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.

The giant skeletons would fit with the current eight foot tall vampires...

Vorian wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

think MaA were 4 models per frame, so either 16 or 20 in the box, or we see a new command frame adding some models (and weapons)

I do believe the old box has 16 men-at-arms

 kodos wrote:

Vorian wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

think MaA were 4 models per frame, so either 16 or 20 in the box, or we see a new command frame adding some models (and weapons)

,2x18=36 aka 9 sprues of 4.

9 sprues would mean that it is not a regular box content

did we ever had army boxes were models frames/sprues were different from the stand alone release?

Well half the reqular box is definitely a thing. Reqular box has x models, start collecting has half.

 kodos wrote:
9 sprues would mean that it is not a regular box content

did we ever had army boxes were models frames/sprues were different from the stand alone release?

Several Chaos boxes for 40K only used 8 Beserkers vs the retail box of 12.

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

I understand that logic, but at the same time his sources have been fairly on point this last year. Likewise I think it's become apparent GW has indeed, lost the plot for what they aim to do with old world.

It feels like when they booted the project off, they aimed to start totally fresh, but the production issues and rammed release schedule left them with nowhere to go.

Combine with the fact lots of players have existing armies stashed away, so the drive to buy new ones will be low for those, and you suddenly have a hard time finding demand.

To cap it all off, the expectations and complaints of only 3-4 armies were ready to go at launch might have given them cold feet, so might have realising people won't buy into a new game with hundreds of minis needed for every army from scratch for a new game.

So it feels instead they're hoping to hit the nostalgia chord, roll out as many old kits as possible and see what bites to mitigate risk and cost.

tneva82 wrote:Well half the reqular box is definitely a thing. Reqular box has x models, start collecting has half.

Platuan4th wrote:Several Chaos boxes for 40K only used 8 Beserkers vs the retail box of 12.

having less than retail is something I know

but 9 frames is an odd number for that, as the retail box would have more, putting it to 40 models with 2 command frames per box which would be way too much for the regular GW box (specially as GW avoids making more than 1 unit from a single box, rather the other way around) and would also limit the price they can ask for.
People are willing to pay a lot per model as long as the box looks reasonable. Selling 20 for 50€ is easier than selling 40 for 100€

so either an extra command frame in addition (first time for GW), or that models are not meant to ever get a regular release

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/combat-patrol-world-eaters-2023

I can assure you berserkers don't come in boxes of 20.

Nor can you field more than 10 in unit.

And you most definitely can get them on your own(provided gw hasn't ran out of stock...again)


https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/combat-patrol-chaos-daemons-2022

2 kits duplicated.

exactly, those are always 2 regular boxes duplicated, with an even number of sprues

how is 9 sprues a duplicate of a regular sprue?
they are not going to cut them in half for the regular box

so it must be 8 sprues (2 regular units of 16) +1 for that box (which would be something new), or we get a new 2 model command frame with new weapons for an 18 model regular box
(or worst case there is no regular box hence why there is an extra sprue inside)

Dudeface wrote:
It feels like when they booted the project off, they aimed to start totally fresh, but the production issues and rammed release schedule left them with nowhere to go.

Combine with the fact lots of players have existing armies stashed away, so the drive to buy new ones will be low for those, and you suddenly have a hard time finding demand.

To cap it all off, the expectations and complaints of only 3-4 armies were ready to go at launch might have given them cold feet, so might have realising people won't buy into a new game with hundreds of minis needed for every army from scratch for a new game.

So it feels instead they're hoping to hit the nostalgia chord, roll out as many old kits as possible and see what bites to mitigate risk and cost.

I see your point, but this sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. My hope remains this is all much ado about nothing.

Dudeface wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

I understand that logic, but at the same time his sources have been fairly on point this last year. Likewise I think it's become apparent GW has indeed, lost the plot for what they aim to do with old world.

It feels like when they booted the project off, they aimed to start totally fresh, but the production issues and rammed release schedule left them with nowhere to go.

Combine with the fact lots of players have existing armies stashed away, so the drive to buy new ones will be low for those, and you suddenly have a hard time finding demand.

To cap it all off, the expectations and complaints of only 3-4 armies were ready to go at launch might have given them cold feet, so might have realising people won't buy into a new game with hundreds of minis needed for every army from scratch for a new game.

So it feels instead they're hoping to hit the nostalgia chord, roll out as many old kits as possible and see what bites to mitigate risk and cost.

I'm still under the impression that some GW worker made the announcement on their last day as their petty revenge. Now GW are flapping to pull some promised project out of thin air!

I totally agree with you though. If anything its why they have gone for Bretts & TKs as the 'starting armies'. Both armies are pretty rare out in the wild, and their is less risk selling a bunch of models they already have available. You'd think Empire would be the first army, being that this edition is being set in an empire focused war.

Probably a bit of hopium here, but does anyone know how well the TK sprue heads and command arms would fit on the (far superior) 7th Ed Skeletons?

Still a bit Old Worldy in terms of the weapons, but much better than the 5th Ed ones.

I tried to splice the kits together a very long time ago and from memory, I don't think it worked very well. The TK (Old skeleton) kits have a bad case of Massive Head Syndrome plus exceptionally chunky arms.
You can do alright using TK shields and Grave Guard weapons, as below. (Note, not my picture)
However I would also point out, do the 7E VC Skeletons actually matter? They are also OoP, extremely valuable and thus expensive, and likely won't be coming back to TOW. I think you'll have a horrible time sourcing enough of them to make a force.

