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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:
The rules follow 40k's model (multiple overpriced books rendered obsolete in short order).

What proof is there of this?

I could see an argument for "overpriced", but given the game isn't even out yet, "rendered obsolete in short order" is lacking the faintest shred of evidence.

Maybe they'll be replaced quickly, maybe they'll be around for many years... but GW has set precedence with other games of replacing rules quickly, so I'd be working on the assumption that they'll try to do the same here and be pleasantly surprised if they don't.

leopard wrote:
is it not step up, or is it not step up if attacked in the flank or rear though?

Hard to discern from the video. There is a time where some skeleton archers get charged in the front and lose a good portion of their unit but still are mentioned as attacking.

They were on a hill, though, which adds attacks? I thought in ranged only but some analysts on other forums are suggesting that's why the archers made attacks.

Thinking it through, though, no step-up to the flank seems a stronger possibility than a hill letting you swing in extra ranks in melee.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And like most cash grabs, it's taken literal years of work to get it to print.

Wait...

The fact that it has taken four-odd years to get to this point and this release is what they have to show for it demonstrates how little actual work has gone into the project - if anything it makes it all the more likely that it was announced in direct response to KoW's third edition (funny how close together those two things were) and then left to rot in development hell until they realised they had to throw *something* together. Charging modern GW prices for ancient plastic kits (and the frankly insulting prices for the metals) that a lot of people don't like is the corporate icing on the disappointment cake.

It takes them a few years just to work on a new edition normally, and this this is far more than there would usually be from just that. It's the equivalent of a new edition + setting + miniatures years after they'd stopped working on the things relevant to it. Even just releasing new miniatures takes them 2-3 years. 4 years is not as bad as you're making out when you take all that into account.


They're charging GW prices for GW kits, when several of the same sort of old kits are still purchasable for AOS at these prices, it's not as if it's some sudden shocking new thing they're just doing. Neither does it seem some of the prices are that much higher in comparison to their previous costs, some even seem a little cheaper as pointed out on the last few pages.

constantly reminding us about the literary abomination that was End Times

They briefly mention the time period WHFB was set in the last time we saw it, that the lore wasn't good doesn't mean it has no reason to be bought up when outlining their latest game.

there is no indication that there will be much (if anything) new model-wise beyond token character models or more unneccesary 'centrepiece' kits like the TK crocodile-dragon - look at how long even the vaunted HH had to wait for a basic Assault Marine kit.

...the entire new Foot Knight unit? The new Tomb Swarms models?

Makes sense for the meta that the steam tank is more common.
If you remove magic, and state that religious fanatics are not really common, you probably need to compensate with machines, battlesmiths and blackpowder.

I Remember back in the day the empire was "like elves, just worse". Lets hope they are not now "like dwarfs, just worse". In my opinion, the Empire was really boring in Fantasy Battle, but if you got in to the RPG or read books like Gotrek and Felix, you fell in love with the Empire fluff.

MIniature design

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-new-graphics-and-miniatures/

Giorgio: We worked really hard to be faithful to the original designs and also to the Warhammer aesthetic. We wanted to pull back slightly from where we ended up in the End Times, to simplify some materials and details, focus on fabrics, and root the aesthetic in this earlier time period.

Digital sculpting has changed things a lot. We can get a level of accuracy and detail that we just couldn’t before, but it also increases the amount of space that we can work on for each miniature – so balancing that is important. There can’t be detail for the sake of it.

Rob: Just through the way older technology works, the older frames had so much space on them compared to the new frames – there’s a statement of intent here; this is what you can expect from the Old World going forward.

I like the first part of this (trying to match the aesthetics), but I do worry about that last bit- that they're going to end up with the overly complicated 3-d puzzle models like they have for too much of AoS and 40k.
The sheer mass of... stuff... piled around the necro-dragon rider makes me think they will.

NEW RULE: Spears give you +1S, +1AP vs cavalry on the charge (that is if cavalry charges a unit of spears).

Designers trying to "simulate" real battles and failing. Infantry had no advantage against heavy cavarly because of spears. There is a reason knights dominated middle ages and not levies armed with spears. Pikes yes, spears no.

