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.

**The Black Adder**

I think that the community will fracture if GW don't support the legends armies.

LVO apparently running their Old World tournament without GW support because GW wanted them to disallow the legends armies is interesting. I was listening to Rob and Val on their square based show this evening, Rob and Val also run their own events which include the legends armies and Rob has said they'll continue to do so. I don't know how widespread that attitude is amongst tournament organisers in general but it seems like legends will get continuing support from some sections of the community even if GW refuses to support them.

If that community support includes balance tweaks, FAQs and general army composition or victory point scoring changes across the game in general then Old World is going to start to feel like the WHFB of old, where the "rule" books GW puts out are more like "guidelines" and wherever GW abdicates responsibility the community steps it.

If we are getting Cathay later this year I can see them selling well. After they were added to Warhammer Total War I still wasn't really interested in them, but if they price them as they have with the re-released WHFB lines, and they can get the stock into shops then I can see the line selling really well. It will be the only genuinely new army and will no doubt look magnificent compared to some of the models so far released for the game. I can see new gamers giving them a serious look unless they have a particular attachment to one of the existing lines.

I just hope we don't end up with a beautiful army with peasants priced as if they were space marines, that you need to field in units that are 40+ models. If that happens, nobody buys them and GW has a wobble about supporting a game they already killed once.

**Pariah Press**

What sort of support does GW normally offer to events like the LVO? Just curious about what is actually at stake here.

**Hulksmash**

Pariah Press wrote:
What sort of support does GW normally offer to events like the LVO? Just curious about what is actually at stake here.

Trophies. They offer trophies. They might also offer a grab box of random crap that every winner gets called up to to pick something out of from paint holders to some oop box sets. Overall, it's basically minimal.

**Vulcan**

flamingkillamajig wrote:

Dark elves sorta make sense as legacy because they only ever really fight chaos, lizardmen and high elves which is significantly far enough away from the Old World.

Presuming you ignore their ongoing slaving expeditions to the Old World...

**kodos**

The advantage of being an official GW event being an official GW event

But in general TOs follow GWs rules instead of using their own except Warhammer Fantasy where the official rules were hardly ever used, especially for events

So in this case it would be following the tradition of the game to ignore everything GW is advocating.
Big question will be what happens if rules are changed and the legacy army not updated, because either they are dropped or house rules must be added
And with the later no real reason to not update the core rules with house rules as well

**chaos0xomega**

Given the history of legends in every other game, my expectation is that if and when TOW 2.0 comes along the legacy armies will not be updated and will get left behind, which would be peak irony given that most of the community thinks a 2nd edition is right around the corner and will come with legacy factions being made core. At that point TOs will either throw in the towel or will sanction use of homebrew rules for those factions.

I have heard from certain community folks who are plugged in with major event organizers in the US that their support for legacy factions is temporary until all the core factions are released and the game is fully accessible to new players. The general sentiment seems to be that a lot of the balance issues that the community is grappling with on the competitive circuit are due to legacy factions, and unless GW balances them the best thing for the long term health of the competitive community is to move on from them, but in the near term the player base is too small for TOs to prohibit the legacy factions as it would end up cutting like a third of their player turnout.

**Hellebore**

The irony of the whole thing is that they aren't retconning these factions out of the setting.

They're just sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring them. It's just really funny that they are mentioned in the background and even have army lists but GW just won't let them exist there.

If I was being cynical I would say their customer market share is so high gw wants it propping up AOS rather than allowing tow to benefit from them.

Lizardman and skaven have remained virtually unchanged from tow to AOS, GW are literally just using a tow faction to sell in AOS.

I

**Vorian**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Vorian wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
As I said in one of the other comments - they didnt have to make any "commitment". They could have just left it open ended as to which factions were coming when. Instead they were very up front in committing to 9 factions being returned and committing to 7 factions in the dust bin. Think about that. You cant have it both ways, you cant say "nuh uh its too much to commit to because once they commit they cant change their minds" and then go "they committed to not supporting the legacy factions but they can always change their minds later".

We don't know if they committed to Kislev ahead of launch or just Cathay

As it stands, the first two factions ever announced for TOW were actually Kislev and Cathay, before we knew anything about core factions or legacy factions we had direct statements from Warhammer Community that Kislev and Cathay would be tabletop armies in TOW.

They released a book with all the army lists in on day 1. They had PDFs of the armies not supported.

