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.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
An implied end is very different from an explicit “everything burned and the ashes were salted” ending. The sandbox feels closed in a definitive way that really can’t be compared to franchises with open ended natures.

Why, though?

I can see how it might make a difference if you're actually playing in the End Times with the knowledge of how it's going to end regardless of what happens, although even then the game you're playing is about what happens now, not what happens at the end of the story arc.

But when you wind the setting back a couple of thousand years, how it all ends way off in the future is irrelevant. The setting's eventual preordained ending has no impact on what is happening in this particular part of the timeline, and whether or not that ending exists your game has no impact on the setting. The 'sandbox' is exactly the same in either case.

Because the game itself is uninteresting. The setting is the draw. I have bought over the years at least one box from each faction, and whole armies for half of them, not to play the game but entirely on the strength of the setting as a living thing. I like creating my own dwarf hold, Empire city, High Elf colony, etc.. I like reading up on obscure bits of fluff that expand the universe, finding a place for my own forces to fit in. I’m not interested in the settled past or a setting that exists only for one more day; I want a sandbox where I can build my own dudes, read some novels, and wonder. With the Old World blown up, there’s nothing to inspire wonder. Cold speculation, maybe, but clinical like a post-mortem.

I don’t know how to explain it to you if you aren’t inspired by the same things. The finality of a setting’s destruction affects enjoyment of the whole setting.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don’t know how to explain it to you if you aren’t inspired by the same things. The finality of a setting’s destruction affects enjoyment of the whole setting.

I think that's what puzzles me the most here... Because it sounds like we are indeed inspired by the same things, but you find knowing the ending to be limiting, while I look at all the space in between now and that ending and imagine how to fill it in.

The Old World isn't dealing with the settled past. We have only very broad strokes about the events of that time period and everything leading from there to the End Times. There is still plenty of room for inserting your own creations into the mix.

Hell, if the ending is the problem, then just ignore it. Bung your own Fassbender and McAvoy proxies in there and assume that the future is really just more of a set of guidelines than an actual rule. Sure, the setting was destroyed... but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe it won't.

If I ever get any reason to get back into it, say new William King or CL Werner novels, that will indeed be my headcanon. But it’s still an obstacle to overcome that doesn’t need to be there in the first place.

Learning about the last of the Old World mattered to me in terms of giving insight into the present and near future. I loved the build up to Storm of Chaos, and even the little novellas for Storm of Magic—but I read the Age of Heroes (or whatever it was called) more to sift for juicy fluff nuggets than because I wanted to experience Sigmar’s life or the Sundering or Nagash’s rise. With the future dead, traveling to the last feels like Langoliers, where the past is tasteless and lifeless.

I wouldn’t want to make my own Space Marine Chapter if I knew some guy in a suit had already abridged its future just so I’d have to buy a new product.

Why should the burden rest on me to make the setting breathe again and not the company that killed it in the first place?

You should ask Horus Heresy players how they feel about their setting having a built in end date. Especially since it’s one that will likely eventually see the tabletop.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
You should ask Horus Heresy players how they feel about their setting having a built in end date. Especially since it’s one that will likely eventually see the tabletop.

Asserts facts not in evidence.
Far more likely that they will keep dragging things out longer and longer, asymptotically approaching the final battle between Horus and the Emperor, but never actually reaching it.

Kind of like the "last" book of G. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
You should ask Horus Heresy players how they feel about their setting having a built in end date. Especially since it’s one that will likely eventually see the tabletop.

technically their current campaign has an end goal with the siege of terra
their setting continues longer and does not end with Horus death as the universe still exists and the Legions still fight the Imperium for another 1000-2000 years as they are

so even with HH even an end, it does not blow up the world and replaces it with something different
your Death Guard still exists in 40k, while the Nuln from TOW does not in AoS

hence why the blowing up of the world is seen as unnecessary, you could have had the very same setting for AoS with the EndTimes just opening the realm gates adding a time skip of 10k years and have the Age of Sigmar with the old Warhammer world still existing as one upon many and having Karaz-A-Karak or Altdorf being a City of Sigmar

the settings are a little different here as there is clear cut between TOW and AOS that is not there in HH and 40k.
in addition, for HH there were dedicated models of the past released and not just "those models are not longer usable in 40k, so they are moved to HH"

Horus Heresy would not have started well when the 2nd Editon would have just seen old 40k kits available instead of dedicated HH models

 kodos wrote:

in addition, for HH there were dedicated models of the past released and not just "those models are not longer usable in 40k, so they are moved to HH"

