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.

With their nostalgia based mini design of late I'd love a model based on the 5th Vampire cover.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also doesn't help that certain editions toned up the grimdarkness of certain factions. 6th edition Brettonia tends to be one of the more commonly cited ones on how a faction can suddenly be changed with it's viewpoints.

Well, that's the fault of Stillman's bland heroic army book. Before that, Bretonnia was even worse: full of decadent nobles, degenerated folk and extreme penury. Chaos worshippers everywhere of course and the cities were mostly slums. It was portrayed as a failed state drowning in it's own depravity. 6th edition army book was quite positive compared to this.

------

Soooo. Border Princes. Well, I spot a Nehekarian tomb. And the Harkon emblem looks like the current ruler isn't that much alive (or he/she is a wine connoisseur). There's hope for some Undead stuff.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also doesn't help that certain editions toned up the grimdarkness of certain factions. 6th edition Brettonia tends to be one of the more commonly cited ones on how a faction can suddenly be changed with it's viewpoints.

Well, that's the fault of Stillman's bland heroic army book. Before that, Bretonnia was even worse: full of decadent nobles, degenerated folk and extreme penury. Chaos worshippers everywhere of course and the cities were mostly slums. It was portrayed as a failed state drowning in it's own depravity. 6th edition army book was quite positive compared to this.

------

Soooo. Border Princes. Well, I spot a Nehekarian tomb. And the Harkon emblem looks like the current ruler isn't that much alive (or he/she is a wine connoisseur). There's hope for some Undead stuff.

The difference between the 5th and 6th edition book is still a source of contention, especially when you factor in the many characters left behind from the edition change.

Just had a look at that article now. Fascinating look into the borderlands. I remember running a few narrative campaigns there throughout 6th edition. Honestly the Old World project is shaping up to be absolutely fantastic. I'm so glad that it's getting done. Can't wait to see what they add in next. Interesting we haven't heard from the Dwarves yet..

Must have a look again at the old Shadow of the Horned Rat computer game, that started off in the Border Princes region IIRC.

^ You can buy that game on gog.com for just a few bucks for those that are interested.

It seems like they are diving first into the areas of the world that weren’t really fleshed out before the world was destroyed. I suspect the closer we get to launch, the more we will hear about the main races like Dwarves, Brets, etc.

 BlackoCatto wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also doesn't help that certain editions toned up the grimdarkness of certain factions. 6th edition Brettonia tends to be one of the more commonly cited ones on how a faction can suddenly be changed with it's viewpoints.

Well, that's the fault of Stillman's bland heroic army book. Before that, Bretonnia was even worse: full of decadent nobles, degenerated folk and extreme penury. Chaos worshippers everywhere of course and the cities were mostly slums. It was portrayed as a failed state drowning in it's own depravity. 6th edition army book was quite positive compared to this.

------

Soooo. Border Princes. Well, I spot a Nehekarian tomb. And the Harkon emblem looks like the current ruler isn't that much alive (or he/she is a wine connoisseur). There's hope for some Undead stuff.

The difference between the 5th and 6th edition book is still a source of contention, especially when you factor in the many characters left behind from the edition change.

IIRC all of the 6th edition books had only two or three special characters, while the books of the two former editions had at least half a dozen. And usually one of the characters was entirely new. It wasn't a Bretonnian thing.

The best part is that most people weren't using special characters in 6th. I don't think we're going to get that though, looking at the current trends set by AoS and 40K.

Depends. The latest changes in AoS suggest GW is pushing it a "touch" closer toward what could be a more warcraft 3 style game of fewer units. Heck in a standard 2K game now you can't field more than 2 full infantry groups; and if you do you can then only take minimum strength units for the rest of the army.

This might be part and parcel of GW starting to draw a line in the style of game between Old World and AoS at an early stage. Shifting AoS to fewer smaller units whilst Old World might be the bigger rank and file game, which means less space for heroes.

Of course that depends on if GW keeps the idea of big base heroes around. AoS has a good number of big base, big model heroes that are plentiful through the game, even if they can cost up to 1K points. That creates a very different tone and style of game to a mass rank and file game, where outside of a few specialist cases, it just doesn't seem as attractive to take the rank and file concept and then throw half of that away to put Nagash on the table.

Nagash was the giant, floating undead canary in the coalmine.

I wonder if we'll see an article on Tilea at some stage - it'd be nice to hear how the Dogs of War are getting on.

The way they are fleshing out the mostly untouched parts of the world (in recent editions), wouldn’t surprise me.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Nagash was the giant, floating undead canary in the coalmine.

This is too accurate. Nagash and the giant glottkin model that was the size of regiment.

