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.

Given the number of kits they'd have to put into production and SKUs they'd have to stock I would expect waves of army boxes.

IE for $200 you get a Brettonian army with these kits.

Then a month or two later it goes away with a Tomb King box coming out.

One thing I was thinking off that’s more Wishlist is putting heroes in the unit boxes.

Since it was a major issue before with needing a bunch of heroes on the higher price. But with GW current prices it’s a huge sticker shock.

Heroes outside a unit box can be more specific to special themes, or special characters and save some space in the lineup.

Given how they treat HH (one of their core games atm, right?), I really have no big hopes for TOW. GW only cares about AoS, 40k and all the smaller variations.

 CragHack wrote:
Given how they treat HH (one of their core games atm, right?), I really have no big hopes for TOW. GW only cares about AoS, 40k and all the smaller variations.

You mean the HH which got a ton of plastic kits and is probably one of the easiest games to get into?

Dudeface wrote:
As someone who is interested but looking into OId World as a "new player" the cost of entry is the one thing they need to not feth up.

you can expect that it will be similar priced like Horus Heresy or Necromunda

this is a game that is meant to get money with nostalgia from the old crowed and not to get new players in or get people away from AoS

If whatever starter set (sets?) of potential new models they go with end up being similarly priced to HH then I'll be happy enough. Obviously they'll lose some of that functionality of just being able to use both 'sides' of the box for the same faction (unless for some reason they did go down the route of Reikland vs Middenheim or something for the starter) but it's still 'reasonable' by GW standards.

I do think GW will have to be smart not to kill it on release, a $400+ box here would be pushing it.

But if players can get into factions they want for a reasonable start up then I think they could find a happy market. GW should have the selling market, if other companies can sell rank and file it’s really on GW if they fail.

well, how others do it, be it fantasy or historical:

- 1 box = 1 playabale unit
- total army costs ~200-300€
- the possibility to play with less models per unit

a problem here is, old Fantasy players don't like the 3rd option, they want good looking units with single based models and no fillers
so doing something "official" her will upset the target group
2nd point is not an option for GW, they are the premium priced company and models won't be cheaper just because you need more of them
only the first one is doable for GW, going for 20-30 model boxes for regimental infantry and 5-10 model boxes for cavalry

PS: regarding the 3rd point, there is a reason why Warlord Games changed the unit sizes from "number of models" to "width of a unit in line" in Black Powder 2nd Edition, as the outcome is the same with the recommended basing in the book (4 models per 40x40mm base) but it adds the possibility to play larger units with less models

 blood reaper wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
Given how they treat HH (one of their core games atm, right?), I really have no big hopes for TOW. GW only cares about AoS, 40k and all the smaller variations.

You mean the HH which got a ton of plastic kits and is probably one of the easiest games to get into?

With prices noticeably favourable to 40k’s pricing.

Don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t make it cheap to get into. But the perception is that it’s better value - especially for those who collected FW armies, as certain units are now mere fractions of the equivalent FW price.

 kodos wrote:
well, how others do it, be it fantasy or historical:

- 1 box = 1 playabale unit
- total army costs ~200-300€
- the possibility to play with less models per unit

a problem here is, old Fantasy players don't like the 3rd option, they want good looking units with single based models and no fillers
so doing something "official" her will upset the target group
2nd point is not an option for GW, they are the premium priced company and models won't be cheaper just because you need more of them
only the first one is doable for GW, going for 20-30 model boxes for regimental infantry and 5-10 model boxes for cavalry

PS: regarding the 3rd point, there is a reason why Warlord Games changed the unit sizes from "number of models" to "width of a unit in line" in Black Powder 2nd Edition, as the outcome is the same with the recommended basing in the book (4 models per 40x40mm base) but it adds the possibility to play larger units with less models

I am a old fantasy player, I use unit fillers. They can look as good as a players ability, when embraced GW themselves can show how to do them nicely.
It can be as simple as a big spiky rock sticking up on a single base, the unit walks around.
A big rock that a scout is standing on as the unit circles around.

And players can choose not to use them. But I don’t think the target group of players are quite that’s specific to not wanting new players having the best chance into the game possible.
I think it was fairly common everywhere I was at the time online and off over the years for players to be ok and suggest them.
And if GW themselves write the rules so a starting army works well enough at small scale, then players expanding is easygoing.

I look at even current prices and you could fill out a small army with current Sigmar kits for under your price if you do it at a starting scale.
Just being crafty and understanding, so if GW gives players a leg up from the start then it gives players a good place to start as well.

