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.

Earlier this month I found a storage unit with tubs buried at the back of my mum's shed. Inside were some GW miniatures from when I was a kid. Two of those tubs have Bretonnians inside. This army was never really completed and one unit of Knights was even primed, ready and waiting to be painted. There's even movement trays lol. They were lost but now found just in time for re-release.

This upcoming release has definitely hit the nostalgia button for me. I always wanted there to be foot Knights to go with the army and never got the trebuchet as that went against the noble virtues or something.
I remember a Storm of Chaos campaign that had some kind of Errantry knight list, which let the young Knights make up compulsory slots or something.

I may have to play around with unit sizes regarding the new rules but definitely have my eye on the new Pegasus Lord, foot Knights and maybe some other units to make a balanced force. Can't remember now if they said mounted yeoman or skirmishers or something.

Not sure how well these old child paint jobs will hold up but it's a nice thought I always kept them. Not sure if my current paint skills will hold up either really. Anyway for anyone else who finds themself in a similar situation, enjoy your moment, Bretonnia, aye she lives






*Ignore the ballista and catapult, they were used for a home made sailing ship and mounted on deck for a naval siege game and display

 Overread wrote:
The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.

"at the very start" is player invented bs though.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I was being flippant. I'm confident that they won't migrate dark elves over, nor any of the other factions. The reason they were excluded to begin with was for business reasons rather than for lore reasons, those business reasons aren't going change, but they are actually not entirely dissimilar from the reasons why there's no xenos in HH.

The only business reason (asides from GWs past record of schizophrenically releasing then ignoring side games) I can see is because they don't want to cross over model ranges with AoS, and there's no reason they can't pull the plug on DElves in AoS.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I don't think most people were expecting expensive hardback+expensive hardback+plus probably expensive softback to give an army everything that should have either been in the hordes book already or just gone the army book route.

No, we weren't.

But looking back, I'm not sure WHY we weren't. This is perfectly in character for GW.

Ah. Point to 3 books you need to buy to play necrons? Cities of sigmar? Horus heresy blood angels?

This is very non-typical launch for gw.

tneva82 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I don't think most people were expecting expensive hardback+expensive hardback+plus probably expensive softback to give an army everything that should have either been in the hordes book already or just gone the army book route.

No, we weren't.

But looking back, I'm not sure WHY we weren't. This is perfectly in character for GW.

Ah. Point to 3 books you need to buy to play necrons? Cities of sigmar? Horus heresy blood angels?

This is very non-typical launch for gw.

I think the problem comes from the "need" part but all of them require at least two (Rule book + codex/battletome/Liber) but they all also have supplements (chapter approved/Generals Handbook/Seige of Cthonia) which some people will see as a need and others won't. Of course there is Necromunda with the core book, different campaign books, and the House of Books.

tneva82 wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.

Oh? Aos doesnt do this. 40k doesn't do this. What does?

Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.

Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.

Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.

8ed 40k? Still not same.

Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.

And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.

+1, they are just trolls (3 books required to play? ).

I only need 2 books: rulebook + armies book, as always.

Well if you play bretonnia not magic items, spells, special characters. Have to take infantry(no all knight lists).

You'll be seriously underpowered vs other brets and tomb king and once others get their arcanum those too.

There's no 1 book for all bretonnia stuff.

Unlike say necrons, tvranid, skaven, cities of sigmar...

And if you instead take book with above no knight of the realms, duke, paladin, men at arms etc etc etc

It seems you didn't even bother to read the article.

Spells and magic items are included in the big book.

Yes, the generic stuff. But the journals are going to contain an armies special characters, army specific magic items, weapons, spells etc. so yes, you can ignore it if you want. But if you want the army to actually play to it's theme, you will want the journal.

chaos0xomega wrote:
mandatory is not essential

just picking this up because as a non-native speaker I see the difference now that it is written out and the confusion it may have caused by not using essential instead, though the difference for me is not that clear and depending on context
the translation of mandatory as either as the opposite of optional or as options that are "must haves", while essential translates as something that is necessary/required, hence for my understanding of the wording would be the Journals are mandatory but not essential to play the game though if this is the other way around in English I am sorry for the confusion I caused

chaos0xomega wrote:

Incidentally, CA published a list of most played factions in TWW by region on instagram today - Kislev was #1 in Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Cathay in Asia, and Empire in Oceania. That probably indicates that Kislev is the #1 most popular faction amongst the global playerbase, but the sheer size of chinas population might skew that in a different direction. That Kislev (and Cathay) was massively popular with the TWW community isn't new information and goes back some years and was probably something that GW and CA expected when they announced them (prior to their introducition in TWW3) based on market research. Thats the likely reason why both factions were announced as coming to TOW at all, because $$$. I am reasonably certain that Kislev not being ready to go on launch isn't for a lack of desire or effort on GWs part, as Kislev is apparently a clear money maker for the brand on a global scale, possibly moreso than Bretonnia and Khemri are, and probably something that GW management is expecting will carry the TOW brand and make it the financial success they want it to be.

the big question here is why it is the case
Bretonnia and Khemri are popular among the community mainly because they are not available and gone from AoS and therefore attract to collectors and classic fantasy gamers as they are different in design to the newer AoS line (hence why the Dragon caused unrest)
something similar could be for Cathy and Kislev, being popular simply because they were there in the Background but not available als playable faction

going further into that, the Warhammer Armies Project only reason to be popular and being around for such a long time now is because he wrote books about the minor factions that were there in the background but not playable or not playable any more with 7th Edition

We've seen the core list, that is playing to its theme.

If you want to play to a variant list then, yes, you'll have to buy the extra book.

So, will empire models be available for sale in 2024?

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.

"at the very start" is player invented bs though.

I think Overread is meaning "the very start" as in the very start of the preview articles for The Old World - maybe not the very first couple, but I seem to recall the Kislev and Cathay articles being very early in the three year process. I don't recall those articles saying the factions would be a day 1 release, however.

tneva82 wrote:Ah. Point to 3 books you need to buy to play necrons? Cities of sigmar? Horus heresy blood angels?

How about 9th ed Space Wolves (etc) or, probably, 10th ed Dark Angels (given the new book is listed as a "Codex Supplement", rather than a Codex, annoyingly)?

Rulebook + Codex + Supplement is not unusual, and we've seen it as far back as 40k 3rd ed, to varying degrees.

triplegrim wrote:So, will empire models be available for sale in 2024?

Outside of any kits in use in AOS still? Crystal ball is unclear. I'd assume we'll get some sort of roadmap article either during Q1, or as part of a preview event once the initial launch is out of the way. Given the number of factions being supported, I won't be surprised if some aren't released fully in 2024, but it is hard to say which will get priority. I won't be surprised by Empire and Orcs being up there, though (just do the world a favour, and leave the Elves till last, OK?).

 Dysartes wrote:
Rulebook + Codex + Supplement is not unusual, and we've seen it as far back as 40k 3rd ed, to varying degrees.

no that would not be unusual, but Rulebook + Index + Supplement is something new

we have had different version with Supplements, Campaign Books, Army Books, Generals Handbook etc, but having a Supplement in addition to an Index and not straight replacing the index list with it, was not there before

so even the 9th Edi SW/DA Supplements were in addition to a Codex that replaced the Index list and not in addition to the 8th Edi Index book (but would have caused outrage as well if the Space Wolves Supplement would have required the Space Marine Index book)

When do codex and supplement ever get released at the same time unless it's a whopper like space marines? This reads like they've just divided up the rules content for a given faction so they can sell two books. "Oh but it's optional content", so what? When did we get so tolerant of day-one DLC?

 kodos wrote:

 Gwindalor wrote:
Oh yeah, sure... I guess you are one of those nostalgic people who plays the 7th edition or earlier, isnt?. Well, get used to ToW, since it is quite similar to 8th edition, luckily! xD

6th Edition had the best background, and from that it just got worse as everything was just the same hyperbole in storytelling by 8th and there was no real flavour left
and TOW is nothing like 8th from what we have seen so far, but than if you think TOW would be lucky to be like 8th, there was a reason not many people were left playing that game and the rules were just a part of that and this is not something I would call lucky

and until we see what is in the Journal books, there is still a good chance that it is more like 6th (and having the appendix army lists back is a good indication for that)

so get used to it, 8th is dead and won't come back for good reasons


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The core rules of the game have already changed pretty dramatically from 8th that I doubt that points are unchanged from 8th. Besides TOW is not WHFB anyway, it's a new game.

of course it is, and maybe GW put the hours in to get all new point costs for all units that just ends to be on a similar level per force than 8th
yet I don't expect that, at least not on a full scale as it is much easier (and cheaper) to just take the existing values and make minor adjustments if at all, let the people play the game and than release points value based on player feedback

The 8th edition is just as dead as the 6th edition. The 6th lasted a poor 2 years at most, so it proves it wasn't a very good edition.
If you don't see the similarity between TOW and 8th edition, it's because you clearly don't know 8th edition and are only speaking from your tiny, ephemeral world of 6th edition.