Article is a bit thin on a info. Really can't.wait.to.see what this game will give us

The drip feed is agony, and the occasional bumps only make it worse. Thankfully we don't have the Warmaster/Rounds/Whatever naysayers chaffing the thread with every update anymore.


What would make me happier than anything would be solely if GW would start selling squares and movement trays in preparation of this game. THAT would thrill me more than anything short of confirmation of which edition it's most based on or maybe pictures of actual models.

 Just Tony wrote:
The drip feed is agony, and the occasional bumps only make it worse. Thankfully we don't have the Warmaster/Rounds/Whatever naysayers chaffing the thread with every update anymore.


What would make me happier than anything would be solely if GW would start selling squares and movement trays in preparation of this game. THAT would thrill me more than anything short of confirmation of which edition it's most based on or maybe pictures of actual models.

Imagine if they started selling current square bases only to change the base size later

 streetsamurai wrote:
Article is a bit thin on a info. Really can't.wait.to.see what this game will give us

I'm kind of curious what the _game_ is at this point. This is all really broad background work that just floats in the background for a RPG, a skirmish game or 100-model-a-side mass battle game. They haven't even delved into ground level details, its all cursory stuff just floating at the regional level. The net is 'basically the entire continent, plus maybe more.' So, yeah, they're aiming for a vague gestalt successor to all the editions of WFB (somehow), but... that sadly doesn't tell us much. Unit size, psychology rules, formations, etc- all that went from one extreme to another (and in some cases back again) over the course of WFB's lifetime.

Ah, my old stomping grounds, the Border Princes. Scene of many a campaign, because the map was just so darn BLANK!

And here they've crowded it with stuff while still leaving it delightfully blank. See all these crests? Give it a year and they'll all be different.

The Border Princes always seemed to be the natural home of "low stakes Warhammer". And pretty much everyone had a good reason to be there. That looks very much like and elf shield to the west, and I don't recall the geographical areas having so many names. The Black Peninsula, for example. And the area's appropriately heaving with Orcs and Goblins.

Regardless of all else, when this thing is finished I want the map for my wall. About 4 foot by 4 foot square, ideally.

 Overread wrote:
Depends. The latest changes in AoS suggest GW is pushing it a "touch" closer toward what could be a more warcraft 3 style game of fewer units. Heck in a standard 2K game now you can't field more than 2 full infantry groups; and if you do you can then only take minimum strength units for the rest of the army.

That sounds terrible.

Anywho, the Border Princes seems to be done well with this approach. Maybe Warhammer The Old World won't be so bad?

Edit, seems to be an odd named landmark on the Eastern side of the Black gulf. It is cropped to obscure the name, think it is Tor Anrok. It is a landmark symbol I don't recognise. Think it might be a sacked Elven town/city.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Depends. The latest changes in AoS suggest GW is pushing it a "touch" closer toward what could be a more warcraft 3 style game of fewer units. Heck in a standard 2K game now you can't field more than 2 full infantry groups; and if you do you can then only take minimum strength units for the rest of the army.

That sounds terrible.

It does, but it has its bonuses too. See right now both 40K and AoS don't have any kind of unit limiter like they did in the past. You can build armies pretty much however you want and, in Aos, one problem that arises is that big infantry blocks basically became the best option. This was compounded by also giving a points discount for any unit that you took in a full completion of models. So AoS 2.0 encouraged and rewarded you to take BIG infantry blocks all the time. AoS 3.0 restricts you from that very harshly (I think perhaps too harshly and I will be interested to see if some armies/units, like skaven, get a special discount or a change).

The bonus is that units which are essentially what would be considered "elites" in 40K, are now more viable in AoS. Because now if you can only take two full units at 2K, suddenly those more elite monsters and units are now only competing with multiple small infantry blocks instead of big infantry blocks. It makes them more viable without bumping their stats up to be super powerful.

I do think its perhaps a touch too much and that GW could really do with looking back to the old FOC style of army building. Heck it only broke for 40K because they never really revised it for an expanding game. I do recall armies like Tyranids having problems because all their specialists and support units were elites but you had something like a limit of 3 or 6 or so per "army". Which was really too small. The game out grew the FOC but instead of expanding it GW went for the whole "tear it down" approach. Fully free form building has the downside that any efficient unit just gets spammed. 40K started to combat that with the "rule of 3".

This is why I think 3rd edition 40k Force Organisation Chart, and WFB 6th army table coupled with troops/core scoring objectives was the best approach.

They meant that players had to take core basic infantry. So forces looked like armies and not just a list designed to win.

Anyway, this is going off topic.

Speaking of the Old World, here's everything Cathay have.

 stonehorse wrote:
This is why I think 3rd edition 40k Force Organisation Chart, and WFB 6th army table coupled with troops/core scoring objectives was the best approach.

