Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors

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.

**Pariah Press**

Yeah, I generally wouldn't expect to see it mentioned there unless it was a big success.

**chaos0xomega**

That's overstating it. The report also discusses Legions Imperialis which most seem to think was something closer to a failure. Fact of the matter I'd that it's an annual report discussing the business activities of the prior fiscal year - both games launched in that period and were major business initiatives, they would get mention even if they were abject failures.

**StudentOfEtherium**

the difference is that LI was mentioned as "this is a thing we put out this year" and TOW was "this new thing has been a great success"

**streetsamurai**

I dont doubt that TOW release was a success. Almost everything was sold out minutes after getting released. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it will keep being a success once the nostalgia effect wear off, unless they start investing way more time and money in it

**Overread**

LI has also had issues with pacing of its release and mistakes that increased its cost of production before it went out. I think there's also a bit of an issue that it lacks Xenos races and is "Imperial mirrormatch" still. That has worked for HH really well, but I think LI needs to get Mechanicus and a few more forces out at least to really gain traction.

That and that scale of games has always under-sold compared to 28-32mm.

**Mentlegen324**

Pariah Press wrote:
Yeah, I generally wouldn't expect to see it mentioned there unless it was a big success.

I'm not too sure the wording used there quite indicates it's a big success, though. What GW said previously about the game was that it had done well enough for them to increase the scope of their future plans for the game, which seems like the sort of thing that you'd expect to be clearly mentioned in the report if it was that much of a success. Instead it's just what appears to amount to pretty much "It did well" and saying it'll be treated like all their games, with no indication it's something that vastly exceeded their expectations to the point of changing the scope.

It's interesting that they say "return of" and refer back to WHFB itself too. A while back some were saying it's not a new version of WHFB as such, but that suggests GW pretty much thinks it is.

**Mr_Rose**

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Pariah Press wrote:
Yeah, I generally wouldn't expect to see it mentioned there unless it was a big success.

I'm not too sure the wording used there quite indicates it's a big success, though. What GW said previously about the game was that it had done well enough for them to increase the scope of their future plans for the game, which seems like the sort of thing that you'd expect to be clearly mentioned in the report if it was that much of a success. Instead it's just what appears to amount to pretty much "It did well" and saying it'll be treated like all their games, with no indication it's something that vastly exceeded their expectations to the point of changing the scope.

It's interesting that they say "return of" and refer back to WHFB itself too. A while back some were saying it's not a new version of WHFB as such, but that suggests GW pretty much thinks it is.

I think that’s a difference in language due to the expected audience. TOW to players is a nostalgia trip and development of a little-explored part of a setting. TOW to investors is a returning product line with a proven history and promising future.

**chaos0xomega**

Mentlegen324 wrote:

It's interesting that they say "return of" and refer back to WHFB itself too. A while back some were saying it's not a new version of WHFB as such, but that suggests GW pretty much thinks it is.

They previously stated, very directly and explicitly, that it's a different game.

**Mchagen**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:

It's interesting that they say "return of" and refer back to WHFB itself too. A while back some were saying it's not a new version of WHFB as such, but that suggests GW pretty much thinks it is.

They previously stated, very directly and explicitly, that it's a different game.

Keep pounding that sand.

**Pariah Press**

This semantic argument remains endlessly fascinating. Pray, please continue.

**kodos**

The same way GW said that there is no starter box and discussions about semantics and definitions of what that is came around

GW talks about their games in a different way than those who play them and throw around with terms that mean different things depending on who is using it

GW in general means the IP and the game using it, not the rules.
That they sell new games under the same IP and name should not be something new to anyone here and in case of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, they even changed the name while it is still the return of Warhammer Fantasy (the IP)

**Mr_Rose**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:

It's interesting that they say "return of" and refer back to WHFB itself too. A while back some were saying it's not a new version of WHFB as such, but that suggests GW pretty much thinks it is.

They previously stated, very directly and explicitly, that it's a different game.

And it is a different game, except for using the same core stats, the same rank and file concept, nearly identical combat scoring, almost identical shooting….
This could turn into a Monty Python skit if I’m not careful… “our two chief similarities are movement, shooting, and close combat!”

**Pariah Press**

Pariah Press wrote:
This semantic argument remains endlessly fascinating. Pray, please continue.

I was being sarcastic, but if you guys really want to spend your time re-litigating this issue, who am I to interfere with your fun?

**Mentlegen324**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:

It's interesting that they say "return of" and refer back to WHFB itself too. A while back some were saying it's not a new version of WHFB as such, but that suggests GW pretty much thinks it is.

They previously stated, very directly and explicitly, that it's a different game.

And now they're saying here, that it's not - it's a "return" of the game they first launched in the 1980s.

**ingtaer**

Can we take that tangent somewhere else please?