While I personally don't like unit fillers(for the same reasons people here hate Tactical Rocks), I feel I'm in the minority. Most project logs I've seen even before the End contained at least one unit with some sort of diorama, supply wagon, big tree/rock, or what have you taking up most of the middle of it.

If the rules were such that most units (aside from say Goblins etc) feel "full" at 20 man, then I don't think it's such a problem.

I feel the issue was when you needed 40-50 guys, which represented 4-5 boxes to have one functional unit.

It’s kinda funny; horde width replaced lapping round (that basically nobody used correctly) so do we think they would resurrect that instead of continuing to use the huge units?

 Platuan4th wrote:
While I personally don't like unit fillers(for the same reasons people here hate Tactical Rocks), I feel I'm in the minority. Most project logs I've seen even before the End contained at least one unit with some sort of diorama, supply wagon, big tree/rock, or what have you taking up most of the middle of it.

This is one reason I suggested doing them as max of 4bases size.
Zombie horse in a zombie horde, 2 zombies making a base of 4 to break up a unit slightly.
Big zombie or skeleton, or other things.

As well as hero units used as base filler, works fine as well and can look great. Not all necromancers want to be in Hug range. And vampires, chaos champions and others can use the space as well if they want.
All compatible with current fantasy rules if you understand what’s happening

It'd be easier if players were happy to use a bit of headcannon that, say, 20mm = 20 troops, 25mm = 10 etc etc.

So you can have blocks of 15 "models" fighting without it being totally pants-on-head that 15 dudes would fight in a magic square formation like a block of 1500. But then getting into that logic only 6mm and under games tend to have any realistic numbers represented on the board!

As someone who only joined in 8th the idea of earlier editions with blocks of only 10 or 15 infantry does look a bit silly. Indeed it was in the design commentary for 8th that the focus was bringing the core infantry back to prominence, instead of being hero/monster/heavycav hammer all the time.

Apple fox wrote:
And players can choose not to use them. But I don’t think the target group of players are quite that’s specific to not wanting new players having the best chance into the game possible.
I think it was fairly common everywhere I was at the time online and off over the years for players to be ok and suggest them.
And if GW themselves write the rules so a starting army works well enough at small scale, then players expanding is easygoing.

I look at even current prices and you could fill out a small army with current Sigmar kits for under your price if you do it at a starting scale.
Just being crafty and understanding, so if GW gives players a leg up from the start then it gives players a good place to start as well.

just had the argument with the old crowed on the old warhammer channels and the majority was on the side that if units fillers, unit-bases or multi-bases (which even were in the 6th Edi plastic boxes, like 50x20mm for Skeletons) are part of the rules, they won't even try the game as this is not "their" warhammer and keep playing an old Edition

that people can do whatever they want is something different, there won't be a problem playing with round bases on trays or even with KoW unit-bases if people want to do this
but it being "official" (as like the example of Black Powder switching from number of models to size of the bases) seems to be a deal breaker for a lot

yet most successful R&F game have this somewhere as an option in the rules (or a low number of models in the first place) and not just a hidden "be creative" thing

 kodos wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
And players can choose not to use them. But I don’t think the target group of players are quite that’s specific to not wanting new players having the best chance into the game possible.
I think it was fairly common everywhere I was at the time online and off over the years for players to be ok and suggest them.
And if GW themselves write the rules so a starting army works well enough at small scale, then players expanding is easygoing.

I look at even current prices and you could fill out a small army with current Sigmar kits for under your price if you do it at a starting scale.
Just being crafty and understanding, so if GW gives players a leg up from the start then it gives players a good place to start as well.

just had the argument with the old crowed on the old warhammer channels and the majority was on the side that if units fillers, unit-bases or multi-bases (which even were in the 6th Edi plastic boxes, like 50x20mm for Skeletons) are part of the rules, they won't even try the game as this is not "their" warhammer and keep playing an old Edition

that people can do whatever they want is something different, there won't be a problem playing with round bases on trays or even with KoW unit-bases if people want to do this
but it being "official" (as like the example of Black Powder switching from number of models to size of the bases) seems to be a deal breaker for a lot

yet all successful R&F game have this as an option in the rules and not just a hidden "be creative" thing

Considering how common is was, I don’t think it’s a big deal breaker.
And it’s just making players aware of how to do them, how to play them and that one you said wouldn’t fall under my suggestion.
It doesn’t even change the rules, so players could entirely refuse them in a group setting of it really was the issue people claim.

