS, so I don't think it is in any danger, unless this new game simply dwarfs it in sales.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Yeah, but there's a strong probability that this new game ends up stealing a lot of sales from AOS (market cannibalism). As I said before, I'm not sure the fantasy market is big enough to support two main games by GW (though I'd like to be wrong). .

Given that there were quite a few fantasy skirmish games on the market before AoS came along, I think it is. If a returned WHFB steals sales from AoS, it will only be those players who were unhappy with the system change and adopted AoS due to lack of options. Ultimately, giving those players back the system that they actually want to be playing rather than having them settle for the game that's never going to be what they're looking for.

But really, AoS has more in common with 40K than with WHFB. There's room for both of them.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Yeah, but there's a strong probability that this new game ends up stealing a lot of sales from AOS (market cannibalism). As I said before, I'm not sure the fantasy market is big enough to support two main games by GW (though I'd like to be wrong). But still, maybe this won't be as supported as the 2 main games.

Well, maybe? Still, even if you leave AoS for The Old World, you are still in the "GW sphere." I still think that actual number ends up being relatively low. People who play AoS tend to be people who like that sort of game, I mean, it's tautological, that's why they are playing it. Are there really people who prefer RnF and are playing AoS, sort of, under protest? Just so they can stay in the GW sphere? Again, plausibly, but I don't think this is a large market segment in the grand scheme of things.

I think it is pretty likely this gets about as much support as HH does. Which, I think, is a steady, relatively small amount.

Are there really people who prefer RnF and are playing AoS, sort of, under protest? Just so they can stay in the GW sphere? Again, plausibly, but I don't think this is a large market segment in the grand scheme of things.

That would account for a sizable chunk of my city's AOS crowd yes.

 H wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Yeah, but there's a strong probability that this new game ends up stealing a lot of sales from AOS (market cannibalism). As I said before, I'm not sure the fantasy market is big enough to support two main games by GW (though I'd like to be wrong). But still, maybe this won't be as supported as the 2 main games.

Well, maybe? Still, even if you leave AoS for The Old World, you are still in the "GW sphere." I still think that actual number ends up being relatively low. People who play AoS tend to be people who like that sort of game, I mean, it's tautological, that's why they are playing it. Are there really people who prefer RnF and are playing AoS, sort of, under protest? Just so they can stay in the GW sphere? [b]Again, plausibly, but I don't think this is a large market segment in the grand scheme of things.[u]

I think it is pretty likely this gets about as much support as HH does. Which, I think, is a steady, relatively small amount.

1-Of course. But for GW, it's twice the production cost for the same number of sales. So it's a net negative

2-I think it's much higher than most here think. I might be wrong, but I think that we tend to over-estimate the number of players that are willing to go beyond GW offering. Even in a big city like Montreal, it is fairly hard to find players for non-GW games (bar warmahorde when it was popular)

 auticus wrote:

Are there really people who prefer RnF and are playing AoS, sort of, under protest? Just so they can stay in the GW sphere? Again, plausibly, but I don't think this is a large market segment in the grand scheme of things.

That would account for a sizable chunk of my city's AOS crowd yes.

Out of curiosity why is your city not playing KoW, 9th age or Asoiaf?

Also a question for the most ardent Warhammer fantasy fans, would you be happy with Asoiaf style basing or does it have to be squares?

Chikout wrote:

Also a question for the most ardent Warhammer fantasy fans, would you be happy with Asoiaf style basing or does it have to be squares?

I wouldn't be happy with the ASOIAF style. It looks ugly, and the miniatures are too spread out to look like a coherent formation. I also don't understand the point of it. If your game is designed for miniatures to rank up, then square bases make more sense.

 insaniak wrote:

Chikout wrote:

Also a question for the most ardent Warhammer fantasy fans, would you be happy with Asoiaf style basing or does it have to be squares?

I wouldn't be happy with the ASOIAF style. It looks ugly, and the miniatures are too spread out to look like a coherent formation. I also don't understand the point of it. If your game is designed for miniatures to rank up, then square bases make more sense.