**Mentlegen324**

ingtaer wrote:
Can we take that tangent somewhere else please?

Is discussing GWs description of The Old World in the latest information from them not something relevant to news about the Old World, though?

**RazorEdge**

How about The Empire as the next Faction?

**Garfield666**

Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

**streetsamurai**

Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

Was the tabletop gaming version of vaporware

**BorderCountess**

Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

No one really knows, and GW isn't talking. At the moment, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mentlegen324 wrote:
ingtaer wrote:
Can we take that tangent somewhere else please?

Is discussing GWs description of The Old World in the latest information from them not something relevant to news about the Old World, though?

No. News would be, "GW just announced [faction]!". Dissecting marketing verbiage to try to glean some clandestine insight into how GW sees the game and relates it to their investors is not news.

**Shakalooloo**

Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

Further down the line, no doubt as a launch faction for when they make a second edition of ToW, once all the old plastics are done in a few years.

**ingtaer**

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Mentlegen324 wrote:
ingtaer wrote:
Can we take that tangent somewhere else please?

Is discussing GWs description of The Old World in the latest information from them not something relevant to news about the Old World, though?

No. News would be, "GW just announced [faction]!". Dissecting marketing verbiage to try to glean some clandestine insight into how GW sees the game and relates it to their investors is not news.

Exactly, well put, thank you.

**Mentlegen324**

Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

No one really knows, and GW isn't talking. At the moment, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mentlegen324 wrote:
ingtaer wrote:
Can we take that tangent somewhere else please?

Is discussing GWs description of The Old World in the latest information from them not something relevant to news about the Old World, though?

No. News would be, "GW just announced [faction]!". Dissecting marketing verbiage to try to glean some clandestine insight into how GW sees the game and relates it to their investors is not news.

ingtaer wrote:
Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Mentlegen324 wrote:
ingtaer wrote:
Can we take that tangent somewhere else please?

Is discussing GWs description of The Old World in the latest information from them not something relevant to news about the Old World, though?

No. News would be, "GW just announced [faction]!". Dissecting marketing verbiage to try to glean some clandestine insight into how GW sees the game and relates it to their investors is not news.

Exactly, well put, thank you.

GW stating to investors what they see The Old World as being in a statement in their financial report talking about how the game is doing somehow isn't an announcement of new information with relevance to the discussion of the Old World? It's GW quite clearly stating what they see the game as, that sounds like somethings that's news as it's not something they'd said before. If what's included in their financial report isn't something relevant as news about their games, then that implies there shouldn't even be a thread discussing the overall report in the news & rumours section.

**YodhrinsForge**

Shakalooloo wrote:
Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

Further down the line, no doubt as a launch faction for when they make a second edition of ToW, once all the old plastics are done in a few years.

I fervently hope, then, that their mentions of expanding their plans mean bringing back the other legacy armies, because the more time I can live my life without risking running into the TWWH version of Kislev on the table the happier I'll be when the reaper finally calls.

**Mentlegen324**

YodhrinsForge wrote:
Shakalooloo wrote:
Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

Further down the line, no doubt as a launch faction for when they make a second edition of ToW, once all the old plastics are done in a few years.

the TWWH version of Kislev

How Kislev is in TWW and how Kislev was in WHFB aren't really that dissimilar.

It would be very disappointing if the "expanding their plans" refers to later on releasing Kislev and Cathay, when those (at least, one of them was) were previous stated to be getting models though.

**Dysartes**

YodhrinsForge wrote:
Shakalooloo wrote:
Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

Further down the line, no doubt as a launch faction for when they make a second edition of ToW, once all the old plastics are done in a few years.

I fervently hope, then, that their mentions of expanding their plans mean bringing back the other legacy armies, because the more time I can live my life without risking running into the TWWH version of Kislev on the table the happier I'll be when the reaper finally calls.

Having not played TW:W myself, what's wrong with how Kislev is depicted in there?

**Overread**

Old World tabletop models were historically quite "low" fantasy in presentation for many armies. Yes even though the armies would have lizardmen and skeletons - a lot of your basic army was regular troops armed with fairly regular weapons for the most part.

Demons were the most "out there".

This is despite the fact that the lore around Old World was distinctly what most would consider high/epic fantasy.

Over time GW got more bold - AoS became bolder still and the Kislev is a modern army which means its more bold again on effects and so forth.

Things that ARE around in the lore and are valid; but which aren't the grim-dark gritty lowmagic era of models.

That said I agree, Kisleve and Cathay will either be "end of 1st edition" armies or start of 2nd edition launch armies. After the old ones are out. I'd also expect that as GW continues to work on Old World we will see them steadily replace old sculpts with totally brand new ones; as normal for GW games. This might well come with the new models getting more modern styles and designs or even the addition of new fancy models.

