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.

Goose LeChance wrote:
more realistic proportions compared to GW's

I pass specially looking how O&G became a Kruelboys baffling boring more realistic design.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So that thing yesterday turned out to be nothing?

Until we see something real this is all just a bunch of nothing.

Yeah 3 years and still nothing of substance

Shocking that.
Almost like the very first article said it might be three or more years before any sort of releases were seen.

 Gert wrote:
Shocking that.
Almost like the very first article said it might be three or more years before any sort of releases were seen.

I hear you. But I don't think I was the only one expecting something during these three years. In GWs defence, they probably expected to be able to show us something too.

 Ohman wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Shocking that.
Almost like the very first article said it might be three or more years before any sort of releases were seen.

I hear you. But I don't think I was the only one expecting something during these three years. In GWs defence, they probably expected to be able to show us something too.

They have. They showed us a lot of concept art.

This isn't just adding a few new units or whatever. They're starting with Kislev, a brand new faction for all intents and purposes.

Sure, they were off to a decent start. Probably expecting to keep updating with renders and stuff on a regular basis.

In GW's defence, when they announced the game they had little to no idea of how iffy things would get with Covid. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that without Covid we'd've probably seen a lot more by now.

Yeah, I'm as ready to criticize GW as anyone but it would be unfair not to account for Covid in the picture.

Agreed!

Honestly I would not have blamed GW if they'd shelved Old World because of Covid. A huge project like that at a time when GW's back end and production is in a mess and needs catching up and all - an ideal moment to shed a huge project and focus on core selling/active model lines.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly I would not have blamed GW if they'd shelved Old World because of Covid. A huge project like that at a time when GW's back end and production is in a mess and needs catching up and all - an ideal moment to shed a huge project and focus on core selling/active model lines.

Not to mention that the influence and hype over Total Warhammer III has waned.

The best time to have resurrected it would have been at II's release date, then maybe do something to coincide with III. You would have had plenty of eyes on Warhammer Fantasy, lots of youtubers talking about lore, video-game only players potentially coming into the market. Maybe even release character packs for factions with models based on the video game versions.

Instead they got AoS which, while having it's own merits, doesn't match up with the Old World.

They could have had a mini-LotR moment.

The popularity of II is why this is happening, there's no way they could have launched with II. I have a feeling they originally wanted to launch with III but Covid and the product and stock rebuild delays there prevented that happening

I would pay good money to know the whole story behind the plan to do End Times followed by AoS, etc. Even into what AoS was intended to be, I know there's the theory about mini factions and all but afaik never any evidence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would pay good money to know the whole story behind the plan to do End Times followed by AoS, etc. Even into what AoS was intended to be, I know there's the theory about mini factions and all but afaik never any evidence.

Somewhere on Dakka there's a letter/post that went into great detail about certainly how AoS wound up not having any formal rules at launch. It was all about appeasing a select upper manager and underlings basically working hard to work for the managers interests and such. Which you can 100% see from a firm that was very open about not doing community feedback.



The whole aspect about micro-armies is something I've theorized and I think its a fairly solid idea. My impression is that AoS at launch was intending to be a boutique model line. The 4 Grand Alliance system was so the game would have only 4 major factions into which each army would slot into. GW would then be free to drop micro-armies (one release wave) and test the waters. If they sold like crazy they'd get more release waves and build up to a bigger force. If they sold badly they'd just be a one and done and might even get rotated out and dropped. That way GW would be focusing on what sells the best the whole time and wouldn't "waste" resources trying to promote and improve sales on weaker forces. Along with that there'd be the poster Sigmar army which I suspect was going to ape marines with multiple chambers of different warrior groups.
With four major factions "players" could game with any one of the four and armies would just be flavourful designs. Honestly if GW had gone down that pathway in a BETTER style it could have been a miniatures agnostic game approach, which isn't all bad. But they weren't really building or looking at anything for players.

