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.

Considering it's not a main GW game there's a good chance of that. HH went on for ages with a pretty solid ruleset with only a few real issues *cough*Magnus*cough* and MESBG has just been doing new models and books. Both use models sold by the main GW store with specialists and characters often done by FW and ToW will likely follow the same path.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
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

I really like the art they released. It shows we're not getting aos 2.0

Bretonnia looks very good imo. But I always thought the fantastical elements worked in whfb because of the 60% that was so mundane and toned down.

Would really like a bretonnia army for a regular price and not paying a kidney for it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

I have to agree. It is also close to what HH did, as mentioned above. A bit easier since all armi3s were 3+ AS, but its doable in whfb too. A decent 6th edition that could last a decade would be pretty much what I wish for.

 triplegrim wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

I have to agree. It is also close to what HH did, as mentioned above. A bit easier since all armi3s were 3+ AS, but its doable in whfb too. A decent 6th edition that could last a decade would be pretty much what I wish for.

Games make a significant amount of their total money at their release, so for any company (an entity trying to make money) they'll want to be milking it with refreshes as a long as they can.

If the new edition is a legitimate upgrade I'll welcome it whether it's 10 years later or 2. The track record for that being the case... is quite mixed. The AoS side of things (and from what I hear, the specialist games) has been doing that well, the 40k side not as much.

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

As I understand it the core rules is always your biggest seller and it declines from then onwards until you restart again.

Rightly or wrongly, we as consumers can't get enough of new editions. We buy em like crazy.

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

You mean like Arcane Legions or Starship Troopers?

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

Ah yes. Gw is known for hating money and doing stuff so that they minimize profits.


You realize right it's nothing to do with getting things right or wrong why they release new editions? They could put out edition that's best ruleset ever of any game and it still gets new edition.

GW clearly likes having discounted starters - but doesn't want them to be so common they flood ebay forever and undermining regular sales.

Beyond that, GW will never go with edition stasis because they need to sell new things. They do not want a world where you buy an army and that's it, you are done for ten, twenty, thirty years. GW can perhaps cope better than most by getting new players in - but its still not the best.

I still imagine the money they make off miniature sales trivializes money made off sales of core rulebooks--I expect the surge of interest a new edition brings is what they are after. They don't need massive rule turnover for that. Which is to say while the pace of rules editions almost certainly has financial drive I feel the actual rules development comes from an angle of legitimately feeling the changes are good for the game.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I still imagine the money they make off miniature sales trivializes money made off sales of core rulebooks--I expect the surge of interest a new edition brings is what they are after. They don't need massive rule turnover for that. Which is to say while the pace of rules editions almost certainly has financial drive I feel the actual rules development comes from an angle of legitimately feeling the changes are good for the game.

Honestly I think over the years GW has just not created an environment where skilled rules writing is rewarded nor valued internally. The result of which is unskilled staff writing rules and a lack of positive feedback resulting in reduced finances being allocated to rules. So even when they do have skilled writers they are perhaps not getting the budget they need to make it work. couple that with internal policies such as not using 3rd party alpha/beta testing to help things out (they send out pre-written army lists and limited stats instead of the full rules)

And in the end GW are still the biggest in the market, so something is going right.



That said when it comes to profits don't forget whilst the books will generate a big lump sum of cash, many people who buy them will also pick up more models at the same time. Sure not everyone starts a new army, but many will get another box here and there of models when their hobby interest is rekindled with a new edition. So chances are newbooks do generate bit companionable sales in those armies that get updated. Similarly we know that armies which get limited marketing and fewer updates often wane in popularity.

Those who have them don't want any more because things haven't changed; those who don't have them might not really know they are there to be had because they aren't being marketed to tell them how awesome they are. Plus rules that get too far out of date stop working right and those armies become weaker and weaker and don't work quite right any more. Winning isn't everything but few like to start off on a losing foot to begin with.



In the end GW can improve on their rules and they could shift to refinement instead of re-writing things every edition. However they don't and after 30-40years I doubt we'll see them change their spots any time soon. You invest in a GW game, you've decades of marketing and product awareness to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses as a firm. You either accept them or don't.

Certainly campaign books could be a way to get starter sets to the market and rekindle interest every other year, while keeping rules more consistent than new editions all the time?

Storm of Chaos as an example of this. Opening up for new models, army lists etc.

 Just Tony wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Not been following this much but do we KNOW what kind of game this will be? Will it be 5he same scale etc as AOS and 40k? Just seems an odd idea to make a direct competitor to one of your brands. Suppose it works for HH and 40k. I like the idea but I think it would tempt me away from AoS with all the nostalgia.

It will be the same scale as WHFB/AoS. It will have square bases. The ruleset is based on 3-8 edition (maybe only 5-8, actually. Don't fully remember).

It's not a direct competitor with AoS, because it's a rank and flank and thus the ruleset will automatically have a different appeal than the formation-free rulesets like AoS and 40k.

