Chikout wrote:
Does none else think that the Bretonnian stuff is just kind of boring? There's not much on the way of detail and the helmet crests are pretty much the same designs we had before. The shields also look exactly like the old ones with no added details. Keeping the face of the shields bare is sensible, but there are no nicks or dents no lady's favours hanging off the shields and barely any variation in the shapes of the shields. The swords are also all prestine with a pretty uniform design. The only nice touch I liked is the key hanging on one arm. I don't need oddles of detail but for a preview showing off a first look at new minis, I expected more. The Tomb King stuff is much better.

 Cruentus wrote:

If they were "to scale", I'd buy a bunch. If they're not... then no sales from me (and I'm not even going to mention the potential price points).

 Olthannon wrote:
They look pretty good, hopefully the models will look better than these renders. But I'm excited for these bad boys and I'm glad Bretonnians and Tomb Kings are getting new kits.

I still think we are a year away from the actual release, minimum.

 Cruentus wrote:
I know this horse is already out of the barn, but I'm hoping that the Brets (and the TK) don't suffer from ongoing scale creep.

I have a sizeable Bret army from 5th/6th, and would really like the new stuff to fit in. The last iteration of Brets were much bulkier and larger, and looked out of place.

If they were "to scale", I'd buy a bunch. If they're not... then no sales from me (and I'm not even going to mention the potential price points).

And while these teases are a lot of fun, I want to know when we might actually expect them.

 nathan2004 wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Does none else think that the Bretonnian stuff is just kind of boring? There's not much on the way of detail and the helmet crests are pretty much the same designs we had before. The shields also look exactly like the old ones with no added details. Keeping the face of the shields bare is sensible, but there are no nicks or dents no lady's favours hanging off the shields and barely any variation in the shapes of the shields. The swords are also all prestine with a pretty uniform design. The only nice touch I liked is the key hanging on one arm. I don't need oddles of detail but for a preview showing off a first look at new minis, I expected more. The Tomb King stuff is much better.

I respectively disagree...I'm glad the design is relatively simple, hopefully this translates to a lower price point for these releases and not $100 for 5 models which with inflation/current economy, that's what we are trending towards it feels like.

 nathan2004 wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Does none else think that the Bretonnian stuff is just kind of boring? There's not much on the way of detail and the helmet crests are pretty much the same designs we had before. The shields also look exactly like the old ones with no added details. Keeping the face of the shields bare is sensible, but there are no nicks or dents no lady's favours hanging off the shields and barely any variation in the shapes of the shields. The swords are also all prestine with a pretty uniform design. The only nice touch I liked is the key hanging on one arm. I don't need oddles of detail but for a preview showing off a first look at new minis, I expected more. The Tomb King stuff is much better.

I respectfully disagree...I'm glad the design is relatively simple, hopefully this translates to a lower price point for these releases and not $100 for 5 models which with inflation/current economy, that's what we are trending towards it feels like.

Chikout wrote:
Does none else think that the Bretonnian stuff is just kind of boring? There's not much on the way of detail and the helmet crests are pretty much the same designs we had before. The shields also look exactly like the old ones with no added details. Keeping the face of the shields bare is sensible, but there are no nicks or dents no lady's favours hanging off the shields and barely any variation in the shapes of the shields.

 Kanluwen wrote:
*goes back to his forests, waiting for news on the Asrai*

Congrats to Tomb Kings and Bretonnia though, I guess?

 nathan2004 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
*goes back to his forests, waiting for news on the Asrai*

Congrats to Tomb Kings and Bretonnia though, I guess?

Apologies in advance if this is a ignorant question but aren't all the Elf races combined into 1 at this point in the story line? I play Dark Elves and have a high elf army on sprues still (I even had an entire Wood Elf army bought and in boxes still at the end of 8th I sold when AoS dropped) so I'd be pumped if we get them separated into their distinct factions. Admittedly I'm not a historian of the game, I just really enjoyed playing and didn't get into the lore much until right at the very tail end of things.

 Cruentus wrote:
I know this horse is already out of the barn, but I'm hoping that the Brets (and the TK) don't suffer from ongoing scale creep.

I have a sizeable Bret army from 5th/6th, and would really like the new stuff to fit in. The last iteration of Brets were much bulkier and larger, and looked out of place.

If they were "to scale", I'd buy a bunch. If they're not... then no sales from me (and I'm not even going to mention the potential price points)

 Breotan wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:
I know this horse is already out of the barn, but I'm hoping that the Brets (and the TK) don't suffer from ongoing scale creep.

I have a sizeable Bret army from 5th/6th, and would really like the new stuff to fit in. The last iteration of Brets were much bulkier and larger, and looked out of place.

If they were "to scale", I'd buy a bunch. If they're not... then no sales from me (and I'm not even going to mention the potential price points)

I use both iterations of Brets in my army. The older ones are my Knights Errant (ornamentation removed from the helmets to give them a more basic look) while the newer ones make up my KotR and Grail Knights. I'll probably use the newest sculpts as my Grail Knights and keep the rest just to help accentuate social/class stratification between the types of knightly units.

I just hope we'll be able to make proper looking Questing Knights out of these new kits.

 KidCthulhu wrote:
Finally, something concrete for The Old World!

 triplegrim wrote:


As far as scale goes, the khemri hands seems to be fairly miniscules om these weapons. So I dare believe they are not very chunky, clunky or 'heroic' scale.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Incoming new map at a different perspective and more recycled artwork.

 Gert wrote:
Depends if it makes money or not doesn't it?
If people buy into TOW then GW will support it and people will buy in if GW supports the system both locally and globally i.e. events and the such.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I would expect it in 2024 in the same time slot HH had last year, at the earliest.

 Olthannon wrote:
Given this is "The Old World" (even though we all know it's just WFB 2) I'd be interested to see what they do with Lizardmen to separate them from AoS. Maybe they could make them Southlands specific and give them a different flavour.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Given this is "The Old World" (even though we all know it's just WFB 2) I'd be interested to see what they do with Lizardmen to separate them from AoS. Maybe they could make them Southlands specific and give them a different flavour.

Do they have to?
Like, the ones in AoS are explicitly the same species from WFB, down to some individuals being the same survivors of the destruction of the old world, not some half-mad godling’s recreation based on a dream of a memory.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Given this is "The Old World" (even though we all know it's just WFB 2) I'd be interested to see what they do with Lizardmen to separate them from AoS. Maybe they could make them Southlands specific and give them a different flavour.

Do they have to?
Like, the ones in AoS are explicitly the same species from WFB, down to some individuals being the same survivors of the destruction of the old world, not some half-mad godling’s recreation based on a dream of a memory.

 Olthannon wrote:

Does anyone have to do anything?