What exactly do you think their communication should be at that point?

They could have just... not? And followed a similar release model to basically all the other games in their stable. Their choice to release everything in day 1 compilation books the way they did wasnt really necessary. They cpuld have instead did barebones pdfs for all 16 factions on day 1, said "these are get you by lists for legacy whfb players, stay tuned for official releases in the future, though note that there will be many changes as these factions make the transition into TOW, some of the units and indeed entire factions may not make the transition to TOW, but we shall see what the future holds, and left it open ended. Arcane journals then would be full-size army books with the necessary updates to the pdf lists, and if the game sold well enough - lo and behold they fund the 7 legacy factions. If it diesnt sell well enoygh they say "sorry, as we said not every faction was going to feature in TOW, you can continue playing the pdf list though".

In general, every other game follows a pretty vague release model in which we have zero advanced knowldfge of what factions are to be added or cut during any given edition cycle, etc. Units, and at times armies, are basically cut constantly with minimal notice. its rather odd and singular that GW decided to tell us what to expect upfront in this instance. When HH2.0 released they basically said "here is the astartes list, other army lists might or might not come later, by the way a lot of units and options are going to be cut, some of it might or might not appear again later" and left it vague, zero commitment, lots of uncertainty, but it worked.

(if you havent figured it out yet, im pointing these things out to highlight the fact that GW took extraordinary steps to message that the legacy factions arent happening, and because of that their position on the topic probably will not change).

Releasing the Space Marine lists for Heresy is nothing like restarting Old World with two factions. An old world with two playable armies at launch and then one more playable every quarter following would have been dead on arrival.

Its pretty disingenuous to suggest they could have released this game without having the ability for people to use their old (or 3rd party) armies on day 1. They would have had complaints many many orders of magnitude greater than people complaining about their army being a legacy army.

Your suggestion also amounts to instead of legacy armies going from being playable but not updated, to simply being unplayable until they got round to re-releasing them (ie never) and I'm not sure that's a great improvement for the people that own those armies and want to play them.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Vulcan wrote:
flamingkillamajig wrote:

Dark elves sorta make sense as legacy because they only ever really fight chaos, lizardmen and high elves which is significantly far enough away from the Old World.

Presuming you ignore their ongoing slaving expeditions to the Old World...

Yeah, don't they often raid the Bretonnian coast? The only real isolationists are the Lizardmen, and even then they'd sail over to the Old World to retrieve an artifact that some greedy Imperial stole.

**Mozzamanx**

The 8E Dark Elves Army Book actually states that this was a time of unparalleled raiding, exploration and diplomacy for the Druchii. Moreso than any other time period, this is when the Dark Elf fleets were most active and seen all over the world.

**Sathrut**

The Old World interactive map has been updated: https://www.theoldworld.com/

Tilea, Estalia, Norsca and the Chaos Wastes have been updated, and Dwarf icons are now clickable. There's a Cathayan ship off the coast of Couronne, and Kislev has extended eastwards, past the Mountains of Mourn (spoilered for size):

Spoiler:

**Luke82**

I’ve got hand written scribbled amendments in my beautiful hard back printed legacy list compilation, the very same lists that GW explicitly and with perfect clarity said they would release and then never look at again and never, ever, for realsies never update.

People speaking with certainty that the legacy lists are never coming back are putting way more stock in GW communications than GW do themselves.

It might be a slim possibility but to say it will never happen because GW said so (and implying anyone who questions this is a hopeful imbecile) is daft. Even leaving aside the ‘the scope has increased’ comments.

**JWh85**

GW has historically been very unreliable when it comes to making 'absolutely certain' statements.

However, i do think that after the release of the 9 main armies there are enough signals that Cathay and, perhaps, Kislev will have their armies released. After that, they've hinted more than once that they want to release campaign-like content (hinting at the scenario's that they want to zoom in on certain conflicts) and the 9 main armies will probably get a refresh.

So if the legacy armies will get a mainstream release it will probably be a long while before that happens.

**Overread**

JWh85 wrote:
GW has historically been very unreliable when it comes to making 'absolutely certain' statements.

However, i do think that after the release of the 9 main armies there are enough signals that Cathay and, perhaps, Kislev will have their armies released. After that, they've hinted more than once that they want to release campaign-like content (hinting at the scenario's that they want to zoom in on certain conflicts) and the 9 main armies will probably get a refresh.