EDIT: Sorry. This statement is wrong. I missheard. Spears give that bonus to cavalry not vs cavalry.

 Fayric wrote:
Makes sense for the meta that the steam tank is more common.
If you remove magic, and state that religious fanatics are not really common, you probably need to compensate with machines, battlesmiths and blackpowder.

Magic isn't removed. The colleges of magic don't exist yet, but Empire will have access to battle magic and a couple other 'lores' (probably elementalism or illusion at least, if not both).

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
NEW RULE: Spears give you +1S, +1AP vs cavalry on the charge (that is if cavalry charges a unit of spears).

Designers trying to "simulate" real battles and failing. Infantry had no advantage against heavy cavarly because of spears. There is a reason knights dominated middle ages and not levies armed with spears. Pikes yes, spears no.

But... were those middle age knights charging ancient reanimated skeletons imbued with magic? Or can we acknowledge that perhaps some abstraction is still required?

 Rihgu wrote:

leopard wrote:
is it not step up, or is it not step up if attacked in the flank or rear though?

Hard to discern from the video. There is a time where some skeleton archers get charged in the front and lose a good portion of their unit but still are mentioned as attacking.

Towards the end of the battle, Skeleton Chariots frontal charge a unit of Men-at-Arms and only Champion and Monk are able to strike back after casualties have been removed.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
NEW RULE: Spears give you +1S, +1AP vs cavalry on the charge (that is if cavalry charges a unit of spears).

Designers trying to "simulate" real battles and failing. Infantry had no advantage against heavy cavarly because of spears. There is a reason knights dominated middle ages and not levies armed with spears. Pikes yes, spears no.

Isn’t it the spear armed Cavalry getting +1S -1AP?

Dudeface wrote:

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
NEW RULE: Spears give you +1S, +1AP vs cavalry on the charge (that is if cavalry charges a unit of spears).

Designers trying to "simulate" real battles and failing. Infantry had no advantage against heavy cavarly because of spears. There is a reason knights dominated middle ages and not levies armed with spears. Pikes yes, spears no.

But... were those middle age knights charging ancient reanimated skeletons imbued with magic? Or can we acknowledge that perhaps some abstraction is still required?

I don't think its a matter of abstraction, just that the Warhammer design teams are not ever trying to 'simulate' real battles.
What they're generally aiming for (with imperfect success) is a fun game.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Someone on reddit said their buddy found these

Suggests we probably won't be waiting too long after TK/Brets for a follow up release at the very minimum, I wonder what new dwarf centre point model there will be.

My image editing skills aren't the best so I may have done something wrong here, but this image from the latest article caught my eye as to the height difference between the questing foot knight guy and the foot knights.

When lining the reference points of the base up and applying a suitable transform to do so (to compensate for perspective, is my theory there), the HUNCHING foot knight stands a head above the proudly stood questor.

To the people this will matter to, it matters. To many, it won't at all. Figured I'd point it out since I went through the effort to sate my own curiosity.

main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

leopard wrote:
main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

They're both new models though.

leopard wrote:
main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

As I've said before, the foot knights looks extremely large compared to the plastic peasants.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

leopard wrote:
main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

They're both new models though.

my point is more the older figures that the newer characters sit alongside, like the ancient skellies and Bret infantry


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McDougall Designs wrote:

leopard wrote:
main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

As I've said before, the foot knights looks extremely large compared to the plastic peasants.

I was going to get some, the cost of the books means I'm not bothering, at least not yet, but if I want foot knights that are not giants there are plenty of others making suitable figures

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/returning-to-the-old-world-with-warhammer/

New article and it is confirmed. There is no "Step up" rule. RIP all non elite units. You will never do damage. RIP units like Greatswords, dwarfs with great weapons, black orcs. You will never get to swing with your great weapon. We are back to 7th meta of who can kill the front rank first.

And that right there REALLY discourages me from getting in. I didn't paint all those minis to have them be TOTALLY useless on the table.

Oh, I'll wait until the books are out and I can take a look at them, but this is a BIG problem for my interest in the game.

leopard wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

leopard wrote:
main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

They're both new models though.

my point is more the older figures that the newer characters sit alongside, like the ancient skellies and Bret infantry

Like this?


