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.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
it seems top quality: well thought rules with the best from each edition (something that they should have done with Legions Imperialis but they didn't)

Random charges and combat resolution not contributing towards actually breaking a unit are hardly what I'd call 'the best from each edition'. And this is GW we're talking about; 'well thought-out rules' is antithesis to them.

Premeasurement is a must, so random charges "have to be" in (how would you do it otherwise?).

Resolution contributes to enemy fall back, like Warmaster, so brilliant.

Well.. there are actually quite a few games out there that have pre-measurement and fixed charge distances, seems to work, trick is a decent reaction mechanic and for most units of the same general type to have the same charge distance across all factions

drbored wrote:
You all can speculate all you want about the whos and whats and whys and wherefores, but ultimately we wont know anything for certain until someone from the design team retires and does his tell-all autobiography "How I Designed a Bone Dragon and Made a Bunch of Nerds Waste a Lot of Time Online."

Have an exalt!

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:


No step up rule? Greatswords remain on the shelf :( No step up rule? Your block of 20 basic infantry are nothing more than wound counters :(

There have been seven editions of Warhammer Fantasy Battles without the step up rule and guess what: People played lots of non-cavalry there. Your greatsword units are still useful because of their S+2 and AP-2. I'm quite sure they'll still strike first when charging (because that was the rule in the past: https://6th.whfb.app/weapons/strikes-last), so instead of your greatsword units being an impossible-to-deal-with block of pain nobody dares to charge, you have to take the charge with a unit that is able to hold ground and then you shred your enemy to pieces with your flanking greatsword units.

That's the way it was in all editions before 8th edition, you know, the editions where there wasn't a mass exodus to Warmachine.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Ya I remember going from 7th to 8th and the addition of step up just...ruined a lot of units. High initiative and ASF was meaningless if they just had a horde and could grind you out. Your unit either needed to be super high output, or switch to horde/grind out style itself to stay relevant.

And uh, we know exactly what happened. Everything turned into mega units, that just took as many buffs as possible to outlast and outdamage other mega units. Chariots, cavalry and most monsters completely disappeared. It was mega unit vs mega unit, with maybe a mega spell to jank them for good measure (hello flying vamp with power scroll to blast purple sun across an entire army)

Step up does not make mega units. Horde and support attacks make mega units. Step up means that your basic block of poor guys will always make their 5 attacks back. You see 5 attacks are not 30 attacks from 8th edition. 5 < 30? You get it? Initiative still matters in all fights where there are no extra ranks to make step up possibile.

No step up rule? Greatswords remain on the shelf :( No step up rule? Your block of 20 basic infantry are nothing more than wound counters :(

It certainly does help make mega units. It might mean those 5 goobers get their 5 attacks. It also means if you make your facing 7 wide on a unit of wych elves you get 21 attacks. Or slayers, or whatever on the larger bases like saurus or chaos warriors. If you can always get output out of a unit, why not make it a high value unit? It's not full 8th, but it incentivizes wider fronts and larger units to maintain output through losses.

Also, as nalim points out, charging with initiative bonus is what makes glass hammer units attractive without step up. Great weapon units were favoured for a reason in 7th.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting.

Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction. Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Point being, this is something new, and they are launching a whole new product range (some of which is long OOP products) to get this up and running. Comparing it to a new edition launch is just wrong - when a new edition launch comes, there is always a backlog of what, a couple thousand SKUs of product(?) available for that game. How many TOW SKUs are available today? Zero? Mhm. As it stands, the launch wave for TOW is more new SKUs than the last edition of 40k or AoS had.

Dudeface wrote:
Why is anyone arguing? MalusCalibur clearly detests the release, rules, models, everything you possibly can, so why debate further?

If we ignored everyone that checked those boxes, there wouldn't be much discussion on dakka at all.

drbored wrote:

There's two sides to this coin. GW has been cagey from the beginning, trying to stamp on over-high expectations by clarifying that models will be coming out in resin, that old models will be coming back, that they'll be focusing on a specific part of the world and specific factions, but careful under-hyping always gets drowned out by the wish-listing of the masses.

