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.

Which is great for nostalgia or for people like me that were collecting Bretonnia dead or not.

Its not a great strategy if you want a sustained playerbase when a large chunk of the people who buy into the game drop off because they don't like the army they have.

Bretonnia and Tomb Kings are not one size fits all armies Even before Bretonnia got left behind there is a reason it was one of GW's smallest faction bases.

This is like if 40k died for a couple of decades and upon its return they only talked about Squats and Dark Eldar and never mentioned Space Marines.

Grail Seeker wrote:
Which is great for nostalgia or for people like me that were collecting Bretonnia dead or not.

Its not a great strategy if you want a sustained playerbase when a large chunk of the people who buy into the game drop off because they don't like the army they have.

Bretonnia and Tomb Kings are not one size fits all armies Even before Bretonnia got left behind there is a reason it was one of GW's smallest faction bases.

This is like if 40k died for a couple of decades and upon its return they only talked about Squats and Dark Eldar and never mentioned Space Marines.

No, it isn't like that. Bretonnia and Tomb Kings are the ones that are being shown off and focused on because they currently have nothing. They didn't get transferred over to AoS, they just got abandoned entirely. The Empire, Elves etc models are already available for the most part, and they are just going to be ported back over to this. That's not the case with something like Bretonnia where they need a bit more attention because they don't have anything available at all.

Basically going "Bretonnia is back, remember them? You've not seen them in 8 years because they were entirely gone, but now they're back!" compared to "Look, it's the classic Empire minis that have mostly been available in AoS for the past 8 years again! So Exciting!".

I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

Where has it been confirmed that this is how they're "starting" the game? Showing this Bretonnia stuff doesn't necessarily mean that's what there's going to be. We might well get a start box with some stuff like you're suggesting, nothing's been actually announced yet.

Let me get this straight.

You honestly think they're not previewing the launch products first but later releases?

 Platuan4th wrote:
Let me get this straight.

You honestly think they're not previewing the launch products first but later releases?

I honestly doubt the resin characters they showed will be in the starter boxes at launch.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Let me get this straight.

You honestly think they're not previewing the launch products first but later releases?

Still much more reasonable than some trolls suggesting a 2025/26 release.

Sarouan wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Let me get this straight.

You honestly think they're not previewing the launch products first but later releases?

I honestly doubt the resin characters they showed will be in the starter boxes at launch.

Please show me where I mentioned a Starter Box.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Let me get this straight.

You honestly think they're not previewing the launch products first but later releases?

They are very likely launch releases.

But that doesn't stop them releasing things for the more typical armies, too.

It isn't one or the other. We still haven't had a proper reveal for the game and what it'll entail, just a few single miniatures shown.

Still think they should have repackaged some of the new aos remakes of fantasy stuff, or maybe held back the lizardmen wave and done a dual release

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Where has it been confirmed that this is how they're "starting" the game? Showing this Bretonnia stuff doesn't necessarily mean that's what there's going to be. We might well get a start box with some stuff like you're suggesting, nothing's been actually announced yet.

this was confirmed on the last "big" announcement stream, changing that from the half a year ago or the people taking there having no clue what really is going on would just make it worse

In my book there are two reasons for picking two of the least popular factions for the release of TOW:

1)
Whoever is in charge wants TOW to fail, so they can say: „We tried, but there is simply not enough demand for a classic rank and file game set in the Old World!“.

2)
They picked Brets and Kings for the initial releases because these miniature ranges will get less support/ fewer updates than the more popular armies released later on.
Basically, release the armies with limited support first so that the support for later armies constitutes a step up and not a step down if the schedule was the other way around.
Also, if they want to launch TOW with more than Brets and Kings, they can bring back more kits for the other armies at launch in this way, since the pipeline to produce and distribute products is limited.

I'd imagine they picked on the 2 factions that at the end of old world needed the most love subjectively. I'd wager initially they wanted a full army reboot but don't have capacity for it.