You can see all these hallmarks in the release - from the joke rules, through to the dropping of multiple army lines at launch (eg GW before that point and right now would have invested into Tomb Kings and such and pushed them up to improve sales rather than just abandon them). GW were also pretty open about it being a boutique line and I recall Kirby in at least one shareholder message saying that most of their customers were collectors not players (which is interesting as a stat when you've a firm that also admits they don't do community feedback*)


I suspect we might never get concrete info, but those are my impressions based on what they did at the start.



*my guess is that they looked at how many customers were buying in GW stores and then kept a log of how many were gaming in GW stores and found the disparity there. Whcih of course totally overlooks everyone playing outside of GW stores and whole swathes of "I collect but I want to play one day/when my situation changes" people.

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would pay good money to know the whole story behind the plan to do End Times followed by AoS, etc. Even into what AoS was intended to be, I know there's the theory about mini factions and all but afaik never any evidence.

Somewhere on Dakka there's a letter/post that went into great detail about certainly how AoS wound up not having any formal rules at launch.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/786577.page

I believe this is what you are referring to.

tneva82 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
Personally, in several aspects of design (in particular movement and basing) I'm hoping for something similar to cool mini or not's a song of Ice and fire. It has the feel of a ranked game with none of the fiddly nonsense associated with whfb. The game is essentially base agnostic but model numbers are relevant to the fighting capability of a unit.

I think that it would be better however if the units had miniatures placed closer together to give units an appearance more similar to the ranked formations of whfb.

GW has said rules are based on older editions...so nope not happening. It will be with individual models as before ranked up.

I suppose it depends how much is 'based on old editions' and how much is new design. Even trying to merge several editions together they are going to have to patch the game with new rules. To my mind you could easily get a song of Ice and fire unit formations into an old edition of whfb without much fiddling.

What aspects of whfb design do we think they will retain?

What are the core mechanics that need you stay to make it feel like whfb?

I wouldn’t mind it at all if they incorporated bits of Warmaster; specifically the bits where characters are vital for command and control but their personal impact on direct combat is minimal.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would pay good money to know the whole story behind the plan to do End Times followed by AoS, etc. Even into what AoS was intended to be, I know there's the theory about mini factions and all but afaik never any evidence.

Somewhere on Dakka there's a letter/post that went into great detail about certainly how AoS wound up not having any formal rules at launch.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/786577.page

I believe this is what you are referring to.

What struck me from this story back when it came out was how the most reasonable explanation for a thing could end up being... far too reasonable. GW publishing Skitarii and Mechanicus as two books out of sheer corporate greed would have been a preferable alternative to the actual driver behind that decision.

Government shutdowns kind of put a damper on how people plan long term, and trade...

I'll give GW a pass because of that.

Can't wait for the old world!

I prefer square bases think it's an excellent move. This will of course remove the AoS models since not only are they shipped with round bases, many of them won't fit (or their profile will not fit) a square base of the corresponding WHFB size -- I've tried.

Another reason to not show off much Old World stuff yet is to avoid stepping on upcoming previews and releases that are much sooner. They could probably show off more, but if it isn't coming out for a year, it will sour some people both on the wait and on the other stuff GW wants to sell in the next 3 to 6 months.

The Black Adder wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
Personally, in several aspects of design (in particular movement and basing) I'm hoping for something similar to cool mini or not's a song of Ice and fire. It has the feel of a ranked game with none of the fiddly nonsense associated with whfb. The game is essentially base agnostic but model numbers are relevant to the fighting capability of a unit.

I think that it would be better however if the units had miniatures placed closer together to give units an appearance more similar to the ranked formations of whfb.

GW has said rules are based on older editions...so nope not happening. It will be with individual models as before ranked up.

I suppose it depends how much is 'based on old editions' and how much is new design. Even trying to merge several editions together they are going to have to patch the game with new rules. To my mind you could easily get a song of Ice and fire unit formations into an old edition of whfb without much fiddling.

What aspects of whfb design do we think they will retain?

