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.

Probably meant a Liche Priest.

A mummy dragon would be cool, but no way I'm ever buying anything that has the old skeletons in it, no matter how cool the other contents of the box are.

Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

It all comes down to personal taste, really. I intentionally seek them and the previous 3rd Ed versions out for my Undead cause I'm nostalgic to how quaint they are.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

It all comes down to personal taste, really. I intentionally seek them and the previous 3rd Ed versions out for my Undead cause I'm nostalgic to how quaint they are.

Based solely on that pic, I really like them.

Well, for starters, they're too big to fit into WHFB scaled human bodies. Also very breaky and you have to glue the spine flat end to flat end with like 1 square mm of surface. The melee weapon selection also completely sucks for TK as they're really VC skellies with an upgrade sprue of bows and helmets.

problem was not that they looked bad in general

tricky to assemble, easy to break, oversized "generic" weapons did not fit the general Khemri theme, and they were a different scale/size than the actual khemri units

cavalry and archers had the same problem and those, by the time 20 year old models, were a reason why Khemri did not sell at all in 8th Edition
as a lot of people wanted to start a that army because of the shiny new elite units and monsters, but everyone expected up to date core infantry like Vampires got

so releasing the same models that were the reason not many bought into that faction in the first place might not be the best idea

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

They're a 5th-edition kit, designed for a different army. They include classic TK weapons like hatchets or flails. They are fething massive, towering over mortals with their giant heads and gorilla-like hands. This is despite their intimidating bow-legged squat poses and strong mould lines.
They were horrible in the 6E lineup and were abysmal in the 8E lineup. Now, they're a joke.

When people say TK had beautiful models, chances are they are talking exclusively about 8E plastics, Ushabti and the 6E characters. Otherwise the range was ancient 10 years ago and not in the good way.

They actually looked like this. So they got new shields, new heads and new command options with respect to the old vampire skeletons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw did they not already show updated weapon pictures on warhammer community the other day for the tomb kings?

Taken from this link

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/13/old-world-development-diary-revealing-the-weapons-of-war/

Well obviously this entire outrage over 30 year old skellies hinges on Valrak not taking out of his ass agian.

and we already talked in the past about it that this might just mean a new upgrade sprue and/or new resin parts to go with the old models
and that old models will come back with limited amount of new models added was already said more or less with the WC articles

but simply because the old models are what they are, a lot of people still believe that there must be new ones

I think I'd believe a rumour more if it at least included the models GW have already shown us. I guess they don't have to go together but kind of seems like they would be in this box.

Those are some very jazzy weapons for mook infantry designed to be fielded in hordes. I think these weapons are going to be the reserve of characters, or maybe some extremely well-equipped elites.

Those weapons are way more suited to character models in design than being the standard infantry weapons.

That sounds reasonable.
I guess from a business perspective GW will also just release the old models and hope for a cash grab from the old Neckbeards.

I thought the bare minimum would be new TK Skeletons.

What a waste of time...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I thought the bare minimum would be new TK Skeletons.
What a waste of time...

who would have thought that getting warhammer back meant to actually get warhammer back, with all the wish listings and downsides.....

I mean, eventually the Monkey's Paw has to run out of fingers, yes?

depends what the wish was "I want old warhammer back" might have been not precise enough

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, eventually the Monkey's Paw has to run out of fingers, yes?

The great many fingered monkey.

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Its funny, just yesterday I was lamenting to myself that I wish I had some men at arms kits so I could kitbash them with some cadians ala Dave Taylors Genswick Rifles to make an Imperialis Militia force for Heresy.

That being said, I will probably skip these boxes. They seem tempting, because those kits have been in such demand for the past ~10 years, but they are old junky kits that don't carry much nostalgia value for me, and I think long run I'll probably just end up disappointed that I bought them instead of waiting a bit longer for inevitable future resculpts which will be much better in terms of detail and quality and probably scale poorly to the legacy kits.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Its funny, just yesterday I was lamenting to myself that I wish I had some men at arms kits so I could kitbash them with some cadians ala Dave Taylors Genswick Rifles to make an Imperialis Militia force for Heresy.