In the lore, they describe the Southlands Lizardmen as different but we never got the models, now is a thematic opportunity to do so.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:

Does anyone have to do anything?

In the lore, they describe the Southlands Lizardmen as different but we never got the models, now is a thematic opportunity to do so.

Only book I have handy is the 2003 one, and the only real meaningful differences are Horned Ones plus the Skink Cohorts and the 1:1 Scar-Veteran/Saurus Warrior requirement. It feels more organizational than anything else.

Was there more? Genuinely trying to figure this out.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
Considering that about half (likely more) of the player's that will pick up the Old World will already have a army ready to go. Wouldn't it be foolish to have such a large group wait for army books to come out? I think so.

These older player will drive sales if given something to work with. If they do not a Warhammer Armies/ Ravaging Hordes at the time of release of the Old World that would likely stall sales.

 RustyNumber wrote:
^ The Total Warhammer games should be providing an absolute fecktonne of interest from new players. It's still crazy how WFB was killed off just before the best possible adaptation of the world (using an existing IP) was getting rolling. All time concurrent peak players is 100k+ for the third game, the install base is huge.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
^ The Total Warhammer games should be providing an absolute fecktonne of interest from new players. It's still crazy how WFB was killed off just before the best possible adaptation of the world (using an existing IP) was getting rolling. All time concurrent peak players is 100k+ for the third game, the install base is huge.

Assuming of course that, a majority of those computer games players aren't the old WFB players getting their fix because GW killed their game. Just a thought.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
^ The Total Warhammer games should be providing an absolute fecktonne of interest from new players. It's still crazy how WFB was killed off just before the best possible adaptation of the world (using an existing IP) was getting rolling. All time concurrent peak players is 100k+ for the third game, the install base is huge.

Assuming of course that, a majority of those computer games players aren't the old WFB players getting their fix because GW killed their game. Just a thought.

Goose LeChance wrote:
Am I supposed to believe the blacksmiths sculpt like modern day cartoonists? The dragon head is worrying and so are the weapon's size.

Goose LeChance wrote:
Am I supposed to believe the blacksmiths sculpt like modern day cartoonists? The dragon head is worrying and so are the weapon's size.

 Vermis wrote:
I thought the swords, at least, looked quite sensible for Warhammer. I don't get it.

The Khemri weapons look like something from a Klingon episode of DS9.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Am I supposed to believe the blacksmiths sculpt like modern day cartoonists? The dragon head is worrying and so are the weapon's size.

While the Dragon head does look a little more cartoony than what I can see on the previous models, those weren't exactly all realistic depictions either. It's meant to be a piece of elaborate stylized decoration.

And just what's wrong with the weapon size? Weapons came in all sorts of different sizes historically.

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

C'mon, GW's gotta compete with ASOIAF's aesthetic or even their own video games. The audience isn't 12 years old.

Yeah, the swords are good, the axe is kind of big and the TK weapons are ridiculous.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

And just what do those look like, exactly? Because trying to find some examples, it's difficult to find any - plenty of modern day things that show a fantasy style, but the pieces of artwork I've found from the time period and what appear to be a few photos of helmet crests (and just decorated helmets in general from then) certainly aren't some realistic super detailed highly elaborate style and actually appear quite cartoony.

 Just Tony wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

C'mon, GW's gotta compete with ASOIAF's aesthetic or even their own video games. The audience isn't 12 years old.

Yeah, the swords are good, the axe is kind of big and the TK weapons are ridiculous.

The Crest is an ornamental piece of art, not a gigantic chunk of iron. The blacksmith wouldn't be the one doing the crest, it would be added on by an artisan after the fact.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

C'mon, GW's gotta compete with ASOIAF's aesthetic or even their own video games. The audience isn't 12 years old.

Yeah, the swords are good, the axe is kind of big and the TK weapons are ridiculous.

The Crest is an ornamental piece of art, not a gigantic chunk of iron. The blacksmith wouldn't be the one doing the crest, it would be added on by an artisan after the fact.

My bad, so it's the artisan browsing tumblr at 3 AM for cute dragon pics, not the blacksmith.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

C'mon, GW's gotta compete with ASOIAF's aesthetic or even their own video games. The audience isn't 12 years old.

Yeah, the swords are good, the axe is kind of big and the TK weapons are ridiculous.

The Crest is an ornamental piece of art, not a gigantic chunk of iron. The blacksmith wouldn't be the one doing the crest, it would be added on by an artisan after the fact.

My bad, so it's the artisan browsing tumblr at 3 AM for cute dragon pics, not the blacksmith.

If you look up some actual artwork and photos of crests from the time period rather than just assuming you know how they should look and you'll see that they weren't how you're suggesting.

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith....

 Vulcan wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Just surprised that two of the less popular armies would be among the first to get kits, that's all.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Just surprised that two of the less popular armies would be among the first to get kits, that's all.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Just surprised that two of the less popular armies would be among the first to get kits, that's all.

Maybe GW think it's an opportunity to kickstart two new ranges that were completely discontinued when they moved to AoS?

 infinite_array wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Just surprised that two of the less popular armies would be among the first to get kits, that's all.

Maybe GW think it's an opportunity to kickstart two new ranges that were completely discontinued when they moved to AoS?

Goose LeChance wrote:
Because it should look like a medieval head ornament sculpted by a blacksmith, instead of a cute Pixar dragon from someone's DeviantArt page.

C'mon, GW's gotta compete with ASOIAF's aesthetic or even their own video games. The audience isn't 12 years old.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
If you think that dragon looks silly then I'd suggest looking at more medieval art. It's bonkers.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
^ The Total Warhammer games should be providing an absolute fecktonne of interest from new players. It's still crazy how WFB was killed off just before the best possible adaptation of the world (using an existing IP) was getting rolling. All time concurrent peak players is 100k+ for the third game, the install base is huge.

Assuming of course that, a majority of those computer games players aren't the old WFB players getting their fix because GW killed their game. Just a thought.

A pitiful amount of in silico players would ever consider playing the game in vivo.

Goose LeChance wrote:
I've seen plenty of medieval art I can tell the difference between a Disney cartoon and medieval art

Goose LeChance wrote:
I've seen plenty of medieval art I can tell the difference between a Disney cartoon and medieval art

 infinite_array wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Just surprised that two of the less popular armies would be among the first to get kits, that's all.

Maybe GW think it's an opportunity to kickstart two new ranges that were completely discontinued when they moved to AoS?

Cypher226 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
^ The Total Warhammer games should be providing an absolute fecktonne of interest from new players. It's still crazy how WFB was killed off just before the best possible adaptation of the world (using an existing IP) was getting rolling. All time concurrent peak players is 100k+ for the third game, the install base is huge.

Assuming of course that, a majority of those computer games players aren't the old WFB players getting their fix because GW killed their game. Just a thought.

