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.

Tomb kings were much the same, unless you count the skeletons themselves being the ancient kit with new shields. Several brand new kits including the plastic sphynx gone in an instant.
Which reminds me; I really, really hope they do something different with chariots in TOW; the old way clearly was not working.

John D Law wrote:
I wish they had kept the bretonnian stuff around longer. The plastic men at arms, Pegasus knights and others were still recent kits when AoS came along and then poof they were gone what a couple years later? What a waste ☹️

Umm, I mean they were from the end of 6th edition, so depends what you call 'recent'

Edit, looks to me to be 2004, so they were around over a decade.

They still kept around empire and dwarf kits that are much older. Just don’t understand the need to nix them. They were good kits imo. Same with a lot of the aforementioned tomb kings kits.

John D Law wrote:
They still kept around empire and dwarf kits that are much older. Just don’t understand the need to nix them. They were good kits imo. Same with a lot of the aforementioned tomb kings kits.

No, they didn't. The dwarves are from 2014, and the oldest empire kits kept around are from 2007. They also fit in with the Sigmar theme better than the Brets did. The Brets suffered from GW not really knowing what to do with them, which is disappointing as they were my favourite faction.

They didn't phase out the Dwarf Warriors and Thunderers immediately, and they were most assuredly older than 2014.

Zombies were from the 90s and only got replaced a year and a half ago, being available and in use for the first two editions of AoS.

The difference is that Tomb Kings and Bretonnians were neglected in Fantasy and got squatted because of it, not because their kits were too old. GW's designers just couldn't be bothered to do anything with them and they likely suffered in terms of sales because of it. To 2015 GW that's a death sentence.

You can also have a look at Blood Bowl where humans and orcs got a second team while there is still no clue as to when we'll even see the Khemri team.

The Old World is a chance to give these factions attention, but for me it's a believe it when I see it matter. Because precedent does not favor Tomb Kings and Bretonnia, no matter how much they feature in the previewed art and maps.

John D Law wrote:
They still kept around empire and dwarf kits that are much older. Just don’t understand the need to nix them. They were good kits imo. Same with a lot of the aforementioned tomb kings kits.

They were to generic.
Its basically historical knights that borrow heavily from Arturian legend. Lets not forget the whole sacking of Fantasy Battle was getting rid of anything they could not register as their uniqe IP.
Will be interresting how they deal with this in the coming "The Old World" setting.

Sorry to keep up the general discussion in this news thread.

It all depends on what the game system and, following from that, the economic model for TOW is going to be. If it's really the old WHFB model of mostly great blocks of line infantry, 20+ models per block, 1-2 Lord, 3-4 Heroes, a smattering of cavalry and monsters and some war machines, introducing a new faction that is not already established is a huge risk, just because you need several multipart plastic kits even if you take multiple builds into account. And while that may be practical at the technoligical and productivity level GW currently is at, it also is a huge upfront cost wall for new or returning players, because you'd need to lay down hundreds of Euros just to get to the minimal buy-in for a typical game size.

If they want to avoid a lot of what strangled WHFB in later times, they need to do something about that, either by reducing games size, unit size, or doing something with e.g. unit fillers or the like. Blocked regiments of infantry are a huge part of WHFB's appeal, but it needs to be less expensive and intimidating for newbies.

John D Law wrote:
They still kept around empire and dwarf kits that are much older. Just don’t understand the need to nix them. They were good kits imo. Same with a lot of the aforementioned tomb kings kits.

The Bretonnian plastics were pretty damned old, I doubt there's too many core kits that are as old, Lizardmen Saurus and Skinks perhaps? And the Saurus are well overdue for an update (I actually kind of like the Skinks though). They also come from the days when GW's proportions were the worst. The archer models had absolutely massive heads. Also the horses were too big to rank up (which given they were in Lance Formation I always found more egregious than other cavalry units not ranking up easily). I did like the men at arms, but aesthetically I preferred the metal ones they replaced.

The Perry twins metal Bretonnians that predated the plastics that were around when WHFB was killed were, IMO, better models.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

John D Law wrote:
They still kept around empire and dwarf kits that are much older. Just don’t understand the need to nix them. They were good kits imo. Same with a lot of the aforementioned tomb kings kits.

The Bretonnian plastics were pretty damned old, I doubt there's too many core kits that are as old, Lizardmen Saurus and Skinks perhaps? And the Saurus are well overdue for an update (I actually kind of like the Skinks though). They also come from the days when GW's proportions were the worst. The archer models had absolutely massive heads. Also the horses were too big to rank up (which given they were in Lance Formation I always found more egregious than other cavalry units not ranking up easily). I did like the men at arms, but aesthetically I preferred the metal ones they replaced.

The Perry twins metal Bretonnians that predated the plastics that were around when WHFB was killed were, IMO, better models.

They were better models, but not better Warhammer models. They were too close to various historical styles, and not specifically 'warhammery' enough in the eyes of GW, much like large parts of the Empire range.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Generally speaking Western culture is OK with racism against whites (and sexism against men, for that matter) due to both the historical and current institutions of government favoring them.