So if the legacy armies will get a mainstream release it will probably be a long while before that happens.

Agreed. After Cathay and Kisleve come out with totally new army ranges, those who are fans of classic forces will be wanting upgrades too. So it will be 100% a natural point to do those mini-campaigns and so forth or just a new edition or whatever GW decide to go alongside pushing out both big range updates (6+kits) and dripfed ones. That is a better direction than bloating the game with even more armies that need updated models all at once. GW have got away tickling the nostalgia itch with the launch of Old World, but both they and us know that you can't just keep that going long term.

Right now its 100% nostalgia mode; after that will come "Ok so now we want new brets knights and new empire soldiers and an updated steamtank and ooh a new war waggon " etc...

**kodos**

Or GW is going to move all old armies to legacy by replacing them with new stuff over time

There are several possibilities for GW, and all are equally possible from the current point of view

Replacing all old armies with new IP or keeping everything on minimum, more new models for old armies, or bringing back all old armies

No one knows and it might just be that Armybook Marienburg replaces Empire (which becomes legacy)

**The Phazer**

Luke82 wrote:
I’ve got hand written scribbled amendments in my beautiful hard back printed legacy list compilation, the very same lists that GW explicitly and with perfect clarity said they would release and then never look at again and never, ever, for realsies never update.

People speaking with certainty that the legacy lists are never coming back are putting way more stock in GW communications than GW do themselves.

It might be a slim possibility but to say it will never happen because GW said so (and implying anyone who questions this is a hopeful imbecile) is daft. Even leaving aside the ‘the scope has increased’ comments.

And ultimately the reasons why GW made the legacy lists are going away over time - the Vampire Counts range is almost entirely free of AoS models now after these latest reveals (and the few crossovers that remain are things like the Black Coach, where you'd have to reissue the old metal one anyway. At some point the Dark Elf range is going to get dumped from CoS.

I think there's some element in this list of not just model crossover though, and not wanting to release at the same time as a big range refresh for AOS. But once that's over, are Lizardmen back on the table if SGS were willing to sell the old models instead? Is that worth it to them if nobody in their right mind would buy the old Saurus plastics and just stick the AoS ones on square bases?

**JWh85**

Maybe in the future, but not in the next few years I think. Of course, nobody knows and GW is nothing if not erratic and selfcontradictory.

To hope that the legacy armies will one day become mainstream might be realistic; to hope that that point will come in the next, say, two years or so is imo folley.

On a sidenote, i LOVE the udates to the map, if for nothing else than that it's now one of the most complete maps of the Old World we have.

**chaos0xomega**

Vorian wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Vorian wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
As I said in one of the other comments - they didnt have to make any "commitment". They could have just left it open ended as to which factions were coming when. Instead they were very up front in committing to 9 factions being returned and committing to 7 factions in the dust bin. Think about that. You cant have it both ways, you cant say "nuh uh its too much to commit to because once they commit they cant change their minds" and then go "they committed to not supporting the legacy factions but they can always change their minds later".

We don't know if they committed to Kislev ahead of launch or just Cathay

As it stands, the first two factions ever announced for TOW were actually Kislev and Cathay, before we knew anything about core factions or legacy factions we had direct statements from Warhammer Community that Kislev and Cathay would be tabletop armies in TOW.

They released a book with all the army lists in on day 1. They had PDFs of the armies not supported.

What exactly do you think their communication should be at that point?

They could have just... not? And followed a similar release model to basically all the other games in their stable. Their choice to release everything in day 1 compilation books the way they did wasnt really necessary. They cpuld have instead did barebones pdfs for all 16 factions on day 1, said "these are get you by lists for legacy whfb players, stay tuned for official releases in the future, though note that there will be many changes as these factions make the transition into TOW, some of the units and indeed entire factions may not make the transition to TOW, but we shall see what the future holds, and left it open ended. Arcane journals then would be full-size army books with the necessary updates to the pdf lists, and if the game sold well enough - lo and behold they fund the 7 legacy factions. If it diesnt sell well enoygh they say "sorry, as we said not every faction was going to feature in TOW, you can continue playing the pdf list though".

In general, every other game follows a pretty vague release model in which we have zero advanced knowldfge of what factions are to be added or cut during any given edition cycle, etc. Units, and at times armies, are basically cut constantly with minimal notice. its rather odd and singular that GW decided to tell us what to expect upfront in this instance. When HH2.0 released they basically said "here is the astartes list, other army lists might or might not come later, by the way a lot of units and options are going to be cut, some of it might or might not appear again later" and left it vague, zero commitment, lots of uncertainty, but it worked.