A pitiful amount of in silico players would ever consider playing the game in vivo.

a massive number of modern 40k players came in thanks to Dawn Of War, so I think you might be underestimating the draw

Goose LeChance wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Did... did people really think there wouldn't be any plastic releases?

Just surprised that two of the less popular armies would be among the first to get kits, that's all.

Maybe GW think it's an opportunity to kickstart two new ranges that were completely discontinued when they moved to AoS?

When TOW fails they can port the models over to AoS since they'll probably fit right in

Vulcan wrote:Ah... medieval helmet crests, especially crests that size, were not steel or iron. They'd be too heavy to wear. For something that size, wood and leather and cloth are the order of the day.

 Vermis wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Ah... medieval helmet crests, especially crests that size, were not steel or iron. They'd be too heavy to wear. For something that size, wood and leather and cloth are the order of the day.

Tell me you're a fantasy gamer without telling me you're a fantasy gamer. Iron? Steel? It's a bit heavier than balsawood and foamcore, right...?



"Ow me back" says Korhil.

 infinite_array wrote:
Maybe GW think it's an opportunity to kickstart two new ranges that were completely discontinued when they moved to AoS?

Johanxp wrote:
With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, a lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

Goose LeChance wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, a lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

You might have nothing to worry about

 Gallahad wrote:
I really enjoyed Warhammer Fantasy 5-7th editions. Played a ton of 6th edition.

I've long regretted not buying the plastic Brettonian Knights kit.

Unfortunately, I'm just not interested anymore. The chance that the rules are better than 6th edition is basically zero, and those rules weren't without their obvious warts.

After moving over to a game with pre-assembled minis (ASOIAF), I've found GWs modern monopose miniatures a huge pain to assemble. I have very limited hobby time, and spending it cleaning the mold lines off a four piece infantry guy with exactly one pose and zero options just isn't fun.

The rules won't be better. Games Workshop make me feel poorly treated as a fan over and over. It will be wildly expensive. Assembly will be a chore. There just isn't much this game has going for it outside of nostalgia.

If this were any other company and all they had to show after 3 years was a couple of renders...

I hope it is everything everyone wants it to be. But I think it will end up disappointing.

Sincerely hope it is awesome. I just don't see many reasons to hope given everything we know about GW.

I won't weigh in any more here so that I don't drag down the mood.

Chikout wrote:
Does none else think that the Bretonnian stuff is just kind of boring? There's not much on the way of detail and the helmet crests are pretty much the same designs we had before. The shields also look exactly like the old ones with no added details. Keeping the face of the shields bare is sensible, but there are no nicks or dents no lady's favours hanging off the shields and barely any variation in the shapes of the shields. The swords are also all prestine with a pretty uniform design. The only nice touch I liked is the key hanging on one arm. I don't need oddles of detail but for a preview showing off a first look at new minis, I expected more. The Tomb King stuff is much better.

 Ahtman wrote:
I am really surprised by them being plastic, especially with the recent Horus Heresy Assault Marine arms being resin.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Building 30 Space Marines is different from building a WHFB army. 30 models in the Old World are often only 1.5 units.

 Vermis wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Ah... medieval helmet crests, especially crests that size, were not steel or iron. They'd be too heavy to wear. For something that size, wood and leather and cloth are the order of the day.

Tell me you're a fantasy gamer without telling me you're a fantasy gamer. Iron? Steel? It's a bit heavier than balsawood and foamcore, right...?



"Ow me back" says Korhil.

MvR wrote:
These new releases are quite interesting for what they potentially reveal about the number of models that will come in boxes, which, in turn, could offer clues into how the game will be played.

The Bret release has six swords and one axe. Five of the swords are of the same size, one is bigger. Does this indicate that these knights will be released in boxes of five? The five smaller swords are for if you want your whole unit to match, and the bigger sword is one for your leader if you wish to build a command group.

Releasing the cavalry in sets of five certainly matches current GW policy regarding mounted units, and I think all of this hints at bigger base sizes - not much of a shock there - and smaller armies than were seen during Fantasy, especially at the end. It does however raise questions surrounding how the Bretonnians will play - will the lance formation still remain? Do I need to by two boxes of these knights to make a full usable unit? I think the second is unlikely, as they will want to make things as accessible as possible, and as much as GW likes to charge as much as they can, there is no incentive to pick up this stuff if to get one unit on the field you need two boxes.

As there are the options of lances, swords and axes for the Bretonnians, it perhaps suggests the weapon options will be the defining factor in how units may be different from each other, which may prevent a large amount of rule bloat and memorisation, but may make some factions feel very similar to each other.

 Taarnak wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

And I think Kruleboys are the best Orks/Orcs they have ever done. lol Really not a fan of comedy orks with heads growing from their chests...

I think the Bretonnian and Tomb Kings stuff looks good. I also hope Bretonnians vs Tomb Kings is the way they go for the starter set.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

And I think Kruleboys are the best Orks/Orcs they have ever done. lol Really not a fan of comedy orks with heads growing from their chests...

I think the Bretonnian and Tomb Kings stuff looks good. I also hope Bretonnians vs Tomb Kings is the way they go for the starter set.

Agreed, the Kruleboyz are the best Orc models that GW have ever produced. I can understand not being a fan of the aesthetic, but they are objectively technically excellent sculpts, so calling them "truly awful" is a truly awful take.

Anyway, I'm getting excited for Brets, they can't come soon enough!

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

And I think Kruleboys are the best Orks/Orcs they have ever done. lol Really not a fan of comedy orks with heads growing from their chests...

I think the Bretonnian and Tomb Kings stuff looks good. I also hope Bretonnians vs Tomb Kings is the way they go for the starter set.

Agreed, the Kruleboyz are the best Orc models that GW have ever produced. I can understand not being a fan of the aesthetic, but they are objectively technically excellent sculpts, so calling them "truly awful" is a truly awful take.

Anyway, I'm getting excited for Brets, they can't come soon enough!

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

You speak with such authority when it's subjective.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

And I think Kruleboys are the best Orks/Orcs they have ever done. lol Really not a fan of comedy orks with heads growing from their chests...

I think the Bretonnian and Tomb Kings stuff looks good. I also hope Bretonnians vs Tomb Kings is the way they go for the starter set.

Agreed, the Kruleboyz are the best Orc models that GW have ever produced. I can understand not being a fan of the aesthetic, but they are objectively technically excellent sculpts, so calling them "truly awful" is a truly awful take.

Anyway, I'm getting excited for Brets, they can't come soon enough!

We're at the point that we're attempting to correct personal taste, eh?

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

You speak with such authority when it's subjective. I really enjoyed building the Kruelboy models, the angles for the newer sculpts GW does is to hide joint lines, and it does very well at that. The larger beasts even had logs/planks that covered up the connection points of two larger flat areas to completely conceal the connection point. The mono-pose and "very awkward angles" may not be your cup of tea, but to call them anything but engineering successes is disingenuous, or at the very least naive to the intent of those design decisions.