The point would be to let people use their collections in both games without having to rebase everything again.
Think of a chaos demon army. Right now they can be used pretty much unchanged in AOS and 40k. Having to buy a whole new army or do some funky stuff with magnets would be a major impediment to getting into RAF fantasy.

I was putting my WHFB minis on round bases long before the End Times, so I’d be happy. However, I wasn’t actually playing the game so much as supplementing my Black Library habit with models, lots and lots of models.

Do I think GW should use round bases? No. Give the players the square bases they crave and the rest of us will find some round bases somewhere. Or better yet, both. Then GW can put together all kinds of skirmish or board game supplements to sell the same minis.

I dont care if its round or square bases so long as there are rules to rank up, there are flanks and rear, and maneuver is more important than figuring out that maximizing on mortal wounds is the key to victory.

Chikout wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Are there really people who prefer RnF and are playing AoS, sort of, under protest? Just so they can stay in the GW sphere? Again, plausibly, but I don't think this is a large market segment in the grand scheme of things.

That would account for a sizable chunk of my city's AOS crowd yes.

Out of curiosity why is your city not playing KoW, 9th age or Asoiaf?

Honestly, why would they? I haven't gone looking for the last one, but I've never seen Kings or '9th' in the wild. Ever. Not played, and not (in the case of Kings) sold.

Chikout wrote:

The point would be to let people use their collections in both games without having to rebase everything again.

Can you not use square bases in AoS?


Regardless, though, I very much doubt that cross-compatibility will be much of a thing. There is an even bigger divide, background wise, between the Old World and the Mortal Realms than there is between HH and 'modern' 40K. The only reason that classic WHFB units still exist in AoS is that they couldn't replace everything all at once, and that will become less of a thing over the years. There may be some units that can be used in both games, but it's not going to be a driving principle behind model design.

Think of a chaos demon army. Right now they can be used pretty much unchanged in AOS and 40k. Having to buy a whole new army or do some funky stuff with magnets would be a major impediment to getting into RAF fantasy.

Back when Daemons only came with square bases, they were also used unchanged in both WHFB and 40K. Some 40K players switched them to round bases, some didn't bother. And even when GW started packaging them with both, it was still not at all uncommon for people to use the square bases so they would be usable in both games.


Although it would also make some amount of sense for Daemons in WHFB to be skirmishers, and having skirmishers on round bases would be a nice way of differentiating them from other units...

Chaos daemons, Skaven, ogors, Seraphon, legions of Nagash, flesh eater courts, slaves to darkness and some versions of cities of sigmar could all be converted back to the old world with minimal changes. That's more cross compatibility than 40k and 30k have.

Technically you can use squares in AOS, but nobody does.

A lot of gw's modern fantasy scuplts have improved thanks to freedom that being on a round base gives the designers.
Honestly from an ease of entry standpoint doing two types of regiment bases would be a great solution.
They could do regiment bases with either square or round holes.
That way gw gets to continue to produce the kind of dynamic sculpts they have been doing so far.
It is cheaper for the player as a big regiment base might only need 25 minis rather than the 50 we had before.
It would reduce the issue of the division of the community as two players could play both AOS and old world back to simply by adding the regiment bases and changing a character or two.
If they did it this way, whether you are a 9th age player with square bases or an AOS player on rounds, you could get up and running in the new game simply by buying the rulebook and a handful of the new bases.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the best way to go.

Some of the new armies designed specifically for AOS could fit really well into the OW (nighthaunt, the new orcs, Tzeentch cutltist and even the all the new elves bar the deepkin).

Chikout wrote:
Chaos daemons, Skaven, ogors, Seraphon, legions of Nagash, flesh eater courts, slaves to darkness and some versions of cities of sigmar could all be converted back to the old world with minimal changes. That's more cross compatibility than 40k and 30k have.

