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.

**chaos0xomega**

Overread wrote:
Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.

But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)

That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.

I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .

Scifi is much bigger in the US than fantasy. We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well but for a number of historical reasons scifi resonates more with our collective identity.

**StudentOfEtherium**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Overread wrote:
Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.

But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)

That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.

I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .

Scifi is much bigger in the US than fantasy. We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well but for a number of historical reasons scifi resonates more with our collective identity.

Game of Thrones? Lord of the Rings? Wheel of Time? and there's also all sorts of urban fantasy, like Dresden Files, Buffy and vampire media in general, Stephen King. fantasy is certainly far from unknown over here

**nathan2004**

Irbis wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Also you had much smaller armies made up of "loyal" elite warriors rather than professional armies. Cavalry never wants to charge spears etc unless they are going to break - and thats a risky thing, having them cause fear would likely work as if the infantry does break before they reach them the cav would slaughter them.

Yeah no, the elite warriors thing was only the case in feudal gakholes. Centralized states, going back into antiquity, were able to field much larger and more professional armies. Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese were routinely fielding armies bigger than that of whole dark ages Europe put together no problem. Byzantines (and other misc, less well known attempts like Hungarian or Russian state infantry, or even Turks with their various auxiliaries) would be offended at suggestion such primitive organization was norm.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
A frontal cavalry Charge never was a very good idea against an infantry line that didn't already crumble from the pure sight of it. As historian Bret Devereaux likes to say: a horse is not a battering ram

And he is completely wrong about it, because it heavily depends on said cavalry and charge target. If said cavalry has lances, chances are they will go straight through whatever they charge, there are hundreds of examples of Persian/Byzantine Kataphraktoi or medieval knights/gendarmes doing just that, barring field fortifications or bad terrain. Even infantry having pikes does not guarantee anything, Polish hussars pulled off dozens of charges even against pike and shot formations up to 1700s (Battle of Kircholm, anyone?). Hell, even lighter lancer cavalry can be devastatingly effective agains anything up to modern and semi-modern guns and artillery, as long as it's used competently (say, in 1800s Polish lancers of Napoleon pulled off cavalry charge against Spanish infantry with artillery support dug in narrow mountain pass in Battle of Somosierra, pretty much the worst circumstances for cavalry possible).

The horse is not a battering ram only when it's commanded by idjits, like say the clowns who ordered the charge of Light Brigade alongside Russian trenches turning it into a turkey shoot. But that's skill issue, not fault of horses

nathan2004 wrote:
40K is in a terrible spot right now imo. Night and day difference between the two games - one encourages customization and kit bashing. The other downright prohibits it.

Care to enlighten us how 40K prohibits kitbashing? Is it by doing weekly articles on WC with really nice kitbash examples? Is it by getting rid of idiotic rules minutia like power knives having different rules than power stilettos or power daggers (I wish I was joking, alas I am not) forcing you into really rigid, unfun for both modelling and converting gak ten times harder than necessary if you wanted to show your opponent basic courtesy and show what your army is equipped with without constant reminders?

I find kitbashing and modelling in 10th is vastly easier than it was for past four editions, simply because you can use whatever you find cool instead of worrying what gak is in rules and what the opponent will say. I recall building Leviathan terminator captain recently and recalling what massive chore it would be in 6th to 9th (go over all terribly written melee options, mathhammer the worst ones out and picking whatever not terribly looking option was left), in 10th it's just 'Relic Power Fist' so I just slapped converted power fist with lightning claws on, something that both fits fluff of my chapter and what hilariously enough wasn't even an option in the gak rules writing of last 15 years!

I find it really hilarious how you can look at TOW rules with 'light weapon' being the exact same thing as generic 'power weapon' is now in 40K and somehow think one is doubleplusgooder and the other unminusgoodest. Mental gymnastics much?

LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.

But keep on thinking on

**ccs**

nathan2004 wrote:

nathan2004 wrote:
40K is in a terrible spot right now imo. Night and day difference between the two games - one encourages customization and kit bashing. The other downright prohibits it.

Care to enlighten us how 40K prohibits kitbashing?

LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.

But keep on thinking on

**Shakalooloo**

Fayric wrote:
kodos wrote:
The main selling point of Warhammer was that it is european history with fantasy elements

For anyone not familiar with that part of history it doesn't really connect the same way

I had no idea. As a european I newer got the historical aspects of orcs, high/dark elves, chaos warriors and daemons, beastmen, skaven, lizardmen, and even the Undead was just a fun blend of 70s horror movies rather than acual folklore. I guess Dwarfs and Elves can be said to beloning to some kind of myth/folklore. But I suppose the things I percive as "classic tolkienesque fantasy" with a heavy dose of Moorcock is actually built on some kind of europeean history.

