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.

Nice looking pegasus - a bit odd there is no rider I can see? Either there is another sprue with a few options for a rider or the other sprues have other things as well as the rider- possible as its for the new starter box?

Not that odd, it just means it is not dedicated to a single kit but can be used with several ones by replacing the rider frame

So might be just a single Pegasus frame, a single horse frame and a single rider frame sold various combinations to make heroes and cavalry

I hope GW acknowledges the leak with a Warhammer Community article showing off the model, and a new plastic Tomb Kings model as well out of commitment to equality.

edit : wrong thread

the tombkings chariot a great, infantrie need some extra detail only the shields and heads are a big meager.

I really hope that doesn't mean they're bringing back the old tomb kings, those models really need a refresh.

This gives me some hope though, my dream would be that at least bretonnia and tk are completely refreshed, although I think a plastic character each and the rest being ancient models is more likely

Assuming that the previewed artwork matches the models, suggests that either the 6E Chariots are being brought back, or that the new ones are almost identical even down to the details.
I really hope that doesn't extend to the basic Skeletons and Horsemen though, because at that point you can at least splice the modern elements onto the old Chariot frame.

Given that the last thing I want is the sucky old skeletons, GW is very likely to try and sell the sucky old skeletons again. Paranoia aside, it should be in GW's interest to at least do something about all these sprues from the 90s and early 00s that have so much wasted space. Multiple issues of four skeletons to a sprue with lots of empty space and a barebones upgrade sprue just to complete one regiment box can't be an efficient use of their injection machine time.

I’m still amused we haven’t seen any new sculpts for anything besides Bret’s and Tomb Kings.

I’m a bretonnia player myself, but I think, like in previous editions, it’s a niche army, a lot of people who are going to buy in will drop out fast.

IMO, for the old world to succeed we need to see support for Greenskins, Empire, and High Elves - those will like be the biggest factions.

Grail Seeker wrote:
I’m still amused we haven’t seen any new sculpts for anything besides Bret’s and Tomb Kings.

I’m a bretonnia player myself, but I think, like in previous editions, it’s a niche army, a lot of people who are going to buy in will drop out fast.

IMO, for the old world to succeed we need to see support for Greenskins, Empire, and High Elves - those will like be the biggest factions.

Im still a little baffled as to why they didn't repackage and rebase all of the brilliant new age of sigmar stuff that are remakes of fantasy models, like the lizardmen, chaos warriors, goblin and vampire stuff. That way you could have a bunch of shiny new armies on launch and allow aos players to easily use their army in another game system, as opposed to what seems like a few new characters and old models returning, and then a slow drip feed of new stuff.

I wonder if Kislev and Cathay are still planned also, they were mentioned like 5 years ago and since then nothing

GW is going to enter an odd time with AoS and Old World because in a sense they want to run them as two fully separate product lines, development studios and entities.

However because of the history between them and the realities of players they are going to be anything but. In fact the only thing that's going to be a minor problem is one being on round and the other on square bases and since a LOT of troops in Old World will be on movement trays anyway; people are going to use AoS in Old World and vis versa.

I wouldn't even be surprised if its done way more than 30K crossovers.

 Overread wrote:
GW is going to enter an odd time with AoS and Old World because in a sense they want to run them as two fully separate product lines, development studios and entities.

However because of the history between them and the realities of players they are going to be anything but. In fact the only thing that's going to be a minor problem is one being on round and the other on square bases and since a LOT of troops in Old World will be on movement trays anyway; people are going to use AoS in Old World and vis versa.

I wouldn't even be surprised if its done way more than 30K crossovers.

I think it would have been a great way to boost popularity of the game, I would have definitely adapted my old death aos army to fit in it, but now I don't really have any interest.

James12345 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
GW is going to enter an odd time with AoS and Old World because in a sense they want to run them as two fully separate product lines, development studios and entities.

However because of the history between them and the realities of players they are going to be anything but. In fact the only thing that's going to be a minor problem is one being on round and the other on square bases and since a LOT of troops in Old World will be on movement trays anyway; people are going to use AoS in Old World and vis versa.

I wouldn't even be surprised if its done way more than 30K crossovers.

I think it would have been a great way to boost popularity of the game, I would have definitely adapted my old death aos army to fit in it, but now I don't really have any interest.

They probably want to avoid players converting AoS army’s over. Which makes sense from the marketing I think, keeping them separate so as not to have players abandon one system for the other.

Pegasus on a separate sprue makes sense. Then release riders on a separate sprue, empire hero, wizard, bretonian, high elf etc.

I'm assuming theres been a limit on how many new kits are being produced for this, so might as well make the most of each sprue.

 Tamereth wrote:
Pegasus on a separate sprue makes sense. Then release riders on a separate sprue, empire hero, wizard, bretonian, high elf etc.

I'm assuming theres been a limit on how many new kits are being produced for this, so might as well make the most of each sprue.

That's similar to how the 30k Tanks have been done

also makes sense from a painting perspective not to have the riders legs as part of the pegasus, so happy there

at least we are starting to finally see a few bits of evidence this does at least exist.

 Tamereth wrote:
Pegasus on a separate sprue makes sense. Then release riders on a separate sprue, empire hero, wizard, bretonian, high elf etc.

I'm assuming theres been a limit on how many new kits are being produced for this, so might as well make the most of each sprue.

Generic mounts and monster-mounts sonds very retro warhammer! Would be really cool.