 Taarnak wrote:

You can like them, or not, but recognize that your opinion is subjective. Just as mine is, which is what I was inferring.

I hate, hate, hate the aesthetics of the GW Ork/Orc. I like the aesthetics of the Kruleboyz. There was no tangent. We are discussing the same thing.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

You speak with such authority when it's subjective.

That's it. Rather than them saying "I really didn't like the style that GW chose for the Kruleboys, I much prefered the older style of Orc!" or something similar, instead we get things like "truly awful", "crappy details" "fail!" "design mess"

I get that internet hyperbole is very much a real thing, but I really can't stand the somewhat childish notion that minis that we don't personally like are referred to as trash or similar insulting words.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

You speak with such authority when it's subjective.

That's it. Rather than them saying "I really didn't like the style that GW chose for the Kruleboys, I much prefered the older style of Orc!" or something similar, instead we get things like "truly awful", "crappy details" "fail!" "design mess"

I get that internet hyperbole is very much a real thing, but I really can't stand the somewhat childish notion that minis that we don't personally like are referred to as trash or similar insulting words.

I insulted the Kruleboys? Dude your sole post is insulting my personal opinion on toys... Just count the adjectives you personally labeled me and look at yourself first.
*disclaimer - No harm intended at the Orruk race called Kruelboys.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

You speak with such authority when it's subjective.

That's it. Rather than them saying "I really didn't like the style that GW chose for the Kruleboys, I much prefered the older style of Orc!" or something similar, instead we get things like "truly awful", "crappy details" "fail!" "design mess"

I get that internet hyperbole is very much a real thing, but I really can't stand the somewhat childish notion that minis that we don't personally like are referred to as trash or similar insulting words.

I insulted the Kruleboys? Dude your sole post is insulting my personal opinion on toys... Just count the adjectives you personally labeled me and look at yourself first.
*disclaimer - No harm intended at the Orruk race called Kruelboys.

No, I'm not attacking your personal taste, I'm saying that I dislike how you word it. I find it (not you) childish.

 NAVARRO wrote:


Last one for its you getting OT, and you find justifiable and totally OK saying my opinion is awful and addressed childish like while you say it's insulting or feel insulted me describing an orc mini as awful.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

I like both the Kruleboys and OBR for their '80/90s fantasy paperback cover pastel-coloured hallucination' aesthetics, they look like they stepped out of a Blanche painting or some Heavy Metal album cover. They are truely 'retro', faux-nostalgic for a past version of themselves that never existed. They look like Warhammer Fantasy Battles would have looked in the 80s if today's technology had existed back then, if that makes any sense.

 Taarnak wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

You can like them, or not, but recognize that your opinion is subjective. Just as mine is, which is what I was getting at.

I hate, hate, hate the aesthetics of the GW Ork/Orc. I like the aesthetics of the Kruleboyz. There was no tangent. We are discussing the same thing.

 BertBert wrote:
I'm not too worried about the possible AoS-ification of ToW.

GW will want to keep those IPs separate and consequently they will likely have different design philosophies. AoS was purpose-built to look and work differently from WHFB, so reversing this course would make little sense to me.

On the other hand, there are some GW-greenlit designs in Total War: Warhammer that are cause for some concern, as are some of the late End Times releases, so it remains to be seen how this turns out.

I'll just say that the recently published renders seem fairly consistent in design with WHFB. Contrary to the above, I can see cities of sigmar becoming a tie-in to ToW Empire design-wise, maybe even as a 1:1 equivalent and stepping stone for people who want to branch out from AoS into ToW. Seraphon and Vampires are largely ready for ToW as they are.

 BertBert wrote:
I'm not too worried about the possible AoS-ification of ToW.

GW will want to keep those IPs separate and consequently they will likely have different design philosophies. AoS was purpose-built to look and work differently from WHFB, so reversing this course would make little sense to me.

On the other hand, there are some GW-greenlit designs in Total War: Warhammer that are cause for some concern, as are some of the late End Times releases, so it remains to be seen how this turns out.

I'll just say that the recently published renders seem fairly consistent in design with WHFB. Contrary to the above, I can see cities of sigmar becoming a tie-in to ToW Empire design-wise, maybe even as a 1:1 equivalent and stepping stone for people who want to branch out from AoS into ToW. Seraphon and Vampires are largely ready for ToW as they are.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Probably referring to the flinging that happened here when the kislev concept art was shown and a loud portion were shouting about it looking OTT/flanderized for fantasy. I rather liked them myself.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

What TW:W designs are you referring to?

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


I don't really see that. The Seraphon in particular you can tell haven't been designed with ranking in mind. The Saurus especially with outstretched arms and wide stances. The cities stuff as well really shares little design cues from empire if you actually compare what has been seen.

 kodos wrote:
There were never really rules for base sizes in the first place, so there is a high chance that there won't be some this time

and if it goes the way of all GW games, that you should use the base the model came with, all old armies are playable at the beginning, it just will change as time goes by

Voss wrote:

 kodos wrote:
There were never really rules for base sizes in the first place, so there is a high chance that there won't be some this time

and if it goes the way of all GW games, that you should use the base the model came with, all old armies are playable at the beginning, it just will change as time goes by

Quite a few editions of fantasy had very clear and specific rules for base sizes. The 'whatever' is more recent and mostly 40k. (AoS started without it to try to ease the transition, but I'm pretty sure there's documented 'right size' now).

 NAVARRO wrote:


Tangent was the post I quoted not what you said.
Tangent was me saying I find that Lot of minis awful (initially was talking just how they look) and then tangent was people saying you cant say that because design is an "achievement"...
Yes all personal opinions are subjective no news there.

I do wonder how O&G will be in Old world and I expect them to make Orcs like they used to and not like AoS Kruleboys. I think Old world Orcs may well be the update I was so eagerly waiting for in AoS.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

I wouldn't trust them with anything, the people who made WHFB what it was are gone. All the new 40K stuff looks exactly like AoS because it's all the same sculptors with the same training and the same orders from the top.

This is why BFG is the last hope, it's nearly impossible to mess up the ship design unless they start putting 'my little pony heads' on the front.

 KidCthulhu wrote:

MvR wrote:
These new releases are quite interesting for what they potentially reveal about the number of models that will come in boxes, which, in turn, could offer clues into how the game will be played.

The Bret release has six swords and one axe. Five of the swords are of the same size, one is bigger. Does this indicate that these knights will be released in boxes of five? The five smaller swords are for if you want your whole unit to match, and the bigger sword is one for your leader if you wish to build a command group.