Also unit fillers, unit bases and multi bases are all very different types of unit rules.
So this may be a misunderstanding of language as well, sorry if so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RustyNumber wrote:
It'd be easier if players were happy to use a bit of headcannon that, say, 20mm = 20 troops, 25mm = 10 etc etc.

So you can have blocks of 15 "models" fighting without it being totally pants-on-head that 15 dudes would fight in a magic square formation like a block of 1500. But then getting into that logic only 6mm and under games tend to have any realistic numbers represented on the board!

As someone who only joined in 8th the idea of earlier editions with blocks of only 10 or 15 infantry does look a bit silly. Indeed it was in the design commentary for 8th that the focus was bringing the core infantry back to prominence, instead of being hero/monster/heavycav hammer all the time.

I always imagine the game like this myself, but I do like the visual of the units losing strength and shrinking as the battle progresses.

I don't think I ever once saw a unit filler on the table. Presumably I should have gotten out more.

Some of it is an issue of perception; if the average size for an infantry unit is 15-20 models (which still looks decent IMO) and gameplay supports that scaling then that seems entirely reasonable to me, manageable as a hobby whilst still 'feeling like Warhammer'.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I don't think I ever once saw a unit filler on the table. Presumably I should have gotten out more.

Some of it is an issue of perception; if the average size for an infantry unit is 15-20 models (which still looks decent IMO) and gameplay supports that scaling then that seems entirely reasonable to me, manageable as a hobby whilst still 'feeling like Warhammer'.

It depends on time, army and game size. Unded and skaven where most common for obvious reasons. And zombies being the most common, well hidden unit filler in zombie units won’t even be noticed in normal games I found.
No one spots them first look with even mid sized unit.
Tomb kings also had stupid large units to interact with there rules, ohh boy that was fun….

It also sure beats out that player who turned up with just 5 packs of extra bases that where added over all the units as the only way the player could be in the tournament.
Getting people interacting with the theme and hobby of the unit is important part of GW embracing it as a option.

Daft enough to check out the 35 year anniversary stream on Twitch... fool me once an' all that.
I only mention it as by comparison, I'm very much enjoying the WHFB reboot updates. The artworks are absolutely spot on (big thumbs up and wet kisses to whomever is in charge of all that!) and the factions hinted at so far are really exciting as they've not seen the light of day for decades, in some instances, and will likely be quite distinct from AoS's more... err... fantsatical forces. Kislev, Bretonnia and Tomb Kings, with GW's latest plastic tech? Sign me right up! Grubby Breton peasants will never have looked so good! (hopefully!)

More than anything else at this point I'm just very curious as to how the revamped model kits will be addressed.
Island of Blood holds a very special place in my heart as it strikes the right balance between style, ease of assembly and looks great as a spectacle when it's all laid out so I've the utmost confidence that whatever large style army box GW will use to tempt people back in, it's gonna look bloody good.
I'm tempted by the Horus Heresey starter and well, I find that setting to be one of the bigger snooze fests in all of sci-fi!

I agree on shrinking units, I guess KoW keeps units on the table because having beautifully painted minis then starting to remove them instantly as wound markers is dumb from a certain point of view.

Apple fox wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I don't think I ever once saw a unit filler on the table. Presumably I should have gotten out more.

Some of it is an issue of perception; if the average size for an infantry unit is 15-20 models (which still looks decent IMO) and gameplay supports that scaling then that seems entirely reasonable to me, manageable as a hobby whilst still 'feeling like Warhammer'.

It depends on time, army and game size. Unded and skaven where most common for obvious reasons. And zombies being the most common, well hidden unit filler in zombie units won’t even be noticed in normal games I found.
No one spots them first look with even mid sized unit.
Tomb kings also had stupid large units to interact with there rules, ohh boy that was fun….

It also sure beats out that player who turned up with just 5 packs of extra bases that where added over all the units as the only way the player could be in the tournament.
Getting people interacting with the theme and hobby of the unit is important part of GW embracing it as a option.

I'll be honest, I just don't see the point of them particularly, unless they serve a specific in-game function. The amount of time saved during a game is negligible and I don't feel like painting something that spreads over a base with a larger footprint as being any more or less time consuming (or even necessarily affordable) as just painting up the equivalent in regular troops (and I say this as an exceptionally slow painter). That isn't to say I'm against them existing as a means of theming a unit to look unique; I just see it much more as an artistic endeavour than a practical one. Like you say; an optional part of embracing the hobby aspect. If we're (rightly) moving away from huge units being required to be competitive then I'd rather that be built into the rules themselves.

