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.

 NAVARRO wrote:

I have the feeling with the increase of base size the new sculpts will take advantage of that and grow up in scale too, meaning we will be having the same problem all over again but just with an overall scale creep.
I for one think that big regiments games would look a lot better at 15mms or true old old 28mm but GW wants to charge £25 per character and add huge monsters and minis.

Reason they invoke in the article is that bigger bases mean bigger space for poses, so that they're not all cramped / monopose like the dilemna with "new" dark elves at the time of old Battle. See how they had to design witch aelves as a good example. If they were on 25mm instead of 20 mm square bases, it would have been easier for some dynamic poses.

There may be a difference in proportions, since new miniatures from GW tend to be less "cartoony" than before, but I don't see why not to believe them here when they say it's to give more freedom to sculptors / miniature designers in the future. Just see what Mantic Games does with KoW new miniatures : either they're clearly not designed for their bases or they are "cramped" when you try not to go multi-base. And Mantic Games did change the base as well in their new version for monsters - "titans", because they did make them bigger than before and a 50mm base that was the "old" Battle size was definitely too small for their new miniature scale. So they upped it to 75mm.

I do think that quite a few people are going to be in for a bit of a shock when we get a bunch of 20+ year old kits suddenly re-released.

Those bretonnians are a perfect example, they look fantastic when done up by the GW team for the article. But they are not the super detailed plastic designed many will have grown accustom to having in the modern era. Contrast paints are likely to look awful on all those flat surfaces. Lots of details will need to be painted on by hand (No fancy pre-scultped banners or heraldry) and sculpted details can be soft, not ideal for thick coats of paint or for taking washes.

Not to mention all this for kits brought back at modern pricing.

Personally I don't mind the older kits (Though I dread the mould line removal on some of them) and have spent a small fortune over the last three years amassing a ton of stuff I was missing from my collection (Even if it had a modern equivalent). I find the older models a lot quicker to paint compared to modern models and I'm perfectly content getting stuff painted to the bare minimum now, even if it took me a long time to loose the worry of perfection. I'm going to love being able to easily buy up kits I'm missing, rather than chasing them across multiple 2nd hand sites.

But I do foresee a lot of mostly-grey 2nd hand armies on the market a year after ToWs release. Wargaming hobbying is hard work at the best of times, even AoS requires a fair bit of commitment and a chore to paint through. But even making bretonnians under one colour scheme and not the colour explosion of the 90s- thats some dedicated painting time to get them looking nice!

 triplegrim wrote:

Luke82 wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Is anyone else worried about the larger footprint of units making the movement phase a rank'n flank fiasko?

4 x 15 chaos warriors with frontage of 5 dudes will have a total lenght of 74cm with 32mm bases and an inch between each unit.

It works at 4x6 foot I guess. If they reduce the playing field, its going to get cramped.

Bigger models / bases on smaller tables seems to be the way GW are pushing at the mo so this may be intentional.

As someone who plays 2nd Ed 40k on an 8x4 table the Uber cramped contemporary 40k games I see in the wild look gross, but it’s clearly not an issue for GW or their player base so I’d say this is something Old World players are going to have to lump.

I’ve got blocks of 25mm base models 10 wide and they are already too burdensome to use properly, adding another 2 bases (assuming a 5mm increase per base, or their abouts) and it’s gonna get ugly.

You are on to something. There are 144 square inches in 1 square foot. A 25mm base is one square inch.

A regular army with 5 x 20 infantry, two cannons, some light cav and a monster pretty much is a square foot.

So with two armies at 4x4 feet, some terrain, spacing between units and corners not used, it might get cramped. And then I havent even tried to calculate 32mm or monstrous infantry.

The standard battlefield size for Warhammer Fantasy used to be 6x4 feet, at least for battles of around 2000 points. Are AoS and 40k battlefields typically 4x4? That does make me wonder what kind of battlefield sizes will be the new standard for TOW.

xenofexx wrote:

Are AoS and 40k battlefields typically 4x4?

No, only for small games like 1000 points.

Standard has always been 2000 points for 6x4 for Battle. An upsize of bases won't really change much on such a table, according point costs don't change as well (V8 has made a lot of things cheap and rules giving advantage to bigger units, so that was the main reason there were more miniatures per unit - in older versions, number was lower).

From what I’ve seen of the tables, they standard (ie what everyone plays) table size has been reduced. Warhammer World mats are smaller (amusingly the old ones are underneath and last time I went we had to move them to play fantasy) and the club I sometimes visit has bits of MDF cut and laid over the tables to reduce down to the size stipulated. So it’s seems 6x4 is no longer the standard, though it seems a bit bigger than 4 x 4 as well. Either way, the games look crowded, with whole table edges / deployment zones full of models on big bases. Manoeuvring doesn’t seem to be a consideration.

