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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

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?

GW will make 1 box of Mark III spearmen suitable for use as any faction in the Empire civil war. Forge World will offer resin pointy heads, beard heads and gorilla heads to make elves, dwarves and orcs.

You heard it here first!

Tyel wrote:

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".

I wonder if making flanking good, and units that do get surrounded vulnerable to be enough to at least encourage not taking massive units.
With only natural horde units really ever wanting to be anywhere near being massive.

I also think it’s fine if your biggest units grind against each other a bit. If winning on a flank can be where the game can shine tactically.
One issue I also found is how monsters would be blown apart, so even if I had access to cool ones. Those points could be gone and may as well be in a unit that won’t die to avg cannon fire.

Ex. Brand new zombie dragon, vampire ready to fly in and wreck face. Cannon fire made it dead before it did anything.
Was like two shots.

Tyel wrote:

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".

The problem for ogres though was always, the same in essence as the one that i described for chaos warriors. especially in lower points. As an aside, i always though more than 12 ogres was excessive for a unit and even 12 was imo too large for my taste, granted i have far less experience with ogres, them being my side army.
But even there, if you would've forced 1 musician in 6 ogres and the second one costing double, it would somewhat have reigned in the issue. However the problem was with many horde being LD immune and "horde"beeing given out way to easily for practically no downsides at all.

Also i don't think if it is well designed (the rejigging and core rules of the game) that "all skirmishers" would be an issue, especially if you give units in lose formations adequate disadvantages when monsters, beasts or cav (or even infantry) hits them. ( no i don't care that you are an elf or a chameleon skink, if you get cav'd, trolled, ogred or even charged by a bloody block of boyz, you ain't going to survive.)

Apple fox wrote:
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.

I don't see how just putting extra bases in a set would benefit anyone that much; zombies and undead in general are probably the only examples where you're able to effectively make use of just spare parts to make a reasonable facsimile of a 'full' model and even that would have diminishing returns before it just looks daft. Otherwise you're into the realms of adding in larger models from other sets (i.e. the token zombie horse which is fine in of itself as a one-off) or display pieces incorporating scenic elements. Which are fine but hardly something that should be baked into how armies are collected in general. If someone wants to go to the effort of making those things then they can just buy/print/scavenge some bases as required. It's planning for conversions and kitbashing to pad out a unit's numbers; that just seems a step removed from what they should be offering as standard in their kits. Potential for creativity is wonderful and I agree that it shouldn't be excluded from how any given regiment is built; it's integral to the hobby, but I just don't agree that it is, was or will be a majority practice to use unit fillers of that ilk, based on my experience.

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?

And a consistent rulebook.

Apple fox wrote:

I wonder if making flanking good, and units that do get surrounded vulnerable to be enough to at least encourage not taking massive units.
With only natural horde units really ever wanting to be anywhere near being massive.

I also think it’s fine if your biggest units grind against each other a bit. If winning on a flank can be where the game can shine tactically.
One issue I also found is how monsters would be blown apart, so even if I had access to cool ones. Those points could be gone and may as well be in a unit that won’t die to avg cannon fire.

Ex. Brand new zombie dragon, vampire ready to fly in and wreck face. Cannon fire made it dead before it did anything.
Was like two shots.

As someone that had a whole unit of chaos warriors with sorcer shreded by a critical organgun... yeah understandable, however some factions require cannons to actually damage big things like a zombie dragon, or other forms of massed firepower, because let's be honest, expecting statetroops to stop a vampire on zombie dragon is.... optimistic and not every faction has a Lord or hero that can duel something like that for long enough that you can still win. And in some cases, even if they do, due to a critical lack of model in plastic / resin you won't see that option.

Chikout wrote:
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.

Yeah, that would be ideal.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

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

Easy peasy this one.

They’re releasing a New Game. If they release it with “just use your existing army”, it strangles sales in the crib.

So instead, hold off on the release until you’ve got New Things (so New, they’ve barely existed in the previous editions if they existed at all) to sell alongside.

What I'm curious about...

I REALLY like the new chaos warriors in AoS. I want to use those in Old World, however, I can't imagine ranking them up on the old 25mm squares.

