Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. Pre orders. p.280.

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.

**Mr Morden**

I really don;t get GW

Its targeting people like me for nostalga but I still have all my armies - especially since they seem to be just dong a few new ones and reusing the old ones like Free Company and not creating "period" units - so limited sales.

What I don't have and 99.9% of Fantasy battle fans don't have is a Cathay army....and whats not anywhere on the horizon......

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

New 40K edition = far too much design, production and warehouse capacity in use

so assuming this is launching this year (and i'm still not convinced) launching with the old stuff only minimises the capacity they need and hopefully builds an active buyer/player base in time for new stuff down the line. Nostalgic player will hopefully use their existing kit and pick up the odd new bit or two (or 10) but less chance of a stalled launch with not enough of anything available for new armies

**DarkBlack**

Mr Morden wrote:
I really don;t get GW

Its targeting people like me for nostalga but I still have all my armies - especially since they seem to be just dong a few new ones and reusing the old ones like Free Company and not creating "period" units - so limited sales.

What I don't have and 99.9% of Fantasy battle fans don't have is a Cathay army....and whats not anywhere on the horizon......

It's not just a straightforward sell product to target market with wargames.

At the very least, the network effect comes into play.
People want to play games that they can find opponents for, so having a "network" of established players from letting prople bring out their old models has value as it makes the game more attractive.

Once people are playing they can then sell armies to new people coming in or selling the new shiny to players who already have old armies.

**streetsamurai**

I got the impression that the initial plan was much more ambitious, but that they have scaled it down a lot for whatever reason (probably production capacity). Weird that the first glimpses we had of TOW were brand new kislev concepts, and now they just seems to show old stuff and they dont even mention Kislev. Well wait and see, but as i said before, im not really optimistic about where this is going...

**leopard**

all this is about is GW seeing other companies have "rank and file" games with a fantasy setting and they want that market

not all of it, but enough no other company can use it to grow

**chaos0xomega**

Eumerin wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:

It says that are not part of the narrative for The Old World - as in, the game itself. When they say that those other armies aren't a part of this project beyond the free rules they're handing out just because people have those miniatures on their shelves, and they are not something being actively considered as part of this game, then taking that to mean they'll still show up and still get things is just odd. They outright say that the game only has rules to let you play those armies "as a service to fans" and "for old times sake", that is pretty much the same as saying they are not part of the game overall.

A narrative isn't a game. A narrative is a sequence of events being told. They distinctly used the word narrative, and not the word game.

The reason we're told that those armies aren't part of the nine is because they didn't do much during the period. And that's fine. But not doing much, and doing absolutely nothing are not the same thing. For example, the Druchii do at least one very important thing during Asavar Kul's invasion, and that:s to launch an invasion of Ulthuan. So in that instance, they intrude on the narrative. They're still not really a part of it. They're still not part of the core group, as it's the only time they really make their presence felt during this period. But it's impossible to tell the narrative without an appearance by the Dark Elves.

But they never said they *would* tell that narrative, did they. They said the game is set (decsdes) BEFORE Asavar Kul and the Siege of Praag and the Great War. The term "before" is usually understood as being an exclusionary one, as in it is not usually inclusive of the thing being described (in this case, the Great War).

Otherwise, yeah that's a lot of words being used to basically say that if something isn't being included in the narrative then it isn't being included in the game, pdfs notwithstanding.

**Vulcan**

leopard wrote:
all this is about is GW seeing other companies have "rank and file" games with a fantasy setting and they want that market

not all of it, but enough no other company can use it to grow

More like they want that market BACK.

They had it locked up, then threw it away because they lacked the capability to make it as profitable as 50 Shades of Space Marines. Others took it up, and now that they see there actually IS a market for a well-done ranks and flanks game, they want their market back. But I don't think they've developed the capability nor the mindset to do one justice in the meantime...

**Londinium**

Just to end this irrational nonsense that the non core factions are basically dead and will never be looked at...