Releasing the cavalry in sets of five certainly matches current GW policy regarding mounted units, and I think all of this hints at bigger base sizes - not much of a shock there - and smaller armies than were seen during Fantasy, especially at the end. It does however raise questions surrounding how the Bretonnians will play - will the lance formation still remain? Do I need to by two boxes of these knights to make a full usable unit? I think the second is unlikely, as they will want to make things as accessible as possible, and as much as GW likes to charge as much as they can, there is no incentive to pick up this stuff if to get one unit on the field you need two boxes.

As there are the options of lances, swords and axes for the Bretonnians, it perhaps suggests the weapon options will be the defining factor in how units may be different from each other, which may prevent a large amount of rule bloat and memorisation, but may make some factions feel very similar to each other.

What if they put six knights in a box? You could still do lance formation that way, right (first rank: 1 model, second rank: 2 models, third rank: 3 models)?

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Well if its orcs on the starter I don't think they can do a worse job than Kruleboys. Truly awful lot.

And I think Kruleboys are the best Orks/Orcs they have ever done. lol Really not a fan of comedy orks with heads growing from their chests...

I think the Bretonnian and Tomb Kings stuff looks good. I also hope Bretonnians vs Tomb Kings is the way they go for the starter set.

Agreed, the Kruleboyz are the best Orc models that GW have ever produced. I can understand not being a fan of the aesthetic, but they are objectively technically excellent sculpts, so calling them "truly awful" is a truly awful take.

Anyway, I'm getting excited for Brets, they can't come soon enough!

I will call them what I want thank you, Sir. Besides just because a mini is flooded with crappy details which are horrible to individually paint, the faces are not the focal point but rather the shields(fail)! Yeah you call it technically advanced I call them a model Design mess. Looking at the champ sprue its a full figure piece split/sliced in 3 very awkward angles (ridiculous), thats very poor no mater how you want to say this sprue design is good.
Not enjoyable to paint or build and all faces look like sucking on lemons!
Aesthetic was what I was really talking about but you went on a tangent.

Voss wrote:

 kodos wrote:
There were never really rules for base sizes in the first place, so there is a high chance that there won't be some this time

and if it goes the way of all GW games, that you should use the base the model came with, all old armies are playable at the beginning, it just will change as time goes by

Quite a few editions of fantasy had very clear and specific rules for base sizes (I certainly wouldn't have rebased 80 ungor twice without rules). The 'whatever' is more recent and mostly 40k. (AoS started without it to try to ease the transition, but I'm pretty sure there's documented 'right size' now).

Voss wrote:

 kodos wrote:
There were never really rules for base sizes in the first place, so there is a high chance that there won't be some this time
and if it goes the way of all GW games, that you should use the base the model came with, all old armies are playable at the beginning, it just will change as time goes by

Quite a few editions of fantasy had very clear and specific rules for base sizes (I certainly wouldn't have rebased 80 ungor twice without rules). The 'whatever' is more recent and mostly 40k. (AoS started without it to try to ease the transition, but I'm pretty sure there's documented 'right size' now).

 BertBert wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

What TW:W designs are you referring to?

Cathay was surprisingly grounded overall (except for the montgolfieres ), but I'm not a fan of the characters morphing into dragons. That seems to be a bit high on the power scale for humans.

 Londinium wrote:


They're actually dragons that take the form of humans, as a method of ruling over their human subjects. Can't say I'm a massive fan of shapeshifting dragons and how they put the Lizardmen in the shade as the oldest/most powerful non Chaos actors on the planet but it's definitely not a case of overpowered humans. When Cathay (hopefully) gets a second pass over, be it through TOW 2e or whatever, if they darken up the background a little and make the dragons less altruistic and Cathay as a nation more grimdark, I think Cathay will fit into the vibe of the game rather well. It's like 3e Tau all over again.

 Londinium wrote:

They're actually dragons that take the form of humans, as a method of ruling over their human subjects. Can't say I'm a massive fan of shapeshifting dragons and how they put the Lizardmen in the shade as the oldest/most powerful non Chaos actors on the planet but it's definitely not a case of overpowered humans.

Taarnak 807983 11504524 wrote:

I would expect Orcs and Goblins to resemble the old world Orcs and Goblins. I imagine there will be some updates, but within the same aesthetic. Kinda like what was done with the Killteam Orks for 40K. I can't see them deviating as much as the Kruleboyz did.

bobthe4th wrote:

Taarnak 807983 11504524 wrote:

I would expect Orcs and Goblins to resemble the old world Orcs and Goblins. I imagine there will be some updates, but within the same aesthetic. Kinda like what was done with the Killteam Orks for 40K. I can't see them deviating as much as the Kruleboyz did.

If GW do want to use any existing AOS kits to fill out Old World armies they could use some of the Kruleboyz units to represent Hobgoblins. I wonder how east we'll go, and if Cathay and Kislev get versions of their Total War armies?

Vulcan wrote:
... Okay, that's fair.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:to call them anything but engineering successes...

Undead_Love-Machine wrote:but I really can't stand the somewhat childish notion that minis that we don't personally like are referred to as trash or similar insulting words.

 Vermis wrote:

Undead_Love-Machine wrote:but I really can't stand the somewhat childish notion that minis that we don't personally like are referred to as trash or similar insulting words.

Regardless of anything else... don't tie your identity to corporate plastic toy products so much so that criticism of them is 'insulting' to you.
.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Problem with that line of thinking is that right at the start of this GW stated that all old armies would be immediately playable. Which won't be true if they start messing with the base sizes.

On the chaos side of things, the obvious problem there is that the new ones carry AoS specific elements, such as Stormcast helmet trophies. So even if you can rank them up, they're not fantasy agnostic.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Londinium wrote:

They're actually dragons that take the form of humans, as a method of ruling over their human subjects. Can't say I'm a massive fan of shapeshifting dragons and how they put the Lizardmen in the shade as the oldest/most powerful non Chaos actors on the planet but it's definitely not a case of overpowered humans.

As far as I can find, it has always been the case that the Dragons were the original inhabitants of the old world. The Old Ones/Slann basically invaded and took over during a hibernation cycle then forced the truly ancient Dragons to remain asleep by changing the planet’s orbit to bring it closer to the sun. You can see bits of this in the lore of the high elves and Lizardmen but it should also be telling that the most ancient breed of Chaos children are the dragon ogres.

As for the grimderpification, it’s entirely unnecessary; they’re already absentee despotic rulers who’ve abandoned their power to the care of their inexperienced children, except even the traditional way out from under the thumb of such a system is unavailable because they’re dragons and thus not particularly susceptible to the assassin’s knife. They exert absolute control of their populace, directing their entire economy and society towards war in a way the Imperium of Man would look at with envy, which only seems even slightly reasonable because of the clear and present existential threat on their northern border. Guarantee they’ve got “secret” and actually secret police all over, with all the corruption and abuse that implies.