It won't be, though. I would expect that Daemons and (maybe) Slaves to Darkness are the only things out of that list that will wind up looking the same, or using the same units in both games. Other armies may exist in both, but they'll look different, or be equipped differently, in the same way as Horus Heresy has different squad options to 40K, even though they both use Space Marines.

A lot of gw's modern fantasy scuplts have improved thanks to freedom that being on a round base gives the designers.

GW's modern fantasy sculpts have improved thanks to better equipment for creating them. Not having to rank up wasn't a factor in improving the sculpting, it just gave them more freedom with posing... which is irrelevant, really. The fact that rank and file models tend to be in boring poses isn't a sign of poor quality, it's a reflection of their purpose. They're supposed to rank up, so they should be designed to rank up.

The thing I didn't like about WHFB is that the units aren't individuals like they are in 40k. They're basically just a big square/rectangle monster with 20-40 wound counters sitting on top.

I wouldn't expect much out of this. I'd anticipate something closer to a dumbed-down version of Apoc with some elements of Warcry's dice.

Just got a hunch.

@Insaniak, you make a pretty good argument for round bases. I didn't remember how boring the old ranking minis were until you reminded me. Even worse than overly-expensive minis are overly-expensive, boring minis, especially when they are all in nearly the same boring pose.


I hope we get some kind of round base skirmish game or Shadespire knockoff.

Personally, I would love if the return of the old world is basically just a big "F-you" to Kirby and those who supported his choice to kill off fantasy because it didn't sell enough.

Because the massive turn around in GW finances wasn't enough already.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Yeah, but there's a strong probability that this new game ends up stealing a lot of sales from AOS (market cannibalism). As I said before, I'm not sure the fantasy market is big enough to support two main games by GW (though I'd like to be wrong). And while it's true that HH didn't cannibalize 40k, the 2 games are a lot more similar, aesthetically speaking, than WHFB and AOS are. The last thing AOS need is more units that are cross compatible with the OW, since it would really hinder it ever becoming its own thing

But personally, I don't think it will be as supported as the 2 main games, and will mostly be a side game (a la Epic and Necromunda). GW put way too much effort in AOS, so I don't think it is in any danger, unless this new game simply dwarfs it in sales.

It's similarity that steals sales. If you have 2 different aesthetically then it's appealing to different group. There are people who will buy aesthetic A but not B and vice versa. If GW only provides to A it loses sales from B and vice versa.

And OW and AOS cross compability is actually less than 40k and 30k. Lots of 30k stuff can be ported over to 40k no problem. Good luck with AOS and OW where aesthetics for new models is different and the AOS stuff don't even rank up that well so are pretty much literally unplayable in OW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
GW's modern fantasy sculpts have improved thanks to better equipment for creating them. Not having to rank up wasn't a factor in improving the sculpting, it just gave them more freedom with posing... which is irrelevant, really. The fact that rank and file models tend to be in boring poses isn't a sign of poor quality, it's a reflection of their purpose. They're supposed to rank up, so they should be designed to rank up.

And as a result of ranking up they actually look like armies in war rather than ninja wannabe's in solo duels. AOS models don't create feel of army at all.

If you're thinking the Old World and AOS will be in competition with each other, that's wishful thinking as to how big this will be and how much support this will get. I think it's certain AOS will still be GW's headline fantasy game, make no mistake.

I think we can only expect a small specialist game type of support with the New Old world stuff. like HH/30k has seen in comparison to 40k.

I do think they will move AOS more fully away from the aesthetics of the old world until eventually it becomes wholly its own thing.
Maybe this is even GW's method of damage control to the backlash they'd face from taking even more of the old world aesthetic away from AOS...

But yeah I think separation is more likely than cross compatibility. Although as someone who more enjoys the converting and painting side of the hobby more variation to work with is a win for me and there is no reason why you couldn't convert something from either mini line to play an army in either game. although yeah bases and ranking place some limitations.

Chikout wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Are there really people who prefer RnF and are playing AoS, sort of, under protest? Just so they can stay in the GW sphere? Again, plausibly, but I don't think this is a large market segment in the grand scheme of things.