 Platuan4th wrote:
While I personally don't like unit fillers(for the same reasons people here hate Tactical Rocks), I feel I'm in the minority. Most project logs I've seen even before the End contained at least one unit with some sort of diorama, supply wagon, big tree/rock, or what have you taking up most of the middle of it.

Well, some of them can look really awesome especially in certain scenario type battles.

And they saved a lot of £$€CHF... especially for armies like Imperium which required what? 30-40 twohander blocks? and having a pricetag to the point where they were jokingly reffered to as Goldhänders in german?

Then there were certain factions like VC which were just badly designed from unit types, aka behold the block of bloodknights and my vampires and the rest is pointless garbage....

Then there were also obvious units which profited from fillers monetary and look wise.
i don't need to see 300 of the same clanrats to get the picture of clanrat blocks being massive. That is however not to say that full hordes didn't and don't look awesome.

Tyel wrote:
If the rules were such that most units (aside from say Goblins etc) feel "full" at 20 man, then I don't think it's such a problem.

I feel the issue was when you needed 40-50 guys, which represented 4-5 boxes to have one functional unit.

Well, it got there eventually.

If we go back and look at the original stuff, like Realms of Chaos, armies were comparatively tiny. Maybe three dozen models tops. By the time 4th(?) rolled around with the first Big Boxed Set, most regiments were maybe 20 models for light infantry, 10 for Cavalry etc.

Of course part of unit size increases was down to increased count of plastic kits, and armies of long term collectors growing larger, and the resultant player desire to be able to field larger forces.

In the end it was absolutely mishandled to the point where large regiments (and associated monetary investment) became more or less essential. And even 8th Ed’s change to how many models could fight via the Horde mechanism still left most models in an army just being glorified wound markers.

Part of that issue was it didn’t affect armies equally. My Ogres for example? Three boxes of Bulls got me an 18 strong regiment. All of whom could fight in combat. And yes, that was a nasty arsed prospect for opponents to face, especially given I typically had the change advantage due to higher Movement, and enough of a rank bonus and general resilience to see Cavalry largely bounce off. Whereas poor old Gobbos? Spend spend spend spend spend and you’ve still got a regiment of largely inconsequential models.

Now a failure of my own imagination means I can’t see a way to have that cake and eat it. But hopefully GW are more insightful than me here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the failure of imagination? I think I’m having some vague ideas.

First? Core Rules cover different types of game. Smaller scale skirmish, up to 1,000 points. Literally Skirmish, rather than rank and flank.

Bigger than that, up to say…..3,000 points? Standard Warhams. No Hordes (outside of specific Horde units, like Gobbos and Skaven).

3,000+? Closer to 8th Ed.

Maybe even restrict High Level Characters to 3,000+, so the more destructive spells and stuff don’t dominate smaller sized games?

As I said, this is a rough idea and certainly No Master Plan.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I don't think I ever once saw a unit filler on the table. Presumably I should have gotten out more.

Some of it is an issue of perception; if the average size for an infantry unit is 15-20 models (which still looks decent IMO) and gameplay supports that scaling then that seems entirely reasonable to me, manageable as a hobby whilst still 'feeling like Warhammer'.

It depends on time, army and game size. Unded and skaven where most common for obvious reasons. And zombies being the most common, well hidden unit filler in zombie units won’t even be noticed in normal games I found.
No one spots them first look with even mid sized unit.
Tomb kings also had stupid large units to interact with there rules, ohh boy that was fun….

It also sure beats out that player who turned up with just 5 packs of extra bases that where added over all the units as the only way the player could be in the tournament.
Getting people interacting with the theme and hobby of the unit is important part of GW embracing it as a option.

I'll be honest, I just don't see the point of them particularly, unless they serve a specific in-game function. The amount of time saved during a game is negligible and I don't feel like painting something that spreads over a base with a larger footprint as being any more or less time consuming (or even necessarily affordable) as just painting up the equivalent in regular troops (and I say this as an exceptionally slow painter). That isn't to say I'm against them existing as a means of theming a unit to look unique; I just see it much more as an artistic endeavour than a practical one. Like you say; an optional part of embracing the hobby aspect. If we're (rightly) moving away from huge units being required to be competitive then I'd rather that be built into the rules themselves.

It’s to save money, as well as artistic.
You can also mix and match in different units if you want to try out different combinations.
And a easy way for GW to help with the rank and file units without competing with age of sigmar, a box of 20 zombies could have a extra five bases intended for this purpose, if players choose. And over a army, even a small one they can add up.