 BertBert wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

What TW:W designs are you referring to?

Mostly the giant elemental ice Bears, war sleds and elemental ice weapons on the elemental ice guard.

 Londinium wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Londinium wrote:

They're actually dragons that take the form of humans, as a method of ruling over their human subjects. Can't say I'm a massive fan of shapeshifting dragons and how they put the Lizardmen in the shade as the oldest/most powerful non Chaos actors on the planet but it's definitely not a case of overpowered humans.

As far as I can find, it has always been the case that the Dragons were the original inhabitants of the old world. The Old Ones/Slann basically invaded and took over during a hibernation cycle then forced the truly ancient Dragons to remain asleep by changing the planet’s orbit to bring it closer to the sun. You can see bits of this in the lore of the high elves and Lizardmen but it should also be telling that the most ancient breed of Chaos children are the dragon ogres.

As for the grimderpification, it’s entirely unnecessary; they’re already absentee despotic rulers who’ve abandoned their power to the care of their inexperienced children, except even the traditional way out from under the thumb of such a system is unavailable because they’re dragons and thus not particularly susceptible to the assassin’s knife. They exert absolute control of their populace, directing their entire economy and society towards war in a way the Imperium of Man would look at with envy, which only seems even slightly reasonable because of the clear and present existential threat on their northern border. Guarantee they’ve got “secret” and actually secret police all over, with all the corruption and abuse that implies.

Yeah the dragons always have predated the Old Ones but I preferred it when they just animals like forest dragons etc, not civilisation building shapeshifting pseudo-gods.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
All something in-line with how Kislev was before that, really. The spirit of kislev represented by a giant bear, spirits in magical ice bodies, bears as a relatively common trained creature, and magic ice weapons and/or ice enchantments were all something we'd seen already, although I would say that the sled being covered in ice magic rather than just being a sled was a bit much.

Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood, let me put it to you in a way that's easier for you to understand.

If you're going to critique miniatures, it's my personal preference that you don't do it in the manner of a 12 year old.

Regardless, this wasn't directed at you, so I have no idea why you responded.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
All something in-line with how Kislev was before that, really. The spirit of kislev represented by a giant bear, spirits in magical ice bodies, bears as a relatively common trained creature, and magic ice weapons and/or ice enchantments were all something we'd seen already, although I would say that the sled being covered in ice magic rather than just being a sled was a bit much.

 triplegrim wrote:
https://youtu.be/kCQL4eaRqWo

Some more rumors are floating around, mostly about more news coming soon.

Kislev vs Chaos starter set but possibly bretonnia vs Tomb Kings.

 Vermis wrote:

Mentlegen324 wrote:
All something in-line with how Kislev was before that, really. The spirit of kislev represented by a giant bear, spirits in magical ice bodies, bears as a relatively common trained creature, and magic ice weapons and/or ice enchantments were all something we'd seen already, although I would say that the sled being covered in ice magic rather than just being a sled was a bit much.

Against all odds I think I still have the 6th Ed Kislev supplement about here somewhere. I would need to check - I beg your understanding - but I remember an Ice Queen sorceress* and a named character with a bear. Heck if I know what came in earlier editions, but I understood the ice weapons showed up in the earliest TOW concept art.

Anyway, yeah, I understand it's like the flanderisation of a space marine chapter with a certain wolfish theme that shall remain nameless. There's an ice queen, and a single bear, so then we've got to have her casting icy spells on weapons and more guys on bears, and before long we've got rymeshard swyrds, spyrs and halbyrds, icyspycycle golems, bears as heavy cavalry, bears pulling chariots, bears for fast skirmishing bowmen, bears lugging the camp wagons, bears and cats, living together...!

At least, such would be my understanding.

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.

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Tomb Kings skeletons, horse riders, chariots are comming back, aswell as Bretonnian men-at-arms, long bowmen and plastic knight kit.

Stater set will be Tomb Kings vs Bretonnians

And there are going to be new models aswell for both sides


This is said to be coming from some UK sources, that he was talking to.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Tomb Kings skeletons, horse riders, chariots are comming back, aswell as Bretonnian men-at-arms, long bowmen and plastic knight kit.

Stater set will be Tomb Kings vs Bretonnians

And there are going to be new models aswell for both sides


This is said to be coming from some UK sources, that he was talking to.

Tomb Kings skeletons coming back would completely ruin any interest I have in them. Well, old kits for both, really. There’s a reason I didn’t start either of them when WHFB was still around, because they still had a lot of old models. That was like 10+ years ago.

Chikout wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Tomb Kings skeletons, horse riders, chariots are comming back, aswell as Bretonnian men-at-arms, long bowmen and plastic knight kit.

Stater set will be Tomb Kings vs Bretonnians

And there are going to be new models aswell for both sides


This is said to be coming from some UK sources, that he was talking to.

Tomb Kings skeletons coming back would completely ruin any interest I have in them. Well, old kits for both, really. There’s a reason I didn’t start either of them when WHFB was still around, because they still had a lot of old models. That was like 10+ years ago.

Surely this means new plastics for those listed kits. We already seen the knights' helms.

 nathan2004 wrote:
I just read on another rumor site that it’s projected to drop in November/December time frame. Interesting.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Chikout wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Tomb Kings skeletons, horse riders, chariots are comming back, aswell as Bretonnian men-at-arms, long bowmen and plastic knight kit.

Stater set will be Tomb Kings vs Bretonnians

And there are going to be new models aswell for both sides


This is said to be coming from some UK sources, that he was talking to.

Tomb Kings skeletons coming back would completely ruin any interest I have in them. Well, old kits for both, really. There’s a reason I didn’t start either of them when WHFB was still around, because they still had a lot of old models. That was like 10+ years ago.

Surely this means new plastics for those listed kits. We already seen the knights' helms.

Yep, no way are they bringing these old disgusting kits back. That would kill tow in the egg

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:
The smallest base size will be 25 mm

 Just Tony wrote:


Not everybody agrees with you about the quality of the older kits. ESPECIALLY the Brets who didn't have a bad plastic set at all.

Chikout wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Tomb Kings skeletons, horse riders, chariots are comming back, aswell as Bretonnian men-at-arms, long bowmen and plastic knight kit.

Stater set will be Tomb Kings vs Bretonnians

And there are going to be new models aswell for both sides


This is said to be coming from some UK sources, that he was talking to.

Tomb Kings skeletons coming back would completely ruin any interest I have in them. Well, old kits for both, really. There’s a reason I didn’t start either of them when WHFB was still around, because they still had a lot of old models. That was like 10+ years ago.

Surely this means new plastics for those listed kits. We already seen the knights' helms.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
I think that the Men-at-arms and bowmen hold up pretty well, I wouldn't mind at all if the kits return.