Ain't that the truth. I've been watching the slow comedown on facebook and reddit as the last couple days worth of articles have rolled out and slowly confirmed many of the predictions I've been making, and people are realizing that things like Skaven and VC are not just around the corner or a couple years out and that their expectations were off-base, etc. I'm seeing people revisit older articles and go "hey, wait a minute - when they said xyz you mean they really meant they weren't going to do this or that?? WTF?". Hell, I'm still seeing people post who were completely unaware that there were non-core legacy factions, etc. who are raging out about not getting what they thought they were getting and the like. It would be hilarious if it wasn't a little sad. All the info was there, very few read it, and fewer still understood it.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Also with step up people would be paying arm and teeth for initiave's, strike first etc only for it to be 100% useless...

Thats not entirely true, higher initiative means that you are situationally capable of wiping units entirely even before they have the opporunity to step up and counterattack. I wouldn't anticipate that being relevant beyond the late stages of a game, but its still something. Likewise, depending on what you're fighting, striking first would allow you to still potentially reduce the number of attacks that could be made against your own unit by causing enough casualties before your opponent has the opportunity to make their attacks.

Personally, I think neither approach is really the right one. No step up means that many units basically end up just being a block of wound counters that do nothing because they get hit before they can attack and suffer casualties that cancels out their ability to attack. Not fun and it results in one-sided drawn out combats. Yes step up lessens the importance of higher initiative, as striking first doesnt immediately benefit you and really only becomes a consideration with superelite murderballs/deathstars that can throw out an impossible number of attacks to wipe even the largest bricks out in a single combat. The right approach seems to be an in-between where step up exists, but the models "stepping up" can only make supporting attacks (they only get one attack regardless of how many are listed in their profile) at -1 to hit. In this case initiative still matters, but larger units aren't turned into a brick of wound counters either.

TOW really seems to be pushing wide vs deep, which is actually quite a big change from previous editions and somewhat mitigates lack of step up.

1) ‘bus’ formation is essentially banned (other than for manoeuvre) given you get no rank bonus if you have more ranks than files.
2) every model in the front rank gets to attack, regardless of the frontage of the enemy unit (albeit supporting attack only if not in btb)

IMO this should push actual melee units into ranks of 6-7+
Particularly given the general reduction in AP, killing that number of something that actually wants to be in melee is relatively difficult.

And archers going wide are pretty much always going to get a chunk of attacks back. E.g. dwarfs with Xbows and GW’s in 10x1 are going to get a good load of high S decent AP attacks back regardless.

True... maybe. Every edition of WHFB I can recall (which... really was just 6th through 8th) GW introduced rules that were directly intended to create incentive to fielding units in specific formations or ways... but then there were always rules that had the unintended consequence of making you *not* want to actually do that and which ended up being primary shapers of the meta which resulted in the game playing in a way that was probably different from what was actually intended as a result. Same is true of 40k and other GW games as well. We'll see how the TOW meta ends up shaping out. If GW did its job correctly, then yes - you're right, but all to often I find that once in the hands of the broader community the game gets pushed in directions that the designers both never intended and never predicted.

Feel like people have bad memories here and don’t actually read the info put out.

Earlier people were talking about what was in the Arcane Journal vs the other books.

Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes have
“Each army gets an introduction, a gallery of miniatures, a grand army composition list, a complete set of unit profiles (so you’ll have no need for a separate army book to play), special rules, magic items, and unique spells.”

Journal has
“special characters, magic items, spells, a historical scenario, and thematic Armies of Infamy which let you select armies of very different compositions.”
Aka extra stuff.

SU-152 wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
it seems top quality: well thought rules with the best from each edition (something that they should have done with Legions Imperialis but they didn't)

Random charges and combat resolution not contributing towards actually breaking a unit are hardly what I'd call 'the best from each edition'. And this is GW we're talking about; 'well thought-out rules' is antithesis to them.

Premeasurement is a must, so random charges "have to be" in (how would you do it otherwise?).

Resolution contributes to enemy fall back, like Warmaster, so brilliant.

leopard wrote:
Well.. there are actually quite a few games out there that have pre-measurement and fixed charge distances, seems to work, trick is a decent reaction mechanic and for most units of the same general type to have the same charge distance across all factions

I imagine something with different stances, one of which allows a counter charge, another one allow bracing for a charge. It was always a bit stupid a unit that clearly specialised in charging would just stand there waiting to be charged because they could only act in their own turn.

Random charge distances I think will stop TOW ever being taken up by my group, as random charge distances were a big reason WHFB fell out of fashion in the first place. Getting the charge is too important, and after a few failed short distance charges and a few successful absurdly long ranged charges that decided the outcome of games, people started moving away from WHFB.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
Not if you actually assess what four years has got you. Never mind what other companies or even other GW games have managed, this is poor when compared just with older edition releases for WHFB - just look at Battle for Skull Pass or Island of Blood.