HH was built from FWs Space Marine range. There were new models released such as Legion specific units and Primarchs but the majority of the range was comprised of kits brought out for previous FW campaigns such as the Badab War (which many consider the spiritual precursor to HH). This range eventually grew but the core of most armies was made up of kits released prior to the first HH game book.
The newer version of HH increased accessibility by moving the game from FW as its primary source of models, something TOW doesn't have to do because GW already has the catalogue of models. It was primary able to capitalise on the untapped source of revenue that was people who like Space Marines but hate resin kits and reselling kits to existing customers who wanted an alternative to heavy resin bricks on their tabletops. Combine that with good value boxes like the Age of Darkness box or even just the Legion Tacticals and weapon upgrades, and HH had a good starting point.

so HH had dedicated models that fit the specific setting right from the start and never got re-branded 40k models as main source

that is exactly what people expected TOW to have but does not get

 kodos wrote:
so HH had dedicated models that fit the specific setting right from the start and never got re-branded 40k models as main source

that is exactly what people expected TOW to have but does not get

You mean like the models that have been shown so far? Because that's how HH started. FW didn't just release every single Primarch and new unit in Book 1 in one go, it took time for that to happen.
Deimos vehicles, Mk2b Land Raiders, Phobos Land Raiders, all the Marine armour patterns, and Contemptors were all not HH original products.
The major difference between TOW and HH is that one has Space Marines which GW will always be able to sell.
HH also didn't start as its own game but rather a supplement to regular 40k at the time. It wasn't until 8th Ed that HH became a distinct game with the Age of Darkness rulebook and even then it was basically a cleaned up version of 40k.
Comparisons between the two are extremely unfair.

I think that the fact that the new game is going to feature some of the classic armies but not other has the potential to affect more people.

Me, for example. The only WFB army I kept is Dark Elves.

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


So then they were incredably stupid to set in a older period were they not? set it ten years before the End Times - no has to mess about with their minis

I would say no. It wasn't stupid to move the setting back in time. If you did it 10 years before the end times you have no where to grow into. In the setting they chose they have breathing room to make a lot of new models if there proves to be a market on top of selling the old - New King and Lords in Bretonnia, new dwarf thanes, new models of people fighting for the throne of the empire etc. And if it proves profitable you can advance the setting and eventually get to Magnus the Pious which would be very popular I imagine.

Besides if you set the setting 10 years before the End Times the same people angry about gunpowder in the Old World would be angry that there is no point because the setting has a definitive ending.

Its not like retcons are a foreign concept to warhammer fans anyways.

People angry about gunpowder in The Old World time period are just incorrect anyway based on all the previous fluff. The Empire has had it for centuries at this point. Dwarfs for longer. Different tech but the Steam-Tanks are also rolling around and have been for a while.

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so HH had dedicated models that fit the specific setting right from the start and never got re-branded 40k models as main source

that is exactly what people expected TOW to have but does not get

You mean like the models that have been shown so far? Because that's how HH started. FW didn't just release every single Primarch and new unit in Book 1 in one go, it took time for that to happen.
Deimos vehicles, Mk2b Land Raiders, Phobos Land Raiders, all the Marine armour patterns, and Contemptors were all not HH original products.
The major difference between TOW and HH is that one has Space Marines which GW will always be able to sell.
HH also didn't start as its own game but rather a supplement to regular 40k at the time. It wasn't until 8th Ed that HH became a distinct game with the Age of Darkness rulebook and even then it was basically a cleaned up version of 40k.
Comparisons between the two are extremely unfair.

No that were not original HH models but those were "Space Marine from the past" or "previous design" models

no one is saying that HH released with all the current line up and things like the Mk2 LR are not re-branded 40k models used in a new game that is set 10k years in the past but were made as 10k years old designs to be used in 40k

if TOW would start by using an existing FW model for Magnus the Pious, which was originally made to be used in Warhammer Fantasy, than you could compare it
but what we get is the old non-Primaris Marneus Calgar as Horus Heresy area Ultramarines Captain and non-Primaris Landspeeders as heresy Jetbikes, and I doubt that HH would have done attracted players if this was the only models it got

the models were not originally designed for a new game, but they were designed as relics from the past which actually fits the Horus Heresy setting
and this is what TOW does not have at all, it has a new dedicated setting but does not get models matching that setting

so there is no real point in starting the game in the year 2200 instead of 2500 if there is nothing else in the back.
because a 2200 campaign book could have been released later in combination with new models as well, no need to do it now without support

