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.

We have to wait a bit but it is coming in the future https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/15/old-world-new-warhammer/

I'm happy about this.
I hope they learned from 8th ed and don't make the models over priced and remove steadfast, because that did ruin a lot of tactics.

What's the point of flanking if it does nothing to leadership stats? The point of flanking in traditional warfare was to defeat large formations of undisciplined soldiers.

I also hope they introduce cycle charging. Cavalry did not stay in combat once they charged. That would be suicidal.

Steadfast wasn't the problem. Steadfast without a way to negate it was a problem.

The simple houserule of flanking and rearcharging a unit prevents it from getting steadfast fixed that right up.

We might get WHFB we might get AOS in an older setting.

It’s finally back. I’m so cautiously excited.

Also, steadfast is one of the best rules they ever implemented. It made infantry viable, and gave non elite infantry a roll and a chance. Just because you had to change tactics doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

I would be on board with eliminating steadfast through flank charges however

 Orlanth wrote:
We might get WHFB we might get AOS in an older setting.

Most of the post-end times minis aren't even close to being friendly to rank and file formations. So if they went the WHFB route they'd need huge movement trays to slot your round bases into and formations would be freaking enormous.

WHFB's formations were a huge limiter on GW's ability to dynamically pose models and I can't see them going backwards.

Already a lot of the pre End times Minis were impossible to use for R&F on 20mm Bases

Solution is just to use 23mm scale instead of 28 or go full 28mm Bases for everything

 kodos wrote:
Already a lot of the pre End times Minis were impossible to use for R&F on 20mm Bases

Solution is just to use 23mm scale instead of 28 or go full 28mm Bases for everything

GW trademarked round-to-square base caps. You heard it here first.

Or maybe they could do like Para-bellum ?

Was this ever a question? WIth the popularity of Total War Warhammer and Vermintide this was a sure thing.

Long live the Old World!

Long live the Karaz Ankor!

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
It’s finally back. I’m so cautiously excited.

Also, steadfast is one of the best rules they ever implemented. It made infantry viable, and gave non elite infantry a roll and a chance. Just because you had to change tactics doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

I would be on board with eliminating steadfast through flank charges however

Flank charges should have always annulled steadfast. The fact it didn't killed the tactics aspect of the game, and also list building.
Flanking was pointless, so cavalry became pointless as well, as they are supposed to be your flankers.
Having multiple, medium sized regiments (which enabled flanking and board control) also became pointless, as it was better to put it all in a blob.

What this meant is that most lists ended up looking like a huge block of infantry, with a wizard and a couple of screening units and maybe a monster or two. It wasn't a good look, and was not how traditional armies fought. The Romans didn't blob up into a single murder square, they organized their forces into smaller blocks for ease of discipline (its easier for a centurion to control 100 men rather than 1000) and mobility.

I understand the purpose behind steadfast, to give cheap hoards more staying power so it will take more than a frontal assault from a monster / elite infantry to break them. Its just that the execution and rationale behind it was idiotic. In the 8th ed book the reason they gave for flanking not canceling steadfast is that the target regiment somehow instantly realizes that they outnumber the flankers, even though it did not actually work like that at all in traditional warfare.

Here's how I would have handled steadfast and cav-

> Flanking and rear charges removes steadfast if the target regiment is already engaged on a facing. This is to represent the target regiment's resolve wavering as they are attacked from multiple sides, even though they have a numbers advantage.
> All cavalry have hit and run. This means that they can apply the combat resolution bonus for charging constantly. However, they they only hit and run if the target regiment is already engaged on another facing, as if it weren't, the regiment would surely move to encircle the cavalry before they have a chance to get away.

It's allegedly AoS Horus Heresy. Horus Heresy is a forge world game. Forge world isn't known for being affordable. Ultimately if I can't use the minis I already have I'm not interested. Also not going to wait around for 4 years for who knows what. Just gonna keep playing proper fantasy and see what happens by the time it's out.

 auticus wrote:
Steadfast wasn't the problem. Steadfast without a way to negate it was a problem.

The simple houserule of flanking and rearcharging a unit prevents it from getting steadfast fixed that right up.