Eg I can well imagine that some new enchantress models for Bretonnia will start to have floating rocks; power effects and so forth appearing

**Gert**

Has anyone actually looked at the Kislev roster for TW:WH3? Cos there's still very normal basic troops such as Warriors, Kossars, Horse Archers and Hussars while Bear Riders and Ice Guard are more similar to the likes of Greatswords and Demigryphs.

The Ice Guard are just interesting designs compared to what is essentially Bretonnian peasants but Eastern European.

**Mentlegen324**

Dysartes wrote:
YodhrinsForge wrote:
Shakalooloo wrote:
Garfield666 wrote:
Didn't they show some Kislev characters ages ago when first promoting ToW? What happened to that faction? Binned for the Brets?

Having not played TW:W myself, what's wrong with how Kislev is depicted in there?

It's that quite a few people's Idea of how Kislev is is based on just their very limited model range/army book, which consisted of primarily quite grounded units without much in the way of more fantastic elements.

How Kislev is in TWW3 has a lot more fantastical units compared to the tabletop model range, like bear cavalry, the ice guard (magic ice witches), magical sleds pulled by bears, a giant ice spirit bear etc. So they think that they've just completely changed the tone and feel of Kislev, because those aren't things that were present on tabletop.

But if you actually look beyond that small model range to see how Kislev was depicted in other places like the novels, WHF RP books and just their lore in general, those are all elements that actually are quite in-line with how Kislev were.

4th edition Warhammer Armies: The empire, released in 1993 (...or 1996? Found both dates), has Kislev included but is very brief. They are depicted as more of a grounded human faction at this stage, but it's very, very brief; it basically amounts to a small amount of lore of pretty much "There's a place called Kislev" and 3-4 units. Winged Lancers, Katarin etc. Mentions Kislev is ruled by warrior-sorcerers with their magic based on the land itself and Frost/ice focused. Magic Ice Hawks, Ice Bridge that can carry units, Fearfrost as a magic frost sword etc. Art of Boris Usra riding a bear is shown, albeit it seems he isn't actually talked about at all so appears to not be a character...just a guy riding a bear. Also unclear if this is meant to be the same as Boris Ursus a few years later.

The 1996 Citadel Journal list had fantastical elements, including Bear mounts for heroes, Bear Cavalry, packs of bears and Baba Yaga. Common later lore things like their bear god, bears being sacred etc are mentioned here as similar to later lore but i'm unsure what was and wasn't already established in more "official" sources before this article, so while it's debatable as to how canonical the stuff here is (Citadel Journal is an official publication, but people could submit stuff), some of the things included here did also appear in definitely more official sources - I'm just unsure when specifically some of that first appeared and what is and isn't already established for them by the time this article was written.

Their Warmaster army list in 2002, had packs of tamed bears and bear mounts and a spell to transform into a giant bear (and mentions they build temples in which they keep pits full of bears to send out to war). That old art of Boris Ursa on a bear appears again.

The Ambassador series, Written by Graham Mcneill in 2003/2004, supposedly had those mystical fantasy elements included - Katarina apparently summons spirits of Kislev warriors in bodies of ice, for example. Bokha palace also has parts entire sections made of ice.

Their 6th edition army in 2003 did not have much in the way of that side of things, mostly just Boris Ursus as the most out-there in terms of units, albeit the book did depict conversions of both a hero on giant bear and bear cavalry. Their connection to various spirits are mentioned but its unclear as to if they book considers them as real or not. It mentions the religion involving bears with a God of Bears who takes the form of a bear - so despite the lack of bear units, bears are still said to be a very important thing to Kislev overall. Magical lore for different Gods are mentioned. The palace having sections made of ice are mentioned by the book too.

The Warhammer RPG "Realm of the Ice Queen" expansion released in 2007 once again follows the fantasy Kislev side and is the most comprehensive depiction of Kislev out of the lot - because its an RPG there's a lot of stuff. The various spirits mentioned previously are defined more specifically, there's magical creatures like Frostfiends and Firebirds, Hag Witches (like Baba Yaga was) are there, the map of the city of Kislev shows Bokha palace with the ice structure parts, Katarina has the enchanted Ice Palace, it details the importance of the Ice Witches, all the ice magic like ice weapons, the other cults/gods appear again with magic for them etc.

Some just seem unaware that Kislev has had elements like that for years and so think that TWW3 and TOW is retconning them into something significant different, despite it being stuff that was present to some extent within their lore at least as far back as 2007.

**Overread**

I think it helps highlight how many people only ever engaged with the models and codex/wd and never really read the books that BL has put out over the years. Because you crack them open and the super-stuff is there

Heck living siege engine towers were right in one of the Gotrek and Felix books on an assault on the Kislev capital (or if not capital a major city - I forget its name)