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so HH had dedicated models that fit the specific setting right from the start and never got re-branded 40k models as main source

that is exactly what people expected TOW to have but does not get

You mean like the models that have been shown so far? Because that's how HH started. FW didn't just release every single Primarch and new unit in Book 1 in one go, it took time for that to happen.
Deimos vehicles, Mk2b Land Raiders, Phobos Land Raiders, all the Marine armour patterns, and Contemptors were all not HH original products.
The major difference between TOW and HH is that one has Space Marines which GW will always be able to sell.
HH also didn't start as its own game but rather a supplement to regular 40k at the time. It wasn't until 8th Ed that HH became a distinct game with the Age of Darkness rulebook and even then it was basically a cleaned up version of 40k.
Comparisons between the two are extremely unfair.

You can't really blame people for the comparison when GW led their series of preview articles with this:

GW wrote:The Old World is to Warhammer Age of Sigmar, as the Horus Heresy is to Warhammer 40,000. The bedrock of lore from which mortals rose to godhood and legends were forged. And like the Horus Heresy, seeing those mythic heroes in action has an undeniable appeal, as does re-creating the glorious armies of a previous epoch – an exciting proposition for hobbyists and gamers alike. And now, we have a dedicated team in the Warhammer Studio beginning the work of bringing all that awesome back to the tabletop.

Quote from this article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/15/old-world-new-warhammer/

GW made the comparison and not just about lore, but also recreation on the tabletop. We've only really seen concrete ideas of how The Old World as a product is going to look, and even that is spotty for now. Prior to that, we had more than three years in which that was about the only thing we had to go on. That has a way of shaping expectations and if GW was careless enough to suggest it and not follow through with it, the issue isn't customers somehow drawing the wrong conclusions.

Or we could just remember that WFB is not a relatively fresh injection into Age of Sigmar's storied background.

It's an apples and oranges comparison, and we should call it as such.

 Albertorius wrote:
I think that the fact that the new game is going to feature some of the classic armies but not other has the potential to affect more people.

Me, for example. The only WFB army I kept is Dark Elves.

Dark Elves are still getting an army list.

About knowing the ending being a reason for not enjoying as much a game : that's why I personnally don't enjoy historical games. I see no point to "redo" battles while I know how it ended. That also why I wasn't interested into old Battle or AoS scenarios directly inspired from stories in their past, like War of the Beard. So I do understand people not getting into TOW for the same reason.

I liked reading the background, though. I can also see the enjoyment of the pure collection part with painting an army "as it was". Just not keen on replaying battles with it. I'd rather tell my own story with my battles, while I do not know how it will end.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


So then they were incredably stupid to set in a older period were they not? set it ten years before the End Times - no has to mess about with their minis

I would say no. It wasn't stupid to move the setting back in time. If you did it 10 years before the end times you have no where to grow into. In the setting they chose they have breathing room to make a lot of new models if there proves to be a market on top of selling the old - New King and Lords in Bretonnia, new dwarf thanes, new models of people fighting for the throne of the empire etc. And if it proves profitable you can advance the setting and eventually get to Magnus the Pious which would be very popular I imagine.

Besides if you set the setting 10 years before the End Times the same people angry about gunpowder in the Old World would be angry that there is no point because the setting has a definitive ending.

Its not like retcons are a foreign concept to warhammer fans anyways.

People angry about gunpowder in The Old World time period are just incorrect anyway based on all the previous fluff. The Empire has had it for centuries at this point. Dwarfs for longer. Different tech but the Steam-Tanks are also rolling around and have been for a while.

Sigh...That was NOT what I was saying AT ALL - the issues were having specfically units and people from 2500 IC when they could be doing stuff from the actual period they choose to use- as I expelained at some length.

I'm not a critical issue for me playing TOW but I can understand people who feel the destruction of the world killed a lot of (potentially all) interest in the setting.

As an example I feel that way about Game of Thrones (the books might be different, cope cope cope etc). The whole world seems a lot less interesting because you go from "anything could happen" to "no, I know what happens, and it sucks."

But as said, I'm much more concerned about the game as a game - the rules and the models they want to sell. The messaging there continues to be all over the place. If we get a rulebook that's basically 9th edition, plus a few forgeworld minis, then it possibly won't be the worst thing in the world. Not sure I love ditching the magic phase entirely, but would have to see how it works.

Really though the question's going to be why its taken 4 years to produce.