They meant that players had to take core basic infantry. So forces looked like armies and not just a list designed to win.

Anyway, this is going off topic.

Those editions introduced the idea of "core/troop tax" because GW made damn sure most core units were dead weight in combat compared to the other slots. If you return to that without addressing the issue,the end esult will be the same- people only taking as many of the trash units as possible to not hurt their chance of winning/using the FUN stuff.

Cronch wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
This is why I think 3rd edition 40k Force Organisation Chart, and WFB 6th army table coupled with troops/core scoring objectives was the best approach.

They meant that players had to take core basic infantry. So forces looked like armies and not just a list designed to win.

Anyway, this is going off topic.

Those editions introduced the idea of "core/troop tax" because GW made damn sure most core units were dead weight in combat compared to the other slots. If you return to that without addressing the issue,the end esult will be the same- people only taking as many of the trash units as possible to not hurt their chance of winning/using the FUN stuff.

I must be an oddity, I always gravitated more towards core troops then a factions elite. I look at the old Jervis Johnson High Elf force (2 4th edition box sets, a Lord on Dragon, and Repeater Bolt Thrower), and think to my self, that is the benchmark for what a force should look like. Seeing armies being heavy dominated by elites/special/rare/etc I think robs thise units of their eliteness, if they are so common they are no longer Elite.

Best way to handle this is to make objectives troop/core scoring only.

Same. I traditionally build my armies for 40k and AoS/Fantasy around a strong core of basic troops. Same for other non-GW games. It pains me that in order to be able to win games in the modern meta for many of these games that my armies need to be built around spamming special/elite units with only the barest minimum of troops units instead.

 stonehorse wrote:

Cronch wrote:


Best way to handle this is to make objectives troop/core scoring only.

That was always a dumb idea
"Ha, i have one pikeman on the objective and you have a giant monster with a sword that kills gods, i have the objectiver sir"
So glad those are gone

The idea was that pikemen were everywhere, and could stay on the objectives. Elite troops and heroes would need to leave the field as they were desperately needed elsewhere.

Yes, but also, that's not how battles work, especially at the scale depicted in the game. The whole "occupy objectives" that are just spots on the board doesn't work very well with faux-medieval combat anyway. You occupy objective not by physically sitting on it, but by removing enemy presence that could threaten it. It doesn't matter if your pikes are exactly on the imaginary spot or 1 mile away, if there's more of them than the enemy, they occupy that objective unless it's something like a bridge/mountain pass, but as we know gamers are allergic to objectives/terrain features that aren't perfectly symmetrical.

Best way to balance is is to ensure that the two sides have conflicting objectives. Side A wants to stop side B from getting to the other side of the map, or holding a monolith. This way, side A wants to bring those spearmen that can block and tangle with side B's elite troops by being physical obstacle instead of being forced, and side B might want to bring more elite troops to make sure they can open the road.
But that will never happen, because it basically is antithesis of pick-up gaming for anything but skirmish games where you can bring your whole army in one box to pick from.

Cronch wrote:
Yes, but also, that's not how battles work, especially at the scale depicted in the game. The whole "occupy objectives" that are just spots on the board doesn't work very well with faux-medieval combat anyway. You occupy objective not by physically sitting on it, but by removing enemy presence that could threaten it. It doesn't matter if your pikes are exactly on the imaginary spot or 1 mile away, if there's more of them than the enemy, they occupy that objective unless it's something like a bridge/mountain pass, but as we know gamers are allergic to objectives/terrain features that aren't perfectly symmetrical.

Best way to balance is is to ensure that the two sides have conflicting objectives. Side A wants to stop side B from getting to the other side of the map, or holding a monolith. This way, side A wants to bring those spearmen that can block and tangle with side B's elite troops by being physical obstacle instead of being forced, and side B might want to bring more elite troops to make sure they can open the road.
But that will never happen, because it basically is antithesis of pick-up gaming for anything but skirmish games where you can bring your whole army in one box to pick from.

What you describe is essentially narrative play, something that is how games should be played. However it seems that the community (or games designers) favour pick up and play games.

Asymmetrical objectives provide a more indepth game than the all to common 'line up your dudes, and see who brought the best list', which most none histrionical wargames seem to be.

Assymetrical objectives are in no way limited to "narrative" play, you just need to put more effort into testing and writing the scenarios than "LOL CAPTURE THIS CIRCLE". Both from the designers and the gamers.

Like I said, I only bring it up cause it'd be the best way to ensure core units aren't seen as dead weight you have to take like your least favorite sibling on a road trip, but I have no doubt it'll be "balanced" around symmetrical play only.

PS: "All-comer" lists can also go and die in a nurgle soup filled ditch as far as I'm concerned. They're bad, kill list variety and are a refuge of netlisters.