(if you havent figured it out yet, im pointing these things out to highlight the fact that GW took extraordinary steps to message that the legacy factions arent happening, and because of that their position on the topic probably will not change).

Releasing the Space Marine lists for Heresy is nothing like restarting Old World with two factions. An old world with two playable armies at launch and then one more playable every quarter following would have been dead on arrival.

Its pretty disingenuous to suggest they could have released this game without having the ability for people to use their old (or 3rd party) armies on day 1. They would have had complaints many many orders of magnitude greater than people complaining about their army being a legacy army.

Your suggestion also amounts to instead of legacy armies going from being playable but not updated, to simply being unplayable until they got round to re-releasing them (ie never) and I'm not sure that's a great improvement for the people that own those armies and want to play them.

They launched HH 2.0 without a significant chunk of their then-current active players being able to play it. Some were not able to play it for almost a year post release. Given that WHFB was dead for a decade - yes they 100% could have launched TOW without old WHFB having rules for their armies, there was no obligation to provide rules for folks who hadnt played the game in almost a decade.

Luke82 wrote:
I’ve got hand written scribbled amendments in my beautiful hard back printed legacy list compilation, the very same lists that GW explicitly and with perfect clarity said they would release and then never look at again and never, ever, for realsies never update.

People speaking with certainty that the legacy lists are never coming back are putting way more stock in GW communications than GW do themselves.

It might be a slim possibility but to say it will never happen because GW said so (and implying anyone who questions this is a hopeful imbecile) is daft. Even leaving aside the ‘the scope has increased’ comments.

GW made pretty clear that the one update they did to the legacy lists was because wires got crossed and the legacy documents contained unintentional errors resulting from pre-release edits. Its rather notable that subsequent FAQs (of which there have been at leadt two) have not touched them further despite their being a numver of outstanding issues.

The Phazer wrote:
Luke82 wrote:
I’ve got hand written scribbled amendments in my beautiful hard back printed legacy list compilation, the very same lists that GW explicitly and with perfect clarity said they would release and then never look at again and never, ever, for realsies never update.

People speaking with certainty that the legacy lists are never coming back are putting way more stock in GW communications than GW do themselves.

It might be a slim possibility but to say it will never happen because GW said so (and implying anyone who questions this is a hopeful imbecile) is daft. Even leaving aside the ‘the scope has increased’ comments.

And ultimately the reasons why GW made the legacy lists are going away over time - the Vampire Counts range is almost entirely free of AoS models now after these latest reveals (and the few crossovers that remain are things like the Black Coach, where you'd have to reissue the old metal one anyway. At some point the Dark Elf range is going to get dumped from CoS.

I think there's some element in this list of not just model crossover though, and not wanting to release at the same time as a big range refresh for AOS. But once that's over, are Lizardmen back on the table if SGS were willing to sell the old models instead? Is that worth it to them if nobody in their right mind would buy the old Saurus plastics and just stick the AoS ones on square bases?

Your reminder that model crossover is not the reason (stares in Chaos Lord and Chaos Chariot), IP crossover is. Chaos Dwarves have zero crossover, daemons already crossover in other systems, concerns of lizardmen/seraphon crossover were largely gone before TOW released, concerns about skaven crossover were largely addressed within a handful of months of TOW releasing, etx. GW knew what the release schedule looked like ane where the model ranges would be today as far back as 2-3 years ago. If it was just about model ranges, then these factions would not have been legacy.

IMO the map makes pretty clear where things are going. Cathay, Kislev, probably dogs of war but also possibly estalia + tilea are the future. "Harkon" is a red herring and will be undead adjacent but not VC proper. Theres easily 2+ years of new content for them to explore, those holding out that theyd circle back to legacy once the core 9 are out shpuld be realizibg that thats not going to happen after seeing this.

**Hoffa76**

chaos0xomega wrote:
...

I have heard from certain community folks who are plugged in with major event organizers in the US that their support for legacy factions is temporary until all the core factions are released and the game is fully accessible to new players. The general sentiment seems to be that a lot of the balance issues that the community is grappling with on the competitive circuit are due to legacy factions, and unless GW balances them the best thing for the long term health of the competitive community is to move on from them, but in the near term the player base is too small for TOs to prohibit the legacy factions as it would end up cutting like a third of their player turnout.