Will GW repackage some kits with squares? Perhaps putting those Chaos Warriors on 32mm square? It doesn't make sense for them to make a new-new CW kit nor does it make sense to revive the old one.

Will they make base adapters to flip models between AoS and Old World?

What happens to AoS if Old World becomes the preferred fantasy option?

You're more likely going to just get the old warriors back, which up until basically now have been in constant productiion. And i doubt there will be much, if any conflict between the two. Different game styles and demographics.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You're more likely going to just get the old warriors back, which up until basically now have been in constant productiion. And i doubt there will be much, if any conflict between the two. Different game styles and demographics.

I suppose that is a way to force a division between the two systems and keep one from cannibalizing the other. I suppose I'll be re-re-basing the old warriors. *sigh*

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You're more likely going to just get the old warriors back, which up until basically now have been in constant productiion. And i doubt there will be much, if any conflict between the two. Different game styles and demographics.

I suppose that is a way to force a division between the two systems and keep one from cannibalizing the other. I suppose I'll be re-re-basing the old warriors. *sigh*

why sigh, the new warriors look not nearly as iconic as the old ones, especially the shields.

I've seen several pictures of the new Chaos warriors ranked up so it's certainly possible.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
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.

I don't see how just putting extra bases in a set would benefit anyone that much; zombies and undead in general are probably the only examples where you're able to effectively make use of just spare parts to make a reasonable facsimile of a 'full' model and even that would have diminishing returns before it just looks daft. Otherwise you're into the realms of adding in larger models from other sets (i.e. the token zombie horse which is fine in of itself as a one-off) or display pieces incorporating scenic elements. Which are fine but hardly something that should be baked into how armies are collected in general. If someone wants to go to the effort of making those things then they can just buy/print/scavenge some bases as required. It's planning for conversions and kitbashing to pad out a unit's numbers; that just seems a step removed from what they should be offering as standard in their kits. Potential for creativity is wonderful and I agree that it shouldn't be excluded from how any given regiment is built; it's integral to the hobby, but I just don't agree that it is, was or will be a majority practice to use unit fillers of that ilk, based on my experience.

It just helps players out, that’s it. they don’t have to put bases in.
Primary I just want them to embrace it in a hey, some players do this and it’s totally ok, and here’s good way to do it well.
No rules changes at all.

And base filller can be so small, but huge over a collection.
My VC army for Lhamian uses cats, i used to put cats into units at random. Single base, most players wouldn’t even notice, then suddenly “is that a cat?”

I used the same cats in my empire army, people catch onto what was going on.
I also had the loyal dog for a lord.
And the boy running the ale. All used as unit filler.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

I wonder if making flanking good, and units that do get surrounded vulnerable to be enough to at least encourage not taking massive units.
With only natural horde units really ever wanting to be anywhere near being massive.

I also think it’s fine if your biggest units grind against each other a bit. If winning on a flank can be where the game can shine tactically.
One issue I also found is how monsters would be blown apart, so even if I had access to cool ones. Those points could be gone and may as well be in a unit that won’t die to avg cannon fire.

Ex. Brand new zombie dragon, vampire ready to fly in and wreck face. Cannon fire made it dead before it did anything.
Was like two shots.

As someone that had a whole unit of chaos warriors with sorcer shreded by a critical organgun... yeah understandable, however some factions require cannons to actually damage big things like a zombie dragon, or other forms of massed firepower, because let's be honest, expecting statetroops to stop a vampire on zombie dragon is.... optimistic and not every faction has a Lord or hero that can duel something like that for long enough that you can still win. And in some cases, even if they do, due to a critical lack of model in plastic / resin you won't see that option.

Yea, I understand it. But it’s just a pain when those cannon seems so cheep compared to my monsters :(
But it did drive my army’s away from any cannon magnets. Like 4 dwarf players.

Chikout wrote:
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.

My hot take is that they could still go the ASOIAF route and in a way keep the current round based miniatures relevant.