If you can't laugh at yourself, you've got no business laughing at anyone else. That's a lesson that seems to have been forgotten in the modern world.

 Fayric wrote:

John D Law wrote:
They still kept around empire and dwarf kits that are much older. Just don’t understand the need to nix them. They were good kits imo. Same with a lot of the aforementioned tomb kings kits.

They were to generic.
Its basically historical knights that borrow heavily from Arturian legend. Lets not forget the whole sacking of Fantasy Battle was getting rid of anything they could not register as their uniqe IP.
Will be interresting how they deal with this in the coming "The Old World" setting.

Sorry to keep up the general discussion in this news thread.

This is just speculation that keeps getting repeated despite not really being how copyright/IP law works. It doesn't matter how "unique" a design is, it doesn't add extra protection to it whether it's something like historical-based Bretonnian Knights or its instead some sort of unique outright magical fantasy knight.

That they're going back to the Old World and keeping those original "non-unique" designs of something like the Bretonnian Knights further shows its not the case.

Also most of the AoS line is bog standard fantasy stuff. Dragons, dwarves, warriors in big chunky armour (Warmachine got that years before stormcast).

But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

You need to look at the links on the first page, they answered this already.

It said in short:

"feth no, it's not going to be on rounds."

"feth no, it's not going to be Warmaster."

"feth no, it's not going to have AOS names."

"Cherry picked rules from all editions from 3rd to 8th, plus some new stuff."

 Just Tony wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

You need to look at the links on the first page, they answered this already.

It said in short:

"feth no, it's not going to be on rounds."

"feth no, it's not going to be Warmaster."

"feth no, it's not going to have AOS names."

"Cherry picked rules from all editions from 3rd to 8th, plus some new stuff."

You are correct. That is what they said. However, that may not be what we eventually see in the future.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

You need to look at the links on the first page, they answered this already.

It said in short:

"feth no, it's not going to be on rounds."

"feth no, it's not going to be Warmaster."

"feth no, it's not going to have AOS names."

"Cherry picked rules from all editions from 3rd to 8th, plus some new stuff."

You are correct. That is what they said. However, that may not be what we eventually see in the future.

By that logic, nothing they say is really relevant until they show models in production, finished printed material and boxes. Everything before that could be changed again.

The Old World will be in the hands of Specialist Games with all that entails. While we can't rule out that GW may go back on earlier statements, it doesn't make much sense to have a side game aimed at bringing in customers who may not be interested in the main games and then mixing things from the new setting into the old one that drove people away to begin with. In Blood Bowl an orc is still an orc and a dwarf is still a dwarf, and there is no Sigmarine team in spite of early concerns that GW might introduce AoS stuff into the game.

The models are where we're likely to see the biggest change from what some may recollect as Warhammer Fantasy. Just like in Blood Bowl and Necromunda, there is no way GW's sculptors won't work to modern GW style instead of what we used to have twenty years ago, which will primarily result in embiggened models. We'll be seeing dwarfs in the style of 8th ed plastic Longbeards and Ironbreakers rather than their metal predecessors. But there is precious little reason to believe these won't be called dwarfs in The Old World.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

From the last WC article

More precisely, we decided to look into the decades prior to this legendary world-changing event. In those years before the Chaos Lord Asavar Kull led his armies south against the nations of Men and Dwarfs,

From the moors and mountains come roving bands of Orcs and Goblins, looting and pillaging,

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

From the last WC article

More precisely, we decided to look into the decades prior to this legendary world-changing event. In those years before the Chaos Lord Asavar Kull led his armies south against the nations of Men and Dwarfs,

From the moors and mountains come roving bands of Orcs and Goblins, looting and pillaging,

They can always claim "Dwarfs" and "Orcs" are terms commonly used by humans, but in their own respective culture they have a more fancy name. Like Eldar suddenly are the ancient culture of the Aeldari, with further sub-groups like Asyriani and Drukhari, and Imperial Guard was just a lazy way of saying "Astra Militarum".

 Fayric wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

From the last WC article

More precisely, we decided to look into the decades prior to this legendary world-changing event. In those years before the Chaos Lord Asavar Kull led his armies south against the nations of Men and Dwarfs,

From the moors and mountains come roving bands of Orcs and Goblins, looting and pillaging,

They can always claim "Dwarfs" and "Orcs" are terms commonly used by humans, but in their own respective culture they have a more fancy name. Like Eldar suddenly are the ancient culture of the Aeldari, with further sub-groups like Asyriani and Drukhari, and Imperial Guard was just a lazy way of saying "Astra Militarum".

Well that is in fact true for Dwarfs - that is a human name - they are Dawi. Gotrek even gets called out on this in AOS. I doubt Orcs and Goblins have a name for their race..

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

You need to look at the links on the first page, they answered this already.

It said in short:

"feth no, it's not going to be on rounds."