Right now Im just really glad we finally seen a brand new kit in plastic.

leopard wrote:
also makes sense from a painting perspective not to have the riders legs as part of the pegasus, so happy there

at least we are starting to finally see a few bits of evidence this does at least exist.

It's also interesting to see because a fair few monster mounts from GW have had the legs modelled to the model and the separation has been at the waist.

 Overread wrote:

leopard wrote:
also makes sense from a painting perspective not to have the riders legs as part of the pegasus, so happy there

at least we are starting to finally see a few bits of evidence this does at least exist.

It's also interesting to see because a fair few monster mounts from GW have had the legs modelled to the model and the separation has been at the waist.

exactly, this suggests that same pegasus will have a few different riders possible, guessing a Damsel being one as otherwise armoured legs are armoured legs really

suspect this is the character one to replace the old metal one and normal ones will be the old kit, at least initially

will have to blow the dust from my Bretonnians, won't need more of them but you can never have enough

 Tamereth wrote:
Pegasus on a separate sprue makes sense. Then release riders on a separate sprue, empire hero, wizard, bretonian, high elf etc.

I'm assuming theres been a limit on how many new kits are being produced for this, so might as well make the most of each sprue.

The fleur de lys design is molded on so I don’t think this particular sprue would work for high elf or empire models.

Edit: I guess there is only one. In the top right corner. You could be onto something.

don't think we get the same Pegasus in different factions, but having generic mount sprue and a generic rider sprue to combine them for different heroes and cavalry works already for a singel faction much better than dedicated model kits

specially if this is a smaller release

 triplegrim wrote:
Someone may have dumpster dived at gw...

It's England. We don't use 'dumpster'. It was a skip dip.

 .Mikes. wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Someone may have dumpster dived at gw...

It's England. We don't use 'dumpster'. It was a skip dip.

"Bin dipping", hence the common perjorative against Scousers.

I assume the reason GW will fight hard to keep the ranges separate is someone doesn't want a political bloody nose if a whole bunch of players switch back to rank&flank.

As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

Grail Seeker wrote:
As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

They don't want you to supplement. They want you to buy whole new army.

Grail Seeker wrote:
As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

Eh. Nothing to stop anyone from picking from whichever model line they prefer and use those in their Old World games. It's going to happen even without GW suggesting it. They can go on to pretend there's separation between AoS and Old World models for image reasons, get their money for the models either way and get a few extra sales for square base packs. No harm done.

I am still unconvinced there will be big enough lateral movement of players from AoS to TOW, especially when they factor in that TOW will likely draw in a lot of the people who spent the last 8 years online being toxic about AoS the game and the community.
Will be interesting to see what happens..

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
I am still unconvinced there will be big enough lateral movement of players from AoS to TOW, especially when they factor in that TOW will likely draw in a lot of the people who spent the last 8 years online being toxic about AoS the game and the community.
Will be interesting to see what happens..

Pretty much what happened with War of the Ring - at the time it coexisted with Warhammer Battle and there was the exact same kind of "fear" from WB community.

Game systems were different, and every fan was committed to each in the end. Only reason War of the Ring disappeared is simply because GW stopped supporting the game system (and I guess most LotR fan players would rather play the skirmish version, that was obviously less expensive. A shame, War of the Ring was a very good mass battle game system in its bones).

As for the miniatures, it's good to have different styles for different game systems. Helps having some variety and all. And yes, nothing is preventing you to play them for the other game is you wish it so. In this case, the miniature style is very similar, so it won't have the LotR dilemna (proportions were too realist because of the movie references and closer to 28mm, and it was really mismatching when you tried to mix them with WB ones in the same army).

No worry to have here, IMHO.

Thing is War of the Ring has entirely different models and style choices compared to Old World. The two are miles apart.


Old World and AoS are the same scale, same design ethos and AoS even uses a large bunch of models from Old World. Lore wise they are connected too.

The only divide is going to be the shape of the base the models stand upon. With some sculpting design aspects as well - ergo Old World will be designed to rank up whilst AoS only have to loosely link up.
Though even then Old World still had models that were a nightmare to rank up or would only rank up one specific way without jumbling or clashing.


Heck if one fails to take off or one kills the other GW could very easily just say "Ok we are stopping support for X, however we'll make rules for all of Y's models in X". For Old World into AoS that's effortless. AoS into Old World would, be trickier and they'd probably pull a "Ok so the world ended then suddenly magic stuff alternate timeline pocket dimension stuff stuff Gotrek got angry and killed the gods of AoS or something and BOOM AoS rolls into Old World in a new age or something go rebase your Stormcast on squares

 Overread wrote:

The only divide is going to be the shape of the base the models stand upon. With some sculpting design aspects as well - ergo Old World will be designed to rank up whilst AoS only have to loosely link up.
Though even then Old World still had models that were a nightmare to rank up or would only rank up one specific way without jumbling or clashing.

That's why they changed the base size. That alone will be enough to make AoS miniatures much more comfortable to use in R&F. I was in doubt when it was first announced, but honestly after trying to put previous 20mm square based miniatures on 25mm instead, the first thought I had was "why didn't they do that before when WB was around ?". Well...I know why, it's precisely the same reason people having their old armies on 20mm square base aren't enchanted by the idea. But it's still so much easier to put them in regiments that way.

And I think the reason we don't see plenty of HH armies in "regular 40k" is precisely because there are more people collecting them for the consistency of the background or the specific game system. I really don't think it's something to fear. Even if people do use them for the "wrong game" or using a mixed batch for conversion sake...miniatures are still being bought, right ?