But how come DnD got popular in the US? Its the same basic world, generally speaking.

The European part of of WFB (more WFRP, really) comes from the place names that exist in the background. Rather than AoS-style names like Hammerhal, Ferrusland or Embergard, we have countries like Estalia, Albion, Araby and Tilea. The central human faction of the setting was Germanic, which alone makes it fell more 'European' than just English. The familiar cast in a new light - what if Europe was invaded by orcs, for example.

D&D, for contrast, is more like a group of American tourists on holiday through a fantastical realm. Some campaign settings may have more real world influence than others, but the Forgotten Realms, for example, is a hodge-podge of monster locations and ancient kingdoms that seem to exist solely for adventuring parties to liberate to receive the gratitude of the locals.

**chaos0xomega**

StudentOfEtherium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Overread wrote:
Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.

But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)

That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.

I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .

Scifi is much bigger in the US than fantasy. We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well but for a number of historical reasons scifi resonates more with our collective identity.

Game of Thrones? Lord of the Rings? Wheel of Time? and there's also all sorts of urban fantasy, like Dresden Files, Buffy and vampire media in general, Stephen King. fantasy is certainly far from unknown over here

"We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well"

It helps to actually read what youre responding to.

**Overread**

nathan2004 wrote:

LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.

But keep on thinking on

Personally I'm all for the concept of "no models no rules".
One of the biggest downsides to getting into 40K for a time and Old World was having unit options which didn't have a model.

I recall when Tyranids were getting these super cool new units like the Parasite and Doom - they were really cool and powerful and neat and -- no GW didn't make a model for them. In fact Doom still hasn't had a model and the Parasite was only fairly recent (compared to when the codex with it originally came out). It's one thing to have conversion and kitbashing as an option, but its another to require it to field certain models. To me that isn't encouraging conversion its just being a barrier to access of certain models.

Not everyone gets into all aspects of the game as much as others. Some don't want to spend a lot of time learning to kitbash and sculpt to field armies. They want to buy a box of models; build them and play with them and have equal standing to everyone else.

Kitbashing being an option is good for everyone and GW has done NOTHING to stop it. As noted they do regular articles on kitbashing* and encourage it all the time by showing off fancy completed custom armies fans have done.

I can also agree that sometimes they take "no models no rules" a touch too far - eg removing twin linked devourers from the hive tyrant because they aren't specifically in that kit even if the parts are in another kit.

*we can argue that they perhaps focus a lot more on having mountains of plastic from themselves and don't touch on sculpting aspects and touchups as much as they used too now that they don't sell Greenstuff.

**NAVARRO**

To be fair you are better off using plastic bits for WFB regiments conversions than sculpting dozens of bits for one unit. For characters sure but regiments it's only viable if you want to sink weeks of work into sculpting.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Overread wrote:
nathan2004 wrote:

LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.

But keep on thinking on

Personally I'm all for the concept of "no models no rules".
One of the biggest downsides to getting into 40K for a time and Old World was having unit options which didn't have a model.

I recall when Tyranids were getting these super cool new units like the Parasite and Doom - they were really cool and powerful and neat and -- no GW didn't make a model for them. In fact Doom still hasn't had a model and the Parasite was only fairly recent (compared to when the codex with it originally came out). It's one thing to have conversion and kitbashing as an option, but its another to require it to field certain models. To me that isn't encouraging conversion its just being a barrier to access of certain models.

Not everyone gets into all aspects of the game as much as others. Some don't want to spend a lot of time learning to kitbash and sculpt to field armies. They want to buy a box of models; build them and play with them and have equal standing to everyone else.

Kitbashing being an option is good for everyone and GW has done NOTHING to stop it. As noted they do regular articles on kitbashing* and encourage it all the time by showing off fancy completed custom armies fans have done.

I can also agree that sometimes they take "no models no rules" a touch too far - eg removing twin linked devourers from the hive tyrant because they aren't specifically in that kit even if the parts are in another kit.

*we can argue that they perhaps focus a lot more on having mountains of plastic from themselves and don't touch on sculpting aspects and touchups as much as they used too now that they don't sell Greenstuff.

Have to disagree here. Having unit options that don’t exist in the exact kit inspires you to build your own dudes and more often than not is just reasonable and not having them often makes the setting feel small. What I'm referring to is weapons that only some unit leaders have since 9th ed, but others for arbitrary reasons don’t.
Every leader model should have the same basic weapon options within an army. That is encouraging kitbashing and also allows a bit of faction identity. Every SM and CSM leader should have the option to get a plasma pistol and the rules should also not make a plasma pistol the default to take for anyone that can do so.
No models no rules is possibly the biggest downside of the current 40K rules. It disallows some models, it makes armies look samey, it restricts list building and it gives an additional barrier when learning the rules because nob 1 is allowed to take xyz and nob 2 is allowed to take y and nob 3 can take z or a. And don’t get me started with Plague Marine nonsense where you have to to equip 5 different guns.