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

I forgot the part in the lore where Bretonnia and Khemri simply didn't exist until AFTER the Age of the Three Emperors. Man, am I behind on my lore reading...

 Just Tony wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

I forgot the part in the lore where Bretonnia and Khemri simply didn't exist until AFTER the Age of the Three Emperors. Man, am I behind on my lore reading...

I dont think the issue is with players have access to these as forces at the start. or even a lore reason. I think the strangeness of it all comes from GW having said before one of the downsides of WFB (And thus why they went the route they did with AoS) was that they had issue with why certain factions would be fighting or even anywhere close to be near enough to get into a fight at all. Then they choice the two most opposite armies available to pick from!

I always thought it was a load of baloney, as players never seem to run out of ideas of why there would a be a lore reason for armies to fight.

Now GW bring back WFB with the two armies that have nothing to do at all with the 'new' narrative they have been spinning for this new edition. There is no (logical) reason they couldn't go with TK & Brets, its just an odd choice that goes against what they have been talking about in the few previews we have gotten so far.

Personally, I have no problem with the choice. But its still a very strange way to usher in an era of 'Empire vs Empire Vs Empire Vs Chaos', other than going for the most obvious nostalgia sales for the two factions removed from AoS completely.

My original comment was prompted by the realization that 80% of the previewed models are Bretonnian, revealed in an uncharacteristic order. GW revealed a knight and a liche priest during Warhammer Fest. Then over the next five months they added a mounted banner bearer, sorceress and banner bearer on foot for Bretonnia. For a company with a decades long tradition of two player starter sets* for anything and everything**, revealing two factions at their main event and then following up with further models for only a single army feels completely backwards. It doesn't feel like they're actually showing off Bretonnia and Tomb Kings to cater to the two factions that got murdered half a year into AoS. Even allowing for the snail's pace that characterizes Old World updates and going so long exclusively with Bretonnian models, sticking with just one faction instead of alternating between the two feels like they're not showing off both starter factions. Just one. Hence my comment that it feels more like an army book reveal than a game/edition reveal.


* I know GW's communication during Warhammer Fest was that there won't be a starter set as per whatever weird definition GW uses. We don't really know what they're planning, other than I believe in the following Q&A they said there would be starter products of some description.
** Even potential mono-faction starter sets like Gorkamorka and Horus Heresy that share the same models for different factions are presented as two sides on the box and in promo material.

Are we really discounting the possibility, that GW just has some monkeys flinging darts at a wall with random ideas and whatever gets hit, gets released?
For such a huge company, they had some baffling approaches to business and releases so far, so I'd wager anything is on the table.

My suspicion still is this will be a limited release with limited support like with the 40k Armageddon ruleset. If it generates some nostalgia bucks, good. If it runs for 2-3 years, good. If it surpasses AOS and becomes the new staple again, also good. I think GW has low expectations, everything with a net win is OK.

Wasn't there a rumor about a second Game Set with Empire vs. Greenskins together with Bretonia vs. Khemri?

 Mallo wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

I forgot the part in the lore where Bretonnia and Khemri simply didn't exist until AFTER the Age of the Three Emperors. Man, am I behind on my lore reading...

I dont think the issue is with players have access to these as forces at the start. or even a lore reason. I think the strangeness of it all comes from GW having said before one of the downsides of WFB (And thus why they went the route they did with AoS) was that they had issue with why certain factions would be fighting or even anywhere close to be near enough to get into a fight at all. Then they choice the two most opposite armies available to pick from!

I always thought it was a load of baloney, as players never seem to run out of ideas of why there would a be a lore reason for armies to fight.

Now GW bring back WFB with the two armies that have nothing to do at all with the 'new' narrative they have been spinning for this new edition. There is no (logical) reason they couldn't go with TK & Brets, its just an odd choice that goes against what they have been talking about in the few previews we have gotten so far.