"feth no, it's not going to be Warmaster."

"feth no, it's not going to have AOS names."

"Cherry picked rules from all editions from 3rd to 8th, plus some new stuff."

You are correct. That is what they said. However, that may not be what we eventually see in the future.

By that logic, nothing they say is really relevant until they show models in production, finished printed material and boxes. Everything before that could be changed again.

It's their way to validate constantly saying it's going to be all those things I listed despite being told explicitly that they weren't...

Things can absolutely change during the development of a game. But with zero evidence of any change to those statements, they’ve got to be kept and held at face value.

Would GW go to all the trouble of bringing it back, to set its ablaze with changing some of its core features.
Like after last time, deliberately poking that seems foolish.

There is lot that can be changed before the core itself is hollow out. I just don’t think they would put the work in to then change the reasons to bring it back.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

So lets consider why GW used a lot of name changes for things when they shifted from Old World to AoS. First it was a new setting so there was that, but another reason, logically, is that by shifting to unique names GW could copyright and protect those names. This meant that GW would be the only ones who could sell Orruks, the only ones who could advertise Orruks and thus the only ones that should show up in google rankings when Orruks are searched.

The actual models are not as strongly protected, yes the specific sculpts 100% are protected and certain design elements within them can and are protected as well. Anyone who has hung around 3d printing for a while has likely seen a standard GW copyright letter or spoken to creators who have had copyright strikes by GW. When its sculptors (not retailers selling) then generally speaking GW cannot enforce a blanket ban; its more specific. They can't ban a man in heavy armour, but they can enforce protection of the symbols for chapters and protect certain key design elements. The shape of a bolter is likely protected, but you can change enough to have the same effect of a huge high calibre gun.


So all GW protects with unique names are the copyright of those name and the search results. Back when AoS was brought out GW was still in full Kirby mode - that meant almost zero online marketing and advertising. They had the store ,but otherwise their interactions online at the time was more focused on shutting down leaks and rumour websites. GW of that time in management likely felt they needed totally unique names to protect their google rankings and search results to remain relevant and to stop 3rd parties stealing their thunder.

Today GW is marketing online every day of the year; with most week days seen up to 5 articles posted on their community site alone; couple that with mirror posts on Facebook and other sites and their own unique posts on those sites and weekend posts too and you've got a marketing machine. GW doesn't "need" to protect their search results with unique names like they used too - they've protected them with an insanely powerful and active online marketing machine. They can safely go back to Orks and Knights and Dwarves and Lizardmen because GW is on the ball with the online world now. They GET how it works, they've professionals and marketing teams and a functional online interaction now.

 Fayric wrote:


They can always claim "Dwarfs" and "Orcs" are terms commonly used by humans, but in their own respective culture they have a more fancy name. Like Eldar suddenly are the ancient culture of the Aeldari, with further sub-groups like Asyriani and Drukhari, and Imperial Guard was just a lazy way of saying "Astra Militarum".

That was already true in WHFB. Dwarfs call themselves Dawi(with Chaos Dwarfs being Dawi-Zharr), High Elves are the Asur, Dark Elves are Druchii, and Wood Elves are Asrai. We've always seen things from human terms with the other races having their own terms for the most part.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Fayric wrote:


They can always claim "Dwarfs" and "Orcs" are terms commonly used by humans, but in their own respective culture they have a more fancy name. Like Eldar suddenly are the ancient culture of the Aeldari, with further sub-groups like Asyriani and Drukhari, and Imperial Guard was just a lazy way of saying "Astra Militarum".

That was already true in WHFB. Dwarfs call themselves Dawi(with Chaos Dwarfs being Dawi-Zharr), High Elves are the Asur, Dark Elves are Druchii, and Wood Elves are Asrai. We've always seen things from human terms with the other races having their own terms for the most part.

Exactly

 Mr Morden wrote:
I doubt Orcs and Goblins have a name for their race..

Orcs call themself Orcs and Goblins Gobbos.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
But will there be Orks or Orruks in the Old World? Lizardmen or Seraphon? Dwarves or Duardin?

Eh. I'll use my non-GW minis regardless. It's not like I play in a GW store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

By that logic, nothing they say is really relevant until they show models in production, finished printed material and boxes. Everything before that could be changed again.

Yeah, pretty much.

Let's just say trust in GW is not what it used to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
Would GW go to all the trouble of bringing it back, to set its ablaze with changing some of its core features.
Like after last time, deliberately poking that seems foolish.

Wouldn't be the first time a corporation made that mistake.

Heck, it wouldn't be the first time a corporation made that mistake this year.

You folks all make some excellent points. I must indeed grin sheepishly at my use of Dwarves instead of Dwarfs.

Use of the older GW terms in Blood Bowl is enough for me, although I must admit I expected the new terms to be used for intellectual property protection it would seem that expectation is misplaced. Mea culpa.

Edit: But let me also be clear, I do not trust GW nor will I be playing in a GW shop. I like playing my games with whatever minis I choose.