What are the core mechanics that need you stay to make it feel like whfb?

Uuh the inidivudal models ranked up is so integral part of rules remove that and it's different game all together.

Why not go for mix of d10,s d12 and d20 and drop d6's while at it?

Make just 3 stats for each unit(move, attack, defence)?

we never know what GW is up to

but "based on XY" can mean anything, and does not say something about what will stay and what will be changed

"based on 7th Edition with some stuff from all Editions and something new"

this is what we have and yes maybe they reduce stats to 3 as something new, or expand them to 15 as something from the past that comes back

Goose LeChance wrote:
And ASOIAF models are 32mm with more realistic proportions compared to GW's 32mm heroic as feth scale. Look how much space they need on the trays.

GW's models being hero scale doesn't have much effect on how much space they need. 5th edition Bretonnians were more realistically scaled and ranked up in nice tight formations.

 kodos wrote:
we never know what GW is up to

but "based on XY" can mean anything, and does not say something about what will stay and what will be changed

"based on 7th Edition with some stuff from all Editions and something new"

this is what we have and yes maybe they reduce stats to 3 as something new, or expand them to 15 as something from the past that comes back

Going to regiments without worry about how many models there is would be based basically by having names in it. Game play wise would be totally different.

It's like saying songs of fire and ice rules are based on FB rules. Are they?

Seriously what's with this focus on coming up with most unlikely ideas that contradict what GW has told rather than think what might actually happen? People want to set up themselves to be dissapointed? Then complain that GW betrayed them when they didn't deliver something they never said they would deliver?

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
we never know what GW is up to

but "based on XY" can mean anything, and does not say something about what will stay and what will be changed

"based on 7th Edition with some stuff from all Editions and something new"

this is what we have and yes maybe they reduce stats to 3 as something new, or expand them to 15 as something from the past that comes back

Going to regiments without worry about how many models there is would be based basically by having names in it. Game play wise would be totally different.

It's like saying songs of fire and ice rules are based on FB rules. Are they?

Seriously what's with this focus on coming up with most unlikely ideas that contradict what GW has told rather than think what might actually happen? People want to set up themselves to be dissapointed? Then complain that GW betrayed them when they didn't deliver something they never said they would deliver?

This is the logic chain. Break interest in W:TOW through constant chatter. Spam wishlisting in case GW is reading and think that 6 people represent the entire gaming community. Hopefully (in their mind) get the game shitcanned so everyone will just play World Of Warhammer: The Gathering like they were supposed to after End Times and maybe, just maybe, get Warmaster brought back for the 17 people that actually played it when it was out.

I just hope this does not go the route of 40k Armageddon a few years back. An amazing ruleset where you could use your existing collection that got dropped right upon relase with no support or expansions...
GW cannot do full model ranges of all old armies right away, so existing WH players will be needed in some way to play the game. So the old basing should still be legit somehow.
On the other hand they want to sell miniatures, not only a rulebook, so they will make sure there is some incentive to buy a new "old world" army or replace an existing one...
Will be interresting to see what this all will be like.

They will push Kislev and Cathay as the main line, FW doesn't really do a lot of different products compared to GW. I think they will go back to selling big, expensive resin pieces for the older edition races like they did before.

Also re-release Tamurkhan Chorfs

tneva82 wrote:
Seriously what's with this focus on coming up with most unlikely ideas that contradict what GW has told rather than think what might actually happen? People want to set up themselves to be dissapointed? Then complain that GW betrayed them when they didn't deliver something they never said they would deliver?

the other way around, people talking about the stupid things because GW is very likely doing something stupid
so if the mess up but not as bad as we predicted it has a positive effect
if they mess up exactly as predicted, we were expecting it anyway so no surprised rage

it is just expecting that GW won't mess up what will lead to disappointment and were the complains about betrayal will come from (aka the reaction when such fundamental parts of the game will change)

expecting anything but the worst and you will be disappointed, and I can predict there will be a lot of disappointed people, either by the rules or the model release