**Overread**

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Have to disagree here. Having unit options that don’t exist in the exact kit inspires you to build your own dudes and more often than not is just reasonable and not having them often makes the setting feel small. What I'm referring to is weapons that only some unit leaders have since 9th ed, but others for arbitrary reasons don’t.
Every leader model should have the same basic weapon options within an army. That is encouraging kitbashing and also allows a bit of faction identity. Every SM and CSM leader should have the option to get a plasma pistol and the rules should also not make a plasma pistol the default to take for anyone that can do so.
No models no rules is possibly the biggest downside of the current 40K rules. It disallows some models, it makes armies look samey, it restricts list building and it gives an additional barrier when learning the rules because nob 1 is allowed to take xyz and nob 2 is allowed to take y and nob 3 can take z or a. And don’t get me started with Plague Marine nonsense where you have to to equip 5 different guns.

No Models No Rules just means if its in the kit you can build it and field it and if its not in the kit you can't field it. GW making odd choices on what they consider legal builds such as no upgrade costs and taking "one of every weapon type even if there's more choices in the kit" isn't a limit on the models its a limit on GW's writing and rules focus. I can even fully agree that its bonkers - heck I hate that in Age of Sigmar they want you take 1 banner and 1 musician per box which means a unit of 30 warriors has 3 musicians and 3 banners. It's even worse for cavalry where you've got typically units in blocks of 5 where now every 2 are command instead of troops (its even more bonkers for slaanesh as they have 3 command options so more than half the squad is command not troops)

As for encouraging conversion I think that there's two sides of that coin. As I noted not everyone wants to learn the skill and not everyone who learns it is good at it. Newbies shouldn't be punished because they don't have an out-of-game skill in conversion. I'm all for optional parts and GW could do more for cross model compatibility; upgrade parts and more if they wanted.

The thing is being able to convert should be a choice for the game that GW encourages rather than a requirement to play the game. It also means that GW doesn't fall into that trap of giving us loads of models and loads of choices that they aren't making models for; which they 100% were falling into a while back. I doubt that will happen now with 3D printing and 3rd parties being much bigger than they were so GW doesn't want to openly leave huge gaps like that in their line-up because 3rd parties will just fill it and steal the coins from GW.

I should also point out that almost the entire wargaming market operates "no models no rules".
About the only one that stands out to my mind of not doing it is Infinity and they kind of get away with it because you might only put one of a type of model on the table so it doesn't matter if its got a shotgun or rifle or sniper because its just 1 model to track the proxy on.

Most other larger scale wargames use NMNR they just don't market it as a "thing" its just how they've always been.

RPG games and skirmishers are often a bit more open

**BrookM**

Right, back on topic please. If there's no actual news, let this topic lie until there is.

**Daba**

Dunno if someone already mentioned but there's a rumour for Beastmen first reveal 22nd March, April 5th preorder, first reveal 22nd march.

**Loopstah**

Found on eBay.

**JWh85**

Daba wrote:
Dunno if someone already mentioned but there's a rumour for Beastmen first reveal 22nd March, April 5th preorder, first reveal 22nd march.

Not much to 'reveal'. I'd go with 'anouncement' i think. Apart from a few models we know most of what is coming.

Not much new to reveal. I am interested in which old forgeworld moster(s?) will be back for beastmen though!

**Coolyo294**

Preyton and incarnate elemental of beasts please

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Interesting observation?

The Bray Shamen and Beastlords described as “classic”. Which strongly suggests all new sculpts coming.

**Coolyo294**

The standard bray shaman is most likely going to be the plastic one that was released for age of sigmar. Plus the forgeworld special character that was previewed.

**nels1031**

A plastic Beastlord was released for AoS. Now OOP since Beasts of Chaos were ejected from AoS. It would be insane for him not to make the switch.

There's still the plastic Shaman with integrated square base that was released back in WHFB days that'll probably get a repack. -ninja'd above!

Would be pretty awesome to get new sculpts for either, though.

**JWh85**

The plastic beastlord will probably be back as it was fairly new. Plastic shaman was end of 8th edition, but i still fine.

If Beastmen get anything more than one or two new models that would be great.

**nathan2004**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interesting observation?

The Bray Shamen and Beastlords described as “classic”. Which strongly suggests all new sculpts coming.

Very good point I haven't noticed any other models they've brought back listed as "Classic".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since we know they aren't bringing back finecast...will the razorgor be A) Metal B) Forgeworld Resin or C) New Sculpt...what does everyone think?

**Waaagh_Gonads**

nathan2004 wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interesting observation?