How about 9th ed Space Wolves (etc) or, probably, 10th ed Dark Angels (given the new book is listed as a "Codex Supplement", rather than a Codex, annoyingly)?

I have not purchased a SW codex for several editions for exact the same reason. I don't appreciate the attempt to milk my money by not putting all my rules in one book. Codex SM has a whole bunch of crap I don't care about in it. I don't want to read about Marneus Calgar's left gauntlet, or Cato Sicarius' twinkletoes ability. If GW gave me all of my rules in one spot I would probably purchase that book.

The fact is this could have been one book each for Brets and Tomb Kings, and one more book for the other 'core' armies. Instead it is attempting to milk my money making me purchase things I don't want or need. In this case rules and fluff for the other armies in those books. Instead I won't purchase either book. I'm sure I'll be able to work out what I need from free army builders etc.

If you want to play to a variant list then, yes, you'll have to buy the extra book.

Or have access to your full list of Magic Items, Faction Spells and Characters.

If you think it is fine, you buy them. No one is telling you not to spend your money. We are just saying day 1 DLCs offend us.

 Gwindalor wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Gwindalor wrote:
Oh yeah, sure... I guess you are one of those nostalgic people who plays the 7th edition or earlier, isnt?. Well, get used to ToW, since it is quite similar to 8th edition, luckily! xD

6th Edition had the best background, and from that it just got worse as everything was just the same hyperbole in storytelling by 8th and there was no real flavour left
and TOW is nothing like 8th from what we have seen so far, but than if you think TOW would be lucky to be like 8th, there was a reason not many people were left playing that game and the rules were just a part of that and this is not something I would call lucky

and until we see what is in the Journal books, there is still a good chance that it is more like 6th (and having the appendix army lists back is a good indication for that)

so get used to it, 8th is dead and won't come back for good reasons


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The core rules of the game have already changed pretty dramatically from 8th that I doubt that points are unchanged from 8th. Besides TOW is not WHFB anyway, it's a new game.

of course it is, and maybe GW put the hours in to get all new point costs for all units that just ends to be on a similar level per force than 8th
yet I don't expect that, at least not on a full scale as it is much easier (and cheaper) to just take the existing values and make minor adjustments if at all, let the people play the game and than release points value based on player feedback

The 8th edition is just as dead as the 6th edition. The 6th lasted a poor 2 years at most, so it proves it wasn't a very good edition.
If you don't see the similarity between TOW and 8th edition, it's because you clearly don't know 8th edition and are only speaking from your tiny, ephemeral world of 6th edition.

6th Ed lasted 6 years - 2000 - 2006. 50% longer than all of 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th. In that time they released an AB for almost every army (only Chaos Dwarfs and DoW missed out) and 2 for Dwarfs.

TOW clearly has elements from all editions, plus quite a bit that is new. There’s elements clearly taken from 8th, but there’s other elements that have reverted to the 6th/7th Ed paradigm (including it seems an aim for 6th Ed units sizes), as well as some elements that seem inspired by 4th/5th and even 3rd (parts of combat resolution, Bretonnian bombard).

It’s not a full reversion to 6th/7th, but it’s clearly not just a continuation of 8th either.

It looks like the 9th edition that I want to see from Warhammer Fantasy.

And the good news is, as a specialist game, I don't have to worry about the rules and army books radically changing every 3 years.

The stability of 6th lasting 6 years was very welcome, it allowed for supplement releases like the general's compendium.

I imagine we'll get all 8 initial armies released over the next two years in their mega boxes and then from there it'll be interesting to see where the game goes.

It's possible for another 8 armies to be added, simply by extending the historical period of the game a little further forward and that could be the next logical step for the game in the same way that blood bowl is gradually getting to *all* the older content.

The step back towards a low fantasy setting is very welcome, even before AoS, the setting had been messed with to the point where the trees walking the earth, gibbering skulls raining from the sky and rivers turning to blood/pus were everyday problems for a typical Empire peasant. Suitable only for the End Times, taking a step back from that (or just forgetting the whole thing even happened and viewing AoS as a parallel universe outcome) is very welcome.

I think Gwindalor was confusing 40k editions and fantasy edition. 6th edition 40k only lasted 2 years IIRC and was quickly replaced by 7th. How that would be relevant to WHFB is anyones guess.