The new Cites of Sigmar bodies would give a decent similar design.

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I thought the bare minimum would be new TK Skeletons.
What a waste of time...

who would have thought that getting warhammer back meant to actually get warhammer back, with all the wish listings and downsides.....

Well, if there was _one_ unit to update out of the entire WFB range, tomb king skeletons would've been pretty high on most lists. Especially with the available factions pared down.

They were the perpetual excuse: 'I'd start a tomb kings army, except the core units suck' for multiple editions.


Really, if they're not even going to do that level of minimum effort for the Old World, I don't know why they're bothering.

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

I liked the peasant archers but never was a huge fan of the men-at-arms (its a bit of a weird thing I know).

I could have been clearer, my comment was more based on the lack of support to not even re-do the weaker/oldest/most plain parts of the ranges.

The men-at-arms are nowhere near as painful as tomb kings skeletons both in detail and in the awfulness to assemble.

Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

I will never believe anything that comes from youtube rumours.

That said, I've been waiting for news if the TK were getting a full refresh or we would see the old range as it was.

I really, really want to be able to get hold of those ancient skeletal horses again. I brought a fairly large job lot of TK chariots, not noticing that it didn't come with any horses! Plus I'd rather like to mix them with some of the old wargames factory skeletons and finish as much of my undead force off with that oldhammer-y aesthetic.

It probably sucks that they won't get a refresh- but I'll be happy enough to get my hands on those useful skeletal horses. If they redid them you can almost guarantee they will come with too many knick-knacks stuck to them and chances are they would have half the rider sculpted directly to the horse itself.

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

Not talking about rumours doesn't leave much to talk about.

Talking about their validity usually just leads to incessantly crapping on the rumourmongers.

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

I don't know what's ridiculous about the suggested content of the suggested boxes. Sticking with Tomb Kings, because I don't have a clue about the fleshy guys, it's three disciplines of Core (shooty, stabby, mobile), a dual kit heavy cavalry/monstrous infantry and a character to lead the army. That's not a bad mix for something GW expects you to buy once to get the core of your army. It has the lure of a new character, sells you kits that might not sell so well individually, and probably steers you to expand into more expensive single kits of monsters and such. Seems sound enough from a marketing and sales perspective.

The absence of a Prince/King is the only actual issue by Warhammer Fantasy standards, but we have no idea if that dynamic made it into The Old World or if Tomb Kings get different requirements for their leadership to lessen the issues that used to cause.

I mean, I can see selling old Skeletons for new prices (or at all, really) as plenty of reason to call the suggested boxes ridiculous. However that's no reason to discard the rumor. It's definitely something we should expect from GW. Customer perspective shouldn't be believed to have an impact on credibility.

I bought those skeletons when they were released back in 5th edition, and already hated them there They were way too big and quite inferior to the 3rd/4th edition version they replaced. Plus the kits had one big flaw (at least at the time), where the sprue had that special weakness and broke easily, all time, at the same spot You know when it breaks with a clean spike/hole. And that weak spot was right in the middle of the shinbones of some of the legs They would break when cleaning mould lines, or after you glue it to the base and pick it up funny later. I was not having fun with those.

Their only advantage really was that it was designed with the other infantry kit of the time (Zombies, Empire Militia/State troops, Skaven Clan Rats, Goblins, Chaos Marauders, etc) and all had the same design of legs, body, arms and head so all parts were interchangeable. Especially for Undead players, that was a really big plus to just combine anything together.

I managed to add whatever I had of awful skeletons to my TK when the army came out, making them all archers and calling it a day, not wanting to add anymore of those bad sculpt. From 6th through 8th I had no other core infantry than some archers because the models were just awful and I didn't want to deal with them anymore. Thankfully archers (the TK one at least) were quite nice in-game so it wasn't too bad on that front.

If those same models are released as the core of the army, oof. Not a great way to draw new players that's for sure.