Aye. Though I think there should have been caveats on what can flank and remove steadfast. You don't want to just say "flank always negates steadfast". Otherwise you could charge a single model into the side of a huge formation and send them running. Sabretusks would be OP as eff.

Perhaps simply make flanking units double their rank bonus when calculating the combat result and for steadfast. So a unit of 10 cavalry with 2 ranks would count as having 4 in the flank. Maybe triple in the rear?

I also was a fan of the idea that Monsters would always count as having 2 ranks for combat purposes.


Aside that, 8th was a pretty good edition. Yes people complained about the spells, but honestly magic overall was tame compared to earlier editions. Heck, in 6th and 7th if you fought against Lizards or High Elves you might as well have ignored magic entirely. They were just way too dominating with the ridiculous amount of dice they generated. 8th cut down on wizard spam in favor of 2-3 at most.

My excitement is based SOLELY on what they base the core system on.

Something I'm very curious about, is whether Games Workshop will take the chance to delve into more areas of the Warhammer World. Albion, Vampire Coast or Cathay, for instance.



Nippon in the 1980s, not seen in miniature form ever since.

This could be especially doable if the new Warhammer Fantasy take is more limited in scope than the vast army books of the past, with all their demands for miniature kits. The army book format in and of itself became a creative straitjacket for the GW studio. In the 1980s, they were free to release a handful of new figures whenever they felt like it, and thus explore Nippon, Halflings, Norsca, Fimir or a plethora of monsters with small investment of resources. In the 1990s-2000s, they were increasingly bound up in the demands of the army book threadmill. If they wanted to release something new, it had to either be a complete new army, or just something small on the spin-off side such as specialist games and Dreadfleet (for which the market wasn't good in those days, or at least marketing under Kirby wasn't up to the task) or summer campaign miniatures such as the Hellcannon, Middenheim and Albion miniatures delving into niche concepts.



Kislev during 6th edition: A mini-army, later unsupported.

We did see Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs as a small new army in the 1990s (unsupported after 5th edition up to 8th), and a small army for Kislev in 6th edition, unsupported thereafter. Warmaster sported Araby, but Warmaster was not a great hit. Ogre Kingdoms was the one new big army, or one of two if you count the Daemons of Chaos' expanded range, and it needed an entire miniature range.



Chaos Dwarfs: 1990s army, yet left out in the cold for most of Warhammer Fantasy.

Then there were fun thematic armies in White Dwarf, such as Kemmler's Barrow legion, Vampire Coast, Clan Moulder and the Gnoblar Horde. Building on existing modelling ranges and often requiring conversions: Which was part of the fun, for sure, but ensured it stayed a tiny niche and opened up for small companies to produce models GW weren't. This problem of inviting in the small competition to open new niches was much exacerbated when studio designers during 7th edition introduced new units in army lists which did not yet sport official models, such as Forsaken.



Dreadfleet: One last exploratory hurrah before the End Times.

This commercial bind ultimately put dampeners on Warhammer's creative potential: It is huge, and can be explored to much greater extent with a more limited setup than army book-threadmill WHFB of old. But ultimately GW would want to produce models for anything peripheral they delve into, and that mean they may well shy away from introducing more things on the periphery of the background, to not give competitors possible bones to snatch.



Fimir: A weird 1980s creation because the CEO wanted Warhammer to have its very own fantasy race. Resurrected lately by Forgeworld after decades of hibernation.

So there may be little in the way of brand new additions to the glorious setting, such as Inca Dwarfs in Lustria, fantasy Songhai and so on. And there may potentially also be little in the way of covering already existing periphery stuff such as Khureshi Nagas, Albion, Ind, Norsca and so on; this obviously depends on commercial success, how limited in scope the new game and miniature ranges will be, and on budget or will within the studio.

This is a long-standing limit to driving the creative potential of Games Workshop's own grimdark, historically based, classic fantasy smörgåsbord setting to the hilt. It remains to be seen if and how GW will tackle this obstacle.

Cheers

I agree. It will depend on the system. Anything remotely like aos and its buff stacking mortal wound spamming board game style play would be a hard no for me regardless of old world.