Anyway, new article up on Warcom about Bretonnian fluff. Not a lot of meat there, the only revelation (as far as I am aware) is that the game is apaprently specifically "set" in the year 2276 IC.... which makes me question if GW even knows what its doing at all. Louen Orcslayer ascended the throne in 2201 yet is supposed to be a prominent character in this game - the dude has to be a borderline corpse at this point having reigned for 75 years, and he had to have been old enough to declare an Errantry War (which he himself fought in) at the time he ascended the throne. The dudes gotta be pushing 90-95 years minimum.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Yes, the generic stuff. But the journals are going to contain an armies special characters, army specific magic items, weapons, spells etc. so yes, you can ignore it if you want. But if you want the army to actually play to it's theme, you will want the journal.

Want =/= need.

 stonehorse wrote:
I have mixed feelings about all of this. At first I was very excited for Warhammer Fantasy Battles coming back, but as time has shown more I'm less excited.

So far we have seen the re-release of old models that were bad when they were released (Tomb King Skeletons).

And.

Faction books essential spread over several publications, to squeeze out more cash.

If anything I think ToW is looking to be GW testing the waters on just how far they can push things with their rabid fanbase.to see where the limit is on what they can get away with, because only a fool would think that GW will not charge a premium price for thise old Skeletons, and for the 2 books needed to get one army list. Maximum profit, for minimum effort.

I may just stick to 6th edition and use predominantly none GW models.

I'm not sure what to think either.

It's great to have a return to the WHFB setting again, seeing some of the old miniatures come back, some nice new miniatures, and even novels. Rule wise it seems like an updated WHFB style game too, which is good.

But to have it be a return to only part of the setting, with several armies left out beyond some basic rules just so you can play "for old times sake" and them having no plans to bring them back properly, some of the preview material from a while back having no current relevance and no indication of what's really going on with them, multiple books to get the complete set of rules for your army, and presumably those very old miniatures at modern pricing, it sort of takes away from the whole thing quite a lot.

I do hope that it does well, but at the moment the direction they've gone seems a little bit of a shame in some ways. It's a return of some WHFB things, rather than WHFB on the whole.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
6th Ed lasted 6 years - 2000 - 2006. 50% longer than all of 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th. In that time they released an AB for almost every army (only Chaos Dwarfs and DoW missed out) and 2 for Dwarfs.

I have to wonder if part of that longevity was due to LotR sucking up design capacity, which precluded the standard 3-year churn.

It was a very stable edition, and I remember when 7th was under discussion a lot of sentiment was "It's not broke, so don't change it!" which GW did because churn was official policy.

That's another reason why I'm skeptical on this whole enterprise because GW has repeatedly tweaked games to the brink of excellence, only to throw them away and essentially start over. I'm not sure why I should expect anything different.

So new lore article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/27/old-world-almanack-discover-bretonnia-a-land-of-chivalry-and-honour/

I wasn't expecting anything else until next year. They also have set a dedicated website for it. Isn't it the only game that has that? It's there a page for 40k that I don't know about?

Darkial wrote:
So new lore article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/27/old-world-almanack-discover-bretonnia-a-land-of-chivalry-and-honour/

I wasn't expecting anything else until next year. They also have set a dedicated website for it. Isn't it the only game that has that? It's there a page for 40k that I don't know about?

There's a page for every game

https://warhammer40000.com/
https://ageofsigmar.com/
https://warhammerunderworlds-online.com/
https://thehorusheresy.com/

chaos0xomega wrote:

Anyway, new article up on Warcom about Bretonnian fluff. Not a lot of meat there, the only revelation (as far as I am aware) is that the game is apaprently specifically "set" in the year 2276 IC.... which makes me question if GW even knows what its doing at all. Louen Orcslayer ascended the throne in 2201 yet is supposed to be a prominent character in this game - the dude has to be a borderline corpse at this point having reigned for 75 years, and he had to have been old enough to declare an Errantry War (which he himself fought in) at the time he ascended the throne. The dudes gotta be pushing 90-95 years minimum.

100 years is nothing if you have the Grail wow.

I draw your attention to that well-known historical source, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think Gwindalor was confusing 40k editions and fantasy edition. 6th edition 40k only lasted 2 years IIRC and was quickly replaced by 7th. How that would be relevant to WHFB is anyones guess.