**Inquisitor Gideon**

I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

**Londinium**

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yeah but a lot of people in this thread have been saying that they're permanently out and there's no chance of them ever being revisited in future waves or expansions. Which is not true.

**Mentlegen324**

Londinium wrote:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yeah but a lot of people in this thread have been saying that they're permanently out and there's no chance of them ever being revisited in future waves or expansions. Which is not true.

No. A lot of people have been saying that the game as it is does not involve those armies and even with the waves and expansions they are doing, they will not feature.

At some point years from now they could change their mind and add them back in, but their current plan, and the game as it is is being done, does not involve them. Being able to imagine a scenario where they possibly get added is meaningless.

Making out as if there's no reason to be disappointed about them not being there because you can make up whatever idea you like with the game and just hope for the best, against what they've actually said to us, is pretty absurd. The game does not involve those armies beyond the free rules and while of course its "possible" they eventually change that, imaginary scenarios that may or may not happen don't actually do anything to help alleviate peoples concerns.

**tneva82**

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yes.

Which is different to they are dead and done for gloommongering rampant here.

**beast_gts**

Spotted on Reddit:

**Tsagualsa**

beast_gts wrote:
Spotted on Reddit:

Interesting, that clears some of the confusion their statements during the Warhammerfest Q&A session created.

**Tyel**

tneva82 wrote:
Yes.

Which is different to they are dead and done for gloommongering rampant here.

Clearly nothing is "dead and done" forever - GW have un-Squatted Squats.
Nothing GW says now binds their decision making in the future.
The argument is over the timeline. My reading is they aren't doing the non-Core armies any time soon. For regular GW that would be a window of at least 3 years. If this is to sort of stand in for Horus Heresy 1.0, we could be talking deep into the 2030s.

If around 2009 you'd asked "when will there be another Bretonnia release" I'm not sure "its certainly possible we could see them return - you know, in about 15 years time, in another game" would have been that pleasing. Even if it was accurate.

**Mentlegen324**

tneva82 wrote:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yes.

Which is different to they are dead and done for gloommongering rampant here.

That there's a nebulous mention of a possibility that years from now they may or may not decide to change their mind and add them in doesn't change that as the game is actually going to be, they aren't involved. They're not part of the game beyond the free rules, and they are not part of the plan for what they're doing with additions/supplements.

A vague hope that it'll eventually change doesn't override that.

**Tsagualsa**

Mentlegen324 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yes.

Which is different to they are dead and done for gloommongering rampant here.

That there's a nebulous mention of a possibility that years from now they may or may not decide to change their mind and add them in doesn't change that as the game is actually going to be, they aren't involved. They're not part of the game beyond the free rules, and they are not part of the plan for what they're doing with additions/supplements.

A vague hope that it'll eventually change doesn't override that.

Imho they are just walking back what was perceived (by some, at least) as a hard 'no' to their more usual, noncommital 'We have no concrete plans at the moment'. It's just bog-standard corporate communications, try the waters with your first statement, do the 'no, no, you totally misunderstood' gaslighting if it riles up too many people.

**Voss**

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Londinium wrote:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yeah but a lot of people in this thread have been saying that they're permanently out and there's no chance of them ever being revisited in future waves or expansions. Which is not true.

No. A lot of people have been saying that the game as it is does not involve those armies and even with the waves and expansions they are doing, they will not feature.

At some point years from now they could change their mind and add them back in, but their current plan, and the game as it is is being done, does not involve them. Being able to imagine a scenario where they possibly get added is meaningless.

Making out as if there's no reason to be disappointed about them not being there because you can make up whatever idea you like with the game and just hope for the best, against what they've actually said to us, is pretty absurd. The game does not involve those armies beyond the free rules and while of course its "possible" they eventually change that, imaginary scenarios that may or may not happen don't actually do anything to help alleviate peoples concerns.

Yeah, "its certainly possible" is a pure fortune-teller non-answer. Its certainly possible that somebody here will win the lottery tomorrow.