 Mr Morden wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


So then they were incredably stupid to set in a older period were they not? set it ten years before the End Times - no has to mess about with their minis

I would say no. It wasn't stupid to move the setting back in time. If you did it 10 years before the end times you have no where to grow into. In the setting they chose they have breathing room to make a lot of new models if there proves to be a market on top of selling the old - New King and Lords in Bretonnia, new dwarf thanes, new models of people fighting for the throne of the empire etc. And if it proves profitable you can advance the setting and eventually get to Magnus the Pious which would be very popular I imagine.

Besides if you set the setting 10 years before the End Times the same people angry about gunpowder in the Old World would be angry that there is no point because the setting has a definitive ending.

Its not like retcons are a foreign concept to warhammer fans anyways.

People angry about gunpowder in The Old World time period are just incorrect anyway based on all the previous fluff. The Empire has had it for centuries at this point. Dwarfs for longer. Different tech but the Steam-Tanks are also rolling around and have been for a while.

Sigh...That was NOT what I was saying AT ALL - the issues were having specfically units and people from 2500 IC when they could be doing stuff from the actual period they choose to use- as I expelained at some length.

Eh? I wasn't disagreeing with you.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
An implied end is very different from an explicit “everything burned and the ashes were salted” ending. The sandbox feels closed in a definitive way that really can’t be compared to franchises with open ended natures.

Why, though?

I can see how it might make a difference if you're actually playing in the End Times with the knowledge of how it's going to end regardless of what happens, although even then the game you're playing is about what happens now, not what happens at the end of the story arc.

But when you wind the setting back a couple of thousand years, how it all ends way off in the future is irrelevant. The setting's eventual preordained ending has no impact on what is happening in this particular part of the timeline, and whether or not that ending exists your game has no impact on the setting. The 'sandbox' is exactly the same in either case.

Because the game itself is uninteresting. The setting is the draw. I have bought over the years at least one box from each faction, and whole armies for half of them, not to play the game but entirely on the strength of the setting as a living thing. I like creating my own dwarf hold, Empire city, High Elf colony, etc.. I like reading up on obscure bits of fluff that expand the universe, finding a place for my own forces to fit in. I’m not interested in the settled past or a setting that exists only for one more day; I want a sandbox where I can build my own dudes, read some novels, and wonder. With the Old World blown up, there’s nothing to inspire wonder. Cold speculation, maybe, but clinical like a post-mortem.

I don’t know how to explain it to you if you aren’t inspired by the same things. The finality of a setting’s destruction affects enjoyment of the whole setting.

There's literally thousanas of years you can explore and make?our own guos and heroes and you HAVE to do on on,e specific yeai? Lol.

Btw. Even if we ignore end times end is same. Chaos wins. Reality busted. Everybody dies. Here. I just ruieed any version of fb and 40k as you now knlw endieg and thus accordieg to you chargent explore it

Its not like we have seen abosolutely everything GW will release for the old world. There will still be new models, those models will likely be designed with the Old World in mind rather than the End Times.

Tyel wrote:
I'm not a critical issue for me playing TOW but I can understand people who feel the destruction of the world killed a lot of (potentially all) interest in the setting.

As an example I feel that way about Game of Thrones (the books might be different, cope cope cope etc). The whole world seems a lot less interesting because you go from "anything could happen" to "no, I know what happens, and it sucks."

But as said, I'm much more concerned about the game as a game - the rules and the models they want to sell. The messaging there continues to be all over the place. If we get a rulebook that's basically 9th edition, plus a few forgeworld minis, then it possibly won't be the worst thing in the world. Not sure I love ditching the magic phase entirely, but would have to see how it works.

Really though the question's going to be why its taken 4 years to produce.

In this case I can believe it's just because it's Forge World/Specialist Games and it's a question of resource allocation. They had a pretty massive plastic budget for Horus Heresy and took the better part of a year to release all the kits. Interestingly Blood Bowl and Necromunda have kind of dried up lately with no new teams for a while and two House vehicles missing respectively, as if they can't get all that stuff designed and produced at the same time. It's part of the reason why I'm having such trouble seeing how GW plans to maintain The Old World as it only adds more models that need to be in production.

I could see it being a question of The Old World just waiting its turn, instead of difficulty of getting the rules or background written, for instance.

Let's throw in some Covid delays, because if I don't, someone else is going to bring it up, and it's not that much different from the release schedule of new editions of the main game that get prioritized and all the resources they need to release on time.