Luke82 wrote:
From what I’ve seen of the tables, they standard (ie what everyone plays) table size has been reduced. Warhammer World mats are smaller (amusingly the old ones are underneath and last time I went we had to move them to play fantasy) and the club I sometimes visit has bits of MDF cut and laid over the tables to reduce down to the size stipulated. So it’s seems 6x4 is no longer the standard, though it seems a bit bigger than 4 x 4 as well. Either way, the games look crowded, with whole table edges / deployment zones full of models on big bases. Manoeuvring doesn’t seem to be a consideration.

40K and AoS now have a 60x44 min size, while the recently released HH still has the 6x4 classic table size.
TOW could end up either way, but if I had to guess it's remaining on 6x4.

So with the photos of the Knights in lance formation are we expecting this old concept back or was that just for photography?

 Hellebore wrote:
So with the photos of the Knights in lance formation are we expecting this old concept back or was that just for photography?

Noone knows the first thing about any rules yet, other than it will involve some sort of rank-and-file system with square bases, so it's pretty much 50:50 on that.

There are scores of games that cater to the skirmish crowd. Lots of options if you only want to paint a few minis and wish to play on a 12" square table. We do not need another.

The Old World should be a homage to the Old World. Hundreds of models on a 5' X 9' table. A feast for the hard core fan of Warhammer as it used to be.

New models for this game should never be made to look modern. Instead any new models should be made to look straight out of 2005.

If this new version is supposed to be for us ancient Oldhammer players, make it so. Forget the AOS nonsense completely. No ludicrous centerpiece models, no absurd rules combos.

Give us intricate maneuver and games that take an entire afternoon. The less it resembles a modern game the better.

That is my wish list.

Tyel wrote:
Its not a deal-breaker, but I'm decidedly un-hyped at the prospect of 15-20 year minis making a come back.

I share the concern that if they are the only way to get a "new army", I'm probably not going to buy them, which means I possibly won't buy anything.

There seem to be people who think differently - and want to get hold of the 6th edition minis they couldn't back then. But I don't think its unreasonable to not be overly interested. If I didn't think the sculpts were that hot in say 2010, I really don't think they'll hold up now.

Then either buy from 3rd party retailer or access a 3D printer. GW isn´t the only source for minis anymore.

Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

I think it’s pretty unreasonable for GW to expect me to buy 20 year old models that they’ve already seen fit to discontinue once. I’d be surprised if they maintaining the asking prices from 20 years ago too.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

I think it’s pretty unreasonable for GW to expect me to buy 20 year old models that they’ve already seen fit to discontinue once. I’d be surprised if they maintaining the asking prices from 20 years ago too.

This whole project came about because WHFB players can't move on. If you don't have an army of 20 year old GW models already you're not the target audience.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

I think it’s pretty unreasonable for GW to expect me to buy 20 year old models that they’ve already seen fit to discontinue once. I’d be surprised if they maintaining the asking prices from 20 years ago too.

Is that an expectation in play here? If you have old models, use them. Rebase them (or not if you're not bothering with Official Events). If you want to buy old models you missed, buy them. If you'd rather have new models, buy those when those come around.

The idea that there's an evil scheme to make people buy old models is a bit silly.

Voss wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

I think it’s pretty unreasonable for GW to expect me to buy 20 year old models that they’ve already seen fit to discontinue once. I’d be surprised if they maintaining the asking prices from 20 years ago too.

Is that an expectation in play here? If you have old models, use them. Rebase them (or not if you're not bothering with Official Events). If you want to buy old models you missed, buy them. If you'd rather have new models, buy those when those come around.

The idea that there's an evil scheme to make people buy old models is a bit silly.

I’m not sure how I implied there’s some ‘evil scheme’, but they’re obviously expecting people to buy them. Why are we expecting new models to come around? They might do eventually, if the game does well, but I’m not convinced it will do that well if it’s mostly old models.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

I think it’s pretty unreasonable for GW to expect me to buy 20 year old models that they’ve already seen fit to discontinue once. I’d be surprised if they maintaining the asking prices from 20 years ago too.

Is that an expectation in play here? If you have old models, use them. Rebase them (or not if you're not bothering with Official Events). If you want to buy old models you missed, buy them. If you'd rather have new models, buy those when those come around.

The idea that there's an evil scheme to make people buy old models is a bit silly.

I’m not sure how I implied there’s some ‘evil scheme’, but they’re obviously expecting people to buy them.

Sure, when a company puts things up for sale, they want and hope customers will buy them. That isn't at all an expectation or onus on the customer.

Why are we expecting new models to come around? They might do eventually, if the game does well, but I’m not convinced it will do that well if it’s mostly old models.

We're expecting new models because... they've officially announced new models? And have shown previews of rendered bits for Brets and TK?

Voss wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty unreasonable to expect GW to do 15 new plastic armies for this from scratch.

I think it’s pretty unreasonable for GW to expect me to buy 20 year old models that they’ve already seen fit to discontinue once. I’d be surprised if they maintaining the asking prices from 20 years ago too.