That was a pretty funny "jumpscare" for me in the battle report. It'll look fine on the tabletop (probably) but to zoom in on it like that! ha!

I may be misremembering (it's been a while since I've seen the models on the table) but weren't Tomb King skeletons already notably taller than living human infantry? I remember there being jokes about Ancient Nehekarans being giant 7-8 foot tall people. That would put this Tomb Prince at like, 9 feet tall. Wow!

 Astmeister wrote:
No step up was confirmed before and always worked out well in 6th imho.
You can still use bait units to lure cavalery and such and then counter charge.

I would argue "I wipe the fighting line and auto-route the other side' to be 'working out well.' It implies that the guys five feet back can't be bothered fight, and would rather just cut and run.

Even if they're elite units in stat and lore (coughGreatswordscough).

Add in the price many paid for their 'Goldswords' only for them to be pretty useless... why bother?

As I said, I'll give the rules a look, but this is not looking good to me.

Voss wrote:
MIniature design
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-new-graphics-and-miniatures/

cannot imagine how Bretonnia might have looked like if there was not some sourcebook left by accientend by the previous team to continue as there is literally nothing else they could have used /s

what reads a little different here, there is the rumour that the original team for TOW left GW and the current team is only working on that topic for 6-12 months now.
going by that the talk about what previous designers left behind really sound like those guys are new to the topic and working for a long time or knew fantasy from before

 Vulcan wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
No step up was confirmed before and always worked out well in 6th imho.
You can still use bait units to lure cavalery and such and then counter charge.

I would argue "I wipe the fighting line and auto-route the other side' to be 'working out well.' It implies that the guys five feet back can't be bothered fight, and would rather just cut and run.

Even if they're elite units in stat and lore (coughGreatswordscough).

Add in the price many paid for their 'Goldswords' only for them to be pretty useless... why bother?

As I said, I'll give the rules a look, but this is not looking good to me.

Isn't this only a problem against other elite infantry? Which probably should come down to who hits first. At least your elite infantry has a 4+ save. But 6 again 6 attacks that hit on 4s, wound on 3s, and have an ap of 1 are only going to kill 1.3 models. Seems like you're infantry might get to fight back. Even hitting on 3s it only goes up to 1.72. And also it looks like the auto-route route seems to have been mostly removed. So you're greatswords are MORE likely to get to fight in consequent combats that before. In fact removing tough well armored infantry looks to be a bit of a pain.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

It takes them a few years just to work on a new edition normally, and this this is far more than there would usually be from just that. It's the equivalent of a new edition + setting + miniatures years after they'd stopped working on the things relevant to it. Even just releasing new miniatures takes them 2-3 years. 4 years is not as bad as you're making out when you take all that into account.

they have re-released 2 old games recently, Legion Imperialis and now TOW
so either they have worked much longer on LI, or there was not much done in the past 4 years for TOW as there is a big difference between those 2 games

I was the guy playing 2 blocks of greatswords so you don't need to explain this to me. However they were stubborn so did not care much.
Cheap infantry was soft boni. Elite infantry only worked if they had good armour or got to charge. And the cavalry broke most things from the front, which is okay probably because the did so in medieval times as well.

You needed chaff to redirect them.

Let's hope the other armies will show up soon rather than later. With Dwarf dice already out in the wild probably won't be more than a few months away.

SPIRIT LEECH spell cast on 8+ with 18 inch range. Enemy unit gets -2LD and cannot use general LD.

Ouch.

 Vulcan wrote:

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/returning-to-the-old-world-with-warhammer/

New article and it is confirmed. There is no "Step up" rule. RIP all non elite units. You will never do damage. RIP units like Greatswords, dwarfs with great weapons, black orcs. You will never get to swing with your great weapon. We are back to 7th meta of who can kill the front rank first.

And that right there REALLY discourages me from getting in. I didn't paint all those minis to have them be TOTALLY useless on the table.

Oh, I'll wait until the books are out and I can take a look at them, but this is a BIG problem for my interest in the game.