Kicking off with 'not sure where you heard that" isn't much better.
'Predominantly classic kits' is about the only thing of substance in the reply. To the point that I'm thinking 60% old stuff, 20% new plastic and 20% resin is the very best we can hope for. (For armies they bothered to support). But that's best case. I'm leaning toward 75% old stuff.

**GaroRobe**

Tyel wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Yes.

Which is different to they are dead and done for gloommongering rampant here.

Clearly nothing is "dead and done" forever - GW have un-Squatted Squats.
Nothing GW says now binds their decision making in the future.

Exactly. Remember when space hulk was originally supposed to never be released again, and had since come out like five more times. They’re even making exclusive warhammer world models widely available

That is not dead which can eternal lie (especially if GW can make money off of it)

**Tsagualsa**

Voss wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:
Londinium wrote:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I mean that's basically saying they're out until if/when we decide to put them back in.

Yeah but a lot of people in this thread have been saying that they're permanently out and there's no chance of them ever being revisited in future waves or expansions. Which is not true.

No. A lot of people have been saying that the game as it is does not involve those armies and even with the waves and expansions they are doing, they will not feature.

At some point years from now they could change their mind and add them back in, but their current plan, and the game as it is is being done, does not involve them. Being able to imagine a scenario where they possibly get added is meaningless.

Making out as if there's no reason to be disappointed about them not being there because you can make up whatever idea you like with the game and just hope for the best, against what they've actually said to us, is pretty absurd. The game does not involve those armies beyond the free rules and while of course its "possible" they eventually change that, imaginary scenarios that may or may not happen don't actually do anything to help alleviate peoples concerns.

Yeah, "its certainly possible" is a pure fortune-teller non-answer. Its certainly possible that somebody here will win the lottery tomorrow.

Kicking off with 'not sure where you heard that" isn't much better.
'Predominantly classic kits' is about the only thing of substance in the reply. To the point that I'm thinking 60% old stuff, 20% new plastic and 20% resin is the very best we can hope for. (For armies they bothered to support). But that's best case. I'm leaning toward 75% old stuff.

There's also the question how much the Social Media team actually knows, and how much they're allowed to tell. If it works in the usual way, they have a relatively short window of stuff they are informed about, and a cheat-sheet of 'allowed' answers they have to give to questions, and yet another list of questions they are not even allowed to acknowledge. They're giving out what corporate tells them, and have no knowledge beyond that - it's a sensible way to handle that stuff to prevent leaks and misunderstandings, but ultimately they're speaking from a position of ignorance by design.

**Mr_Rose**

Tsagualsa wrote:
beast_gts wrote:
Spotted on Reddit:

Interesting, that clears some of the confusion their statements during the Warhammerfest Q&A session created.

Those were cleared up at the time, no?
The questioner meant starter set as in first/big set and the person on stage heard starter as in “beginner level set with push fit minis, rulers, dice, and quick play tutorial” since internally they use launch box and starter set to mean separate products and no-one bothered with a follow up to clarify until after all the panic had already set in.

**Billicus**

That would be a bit weird because I don't think anyone really considers "Starter set" to mean "push-fit minis" and also the last few 40k "launch boxes" have had push-fit minis in them anyway.

**Tsagualsa**

Mr_Rose wrote:
Tsagualsa wrote:
beast_gts wrote:
Spotted on Reddit:

Interesting, that clears some of the confusion their statements during the Warhammerfest Q&A session created.

Those were cleared up at the time, no?
The questioner meant starter set as in first/big set and the person on stage heard starter as in “beginner level set with push fit minis, rulers, dice, and quick play tutorial” since internally they use launch box and starter set to mean separate products and no-one bothered with a follow up to clarify until after all the panic had already set in.

Yeah, the terms got muddled and due to their decision to not stream the Q&A sessions that horse had bolted before they were even aware of the problem. They reacted afterwards on social media, but it seems that that might not have been enough to stop the rumour mill.