I'd love to see new knights though...

tneva82 wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
I think that the Men-at-arms and bowmen hold up pretty well, I wouldn't mind at all if the kits return.

I'd love to see new knights though...

Of course with new kits comes for sure new kit prices. Just have to hope # of models needed isn't much bigger than AOS then with 10 models for 45€(or more) prices.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Well, if that's the case my (20mm square based) 400+ painted skeletons/zombies/ghouls, 300+ dwarves, 200+ goblins, etc, all tell GW that I'll be sticking with KoW.
No nostalgia money for you GW.

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Bobug wrote:
Or like, you know, just play using your models on the old bases. It's not like James workshop is going to show up and cast your models into the void for a 5mm difference in diameter

Bobug wrote:
Or like, you know, just play using your models on the old bases. It's not like James workshop is going to show up and cast your models into the void for a 5mm difference in diameter

 Just Tony wrote:

Bobug wrote:
Or like, you know, just play using your models on the old bases. It's not like James workshop is going to show up and cast your models into the void for a 5mm difference in diameter

Squares a rectangles don't have diameters

 nathan2004 wrote:
I don't understand the folks on here that say bringing back old kits is going to kill TOW...Making the old kits made to order is great for the folks (and clearly they are out there given the second hand market) who want to fill out/complete their army(armies) without having to pay out the teeth for it. Those who aren't fond of the old kits can just ignore the MtO and get the rules if they want to try the game out and wait for the new kits to drop. Which we all know will come....how is this a bad thing?

Bobug wrote:
Or like, you know, just play using your models on the old bases. It's not like James workshop is going to show up and cast your models into the void for a 5mm difference in diameter

 nathan2004 wrote:
I don't understand the folks on here that say bringing back old kits is going to kill TOW...Making the old kits made to order is great for the folks (and clearly they are out there given the second hand market) who want to fill out/complete their army(armies) without having to pay out the teeth for it. Those who aren't fond of the old kits can just ignore the MtO and get the rules if they want to try the game out and wait for the new kits to drop. Which we all know will come....how is this a bad thing?

 nathan2004 wrote:
I think a lot of us that have existing collections face a rebasing dilemma if they change base size, be very interesting to see how this is handled hopefully through movement trays.

That way it doesn't stomp on new players collections and allows stuff that's more dynamic to be ported over if players wish from AoS on larger bases. I think this makes the most sense.

 Psychopomp wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
I think a lot of us that have existing collections face a rebasing dilemma if they change base size, be very interesting to see how this is handled hopefully through movement trays.

That way it doesn't stomp on new players collections and allows stuff that's more dynamic to be ported over if players wish from AoS on larger bases. I think this makes the most sense.

It's already handled. Look up Oathmark movement trays for 20mm bases.

Oathmark uses 25mm for all non-monstrous infantry. When it came out, it took all the laser-cut MDF movement tray companies out there about five minutes to start offering 125mm frontage trays for 20mm square bases.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Chikout wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 herjan1987 wrote:
I run a small news page for Warhammer The old World and one of my followers, who was at Adepticon said the following information about the game:

The smallest base size will be 25 mm

Tomb Kings skeletons, horse riders, chariots are comming back, aswell as Bretonnian men-at-arms, long bowmen and plastic knight kit.

Stater set will be Tomb Kings vs Bretonnians

And there are going to be new models aswell for both sides


This is said to be coming from some UK sources, that he was talking to.

Tomb Kings skeletons coming back would completely ruin any interest I have in them. Well, old kits for both, really. There’s a reason I didn’t start either of them when WHFB was still around, because they still had a lot of old models. That was like 10+ years ago.

Surely this means new plastics for those listed kits. We already seen the knights' helms.

Yep, no way are they bringing these old disgusting kits back. That would kill tow in the egg

Mr_Rose wrote:The problem is that the tomb kings skeleton kit was literally the fourth ed skeleton kit with a shield sprue thrown in. It was never very good and the wear on the die was beginning to show even then. By the end of WFB, it was nearly impossible to build due to tiny contact points being obscured by mould slips. If that particular pair of dies still exists, I shudder to think how bad fresh casts out of it will be.

tneva82 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
I don't understand the folks on here that say bringing back old kits is going to kill TOW...Making the old kits made to order is great for the folks (and clearly they are out there given the second hand market) who want to fill out/complete their army(armies) without having to pay out the teeth for it. Those who aren't fond of the old kits can just ignore the MtO and get the rules if they want to try the game out and wait for the new kits to drop. Which we all know will come....how is this a bad thing?

You invent idea of mto. Rumour didn't say mto.

What people are objecting is old kits put to shelf. You want tomb king skeletons, you buy the old kit.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
I don't understand the folks on here that say bringing back old kits is going to kill TOW...Making the old kits made to order is great for the folks (and clearly they are out there given the second hand market) who want to fill out/complete their army(armies) without having to pay out the teeth for it. Those who aren't fond of the old kits can just ignore the MtO and get the rules if they want to try the game out and wait for the new kits to drop. Which we all know will come....how is this a bad thing?

You invent idea of mto. Rumour didn't say mto.

What people are objecting is old kits put to shelf. You want tomb king skeletons, you buy the old kit.

No, that was me who threw the idea out since there is no solid information on the topic, people shouldn't assume that the old kits will be getting a new shelf release when MtO or Direct Only are other options

 Just Tony wrote:

Mr_Rose wrote:The problem is that the tomb kings skeleton kit was literally the fourth ed skeleton kit with a shield sprue thrown in. It was never very good and the wear on the die was beginning to show even then. By the end of WFB, it was nearly impossible to build due to tiny contact points being obscured by mould slips. If that particular pair of dies still exists, I shudder to think how bad fresh casts out of it will be.

It's like GW hasn't figured out the concept of the Master Mold...

Greenfield wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Mr_Rose wrote:The problem is that the tomb kings skeleton kit was literally the fourth ed skeleton kit with a shield sprue thrown in. It was never very good and the wear on the die was beginning to show even then. By the end of WFB, it was nearly impossible to build due to tiny contact points being obscured by mould slips. If that particular pair of dies still exists, I shudder to think how bad fresh casts out of it will be.

It's like GW hasn't figured out the concept of the Master Mold...