This does seem interesting. The free cities stuff for AoS had me interested but this maybe more so. I thought they could go a 10 or 15mm strategy game but 28mm is a bold choice. I hope they give the rules a fresh look, I found 5th onwards a bit stuffy for me.

The last time they tried smaller scale Fantasy it got killed at retail after 6 months and moved to Specialist Games hospice until it finally died. I sincerely doubt they want to repeat that experience.

Totally forgot about that game, always looked at it thought it was a good idea, never even considered playing it. So you’re right, probably not a bright spot on their history.

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

It's what Mantic does and is constantly ridiculed, while players are lining up literally years in advance to jump back on GW's eternal treadmill of utter gak.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

It's what Mantic does and is constantly ridiculed, while players are lining up literally years in advance to jump back on GW's eternal treadmill of utter gak.

Stonehorse said get the core rules right, not make them an uncharacteristic bore.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe they will just do print on demand 8th ed rules

I'd rather drive a 16 penny nail through my own scrotum than ever play 8th again.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
How about... and this is a crazy idea. Games stop the constant release edition cycle. Get a set of core rules right. Nail them down to be 'cheif's kiss', and then devote time to fleshing out the game with army books, models, missions, and scenarios. It is quire close to what 6th achieved, and why it stands the test of time.

It's what Mantic does and is constantly ridiculed, while players are lining up literally years in advance to jump back on GW's eternal treadmill of utter gak.

Stonehorse said get the core rules right, not make them an uncharacteristic bore.

Shame different portions of the fanbase have differing opinions on what makes the game good....

 RustyNumber wrote:


Shame different portions of the fanbase have differing opinions on what makes the game good....

Pretty much, and for a good reason : we don't seek the same thing in a game.

Which is good, a game's true richness comes from diversity (and certainly not balance).

I will weep blood if they decide they want to include stratagems, warlord traits etc etc (or any card based system) in TOW. But then there might be players who love that stuff.

So, I stumbled upon this comment in the ToW FB group. Obviously should be taken with copious amounts of salt:

Well some of the Tombking line were not that old and would easily work today without any adjustment.

Same for Brettonia, but they've likely more older stuff that could do with an update.


If GW is going for the same style, same scale and same everything then it makes full sense to put models back into production if they are up to modern standards. They can cut down the amount they need to work on fresh and then focus on adding replacements and new models where needed.


Bringing the armies back without any updates could be ok for TK but might be a disaster for Brets; or at least might be a bit lackluster. Then again I'm sure a lot of fans would be super happy to get those armies back just to complete collections and get to play with them again.



It also opens up the big door on wondering about armies currently in production and base sizes and all. Armies like Lizardmen and Skaven are almost entirely complete right now so could just jump into Old World in seconds.


It's one bonus of a firm that keeps it all in house that the molds and designs aren't auto lost when they close a project

 RustyNumber wrote:
I will weep blood if they decide they want to include stratagems, warlord traits etc etc (or any card based system) in TOW. But then there might be players who love that stuff.

Bring back the 4th edition magic cards.

More seriously - I don't know about love it - but I do think if they were to just go back to a 6th, 7th, or even 8th (boo, hiss etc) system, the risk is people who play every week would get bored. I feel there were complaints of "This is the army book, its very obvious these are the good units, magic items etc, and so I'll just play this... for half a decade until we get a new one."

Arguably though this happens even with warlord traits, stratagems, ever more complicated army rules etc.

funny thing is, both lines did not sold well back in the days because the core models (as the models needed for the required core units, not the iconic models that build the core in the background) were terrible compared to the other factions
and most people waited to get up to date designs for the models to start the armies (hence the big disappointment for TK when instead of new core models they got new monster no one asked for and the core did not match in design)

if they now just take the old models for those 2 factions no one played because of the old models
well, I don't think this will work out as planned (and just shows that GW has no clue what they did wrong in the past)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

More seriously - I don't know about love it - but I do think if they were to just go back to a 6th, 7th, or even 8th (boo, hiss etc) system, the risk is people who play every week would get bored. I feel there were complaints of "This is the army book, its very obvious these are the good units, magic items etc, and so I'll just play this... for half a decade until we get a new one."
Arguably though this happens even with warlord traits, stratagems, ever more complicated army rules etc.

this is the problem with "diversity comes from bad balance", you very soon find the good stuff and there is no real reason to play something different until the rules changes
while balanced system would have more than 1-2 viable army builds per faction and more than 1 top tier faction

but as others said, balance is more boring than waiting for the next edition to maybe play the army-list/build you want to play (as people are literally waiting 5+ years to maybe play an army-list in TOW that might not even be there)

 Overread wrote:
Bringing the armies back without any updates could be ok for TK but might be a disaster for Brets; or at least might be a bit lackluster. Then again I'm sure a lot of fans would be super happy to get those armies back just to complete collections and get to play with them again.