**Voss**

Tsagualsa wrote:

There's also the question how much the Social Media team actually knows, and how much they're allowed to tell. If it works in the usual way, they have a relatively short window of stuff they are informed about, and a cheat-sheet of 'allowed' answers they have to give to questions, and yet another list of questions they are not even allowed to acknowledge. They're giving out what corporate tells them, and have no knowledge beyond that - it's a sensible way to handle that stuff to prevent leaks and misunderstandings, but ultimately they're speaking from a position of ignorance by design.

Oh, yeah. That's a given. This is entirely the wrong source to go to for reassurance.
I'm a little surprised that 'maybe in the future, if the stars align!' is an answer they're allowed to give.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Changed the title and took off the reference to page 19, I think we're kind of past that now.

**WolleK**

kodos wrote:
A news setting/expansion that features the armies that are not yet covered, of course this is possible

GW is picking the game up were they left it, so if it was not worth playing and a dead game back in 8th, why should the very same game now be different?
Why should it now not be DOA with the very same strategy that killed it?
Why should people now buy models that did not sell back than because they were just bad?

---
The models didn`t sell well not just because they were bad, but because there was no demand. Because of bad rules, a barrier of entry way too high, many players quitting - who sold their miniatures and floading the market by doing that - because of divisive rules, no communication, no entry products

If GW targets some of these issues, the dead may not be dead on arrival. It will probably never again reach its status of 2005, but times have changed and so has the market.

**kodos**

No demand is not true, as people played the game but just not with GW Warhammer Fantasy models

you saw armies made from historical metal models and even 40k models rather than the original fantasy models, demand was there but ignored

**Geifer**

Billicus wrote:
That would be a bit weird because I don't think anyone really considers "Starter set" to mean "push-fit minis" and also the last few 40k "launch boxes" have had push-fit minis in them anyway.

It seems that GW has very specific ideas what kind of terminology they want to use for their products (and have been inconsistent about it in the past, at least in some cases, which obviously doesn't help). Customers are far broader and more casual about such things.

The failure at Warhammer Fest seems to have been an inability of the presenters to understand what the audience was asking. Strictly, by their own definitions, they answered correctly. But that does not actually help an audience that may not be aware of GW's terminology, or doesn't care to use it. This is something the PR people have to pick up on to avoid miscommunication.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Changed the title and took off the reference to page 19, I think we're kind of past that now.

Where's your proof?

**Mallo**

Geifer wrote:
Billicus wrote:
That would be a bit weird because I don't think anyone really considers "Starter set" to mean "push-fit minis" and also the last few 40k "launch boxes" have had push-fit minis in them anyway.

It seems that GW has very specific ideas what kind of terminology they want to use for their products (and have been inconsistent about it in the past, at least in some cases, which obviously doesn't help). Customers are far broader and more casual about such things.

The failure at Warhammer Fest seems to have been an inability of the presenters to understand what the audience was asking. Strictly, by their own definitions, they answered correctly. But that does not actually help an audience that may not be aware of GW's terminology, or doesn't care to use it. This is something the PR people have to pick up on to avoid miscommunication.

I'd understand that if this was like a bunch of suits being plonked in front of an audience. But these guys are meant to be hobbyist themselves, they must have some idea of the words they say will have a certain meaning or that most hobbyist won't always refer to products in the terminology cooked up by marketing. The front line staff of GW are not so far removed from 'regular' hobbyists, surely?

Its either the best marketing strategy ever devised. Nothing keeps things in peoples social media feeds better than putting out some stupid PR commentary, being deliberately vague, and making customers pass about broken whispers (adding to the fable of the now legendary 20+ year old kits! Keep them secret! Keep them safe!) keeping everyone arguing about warhammer (And not noticing other games)

Or

They have weaponised incompetence.

**Voss**

Or, to be fair, institutional jargon that they use on a regular basis wins.

Everybody has their own, and its very easy to forget that other people don't use it. If its really bad, it doesn't translate between departments, let alone the outside world. (and the less said about government acronyms the better)

I know in my own workplace, there's a huge divide between them upstairs, those of us that actually work, and terminology our patrons understand.