Anyway, new article up on Warcom about Bretonnian fluff. Not a lot of meat there, the only revelation (as far as I am aware) is that the game is apaprently specifically "set" in the year 2276 IC.... which makes me question if GW even knows what its doing at all. Louen Orcslayer ascended the throne in 2201 yet is supposed to be a prominent character in this game - the dude has to be a borderline corpse at this point having reigned for 75 years, and he had to have been old enough to declare an Errantry War (which he himself fought in) at the time he ascended the throne. The dudes gotta be pushing 90-95 years minimum.

Guy’s a Grail Knight and they are superhuman with extended lifespans, at ~100 (allowing time to become a Grail Knight) he may well be getting old for a GK, but probably still fighting fit.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Darkial wrote:
So new lore article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/27/old-world-almanack-discover-bretonnia-a-land-of-chivalry-and-honour/

I wasn't expecting anything else until next year. They also have set a dedicated website for it. Isn't it the only game that has that? It's there a page for 40k that I don't know about?

There's a page for every game

https://warhammer40000.com/
https://ageofsigmar.com/
https://warhammerunderworlds-online.com/
https://thehorusheresy.com/

Ohh I had no idea, I thought everything was ok the main page. Thanks!

We know that Louen is dead sometime before 2297, as thats the year that King Jules the Just (who had ruled for several years at that point) is slain and succeeded by Gaston de Beau Geste as part of the Affair of the False Grail, so Grail Vow or no hes got to be near the end of his extended life span. How old is the average Grail Knight anyway? I have to imagine that becoming a Grail Knight takes many years of questing and most don't succeed in becoming a Grail Knight until their 30s or 40s. That alone would push Louens age well over 100 years.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I have mixed feelings about all of this. At first I was very excited for Warhammer Fantasy Battles coming back, but as time has shown more I'm less excited.

So far we have seen the re-release of old models that were bad when they were released (Tomb King Skeletons).

And.

Faction books essential spread over several publications, to squeeze out more cash.

If anything I think ToW is looking to be GW testing the waters on just how far they can push things with their rabid fanbase.to see where the limit is on what they can get away with, because only a fool would think that GW will not charge a premium price for thise old Skeletons, and for the 2 books needed to get one army list. Maximum profit, for minimum effort.

I may just stick to 6th edition and use predominantly none GW models.

I'm not sure what to think either.

It's great to have a return to the WHFB setting again, seeing some of the old miniatures come back, some nice new miniatures, and even novels. Rule wise it seems like an updated WHFB style game too, which is good.

But to have it be a return to only part of the setting, with several armies left out beyond some basic rules just so you can play "for old times sake" and them having no plans to bring them back properly, some of the preview material from a while back having no current relevance and no indication of what's really going on with them, multiple books to get the complete set of rules for your army, and presumably those very old miniatures at modern pricing, it sort of takes away from the whole thing quite a lot.

I do hope that it does well, but at the moment the direction they've gone seems a little bit of a shame in some ways. It's a return of some WHFB things, rather than WHFB on the whole.

Well, they never actually promised us that all of WHFB was returning. In fact, they never really stated that WHFB was returning at all. Rather they used terms like "reinvention" and phrasing that indicated the idea that it was a new game in a new part of an old setting, rather than a direct continuation of WHFB proper. I also recall from the get-go arguing with various folks (yourself included) that based on the name of the game and the map provided in literally the second TOW article ever published, that the game would have a smaller scope and cut a number of factions in order to focus on a more limited roster with greater narrative depth (granted, in my mind High Elves and Tomb Kings were out, Daemons, Skaven, and Vampire Counts were in). If GWs approach to marketing and communication was better, we might not have needed to "read between the lines" as it were to have seen this coming and they would have bene more straightforward and explicit in telling us off the bat that this would not be WHFB as we knew it and that there would be different factions and things cut from it, etc. Still, the clues and indicators were all there from the start, and some of us quite rightly pointed them out, so it shouldn't come as a total surprise either though I can understand the disappointment (mainly because I have been frustrated as it seemed obvious to me but nobody would listen because GWs own communication never directly or explicitly stated as such and left it open to interpretation and everyone seemed to have blinders on to reality).

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
6th Ed lasted 6 years - 2000 - 2006. 50% longer than all of 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th. In that time they released an AB for almost every army (only Chaos Dwarfs and DoW missed out) and 2 for Dwarfs.

I have to wonder if part of that longevity was due to LotR sucking up design capacity, which precluded the standard 3-year churn.
It was a very stable edition, and I remember when 7th was under discussion a lot of sentiment was "It's not broke, so don't change it!" which GW did because churn was official policy.
That's another reason why I'm skeptical on this whole enterprise because GW has repeatedly tweaked games to the brink of excellence, only to throw them away and essentially start over. I'm not sure why I should expect anything different.