The Bray Shamen and Beastlords described as “classic”. Which strongly suggests all new sculpts coming.

Very good point I haven't noticed any other models they've brought back listed as "Classic".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since we know they aren't bringing back finecast...will the razorgor be A) Metal B) Forgeworld Resin or C) New Sculpt...what does everyone think?

The O&G releases of old models reverted from finecast to metal.
I expect a slow phasing out of older models (metal) in subsequent editions, or replacement with plastic.

**Daba**

The HE Handmaiden model re-released is now metal and IIRC was originally finecast for that sculpt.

**Skywave**

Daba wrote:
The HE Handmaiden model re-released is now metal and IIRC was originally Finecast for that sculpt.

Yes, most of the first batch of "Finecast-only" models from when it was new are now released in metal. The Tomb Kings Liche, Necrotect, and Prince Apophas, the Empire Witch Hunter, and now the Handmaiden too (probably some others too). I got the TK ones now that they are in metal (they were a bit to fragile in resin back then).

**nathan2004**

I didn’t realize the witch hunter was metal, might need to pick him up to replace the finecrap version of him (which was God awful).

**scarletsquig**

Plastic Chariot for beastmen (with pumbagor options to replace the awful existing sculpt) would be very very welcome, since those have been at the core of beastmen armies since forever, but never got a plastic kit.

Generally, the army gets the short straw with releases so I'm not expecting anything, the orc chariots are available again for conversion at least.

**Platuan4th**

I honestly expect nothing for us beyond the named Shaman and perhaps another character, sadly.

**hotsauceman1**

Overread wrote:
nathan2004 wrote:

LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.

But keep on thinking on

Personally I'm all for the concept of "no models no rules".
One of the biggest downsides to getting into 40K for a time and Old World was having unit options which didn't have a model.

I recall when Tyranids were getting these super cool new units like the Parasite and Doom - they were really cool and powerful and neat and -- no GW didn't make a model for them. In fact Doom still hasn't had a model and the Parasite was only fairly recent (compared to when the codex with it originally came out). It's one thing to have conversion and kitbashing as an option, but its another to require it to field certain models. To me that isn't encouraging conversion its just being a barrier to access of certain models.

Not everyone gets into all aspects of the game as much as others. Some don't want to spend a lot of time learning to kitbash and sculpt to field armies. They want to buy a box of models; build them and play with them and have equal standing to everyone else.

Kitbashing being an option is good for everyone and GW has done NOTHING to stop it. As noted they do regular articles on kitbashing* and encourage it all the time by showing off fancy completed custom armies fans have done.

I can also agree that sometimes they take "no models no rules" a touch too far - eg removing twin linked devourers from the hive tyrant because they aren't specifically in that kit even if the parts are in another kit.

*we can argue that they perhaps focus a lot more on having mountains of plastic from themselves and don't touch on sculpting aspects and touchups as much as they used too now that they don't sell Greenstuff.

Also, its soo fun hunting down all the bits you need for a kitbash for if you want all your sternguard to have the same.
Contraversial opinion, having more restricted loadout, or static load out makes kitbashing BETTER

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

It also offers a more level playing field.

Let’s do the wibbly time warp, and go back to say, 3rd Edition.

You and I are both nascent Space Marine players, starting from scratch.

Whilst we’ve the same range of models before us? Let’s say my weekly or monthly budget is greater than yours.

And that can make the difference in the army and armaments we collect. Where you might add a squad of Devastators by buying the retail box? I can afford to buy the individual blisters. And so I end up with a Devastator Squad of four Plasma Cannons.

And I can repeat that to buy options for Tactical Squads, where your budget sticks you with Whatever Is In The Retail Boxed Set.

Now? We each buy the same box, and have exactly the same options. Yes I can ultimately buy more than you, but squad for squad, box for box? We’ve exactly the same loadout options.

And Kitbashing isn’t dead. Much of the previous requirement is gone, sure. But there’s sod all stopping you kit bashing a squad or character if that’s your preference. You just don’t gain an in-game advantage of a particularly saucy loadout.

**lord_blackfang**

Solid points, and I am on record for having defended GW's decimation of wargear options all the way back in 4th edition CSM and DA books, thinking this would give kitbashers more freedom without having to worry about WYSIWYG and points. But now I also see it as another stepping stone towards a completely canned product with no hint of self expression left. There's a 40k playgroup in my country (not my city, thankfully) that actually demands everything be built exactly like on the box cover.

**Overread**

There have always been oddball groups.

That said way back when GW allowed you to bring allied detachments in big numbers and we inched into "painting impacts the rules your army can use" because everyone was taking multi-subfaction armies for the best results - that likely did spawn a generation of gamers who hold that view more than "your models you paint them however you want" attitudes of the majority of generations.