Personally, I have no problem with the choice. But its still a very strange way to usher in an era of 'Empire vs Empire Vs Empire Vs Chaos', other than going for the most obvious nostalgia sales for the two factions removed from AoS completely.

Boats.

I'm not sure everyone will catch that, so I'll say it again...



BOATS.


I get how players may miss this little fact but it's disheartening that GW can't put that together despite having at least TWO MARITIME GAMES SET IN THE OLD WORLD.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mallo wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

I forgot the part in the lore where Bretonnia and Khemri simply didn't exist until AFTER the Age of the Three Emperors. Man, am I behind on my lore reading...

I dont think the issue is with players have access to these as forces at the start. or even a lore reason. I think the strangeness of it all comes from GW having said before one of the downsides of WFB (And thus why they went the route they did with AoS) was that they had issue with why certain factions would be fighting or even anywhere close to be near enough to get into a fight at all. Then they choice the two most opposite armies available to pick from!

I always thought it was a load of baloney, as players never seem to run out of ideas of why there would a be a lore reason for armies to fight.

Now GW bring back WFB with the two armies that have nothing to do at all with the 'new' narrative they have been spinning for this new edition. There is no (logical) reason they couldn't go with TK & Brets, its just an odd choice that goes against what they have been talking about in the few previews we have gotten so far.

Personally, I have no problem with the choice. But its still a very strange way to usher in an era of 'Empire vs Empire Vs Empire Vs Chaos', other than going for the most obvious nostalgia sales for the two factions removed from AoS completely.

Boats.

I'm not sure everyone will catch that, so I'll say it again...



BOATS.


I get how players may miss this little fact but it's disheartening that GW can't put that together despite having at least TWO MARITIME GAMES SET IN THE OLD WORLD.

If only WFB had been invented in a country that once ruled most of the world by having an incredibly powerful navy, then they might have realised this themselves!

I'm with you on this, I think the mental gymnastics GW had to go through to have that as the excuse not be able to put together a simple reason for forces to meet in battle is mind boggling.

"We made AoS because our team forgot boats were a thing".

Though this might explain the reason for the concept of the Idoneth Deepkin

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Where has it been confirmed that this is how they're "starting" the game? Showing this Bretonnia stuff doesn't necessarily mean that's what there's going to be. We might well get a start box with some stuff like you're suggesting, nothing's been actually announced yet.

this was confirmed on the last "big" announcement stream, changing that from the half a year ago or the people taking there having no clue what really is going on would just make it worse

Do you mean the Q&A thing from back in April? Maybe I just missed something because it's hard to find the info from it, but I don't remember seeing anything saying it's Bretonnia and Tomb Kings as the initial/starter focus.

The comments about them having trouble justifying all the factions fighting over stuff had nothing at all to do with AoS. That statement was made with regards to global campaigns and major narrative events and how they had difficulty creating compelling WHFB narrative that engaged the entire community without turning those narratives into World War Fantasy with wide-spanning consequences (ala Storm of Chaos and The End Times) because they couldn't narratively justify having all these factions turn up to fight over a relatively small area. For this reason they trimmed a number of popular factions off for TOW so that they could remain more narratively focused with the setting and storytelling. The presence of boats doesn't change that, you still have the same fundamental problem that its oddly and awfully convenient that a dozen or so different factions that are generally scattered and isolated with very different agendas all happen to show up in the same 100 square mile backwater to partake in a limited narrative conflict that isn't that important to the broader setting. The alternative is an event that sees widespread battles across the whole setting (yes, using boats) in a manner that engages everyone into he narrative, but usually requires the narrative stakes to be high for everyone in order to justifiably make sense.

40k does not have that problem, because most of the factions are relatively fluid and mobile and not confined to any one area or region of the setting (excepting Tau, which GW more recently managed to fix with the 5th sphere expansion scattering them across a wider area). You can create necessarily high stakes and have the 20 or so different factions duking it out in a sufficiently sized theater of conflict and have it make all the sense in the world, you can even destroy entire planets/sectors, and it doesn't really impact the wider setting at all because the scale of the setting is much grander. AoS is similar to some extent in that regards, but because of the disjointed and somewhat nebulous/ambiguous nature of the setting has a hard time connecting with the audience in a meaningful way.