There is no master mould for the steel tools used for injection moulded plastics. The moulds are cut from blocks of steel. Remaking them means cutting a fresh one from digital files, if the original design is modern enough, or pantographing an original master model, or potentially nowadays some kind of scan of the original to produce a digital file. But there's no master mould from a which new mould can be made directly.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The base rumour make no sense. Why would GW make it more difficult for people to jump right in to the game, when they have already said that we can use our old models. Also GW makes very little money on bases, i really do not think that the GW would release bags of bases on release day so we could rebase our models. very silly.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
There's nothing been stopping you from playing it any time at all. GW suddenly deciding to sell it again shouldn't have been a catalyst if you wanted to play.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The base rumour make no sense. Why would GW make it more difficult for people to jump right in to the game, when they have already said that we can use our old models. Also GW makes very little money on bases, i really do not think that the GW would release bags of bases on release day so we could rebase our models. very silly.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
I would not be surprised if GW releases metal models on the website, given the success of the Steel Legion's return.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The base rumour make no sense. Why would GW make it more difficult for people to jump right in to the game, when they have already said that we can use our old models. Also GW makes very little money on bases, i really do not think that the GW would release bags of bases on release day so we could rebase our models. very silly.

People who already re-based squares to (bigger) circles for AoS won't have to re-base them back if the squares are now the same size as the newer squares.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
There's nothing been stopping you from playing it any time at all. GW suddenly deciding to sell it again shouldn't have been a catalyst if you wanted to play.

 kodos wrote:
why it might be true:

it screws 3rd party models that uses the old base sizes and make it harder to use models based for other games (see the similar change from 25 to 28mm Bases in 40k)
while it would work with models re-based for AoS (so keeping those happy that stayed in the GW bubble)

 Vulcan wrote:

Why doing it would be a disaster for GW:

it screws the oldhammer players over.... AGAIN.

Bobug wrote:
Noone is going to stop you from using models that are on old bases... Or if they do they aren't someone worth actually spending your time playing.

Bobug wrote:
Noone is going to stop you from using models that are on old bases... Or if they do they aren't someone worth actually spending your time playing.

tneva82 wrote:
Would be rather inconvenient to play though as nobody is going to let you have advantage in game by having smaller bases. So you need to be constantly factoring in base size they are supposed to be on.

Tyel wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Would be rather inconvenient to play though as nobody is going to let you have advantage in game by having smaller bases. So you need to be constantly factoring in base size they are supposed to be on.

Pretty sure two oldhammer players who are both using "old" armies on "small bases" aren't going to get that upset by the perceived advantage of it.

It will be tournaments that kick off - like with AoS as people have said. If TOW takes off then a few years down the line showing up with your 20+ year old minis on tiny bases will probably get frowned on. As has happened every time GW up the base size.

tneva82 wrote:
No profit there. GW aims for NEW players. You know. The ones who don't have armies already. Those who buy models.

Luke82 wrote:
Someone has never met a WHFB player, clearly.

We all buy loads of models that fit the game we play….

JSG wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Someone has never met a WHFB player, clearly.

We all buy loads of models that fit the game we play….

If this were true WFB wouldn't have been canned.

 Paymaster Games wrote:

JSG wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Someone has never met a WHFB player, clearly.

We all buy loads of models that fit the game we play….

If this were true WFB wouldn't have been canned.

WFB was canned to protect their IP and not because of sales. It would be good to remember that.

 Mr_Rose wrote:


WFB was canned because the previous CEO and the lead developer had a massive falling out when the CEO basically ordered him to make the next edition of WFB a skirmish game because clearly the problem with WFB was the rank file rule set and not the fact that all creative effort behind it was stagnant¹ and the marketing was somewhere between moribund and non-existent. (Allegedly)

 kodos wrote:
looking at Necromunda, not really
they just now know how marketing works and that nostalgia sells

 BertBert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
looking at Necromunda, not really
they just now know how marketing works and that nostalgia sells

Necromunda was completely remade and still gets regular releases, doesn't it?

 kodos wrote:
if TOW follows the route of Necromunda, people are going back playing Oldhammer very soon and are just happy that once in a while some new plastics come up

 BertBert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
looking at Necromunda, not really
they just now know how marketing works and that nostalgia sells

Necromunda was completely remade and still gets regular releases, doesn't it?

 Paymaster Games wrote:

JSG wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Someone has never met a WHFB player, clearly.

We all buy loads of models that fit the game we play….

If this were true WFB wouldn't have been canned.

WFB was canned to protect their IP and not because of sales. It would be good to remember that.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Paymaster Games wrote:

JSG wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Someone has never met a WHFB player, clearly.

We all buy loads of models that fit the game we play….

If this were true WFB wouldn't have been canned.

WFB was canned to protect their IP and not because of sales. It would be good to remember that.

Uh huh..we already have Peachy who was working there at the time come out and confirm it was sales. Or lack of them. I'd recommend you go check out that video.

 Theophony wrote:
I doubt you'll get old Grognards like myself to start spending GW prices for a system that won't have good rules, when they can play Kings of War with the same armies for far cheaper.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Theophony wrote:
I doubt you'll get old Grognards like myself to start spending GW prices for a system that won't have good rules, when they can play Kings of War with the same armies for far cheaper.

As an old grognard, feth Kings of War. It's boring, doesn't feel like Warhammer, and the models are naff.

tneva82 wrote:
Well GW never promised old bases would remain usable.

But we'll see. If GW intends seraphon, slaves to darkness etc models be usable they need bigger bases than old 25mm squares. So will there be multiple different base sizes, fewer unified ones or are the AOS&TOW chaos/seraphon/skaven etc models incompatible?

tneva82 wrote:


Yea but those 2 oldhammer players who play with their old models are pretty much irrelevant.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Theophony wrote:
I doubt you'll get old Grognards like myself to start spending GW prices for a system that won't have good rules, when they can play Kings of War with the same armies for far cheaper.

As an old grognard, feth Kings of War. It's boring, doesn't feel like Warhammer, and the models are naff.

As another old grognard, I love Kings of War. It's not half as slow and boring as WFB was...

 Vulcan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well GW never promised old bases would remain usable.

But we'll see. If GW intends seraphon, slaves to darkness etc models be usable they need bigger bases than old 25mm squares. So will there be multiple different base sizes, fewer unified ones or are the AOS&TOW chaos/seraphon/skaven etc models incompatible?

AoS was also supposed to be 'WFB Compatable', and turned into 'NotHammer'. Sure, they attracted enough new blood to make it work, but the old guard left in droves.

TOW is supposed to bring the old guard back into the fold. Making it even slightly incompatible with their existing collections is not going to end well. Might as well save money and reputation and let sleeping dogs lie, y'know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Yea but those 2 oldhammer players who play with their old models are pretty much irrelevant.

Anyone else out there with tens of thousands of points of old models they'd like to play with want to speak out and let this kid know there's quite a few of us out there, MORE than enough money to attract GW's greed?

 Vulcan wrote:


If the game recommends use of a chess clock to put pressure on the players to play quickly, it's not half as complex and interesting as it's marketed to be.

In my opinion, of course.

 Vulcan wrote:

If the game recommends use of a chess clock to put pressure on the players to play quickly, it's not half as complex and interesting as it's marketed to be.
In my opinion, of course.