The best thing about ASOIAF is that the miniatures have round bases but the movement trays are square. They could easily do the same for Old World which means people could use the new Chaos Warriors and whatnot. Because personally I have a hard time imagining GW printing the old Chaos Warrior line while they have the new Chaos Warrior line. I can just imagine for a new player going into the store to buy Chaos Warrior and buying the wrong unit. At least with the HH marines they are practically firstborns in 40k and much more interchangeable..

I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

I still think it is a dicey prospect trying to accommodate the new round base sizes into the game, unless the fundamentals change massively. I can only imagine the main target audience are those still playing WHFB and not spending their doll hairs on new rule books and official models… saying to these people they need to rebase their armies so the AoS boys can play too is gonna be a risky opening gambit.

My Oldhammer friends are okay with my movement trays that accommodate my Chaos army on round bases. My Chosen require a custom base movement tray to hold 32mm's instead of 25mm's (which makes the footprint slightly larger) but no one seems to mind.

EDIT: Yes, I understand that might be an issue in a setting outside of my Oldhammer friends.

I imagine Old World might see a base size uplift, something WFB needed anyway towards the end of its life. From there, making sure the circles fit in the squares would go a long way towards de-emphasising base shape in favour of base footprint.

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

Having briefly played a Nuln army (before it became a bit un-fun for anyone involved) in 6th Edition, having to guess ranges was barely any hindrance to accuracy.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess that raises the question of whether there should be degrading profiles. Because there's a clear gap between cannons killing characters & monsters, and just tickling them pointlessly.

I'd say 8th made it too easy to hit with cannons, but my friend played dwarfs in the early 2000s and he seemed able to hit stuff up across tables near perfectly.

Having briefly played a Nuln army (before it became a bit un-fun for anyone involved) in 6th Edition, having to guess ranges was barely any hindrance to accuracy.

Some people are good at it - many people cheated.

It doesn't take much practice to get really good at guessing ranges if you're regularly playing games with guess ranges, I could usually get within an inch back when I was playing every week and so could most of my gaming group. Cannons are fun because you have to shot-guess an artillary die and then account for bounce. Added a bit more calculated randomness than just a scatter die

But yeah, 6th ed was not dragon friendly, or any hero/monster really. I'd love for The Old World to give some love to monsters, overcoming a 5+ static combat res wasn't possible for anything but the absolute killiest of monsters or solo heroes.

I don’t think anyone really had issue with guess weapons here, I remember people joking about them being more accurate than snipers.

Guessing range was always stupid in the first place, because it obviously was advantaging the people used to it in comparison to the others. The spirit of the rule was becoming unfair for no good reason.

Removing that rule was a good decision from GW's rule teams. I expect them to keep it that way in the Old World rulebook.

Artillery was always horrible, especially in 8th with catapults and breath weapons. Making everything being hit automatically by simply has a bit of the miniature under the templates was not the best idea in the end as well. Should have kept that "4+ rule if partial" instead.

As for monster riders...just combine their profiles already. That random allocation between the mount and the character was the main reason people mostly didn't bother bringing them against shooting armies.

 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...can't be serious. The game literally just got one of the biggest releases of brand spanking new plastic and resin kits of anything in the last five years, and is still getting roadmap content every month for the foreseeable future....

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I'd like to point out the number of models required increased as the editions went on. If you look at the representative army's in 5th, they are fall smaller in model count than 8th.

I think 5th ed model counts were the sweet spot. I get the appeal of large rank and file armies, but the smaller more compact "warbands" of 5th ed fill a somewhat unique tabletop niche and meant there were enough minis on the table to have an interesting encounter but not so much that maneuver became impossible and terrain became a problem.

Eg huge unit sizes could have been overcome with the lower prices; or with more focus on smaller game modes to bridge the gap to the 2K army games etc....

Cost is only part of the problem. Time invested into building and painting that many models is a significant factor, especially when the perception is that most of the minis served no purpose other than to be removed as casualties. Likewise, the physical size of the units on the tabletop made for (in my opinion) an unwieldy and frustrating gameplay experience as they became very difficult to move around the table/around your other units.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I played WHFB at smaller sizes, including various escalation style leagues, so I feel this whole "it only works at 2k points" is a bit of a reach.
The issue is that people show up to say a 1k points game with say 75% of their points in some deathstar and wondered why the game feels a bit stupid and imbalanced.