Would have been silly for GW to reintroduce initiave only for it to be useless though.

Step up was one edition only rule and not particularly good one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
No step up was confirmed before and always worked out well in 6th imho.
You can still use bait units to lure cavalery and such and then counter charge.

I would argue "I wipe the fighting line and auto-route the other side' to be 'working out well.' It implies that the guys five feet back can't be bothered fight, and would rather just cut and run.

Even if they're elite units in stat and lore (coughGreatswordscough).

Add in the price many paid for their 'Goldswords' only for them to be pretty useless... why bother?

As I said, I'll give the rules a look, but this is not looking good to me.

Funny that. Massive casualties tend to cause people to flee.

Also with step up people would be paying arm and teeth for initiave's, strike first etc only for it to be 100% useless...

Voss wrote:
MIniature design

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-new-graphics-and-miniatures/

Giorgio: We worked really hard to be faithful to the original designs and also to the Warhammer aesthetic. We wanted to pull back slightly from where we ended up in the End Times, to simplify some materials and details, focus on fabrics, and root the aesthetic in this earlier time period.

Digital sculpting has changed things a lot. We can get a level of accuracy and detail that we just couldn’t before, but it also increases the amount of space that we can work on for each miniature – so balancing that is important. There can’t be detail for the sake of it.

Rob: Just through the way older technology works, the older frames had so much space on them compared to the new frames – there’s a statement of intent here; this is what you can expect from the Old World going forward.

I like the first part of this (trying to match the aesthetics), but I do worry about that last bit- that they're going to end up with the overly complicated 3-d puzzle models like they have for too much of AoS and 40k.
The sheer mass of... stuff... piled around the necro-dragon rider makes me think they will.

The way it came across, to me at least, is that the designers really loathe to have to be considerate of an older design paradigm instead of doing whatever they feel like doing so as to have the new models mesh with the retirees. So I'd expect them to force their own ideas in wherever they can. Might not be too bad, though. We have sprue pictures of the foot knights and know they are cut up more like modern models than in the vein of the separate torso and legs of old. I don't think most models will go full jigsaw, however, because at least nominally models need to fit into regimental formations or in base contact with them, and that naturally keeps the more exotic poses in check that we get in AoS which require the 3D puzzle to avoid undercuts.

I don't think we'll ever be safe from modern trends like tactical rocks, nor, and I say this very much in spite of what's quoted here, detail for the sake of detail.

And now for something completely different. To paraphrase the designers, "we gave Tomb Kings a dragon because Tomb Kings are evil and evil people have dragons".

Glad we established that.

 Rihgu wrote:
Like this?

Spoiler:

That was a pretty funny "jumpscare" for me in the battle report. It'll look fine on the tabletop (probably) but to zoom in on it like that! ha!

I may be misremembering (it's been a while since I've seen the models on the table) but weren't Tomb King skeletons already notably taller than living human infantry? I remember there being jokes about Ancient Nehekarans being giant 7-8 foot tall people. That would put this Tomb Prince at like, 9 feet tall. Wow!

That sentiment came about because of the plastic Tomb Guard. The thing the old skeletons had going for them is that their skulls are so large that a human head could fit inside them, but not the other way around. Which is something that was retained by the newer models from the 8th ed update.

 Rihgu wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

leopard wrote:
main issue with the newer technology is its likely to mean newer models and older ones just look wrong next to each other

They're both new models though.

my point is more the older figures that the newer characters sit alongside, like the ancient skellies and Bret infantry

Like this?

Spoiler:

That was a pretty funny "jumpscare" for me in the battle report. It'll look fine on the tabletop (probably) but to zoom in on it like that! ha!

I may be misremembering (it's been a while since I've seen the models on the table) but weren't Tomb King skeletons already notably taller than living human infantry? I remember there being jokes about Ancient Nehekarans being giant 7-8 foot tall people. That would put this Tomb Prince at like, 9 feet tall. Wow!

Having just re-read the Nagash ToL series last week, it did have Ancient Nehekharans (at least the nobles/elites) actually being 8-10 feet tall!

I liked step up, and I fear this will revert to Cavalry Hammer without it.