Mozzamanx wrote:
I tried to splice the kits together a very long time ago and from memory, I don't think it worked very well. The TK (Old skeleton) kits have a bad case of Massive Head Syndrome plus exceptionally chunky arms.
You can do alright using TK shields and Grave Guard weapons, as below. (Note, not my picture)
However I would also point out, do the 7E VC Skeletons actually matter? They are also OoP, extremely valuable and thus expensive, and likely won't be coming back to TOW. I think you'll have a horrible time sourcing enough of them to make a force.

As conversion fodder no.

But if the upgrade sprue fitted acceptably onto the newer models GW could potentially release the new kits with those ones instead of the older ones.

Those models were actually pretty nice (if still fiddly).

Probably unlikely though - hence ‘hopium’…

 kodos wrote:
9 sprues would mean that it is not a regular box content

did we ever had army boxes were models frames/sprues were different from the stand alone release?

Yes. I recall on several occasions they released battalion boxes and battleforce sets that did not match the contents of an individual kit or a multiple thereof. I recall being annoyed by it and having entire conversations with friends about how it screwed up model counts when trying to collect an army to round/rankable numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Its funny, just yesterday I was lamenting to myself that I wish I had some men at arms kits so I could kitbash them with some cadians ala Dave Taylors Genswick Rifles to make an Imperialis Militia force for Heresy.

The new Cites of Sigmar bodies would give a decent similar design.

It's the wide brimmed men at arms helmets that do it for me though. Suppose I can sculpt some and print them though.

No photos I’m afraid, but I’ve used tomb kings shields and heads with Wargames Atlantic to good effect, the WGA skellies are cheap and readily available, if you can get the tomb kings bits.

So, is there any rumors of content of the bretonnia box?

And specualtion on price?

I dont mind there only being 1 new model there at all, according to rumors. A current release of any TOW game will breathe shelf life into whatever Im playing now anyway.

Only hint of the content is that the number of models rumoured fits the models show on the WC article

But this could be the other way around, that the rumour is based on that article

For the price, current AoS starter armies or special edition boxes price points are both possible

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
I tried to splice the kits together a very long time ago and from memory, I don't think it worked very well. The TK (Old skeleton) kits have a bad case of Massive Head Syndrome plus exceptionally chunky arms.
You can do alright using TK shields and Grave Guard weapons, as below. (Note, not my picture)
However I would also point out, do the 7E VC Skeletons actually matter? They are also OoP, extremely valuable and thus expensive, and likely won't be coming back to TOW. I think you'll have a horrible time sourcing enough of them to make a force.

As conversion fodder no.

But if the upgrade sprue fitted acceptably onto the newer models GW could potentially release the new kits with those ones instead of the older ones.

Those models were actually pretty nice (if still fiddly).

Probably unlikely though - hence ‘hopium’…

Agreed-TK weapons on VC skeletons was the way to go; I've seen a whole army converted that way and it looked fantastic.

 kodos wrote:

Vorian wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

think MaA were 4 models per frame, so either 16 or 20 in the box, or we see a new command frame adding some models (and weapons)

Sp its reasonable to assume 16 to a box will mean 16 is enough for a unit? Personally I never hated on the 6th edition 16 to a box but 20 needed for unit, as I just put a 40x40 base with something thematic on it as a unit filler.

If bases are larger, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the total number per row to keep width similar? 10x20mm = 8x25mm

When I started WHFB, I could run 12 man Chaos Warrior units and that was 3 ranks of 4 Warriors on 25mm bases. That was the same width as my primary opponent's 5 man Dwarf ranks on 20mm bases.

EDIT: I was not a fan when later editions declared ranks had to be 5 models wide and suddenly all my movement trays were too small and I needed more warriors to make legal ranks.

And now, that would theoretically be a 120mm wide 4 warriors and a 125mm wide 5 dwarfs, if I understand the rebasing correctly.

My brain is having a VERY difficult time accepting that they wouldn’t refresh the core of the TK range for ToW. The skellies, archers, horsemen, and chariots all suffer from being older, and just frankly poor, sculpts.

When they did the 8th Ed update for TK, most of the range looked great, even some of the older models like the Tomb Scorpion and Ushabti (which to this day are some of my favorite GW models ever), which just further exacerbated the difference between the older skellie design from kits like the Tomb Guard and Warsphinx.

I have about 8K points of 8th Ed TK, and I was prepared to replace every single one of my older warrior, archer, horsemen, and chariot models. GW will save me a lot of money they would otherwise get by not updating those basic skellies!

 godswildcard wrote:
My brain is having a VERY difficult time accepting that they wouldn’t refresh the core of the TK range for ToW. The skellies, archers, horsemen, and chariots all suffer from being older, and just frankly poor, sculpts.

When they did the 8th Ed update for TK, most of the range looked great, even some of the older models like the Tomb Scorpion and Ushabti (which to this day are some of my favorite GW models ever), which just further exacerbated the difference between the older skellie design from kits like the Tomb Guard and Warsphinx.

I have about 8K points of 8th Ed TK, and I was prepared to replace every single one of my older warrior, archer, horsemen, and chariot models. GW will save me a lot of money they would otherwise get by not updating those basic skellies!

I suspect they will get new models specifically to make new models that are visually distinct (and hopefully better) than the older ones

Again, kind of goes back to the whole soft launch thing and the complaints of half-assery. They are releasing something to release something because the actual project is taking too longo, so you get the assets that they actually have ready to go. I'm sure the kits will be updated... eventually, but it might take another couple years to start seeing them hit the shelves, etc.

At which point they may decide that sales are poor and discontinue the project.

The problem with these side games is they feel inherently risky to buy into (see AI, twice) and this one in particular feels like its wearing the lack of confidence and internal support on its skin.

you waited 20 years for Warhammer to get the update it deserves, what are another 10 if they get it right.....