Not that I expect GW to address the question. And if they did, it'd be some variation of "just as planned" anyway.

tneva82 wrote:
There's literally thousanas of years you can explore and make?our own guos and heroes and you HAVE to do on on,e specific yeai? Lol.

Btw. Even if we ignore end times end is same. Chaos wins. Reality busted. Everybody dies. Here. I just ruieed any version of fb and 40k as you now knlw endieg and thus accordieg to you chargent explore it

The "impending doom of the Warhammer world" present in much of the WFB and WFRP background was a mood marker more than any actual threat that would definitively end the setting.

"Might end one day" ain't the same as "it ended today" as far as the audience's ability to engage with the material is concerned and GW knows that well. Note how both 40k and AoS have clear existential threats, but no clear expiration dates.

You don't run a setting as a product with the gravestone already inscribed.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
There's literally thousanas of years you can explore and make?our own guos and heroes and you HAVE to do on on,e specific yeai? Lol.

Btw. Even if we ignore end times end is same. Chaos wins. Reality busted. Everybody dies. Here. I just ruieed any version of fb and 40k as you now knlw endieg and thus accordieg to you chargent explore it

The "impending doom of the Warhammer world" present in much of the WFB and WFRP background was a mood marker more than any actual threat that would definitively end the setting.

"Might end one day" ain't the same as "it ended today" as far as the audience's ability to engage with the material is concerned and GW knows that well. Note how both 40k and AoS have clear existential threats, but no clear expiration dates.

You don't run a setting as a product with the gravestone already inscribed.

IMHO it's especially glaring as the stories and books becaming increasingly centered around 'faction exemplars' and legendary characters, and many of them have lifespans long enough to be present in the setting. You know that Malekith's story will end in a certain way, you know that Archaon will be the last Everchosen (and all before him fail) and so on and so on. The characters were used to present and manifest the character and motivations of their faction, and drive the metaplot, and now much of that has lost its appeal because their formerly open-ended plotlines have become 'history' and have a 'canon' ending. It's the difference of having open-ended plot hooks from where you can launch your own stories and campaigns, and being basically forced to play 'alternative histories' - the difference might seem small to some, but for others it matters.

?

Malekith's story hasn't ended. He's still very much alive in AoS, even though the game devs haven't reintroduced him yet (and WHY NOT!? Quit dragging your feet, GW!).

Vlad and Isabella might be better examples.

Malekith being absent from AoS is really odd too because he basically rules one whole realm. The Shadow Realm is mostly his, the Daughters of Khain (who feature a lot) are basically one tiny corner.

I keep getting a feeling that either GW keeps changing their mind; hitting a creative limit; worried that they should just bring back Dark Elves (the whole army IS in AoS barring about 2 hero models and the reaper bolt thrower)

Every self respecting Fantasy player knows that the Old World is alive and well and AoS lore is just fanfiction that can be safely ignored!

bobthe4th wrote:
Every self respecting Fantasy player knows that the Old World is alive and well and AoS lore is just fanfiction that can be safely ignored!

^^^^ this

and sticking to older Lore and making your own up anyway

bobthe4th wrote:
Every self respecting Fantasy player knows that the Old World is alive and well and AoS lore is just fanfiction that can be safely ignored!

Or you act like a normal person and let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. Hard as that may be for some.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
There's literally thousanas of years you can explore and make?our own guos and heroes and you HAVE to do on on,e specific yeai? Lol.

Btw. Even if we ignore end times end is same. Chaos wins. Reality busted. Everybody dies. Here. I just ruieed any version of fb and 40k as you now knlw endieg and thus accordieg to you chargent explore it

The "impending doom of the Warhammer world" present in much of the WFB and WFRP background was a mood marker more than any actual threat that would definitively end the setting.

One of my biggest revisionist bugbears is when people claim the WHFB was always going to end and Chaos was always going to win. No they weren't, as you said it was mood music to set the tone, there's every chance that Archaon could have died before even reaching Kislev or that he could have failed in his invasionslike 12 previous everchosens. One of the few mistakes I feel GW has made in it's messaging around TOW (aside from not teaching people how to read articles properly) is insisting on the fact that the End Times will happen. They could have easily taken an approach of 'yes canonically it does but play TOW and create your own future for the WHFB world, if you want to pretend the End Times doesn't happen then go ahead'.

I for one am absolutely refusing to accept that bs that Malekith is actually the true Phoenix King, while he raids Ulthuan in my conception of the TOW period, just as an example.