Anyway.

As for the Bretonnia/Tomb Kings thing, I think its been speculated pretty heavily that whatever GWs original plans were for TOW have been de-railed, or they never really had a solid vision/plan to begin with and were making it up as they went. The initial teases and hints about the setting revolved heavily around the idea of the Age of Three Emperors - that Empire Civil War would have obviously and easily allowed for a 2-player mono-faction empire themed launch box ala the Age of Darkness Box for Horus Heresy, etc. Then they seemed to veer into Kislev and Cathay being involved, which never made much sense to me but some I think assumed that we would possibly be seeing them as part of a 2-player 2-faction launch box ala 40k/AoS. The Bretonnian and Tomb King angle has come about more recently, and the rumor is not that they will be in a 2-player set, but rather they will be available as part of separate stand-alone sets. We have also more recently learned that the narrative of the initial wave of releases will be focused on the Border Princes, rather than the more obvious place to start in the Empire with the Age of Three Emperors. I would guess that development on the Empire stuff (which presumably would feature all new sculpts with some aesthetic difference from what we may be used to given that this is a few hundred years prior to the setting of previous editions of the game) was probably slowed by the pandemic as well as the production bottleneck issues that GW has been experiencing for the last 3-4 years, and likewise the same with Kislev/Cathay. Likewise, the community has not been shy in making its demands clear and sharing expectations (to the extent that most TOW related social media channels and forum threads can get pretty acrimonious and toxic very fast).

I think they developed or reworked whatever plans they may have originally had to focus on the Border Princes as a means to launch the game with legacy minis for a number of the legacy factions, as they had the tooling for those models available and ready to go and they required significantly less development than the creation of new armies and miniatures from whole cloth. They picked Bretonnia and Tomb Kings as the main focus for the first wave because they were the only two factions that did not have even a portion of their range available for sale, so that they could throw a bone to players of those factions and spiff them up a bit so they don't feel quite as bad about having some of the oldest models in the range, etc. as well as in acknowledgement of the fact that those two factions have surged in popularity as a result of their unavailability and the nostalgia surrounding them. Frankly, I do not think that they had originally intended to include Tomb Kings at all, and only planned to include Bretonnia in a later stage of development, but I'm sure some middle manager at the firm saw how much Bret/Tomb King kits are going for on eBay and decided they should cash in on it and forced a rework of the plans/their inclusion.

My guess (and based on some of the more big picture rumors we have heard) we will possibly see a proper 2-player starter/launch set released at some point next year containing all new minis and focused on promoting the actual narrative direction of the game rather than pushing nostalgia.

 Just Tony wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

I forgot the part in the lore where Bretonnia and Khemri simply didn't exist until AFTER the Age of the Three Emperors. Man, am I behind on my lore reading...

Is there a point to being this willfully ignorant?

Bretonnia during this time is neck deeps in Greekskins incursions and, as least before retcons, aren't a big player involved in the Age of three Emperors. As for Khemri, well look at the map and decide for yourself how big of a role they play. No lore reading required!

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
I understand that there will be empire models available for purchase at launch. But there is also no logical reason why they couldn't have done an empire versus greenskin starter box - complete with a few new heroes to generate hype but also produced Bretonnia and tomb king models like they are doing with the others, no? The choice wasn't starter box or nothing.

All I am saying is its a wierd way to start the game, and might not have been the most successful strategy.

"Hey guys we are relaunching all Warhammer Fantasy centered on the Age of the Three Emperors!

Enjoy this starter box with two factions that has nothing to do with that. One of which isn't even on the same landmass of the setting we want to create!"

I forgot the part in the lore where Bretonnia and Khemri simply didn't exist until AFTER the Age of the Three Emperors. Man, am I behind on my lore reading...