You don't play the game do you? Fact is Skaven, Lizardmen, Ogres are ranked as underpowered. Demons probably ok and Vampire Count as OP (But not the worst offender, most powerful army in the game currently is Bretonnian Exiles) CD seems to be on a winning streak currently but I have not heard any moaning about the being OP.

Also Vampire counts are only OP due to "screams" which they are allowed to take six of. It takes only light comp to nerf that particular build.

In short, claiming the legacy factions are behind a lot of balance issue is just wrong.

**Hulksmash**

JWh85 wrote:
Maybe in the future, but not in the next few years I think. Of course, nobody knows and GW is nothing if not erratic and selfcontradictory.

To hope that the legacy armies will one day become mainstream might be realistic; to hope that that point will come in the next, say, two years or so is imo folley.

On a sidenote, i LOVE the udates to the map, if for nothing else than that it's now one of the most complete maps of the Old World we have.

This, all of this.

Hoffa76 wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
...

I have heard from certain community folks who are plugged in with major event organizers in the US that their support for legacy factions is temporary until all the core factions are released and the game is fully accessible to new players. The general sentiment seems to be that a lot of the balance issues that the community is grappling with on the competitive circuit are due to legacy factions, and unless GW balances them the best thing for the long term health of the competitive community is to move on from them, but in the near term the player base is too small for TOs to prohibit the legacy factions as it would end up cutting like a third of their player turnout.

You don't play the game do you? Fact is Skaven, Lizardmen, Ogres are ranked as underpowered. Demons probably ok and Vampire Count as OP (But not the worst offender, most powerful army in the game currently is Bretonnian Exiles) CD seems to be on a winning streak currently but I have not heard any moaning about the being OP.

Also Vampire counts are only OP due to "screams" which they are allowed to take six of. It takes only light comp to nerf that particular build.

In short, claiming the legacy factions are behind a lot of balance issue is just wrong.

Doesn't even get into the fact that I don't know a single TO first hand running ToW events that's even considering dropping support for legacy factions as there isn't a good reason too. GW doesn't provide enough of anything to make it worthwhile. But I'm sure I don't know as many second hand people plugged in running events as he does so maybe he's right

**Vorian**

chaos0xomega wrote:

They launched HH 2.0 without a significant chunk of their then-current active players being able to play it. Some were not able to play it for almost a year post release. Given that WHFB was dead for a decade - yes they 100% could have launched TOW without old WHFB having rules for their armies, there was no obligation to provide rules for folks who hadnt played the game in almost a decade.

You're suggesting that they should have not provided army lists for old armies and launched with 2 armies, only and have 5 or 6 armies after a year?

And the reason to do this is so current legacy armies would just be unplayable instead?

And you've decided that is a solution that would please the legacy players and the wider old world player base?

OK then.

**Overread**

I would argue that Horus Heresy is not the best example to follow and that it mostly only worked because of how insanely bonkers Marine popularity is.

You basically can't compare anything in this market (from GW or anything else) to how Marine and Marine based things sell.

**chaos0xomega**

Hoffa76 wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
...

I have heard from certain community folks who are plugged in with major event organizers in the US that their support for legacy factions is temporary until all the core factions are released and the game is fully accessible to new players. The general sentiment seems to be that a lot of the balance issues that the community is grappling with on the competitive circuit are due to legacy factions, and unless GW balances them the best thing for the long term health of the competitive community is to move on from them, but in the near term the player base is too small for TOs to prohibit the legacy factions as it would end up cutting like a third of their player turnout.

You don't play the game do you? Fact is Skaven, Lizardmen, Ogres are ranked as underpowered. Demons probably ok and Vampire Count as OP (But not the worst offender, most powerful army in the game currently is Bretonnian Exiles) CD seems to be on a winning streak currently but I have not heard any moaning about the being OP.

Also Vampire counts are only OP due to "screams" which they are allowed to take six of. It takes only light comp to nerf that particular build.

In short, claiming the legacy factions are behind a lot of balance issue is just wrong.