Is that an expectation in play here? If you have old models, use them. Rebase them (or not if you're not bothering with Official Events). If you want to buy old models you missed, buy them. If you'd rather have new models, buy those when those come around.

The idea that there's an evil scheme to make people buy old models is a bit silly.

I’m not sure how I implied there’s some ‘evil scheme’, but they’re obviously expecting people to buy them.

Sure, when a company puts things up for sale, they want and hope customers will buy them. That isn't at all an onus on the customer.

Why are we expecting new models to come around? They might do eventually, if the game does well, but I’m not convinced it will do that well if it’s mostly old models.

We're expecting new models because... they've officially announced new models? And have shown previews of renders for Brets and TK?

Yeah, to be released alongside old models. I don’t want a mishmash army of 20 year old models and nice new models, and seeing as they’re releasing the old models alongside a few new ones, it’s gonna be a while before they get redone to the same standard, if at all.

Yep. Redoing entire model lines takes time. That's... a given.

I’m just not optimistic they will get redone. I don’t think the game will do that well if it’s mostly old models. A lot of it will depend on how they decide to price it, most likely. Which doesn’t help the optimism. It feels like this way is setting it up to fail. Maybe there’s more nostalgia there than I’m thinking, though.

This news should be seen as a blessing, really - the opportunity to get models that were senselessly discontinued, and perhaps a handful of new ones that fit in with that superior, pre-AoS aesthetic. In reality, that's all ToW will likely amount to. Lord knows the ruleset will be dreadful since that's a GW standard, and I'd be *amazed* if it got any lasting attention beyond the initial launch, just like Aeronautica and Titanicus before it.
As a replacement for WHFB, it's all too little, too late. The whole project has felt like a sad, desperate attempt to claw back RnF players who have long since moved on to better games or back to older versions of WHFB that don't require any more overpriced rulebooks.
It is quite depressing to see the 'old models bad because old' mentality still prevalent, though. Quite frankly I wouldn't want my regimented troops to be flailing about in "dramatic" poses all over the place or giant ridiculous centrepieces dominating every game, and anyone who thinks the majority of the old Bretonnian line was bad needs their eyes tested.

So you're happy to pay modern GW pricing for this..?

 streetsamurai wrote:
Disagree. Them bringing back these old kits make me thinks that the game will have really low support. After all, they wouldnt bring back these kits if they intend to replace them in a few years. And we know that they have some new kits for Brettonia, so it seems like most armies will be a mix of new kits and really old ones. Which is another one of my pet peeves.

I can understand why some people are still interested in the game, but for me, its a deal breaker

That's fair. Everyone has their break point.

It seems like the implied scale creep is going to be my break point. But I'll certainly take advantage of the old kits while they're available. It actually makes my idea of an "Empire of Bretonnia" army viable.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I’m just not optimistic they will get redone. I don’t think the game will do that well if it’s mostly old models. A lot of it will depend on how they decide to price it, most likely. Which doesn’t help the optimism. It feels like this way is setting it up to fail. Maybe there’s more nostalgia there than I’m thinking, though.

They will release old kits to have 10+ factions from the getgo, and probably to milk the nostalgia wallets before selling new kits with 2-4 releases each year. That way, nobody can truly complain about the new stuff being inferior or not good enough.

I drool at the chance to buy a 2k bretonnia army from the original lineup. But who knows how singular I am....

As a Skaven player, as long as they never update Clanrats and Stormvermin, I'll be happy.
If they update Rat Ogres, I'll be even happier.
Will the rules be good enough for me to worry about rebasing, or will I stick with 6th edition is the question on my mind, though.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
So you're happy to pay modern GW pricing for this..?

I wouldn't be happy paying modern GW pricing for anything (and thankfully I don't), but as a model? That one is great.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
So you're happy to pay modern GW pricing for this..?

Havent really bought from GW for the past decade. But I fiddle around on their old website with waybackmachine once in a while. The pricing in 2002-2006 was insane. (Though armies were smaller).

I'll pay for the bretonnia set. Yes.

Nostalgia is one hell of an expensive drug.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Nostalgia is one hell of an expensive drug.

Pray tell, what is it exactly that's wrong with the Knight model you showed? Not enough minute sculpted detail swamping it? No swirling smoke/fire/random magical BS sculpted on? Not 'dramatically' posed enough? Those after all are all the hallmarks of modern GW model design.
It isn't nostalgia to prefer a more understated, grounded sculpting style - the same style that defined WHFB for most of its life.

People really like to hide behind screaming ‘NOSTALGIA!’ whenever some has differing tastes, it seems.

It’s just as easy to accuse every AoS player as being a mindless devotee to the Cult of the New, consuming what ever tripe GW spill out. Fun, too.

Bret models look great, and as others have said, GW prices are what they are, and no sculpt justifies their prices.

Well we could always start with the barding being at right angles, the chainmail looking like jelly, the horse's legs looking like they would snap if any weight was actually put on them, the Falcons' wings looking like they're made out of bark, the tail looking like a blob. How's that to start?