That would account for a sizable chunk of my city's AOS crowd yes.

Out of curiosity why is your city not playing KoW, 9th age or Asoiaf?

Also a question for the most ardent Warhammer fantasy fans, would you be happy with Asoiaf style basing or does it have to be squares?

KoW and 9th have no soul and don't feel like Warhammer. KoW has the added negative of that stupid "models don't matter, only the area they occupy" multibase garbage.

I really don't like how the ASoIaF bases look, too much blank space in the unit. It's the same reason I never use unit fillers like a lot of other Warhammer players did/do.

Carlovonsexron wrote:
Personally, I would love if the return of the old world is basically just a big "F-you" to Kirby and those who supported his choice to kill off fantasy because it didn't sell enough.

Because the massive turn around in GW finances wasn't enough already.

Kirby is still there in GW, still making money off every single "f-u Kirby" purchase you will make of the "Return to Old World" line. I doubt he will weep hot tears of rage because he gets paid more per share if TOW turns up to be a huge seller.

tneva82 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Yeah, but there's a strong probability that this new game ends up stealing a lot of sales from AOS (market cannibalism). As I said before, I'm not sure the fantasy market is big enough to support two main games by GW (though I'd like to be wrong). And while it's true that HH didn't cannibalize 40k, the 2 games are a lot more similar, aesthetically speaking, than WHFB and AOS are. The last thing AOS need is more units that are cross compatible with the OW, since it would really hinder it ever becoming its own thing

But personally, I don't think it will be as supported as the 2 main games, and will mostly be a side game (a la Epic and Necromunda). GW put way too much effort in AOS, so I don't think it is in any danger, unless this new game simply dwarfs it in sales.

It's similarity that steals sales. If you have 2 different aesthetically then it's appealing to different group. There are people who will buy aesthetic A but not B and vice versa. If GW only provides to A it loses sales from B and vice versa.

And OW and AOS cross compability is actually less than 40k and 30k. Lots of 30k stuff can be ported over to 40k no problem. Good luck with AOS and OW where aesthetics for new models is different and the AOS stuff don't even rank up that well so are pretty much literally unplayable in OW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
GW's modern fantasy sculpts have improved thanks to better equipment for creating them. Not having to rank up wasn't a factor in improving the sculpting, it just gave them more freedom with posing... which is irrelevant, really. The fact that rank and file models tend to be in boring poses isn't a sign of poor quality, it's a reflection of their purpose. They're supposed to rank up, so they should be designed to rank up.

And as a result of ranking up they actually look like armies in war rather than ninja wannabe's in solo duels. AOS models don't create feel of army at all.

I dont really agree with your first point. I think that for most new gw players, the big first decision is to either play a fantasy game or a sci-fi game. Im not so sure that having two different fantasy aesthetic will really bring a lot of new blood in. Will probably bring back the old timer who still haven't accepted the ow death though (like me ).

As for your second point, yeah i fully agree that 30k and 40k is more similar than aos and whfb. That actually what i said in my post

 streetsamurai wrote:

I dont really agree with your first point. I think that for most new gw players, the big first decision is to either play a fantasy game or a sci-fi game. Im not so sure that having two different fantasy aesthetic will really bring a lot of new blood in. Will probably bring back the old timer who still haven't accepted the ow death though (like me ).

Having the two games with different aesthetics serves to differentiate them. What helps increase the number of players buying in is them being two very different styles of game.

I don't get why people want to be so quick to poop on each others parade.

AoS is not going anywhere and that is fine.

If WHFB is coming back, that would be awesome too doesn't bother the AoS crowd but does give some life to the WHFB crowd.

Honestly, if all the support this game got was new rules, to refresh WHFB with some minor model support and square bases and such, I'd be very happy.

If this is a new game entirely to make our old armies unusable but still sell us on the old world, I'm right out again. I'm not paying them tons for more off shoot systems I'm not already invested in.