Factions being underpowered absolutely means being behind balance issues. TOs making decisions about comp and houserules (which at least at the local/regional lebel in my area are common, i dont actually touch anything to do with major/national lebel tournies so dont know what theyvare doing there) are making decisions to try to help underperforming factions succeed just as much as they are trying to downplay the performance of overpowered factions. As it stands, a lot of the comp rules being imposed by TOs have to do with the fact that several of the legacy factions could not keep up with some of the core factions if those core factions were allowed to be played without restriction.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

They launched HH 2.0 without a significant chunk of their then-current active players being able to play it. Some were not able to play it for almost a year post release. Given that WHFB was dead for a decade - yes they 100% could have launched TOW without old WHFB having rules for their armies, there was no obligation to provide rules for folks who hadnt played the game in almost a decade.

You're suggesting that they should have not provided army lists for old armies and launched with 2 armies, only and have 5 or 6 armies after a year?

And the reason to do this is so current legacy armies would just be unplayable instead?

And you've decided that is a solution that would please the legacy players and the wider old world player base?

OK then.

I think i was pretty clear saying that releasing barebones index pdf lists for all 16 factions on day 1 with a vague statement that some of the factions might not be updated in the future was the way to go if they intended to possiblly incorporate legacy factions into the game. Likewise that if there was a chance of legacy factions being included then just doing a slow launch w 2 factions on release day and the remaining factions every few months until you got to a decision point would make more sense than making explicit statements on day 0 that you were excluding those factions entirely and then later pulling suppport from the biggest competitive event on the planet over their decision to allow thisr factions.

**flamingkillamajig**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
flamingkillamajig wrote:

Dark elves sorta make sense as legacy because they only ever really fight chaos, lizardmen and high elves which is significantly far enough away from the Old World.

Presuming you ignore their ongoing slaving expeditions to the Old World...

Yeah, don't they often raid the Bretonnian coast? The only real isolationists are the Lizardmen, and even then they'd sail over to the Old World to retrieve an artifact that some greedy Imperial stole.

I'm just saying i find the idea of Legacy armies kind of BS. In the case of skaven it's more because GW put skaven as the posterboys for the new bad guys of the current AoS edition. I mean even if the skaven are in the middle of a civil war the empire is in a very bad civil war too. Doesn't mean some of the various skaven clans aren't still doing things since there are so many clans and so many skaven. If nothing else Dwarfs are still aware of skaven as a threat and fight them in the Under-Way. The skaven's biggest enemies (greenskins, lizardmen and dwarfs) know skaven are a threat and they won't just forget they exist due to frequent interactions (greenskins probably would forget tho actually). It's a business decision from GW and nothing else.

**Mr Morden**

Shakalooloo wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Genevieve is likely in the far east learning martial arts and magic.

Cue Genevieve as a special character - for CATHAY.

Well she is really more Dogs of War - she works without a lot of factions....

Naaima would be more appropriate for Cathay

**Olthannon**

I mean you're saying that as if GW haven't been pretty clear that it is a business decision?

They said this is Old World. Whether it'll change or not who knows? Given most of the "New World" forces are all fairly heavily involved with Age of Sigmar it seems pretty straightforward as to why they've gone down this route.

**chaos0xomega**

And yet people will still say "there were too many factions so some had to get pushed back, the legacy factions will come later" or "if the game sells well they will be added in" etc. The fact that business decisions are more complex than what the short term revenue generated by model kit sales is never seems to cross the mind of the majority if the community.

**flamingkillamajig**

To be fair GW brought back Old World in the first place after destroying it for AoS. That signifies that they do in fact change their minds sometimes.

**RaptorusRex**

Mr Morden wrote:
Genevieve is likely in the far east learning martial arts and magic.

Shades of Xena.

**Hellebore**

It will be interesting to see how the tournament scene affects GW's decision making.

They seem keen on using the tournaments as a proxy for engagement as a whole, so if most or all TOs allow legends armies, that might generate enough upward pressure to change GW's position on releasing them.

The biggest issue will be how they decide to sell the armies if they do. Lizardmen units are identical to AoS, so do they move the AoS to TOW and make whole new lizardmen, run the same line in two boxes or what? HH marines are pretty much not useable in 40k now that they've removed virtually all normal marine units. You can use Counts As for sure, but in terms of models, a HH tac marine isn't a 40k intercessor. So there's distinct model lines. Which will get even more distinct as primaris marines eventually remove all normal marines.

Do daemons get two boxed lines, or a single one with both logos for AoS and 40k?

My cynicism says GW wants the IP power of those TOW armies in AoS, but I do hope the pressure created by LVOs using Legends actually has an effect.