Like the common claim was a new guy shows up in the store, and want's to play generic humany humans. They promptly get told to start they "need" 40 Halberdiers, so 4 boxes, and a bunch of characters. They respond "that sucks, I'm out."

But you didn't have to do that - its just what the playerbase insisted on doing to itself.

WHFB only works well with large regiments. Why? Because the rules are written that way. Take a look at the magic system with it´s missile spells causing either D6, 2D6 or even more amounts of hits. Regiments of ten models are often crippled when hit. Same applies when artillery guns come into play. The whole game expects the player to field big infantry blobs in order to soak up that kind of damage.

This is 100% wholly dependent on the edition being discussed.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


The Old World is unlikely to launch with anything like the amount of stuff that previous WHFB players will expect. There's no way they'll be able to make all the old kits available again (even if the choose to go with them intiailly) as they'll hit the production capacity problem they've had since before covid

Rumor from a semi-reliable personal source indicated 40k 10e would be released in Q1 or early in Q2. They may be moving it up to deconflict/make space for TOW in Q3 timeframe.

 Overread wrote:
In fairness I'd be shocked if GW weren't aware of Dakka - its one of the bigger and more active forum communities and GW today seems more aware of the internet (overtly) than they were in the past.
Even if they don't post here I'd 100% expect them to want to keep an eye on places like this. Consumer feedback, user opinion, rumours and leaks etc...

They are 100% aware of dakka and what gets posted here. The perception of the forum and its membership is overwhelmingly negative on the part of the design studio, however (or at least the few employees of which I have spoken to at various events or interacted with on twitter, etc.), and they take whatever we discuss here with a huge grain of salt (and probably also a fair amount of disgust/distaste/disagreement).

 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?

Nah. How they completely refuse to do any kind of promo after launch Mechanicum, Custodes books. Here's one single preview, now gtfo. Haven't seen any kind of previews for anything more serious than random assassins and shoulder pads.

 Togusa 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...can't be serious. The game literally just got one of the biggest releases of brand spanking new plastic and resin kits of anything in the last five years, and is still getting roadmap content every month for the foreseeable future....

I also feel like saying “AoS, 40k and all the smaller variations.” means everything except Heresy (and LotR) right?
So they basically Only care about everything they make. Except the subject of the argument

Luke82 wrote:
I still think it is a dicey prospect trying to accommodate the new round base sizes into the game, unless the fundamentals change massively. I can only imagine the main target audience are those still playing WHFB and not spending their doll hairs on new rule books and official models… saying to these people they need to rebase their armies so the AoS boys can play too is gonna be a risky opening gambit.

Those people are 40+. They will laugh at such a notion and turn their backs on this project the instant such a silly proposal is being made. I am honestly baffled that GW wants to revisit R&F now. It´s not going to be cheaper and the community has less disposable income than during WHFB´s golden years. It´s going to be a Dreadfleet disaster.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
I still think it is a dicey prospect trying to accommodate the new round base sizes into the game, unless the fundamentals change massively. I can only imagine the main target audience are those still playing WHFB and not spending their doll hairs on new rule books and official models… saying to these people they need to rebase their armies so the AoS boys can play too is gonna be a risky opening gambit.

Those people are 40+. They will laugh at such a notion and turn their backs on this project the instant such a silly proposal is being made. I am honestly baffled that GW wants to revisit R&F now. It´s not going to be cheaper and the community has less disposable income than during WHFB´s golden years. It´s going to be a Dreadfleet disaster.

There's GW and Fantasy on the cover. It's too big to fail at this point. People are swearing off alternative games and rulesets they were previously happily playing for no other reason than "Games Workshop" despite the game still being years out. There is no way people aren't going to religiously buy into this, even if they complain all the while.

8th edition 40k showed just how forgiving people are towards the brand.

I don't see the whole internet, but I don't see that many lemmings rushing for the cliff over this one. There's some interest, other things generate way more interest. I'd say how they implement it and whether that instantly puts it in a casket is still an open question.

Not saying they won't cannibalize some of their own market of super GeeDub fans and declare victory, but back in reality, we'll see if it sells enough to be more than some niche product.