Though really why not let people be happy for the dream of what it might be ? I don't see how people being hopeful with a GW release being a bad thing, lord knows GW do plenty to make us bash them on their own. Notice how I'm being a voice of praise on this, if its what I hope it to be. For as long as that hope can remain let it live and it doesn't bring anyone else down for WHFB players to maybe, maybe, be given a bone.

 Platuan4th wrote:

KoW and 9th have no soul and don't feel like Warhammer. KoW has the added negative of that stupid "models don't matter, only the area they occupy" multibase garbage.

In the exact same way that warhammer was until you'd removed enough wound counters (figures) from all the ranks till the front row was reduced.

KoW just puts a dice/counter to keep track... whfb removed figures.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

KoW and 9th have no soul and don't feel like Warhammer. KoW has the added negative of that stupid "models don't matter, only the area they occupy" multibase garbage.

In the exact same way that warhammer was until you'd removed enough wound counters (figures) from all the ranks till the front row was reduced.
KoW just puts a dice/counter to keep track... whfb removed figures.

It is more like that Warhammer was (design wise) a Mass-Skirmish game with square bases and fixed formations for grunts to support the Heros on the table

KoW, is designed as a Rank & File game, same as the non-skirmish historical games

Problem is just now that GW told them that it is a R&F game, and if they are now looking for other games they will find something different and don't like it, while they game type they actually searching for would be big/mass-skirmish
Same if the new game is more like Warmaster in 28mm, it would be a real R&F game not liked by the old Warhamer crowed

So the fantasy version of SAGA is more like the game people are searching for if they want a Warhammer replacemant than any R&F game out there

Problem is that the classic R&F barrier of entry for 12-year olds randomly walking into a GW store getting told "go buy and paint 50 mono-pose spearman" is just not sustainable.

KoW avoids this in and by itself by not caring as much for the individual spearmen that make up that basic block, letting you design cinematic regiment bases and focus on the heroes, etc.. Other recent R&F games such as the CMON Game of Thrones one or the FFG one with the weird click-bases all had much more "spaced out" miniatures taking up more space on the bases.

Also, the basic premise of AoS (and 40K starters such as First Strike) allowing those super-new-to-the-hobby-people to just pick up a box of Orks/Elves/Whatever and a Hero and start throwing down is still viable for the "main game".


Selling a Warhammer Rank & File game not as a "this is a main-game-foundational-pillar-for-our-retail-business" but more along the line of Adeptus Titanicus or Necromunda or so, marketed almost exclusively to people already in the hobby and possibly with some airbrushing, contrast-paint, etc.. experience before going into such a hobby project is IMO an entirely different beast from the business perspective.

And even than, assuming some AoS miniatures might be usable for the new-old-Warhammer, perhaps the new Chaos Warriors, it's easy to see how those would take up maybe the space of 4 of the old Chaos Warriors with more varied, dynamic and "cinematic" poses, but less miniatures for the equivalent regimental base size.

They probably should have rules for really old-school mass-spearmen on 25mm squares, both for people that still have those old armies and perhaps as one flavour of new-old-Warhammer for people who really love that style, but I doubt it willl be necessary to play that style in the new R&F Warhammer nor will it be something the average GW store manager will have to worry about at all for 99.9% of their customers.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

KoW and 9th have no soul and don't feel like Warhammer. KoW has the added negative of that stupid "models don't matter, only the area they occupy" multibase garbage.

In the exact same way that warhammer was until you'd removed enough wound counters (figures) from all the ranks till the front row was reduced.

KoW just puts a dice/counter to keep track... whfb removed figures.

And those are not the same thing.

I don't get why this is hard for counter-fans to understand - people who like the WHFB style like the experience to feel as much as possible like you're commanding an army, not playing a game. A unit taking casualties and losing models fits that desire, swarming the board with wound counters and markers and doodads and wotsits does not.


As to the "boring" figures - I'll take a "boring" figure designed to be ranked up and look good in its block over most of the ridiculously over-designed "exciting" models you see these days posed mid-backflip attached to the base by a single toe or ridiculously large streamers of fabric/paper/mystical jujumagumbo.