Calling it now, itll be warmaster scaled or similar.

Flanking was pointless, so cavalry became pointless as well, as they are supposed to be your flankers.
Having multiple, medium sized regiments (which enabled flanking and board control) also became pointless, as it was better to put it all in a blob.

What this meant is that most lists ended up looking like a huge block of infantry, with a wizard and a couple of screening units and maybe a monster or two. It wasn't a good look, and was not how traditional armies fought. The Romans didn't blob up into a single murder square, they organized their forces into smaller blocks for ease of discipline (its easier for a centurion to control 100 men rather than 1000) and mobility.

While I agree that Flanking should have eliminated steadfast, I disagree with your other points.

I used Cav and multiple medium regiments all the time and I was a heavy tournament player who placed fairly highly in quite a few of them over the years. You did see huge units occasionally, but they were so unwieldy that it was easy for my army to dance circles around them. All you had to do was avoid it or feed them some chaff to keep them occupied. They were also extremely vulnerable to high end spells like dwellers or pit of shades.

I hope they remake Warhammer Fantasy in a similar manor to 6th or 8th edition. That would be my dream.

 Gangland wrote:
It's allegedly AoS Horus Heresy. Horus Heresy is a forge world game. Forge world isn't known for being affordable. Ultimately if I can't use the minis I already have I'm not interested. Also not going to wait around for 4 years for who knows what. Just gonna keep playing proper fantasy and see what happens by the time it's out.

Isn't Lord of the Rings being handled by Forge World now though?

Hopefully good news. As close to 8th Ed as possible - but better would get me back. AoS they can stick up their arses, I am not interested after they defecated on WHFB. I am never playing that gak.

I love it. Used to play a lot of tournaments in 6th and 7th. Do my dream would be like Warhammer CE. Warmaster is also great.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Gangland wrote:
It's allegedly AoS Horus Heresy. Horus Heresy is a forge world game. Forge world isn't known for being affordable. Ultimately if I can't use the minis I already have I'm not interested. Also not going to wait around for 4 years for who knows what. Just gonna keep playing proper fantasy and see what happens by the time it's out.

Isn't Lord of the Rings being handled by Forge World now though?

No idea as I don't play that game. I see it on the standard gw shop though unless that has changed in the last week.

 John Prins wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
We might get WHFB we might get AOS in an older setting.

Most of the post-end times minis aren't even close to being friendly to rank and file formations. So if they went the WHFB route they'd need huge movement trays to slot your round bases into and formations would be freaking enormous.

WHFB's formations were a huge limiter on GW's ability to dynamically pose models and I can't see them going backwards.

Pretty much the only thing we know about this warhammer the old world is that it will have square bases in it.

The only reason I can think about a publicly traded company to release such an open-ended teaser like this would be for the only purpose of having a few interns scour the interwebz on what to do next.

So I doubt even GW has anything definite other than we want those old world grumblers (and the fresh generations raised on TW anda vermintide) spend their hard-earned here again.

“Wow people are actually buying and playing kow!” - GW

If they still had the pdf files for all the 6th Ed. books they could fix what few balance issues there were and add in the three salvageable things from 7th and all the new units added in 7th and 8th and call it a day. It'd be a massive edition, balanced for narrative and competitive play, viable at about every possible build, and have enough side material to keep gamers going for years without any need to add to it.

 John Prins wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
We might get WHFB we might get AOS in an older setting.

Most of the post-end times minis aren't even close to being friendly to rank and file formations. So if they went the WHFB route they'd need huge movement trays to slot your round bases into and formations would be freaking enormous.

WHFB's formations were a huge limiter on GW's ability to dynamically pose models and I can't see them going backwards.

It is not a hard stretch, the size changes matter less than it might aappear. Many units change drastically in size during the final years of WHFB, best examples being the Altar of Khaine and Zombie Dragon. I use a current Great Unclean One in my warhammer army, I just use a custom base, and wouldn't not move back.

I mean, the fact that it mentions square bases in the poster does give me a little hope regarding formations, and the fact warmaster was such a flop gives me additional hope that epic/warmaster will stay dead and buried.