With the more artistic inclined, it can give a bit of freedom. As said, zombie hordes make good use. Sometimes you want 3 zombies close, so can be done on a 4base unit filler. Breaks them up into a more horde like unit that’s shambling.
Or cutting one in half to make a extra zombie.
Can ad interesting unit interest, and can give a little leeway for players who do want to stretch creativity.

As said, this isn’t even a change to the rules as we know them, it also means players can point to a best practice to stop players going crazy.

Even if the units stay small, they can be a big thing for players getting into the game.
A lot of the old school players seem to still want to be able to do the large units, so I think it’s inevitable that some players will want to use them.

Even a 20 model zombie unit being bumped up to 25 can make a huge difference over a army of them. So they serve a purpose in game, just can be mechanically obsolete or useful as players desire.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If the rules were such that most units (aside from say Goblins etc) feel "full" at 20 man, then I don't think it's such a problem.

I feel the issue was when you needed 40-50 guys, which represented 4-5 boxes to have one functional unit.

Well, it got there eventually.

If we go back and look at the original stuff, like Realms of Chaos, armies were comparatively tiny. Maybe three dozen models tops. By the time 4th(?) rolled around with the first Big Boxed Set, most regiments were maybe 20 models for light infantry, 10 for Cavalry etc.

Of course part of unit size increases was down to increased count of plastic kits, and armies of long term collectors growing larger, and the resultant player desire to be able to field larger forces.

In the end it was absolutely mishandled to the point where large regiments (and associated monetary investment) became more or less essential. And even 8th Ed’s change to how many models could fight via the Horde mechanism still left most models in an army just being glorified wound markers.

Now a failure of my own imagination means I can’t see a way to have that cake and eat it. But hopefully GW are more insightful than me here.

Isn't this the crux, i do think however that GW can do multiple things to facilitate more medium sized units.

F.e.
- better rules for "smaller" game sizes, that can mean facilitating f.e. for certain armies to work better at lower points, which elite armies often struggled. (f.e. Chaos warriors which lacked a "mid tier" which meant that you either had 2-3 bloocks of chaos warriors and little else in low point games or a bunch of norscans with no armor whatsoever, neither scenario was enticing)

- Coordination taxes, f.e. the musician becoming less efficent at coordinating units the bigger they are, units getting slower after a certain threshhold of models has been reached, or simply forcing players to buy a musician for x models per unit over a certain point (could even increase the cost of those) etc.

- fixed unit sizes, not a fan of this but if the rules would facilitate better reserve reinforcement we would see less Überblock of xyz unit with your lord / Bannerbearer taped on and more smaller blocks in multiple lines.

Edit: you mentioned "horde", honestly just removing certain advantages of it or putting a price on them, like less efficent marching and charging would do wonders.

Personally I wish they gone the song of Ice and fire route. I like the look of their movement trays.
It preserves the rank and flank feel of the game with fewer minis. If they offered trays with either square or round holes, then people could use whichever bases they preferred. That's all pipe dreams though as gw seem set on keeping things similar to the old game.

 CragHack wrote:
Given how they treat HH (one of their core games atm, right?), I really have no big hopes for TOW. GW only cares about AoS, 40k and all the smaller variations.

I think many people would be stoked if the Old World was treated like HH.

Not Online!!! wrote:
- fixed unit sizes, not a fan of this but if the rules would facilitate better reserve reinforcement we would see less Überblock of xyz unit with your lord / Bannerbearer taped on and more smaller blocks in multiple lines.

Edit: you mentioned "horde", honestly just removing certain advantages of it or putting a price on them, like less efficent marching and charging would do wonders.

I could see them adopting the idea that a unit can be say 10 strong, 20 strong or 30 strong. And paying some sort of points for that (going up or down depending on how rules contribute).

In some ways preventing big units (like 18 ogres) - would in turn mean we wouldn't need our own deathstars - or worse, magic like Dwellers/Purple Sun etc to stand in as the decidedly un-fun counter.

But equally, getting everything back to MSU cavalry wouldn't be fun either (for me anyway).

Some sort of rejig of Core/Special/Rare into "Infantry/Skirmishers, Chaff & Cavalry/Monsters & War Machines" might sort of work - but I can imagine people hating the limitation. "You have to bring at least 3-5 units of block infantry in a 2k points game".

Grail Seeker wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
Given how they treat HH (one of their core games atm, right?), I really have no big hopes for TOW. GW only cares about AoS, 40k and all the smaller variations.

I think many people would be stoked if the Old World was treated like HH.

So 10 monsters and one infantry unit in plastic?