The "standard 3-year churn" wasn't a thing until around 7th or 8th ed 40k, circa 2015-2019 area. Before that, the editions for both 40k and fantasy varied between 4-5 years on average.

chaos0xomega wrote:
We know that Louen is dead sometime before 2297, as thats the year that King Jules the Just (who had ruled for several years at that point) is slain and succeeded by Gaston de Beau Geste as part of the Affair of the False Grail, so Grail Vow or no hes got to be near the end of his extended life span. How old is the average Grail Knight anyway? I have to imagine that becoming a Grail Knight takes many years of questing and most don't succeed in becoming a Grail Knight until their 30s or 40s. That alone would push Louens age well over 100 years.

Would be interesting, if the way they are doing this is periodically releasing Arcane Tomes that nudge the narrative along, if Louen Orc-Slayer dies as part of the narrative and you see the accession of Jules le Just before moving on to the Affair of the False Grail (which happens a little before the GWAC). Perhaps he could appear earlier in the story as a Duke?

Affair of the False Grail could be great fodder for variant armies and special characters.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I have mixed feelings about all of this. At first I was very excited for Warhammer Fantasy Battles coming back, but as time has shown more I'm less excited.

So far we have seen the re-release of old models that were bad when they were released (Tomb King Skeletons).

And.

Faction books essential spread over several publications, to squeeze out more cash.

If anything I think ToW is looking to be GW testing the waters on just how far they can push things with their rabid fanbase.to see where the limit is on what they can get away with, because only a fool would think that GW will not charge a premium price for thise old Skeletons, and for the 2 books needed to get one army list. Maximum profit, for minimum effort.

I may just stick to 6th edition and use predominantly none GW models.

I'm not sure what to think either.

It's great to have a return to the WHFB setting again, seeing some of the old miniatures come back, some nice new miniatures, and even novels. Rule wise it seems like an updated WHFB style game too, which is good.

But to have it be a return to only part of the setting, with several armies left out beyond some basic rules just so you can play "for old times sake" and them having no plans to bring them back properly, some of the preview material from a while back having no current relevance and no indication of what's really going on with them, multiple books to get the complete set of rules for your army, and presumably those very old miniatures at modern pricing, it sort of takes away from the whole thing quite a lot.

I do hope that it does well, but at the moment the direction they've gone seems a little bit of a shame in some ways. It's a return of some WHFB things, rather than WHFB on the whole.

Well, they never actually promised us that all of WHFB was returning. In fact, they never really stated that WHFB was returning at all. Rather they used terms like "reinvention" and phrasing that indicated the idea that it was a new game in a new part of an old setting, rather than a direct continuation of WHFB proper. I also recall from the get-go arguing with various folks (yourself included) that based on the name of the game and the map provided in literally the second TOW article ever published, that the game would have a smaller scope and cut a number of factions in order to focus on a more limited roster with greater narrative depth (granted, in my mind High Elves and Tomb Kings were out, Daemons, Skaven, and Vampire Counts were in). If GWs approach to marketing and communication was better, we might not have needed to "read between the lines" as it were to have seen this coming and they would have bene more straightforward and explicit in telling us off the bat that this would not be WHFB as we knew it and that there would be different factions and things cut from it, etc. Still, the clues and indicators were all there from the start, and some of us quite rightly pointed them out, so it shouldn't come as a total surprise either though I can understand the disappointment (mainly because I have been frustrated as it seemed obvious to me but nobody would listen because GWs own communication never directly or explicitly stated as such and left it open to interpretation and everyone seemed to have blinders on to reality).

Many were thinking that because the game was named "The Old World" it would be set in that area and focus on the armies there but I was saying that the term "Old World" quite often gets used by GW to refer to WHFB, rather than just the continent of The Old World. I wasn't one who thought the game would be smaller scale based on the naming.

While they did never fully say to what extent the game would bring back WHFB, what I was hoping for was a return to the full setting itself, even if not right away. Having it all at launch would have been too much obviously, but I had thought that even if the initial scale was relatively small or focused on certain parts, the other armies and areas of the setting would still be part of it with both the lore and game expanded over time to bring the rest in. But we've been told that those other things aren't part of the narrative and they don't have plans for them, unfortunately.

Really don't know what "clues and indicators were all there from the start" you mean though as re-reading some of the articles, beyond the use of the term "The Old World" (which as I said gets used to refer to the WHFB setting and not just that area of it, sometimes) there isn't really much that suggests it either way.