Is there a point to being this willfully ignorant?

Bretonnia during this time is neck deeps in Greekskins incursions and, as least before retcons, aren't a big player involved in the Age of three Emperors. As for Khemri, well look at the map and decide for yourself how big of a role they play. No lore reading required!

Is there a point to being this willfully ignorant?

Being around during the time is NOT the same as being at the event. NOR was it expressly stated that this game revoled AROUND this event.


While we're at it with the "look at the map" crack: Where is England compared to the Middle East? Do you remember anything about The Crusades?

For clarity

They have said:

The game will be set firmly within the Old World itself – the lands between the coast of Bretonnia to the west and the Worlds Edge Mountains to the east – during the decades immediately before the Great War Against Chaos and the Siege of Praag. Much of the action in the first wave of books and supplements takes place in and around the Border Princes – the barrier lands between the Empire and Orc territory.

I still think its odd that the two factions that are not at all mentioned as playable as either core or with basic rules are

Kislev and Cathay

Well, Cathay was hinted at in one of the articles or interviews (might have been a TWW3 related interview rather than a TOW related one, but the statement stuck out to me) on the basis that they sent large trading caravans escorted by thousands of soldiers to the Old World.

Kislev fits solidly between the borders defined in your quote, and if you look carefully at one of the maps that they shared on WarCom, Kislev also has a presence in the Border Princes: https://images.app.goo.gl/N8znn8o5ayQPZxKKA

Note - Uvetovsk on the right.

My understanding is that the "core" factions (Empire, Bretonnians, etc.) will be continuously updated and regularly supported, etc. and that a number of other factions will basically be "one and done" - i.e. "season 3" might be narratively about kislev vs cathay - the core factions will get some updates, kislev and cathay will get small flavorful army lists, but then season 4 comes along and is about Tilea invading Bretonnia, so Tilea gets an army list, and the core factions get some more updates, and Kislev and Cathay don't get touched again, etc.

 Mr Morden wrote:
For clarity

They have said:

The game will be set firmly within the Old World itself – the lands between the coast of Bretonnia to the west and the Worlds Edge Mountains to the east – during the decades immediately before the Great War Against Chaos and the Siege of Praag. Much of the action in the first wave of books and supplements takes place in and around the Border Princes – the barrier lands between the Empire and Orc territory.

I still think its odd that the two factions that are not at all mentioned as playable as either core or with basic rules are

Kislev and Cathay

It's very odd that one of the first proper things they showed for the whole project was multiple pieces of concept art and articles over several weeks showing us Kislev, only to have that not be directly relevant to the actual game, won't be for several years at best and might not happen.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
For clarity

They have said:

The game will be set firmly within the Old World itself – the lands between the coast of Bretonnia to the west and the Worlds Edge Mountains to the east – during the decades immediately before the Great War Against Chaos and the Siege of Praag. Much of the action in the first wave of books and supplements takes place in and around the Border Princes – the barrier lands between the Empire and Orc territory.

I still think its odd that the two factions that are not at all mentioned as playable as either core or with basic rules are

Kislev and Cathay

It's very odd that one of the first proper things they showed for the whole project was multiple pieces of concept art and articles over several weeks showing us Kislev, only to have that not be directly relevant to the actual game, won't be for several years at best and might not happen.

I think that it might be that, because Kislev isn't considered a main faction in old Warhammer, they want to wait on revealing a completely new faction until after the Old World releases.

Speculation and perhaps a little bit of fools' hope, but also a definite possibility.

It is my understanding that GW was just bull gakking with Kislev and Cathay concept art they did for a video game because they had done zero work for TOW at the time but had to post something so that people wouldn't talk about Kings of War instead

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It is my understanding that GW was just bull gakking with Kislev and Cathay concept art they did for a video game because they had done zero work for TOW at the time but had to post something so that people wouldn't talk about Kings of War instead

Negative. They were showcasing the concept art to give an idea as to how the design process was working.