Old WHFB was a core game, alongside 40k. This is a specialist game, and is getting a massive amount of attention and effort. You clearly don't know the first thing about how rulebooks are produced and the effort and time that goes into them.

You keep calling this a low effort cashgrab yet have nothing to back that up other than breathless screamy nonsense.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, I think its clear that MalusCalibur has never worked on any sort of creative endeavor or long term project bringing a product to market.

Yeah, no kidding. I don't think he has the slightest clue how long it takes to make a book like this.

I've worked on a few. These are not speedily made products.

Always strikes last is still a USR right and I think great weapons grant this no? I’m hoping greatswords are still useful because not only do I have like 60 of them, they are also painted beautifully.

The lack of step up makes the dichotomy between elite and chaff even greater, because low I Ld regiments will be pretty useless whether they charge or not.

They will be more likely to be run down due to the punishing Ld rules and more likely to lose the combat due to the initiative and single rank attack rules.

Really not seeing anything to offset this.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Always strikes last is still a USR right and I think great weapons grant this no? I’m hoping greatswords are still useful because not only do I have like 60 of them, they are also painted beautifully.

Or great weapons could go back to being a choice rather than the de-facto “why take anything else” selection they were in the latter days of whfb.

Besides, ASL could just be “strikes at -3 initiative and never gets initiative bonuses for charging” or something like that.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting.

Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction.

Hmm. Let's see about that:
●Laundry list of old familiar rules, some with new tweaks
●some new rules
● IGOUGO d6 based system
●Laundry list of familiar units returning
●a handful of new units for each supported force
●a Laundry list of units not returning
*but a new title on the covers of the books/boxes!

Other than the new title?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, gaks like a duck.... Surprise, it's a duck!
Or in this case just WHFB 9th ed with a different title

chaos0omega wrote:

Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Sorry, the setting is still the Old World. The lore just cuts off at a certain date.
Otherwise it's like every other edition. Lore up through that point stands/gets revised/gets added to. New details of the past & present are provided.
And this means.... very little when it comes time to putting models on the table.

As for the setting being different based on some models not being allowed? BS.
I started WHFB in 3e. There are models/units I cannot use in later editions. There are models/units in later editions that I cannot use in earlier editions. And yet the setting is still the Old World.
Same as over in 40k. There's plenty of stuff from the past 10 years alone that do not port into, say. 40k 2e. And 40k is still 40k setting wise.

ccs wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting.

Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction.

Hmm. Let's see about that:
●Laundry list of old familiar rules, some with new tweaks
●some new rules
● IGOUGO d6 based system
●Laundry list of familiar units returning
●a handful of new units for each supported force
●a Laundry list of units not returning
*but a new title on the covers of the books/boxes!

Other than the new title?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, gaks like a duck.... Surprise, it's a duck!
Or in this case just WHFB 9th ed with a different title

chaos0omega wrote:

Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Sorry, the setting is still the Old World. The lore just cuts off at a certain date.
Otherwise it's like every other edition. Lore up through that point stands/gets revised/gets added to. New details of the past & present are provided.
And this means.... very little when it comes time to putting models on the table.

As for the setting being different based on some models not being allowed? BS.
I started WHFB in 3e. There are models/units I cannot use in later editions. There are models/units in later editions that I cannot use in earlier editions. And yet the setting is still the Old World.
Same as over in 40k. There's plenty of stuff from the past 10 years alone that do not port into, say. 40k 2e. And 40k is still 40k setting wise.

Malus might've been wrong on a lot, but this time he's right. Old World has more in common with WHFB 6e-8e than 40k 10e has in common with 40k 7e, yet we would still call 40k 'the same game'. I watched the Battle Report - this is classic WHFB.

And yes, it's the same setting. Just because it's a couple centuries earlier doesn't change that. My D&D campaigns have spanned over a thousand years in the same world; I dare you to tell me they're not the same setting.

As far as the setting goes, now you're just splitting hairs.

Horus Heresy is the "same setting" as 40k, but calling them the same is clearly false. Same applies here.

If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Random charge distances I think will stop TOW ever being taken up by my group, as random charge distances were a big reason WHFB fell out of fashion in the first place. Getting the charge is too important, and after a few failed short distance charges and a few successful absurdly long ranged charges that decided the outcome of games, people started moving away from WHFB.