If GW were to bring back some of the old kits, I'd be happy to throw money at them for conversion bits.

But as an army, no, Tomb Kings aren't going to be okay if they just get the old kits back. One of the biggest issues with the 8th ed update, and it wasn't a problem limited to Tomb Kings, was that GW made plastic kits for (mostly new) special and rare choices while leaving the core to build on the skeletons that didn't look good twenty five years ago. As a side effect, they also gave the new models the same bobbleheads as the old ones they refused to replace. And that was after Vampire Counts got really good new skeletons, just to add insult to injury.

The kits have some neat bits and the constructs are fine. But being forced to have a core of ugly ass skeletons from the Nineties next to stylistically different resin/metal models next to stylistically different newer plastic models isn't likely to make the army any more popular in The Old World than it did in 8th ed. But that's okay. They've mismanaged Tomb Kings on every conceivable level. Why break with that tradition now?

So if they'll just use the old sculpts and slightly update the old rules why is it taking this long?

 Crimson wrote:
So if they'll just use the old sculpts and slightly update the old rules why is it taking this long?

Well for one thing there was a little pandemic causing utter chaos for a few years where GW shut down for several months and since then have had huge problems just getting the current games they support back to their planned release schedule and kept in stock. Let alone in stock in different regions of the world. So regardless of any development of the game itself, now is just not the time to over-stress their systems with another massive game release.


And yep I agree, TK would still need updates, core models and such would need bringing up to modern standards if they want it to sell. I think GW knows this, any models brought back would have to be up to standard. The only way I could see them em-mass getting away with relisting old models was if they did it with a lot of armies all at once.






Honestly the greater worry is what happens to AoS.
30K kind of works because it uses totally different models and only shares an army roster structure with some core forces of 40K.

AoS directly uses a lot of Old World models in current armies. Not just proxies, many AoS armies are fully Old World models. When Old World comes out the very nature of AoS lore itself also means that you could effortlessly just move them over. So how will GW keep the two lines functional at the same time without one dominating the other. I don't believe they could do it with base size and shape alone being the only dividing point.
Will it mean that AoS versions will get entirely new models over time so armies like Seraphon and Skaven will see entire new ranges? Will it mean that one game always ends up being more of a rules system and style change? If so what does that mean for AoS? Will GW shift it toward being the skirmisher whilst AoS is the mass battle system - if so what about large colllections/armies of AoS models when people want to use them for a larger battle?


It's one thing to compete with another firm in the same market; its another to compete with yourself.

So what's going to be the story? Nagash's spell goes wrong and initiates a time loop - the realms of Sigmar are destroyed in an event known as the End of the End Times and Age of Sigmar is removed from sale, to coincide with a reset of the series and Warhammer: The Old World launch.

Andykp wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Not been following this much but do we KNOW what kind of game this will be? Will it be 5he same scale etc as AOS and 40k? Just seems an odd idea to make a direct competitor to one of your brands. Suppose it works for HH and 40k. I like the idea but I think it would tempt me away from AoS with all the nostalgia.

It will be the same scale as WHFB/AoS. It will have square bases. The ruleset is based on 3-8 edition (maybe only 5-8, actually. Don't fully remember).

It's not a direct competitor with AoS, because it's a rank and flank and thus the ruleset will automatically have a different appeal than the formation-free rulesets like AoS and 40k.

This does seem interesting. The free cities stuff for AoS had me interested but this maybe more so. I thought they could go a 10 or 15mm strategy game but 28mm is a bold choice. I hope they give the rules a fresh look, I found 5th onwards a bit stuffy for me.

The last time they tried smaller scale Fantasy it got killed at retail after 6 months and moved to Specialist Games hospice until it finally died. I sincerely doubt they want to repeat that experience.

Totally forgot about that game, always looked at it thought it was a good idea, never even considered playing it. So you’re right, probably not a bright spot on their history.

Assuming they killed it due to sales. Exceeding GW's sale expectation by 400% isn't going to save you if GW decides they don't want game to compete with main games. GW has killed before games that exceeded their own sale expectations by 400% and I really doubt they greenlighted project if they expected it to sell so badly that exceeding by 400% is still too few sales...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
So what's going to be the story? Nagash's spell goes wrong and initiates a time loop - the realms of Sigmar are destroyed in an event known as the End of the End Times and Age of Sigmar is removed from sale, to coincide with a reset of the series and Warhammer: The Old World launch.

Uuuh...Nothing? TOW is based on old history pre-end times. There's no need to do anything.

 Crimson wrote:
So if they'll just use the old sculpts and slightly update the old rules why is it taking this long?

Ask the Sororitas and the Squats for what they were waiting. Imho GW only revamps a faction when the stars align in a certain way. That´s why you have to wait decades for it to happen.

I think it's fairly obvious that they are doing new models, surely.