While charges are random, they're not that random - and the fact you can pre-measure helps you judge the risk on a given charge. In case you didn't read it (or forgot this bit) to quote the article on movement:

To establish the range of their charge, units roll two dice, pick the highest score from the two and add it to their Movement characteristic.

Rolling two and dropping the lowest means the average of those two dice is something like 4-4.5, off the top of my head, and adding it to your Movement stat means you've got a guaranteed minimum range - chuffing up a 3" charge with infantry by rolling snake eyes is no longer possible! It does make a 10" charge with M4 infantry a gamble, but you wouldn't even have the chance of achieving that back when a charge was just "double your Movement"...

Agreed, charges are random but an entire order of magnitude less so than 8th.

We also don't have all the rules yet so we don't know how important it is to get the actual charge. Combats seem to last longer on average so it is probably a good idea to prepare for more drawn out combats and not everything being decided on the charge anyway. With that mindset in listbuilding and playing in combination with the new rules it is probably not too bad to miss a charge every now and then. It might suck and turn an advantage into a disadvantage when you roll all ones on the charge but it alone probably won't decide the entire game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

Do we have any infos yet on the return of Warhammer Fantasy Terrain like the Manor etc?

Actuve wrote:
Earlier people were talking about what was in the Arcane Journal vs the other books.

Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes have
“Each army gets an introduction, a gallery of miniatures, a grand army composition list, a complete set of unit profiles (so you’ll have no need for a separate army book to play), special rules, magic items, and unique spells.”

Journal has
“special characters, magic items, spells, a historical scenario, and thematic Armies of Infamy which let you select armies of very different compositions.”
Aka extra stuff.

Yes. But this is what feels like a cash grab. There's no obvious reason why the content of the Journals couldn't be in Ravening Hordes etc. If the line becomes "but the book would be too big" then maybe this wasn't the best way of doing it. Walking into a store and being told "you want to play Brets? You always liked the Green Knight back in the day? You should buy a rulebook, the Forces of Fantasy (don't worry if you don't care about the other factions) and the Journal. What's that? Yes, nearly £90. Before you've bought any models. Wait, come back..."

Supplementary stuff later is fine (up to a certain price point). You've had your Brets for a year or two - now here's some new rules/items/special characters/scenarios to shake things up. Having it on the day of release feels like day 1 DLC because it is day 1 DLC. This could have been in the first product, but has been hived off to make more money. It winds people up for much the same reason.

I think the debate on whether TOW is WHFB 9th edition or not is semantic rather than fundamental. Horus Heresy 1.0 for instance had far more in common with 40k 3rd-7th than 40k 8th/9th/10th did. So if you were to say HH was different from say 40k 7th but 8th was the same, I feel you are being persuaded purely by the names used rather than any underlying logic. Today HH and 40k have evolved in fundamentally different ways and so I think are very different games. I don't think this was true 10 years back.

Some things in TOW are going to be different (magic being the obvious one) - but the majority feels like a mash up of 25ish years of WHFB. This is sort of why you can say "if the rules are like this, the meta is likely to evolve like that". But - admittedly - that was when GW didn't care about balance at all. A army book was released, and if it was completely broken, oh well, maybe there will be an even more broken one in a year's time. If it sucked, bad luck, you are going to be weak for 4-10 years. That may not happen this time. If we get a meta defined by Hero Hammer, Cavalry Hammer, 50 strong great weapon death stars, High Elves, High Elves and High Elves etc etc they will hopefully change the points/rules accordingly.

 Geifer wrote:
I don't think most models will go full jigsaw, however, because at least nominally models need to fit into regimental formations or in base contact with them, and that naturally keeps the more exotic poses in check that we get in AoS which require the 3D puzzle to avoid undercuts.
.

All miniatures, no matter their pose go "full jigsaw" these days, some are merely more extreme in it than others. (The new way of doing things is ironically sometimes claimed to be "easier" when the old way you didn't need instructions or have to look for numbers on the sprue) The 2017 Rubric Marines (Whose designers having seen the Primaris even went back and added a mm or two) aren't like this though which implies to me that it is to some extent a choice (Having a computer black box do things will maybe produce silly things sometimes) to make third party upgrade kits much less feasible. Some people claim the height (Ie the extreme addition of 1 or 2 mm of the legs and tordo) or pose of the Primaris kits explains this. I don't know what Harlequin posed Primaris marines they've been looking at but their poses are the same as the old ones, or I should say their legs are the same, slightly too far apart both feet on the ground facing the same direction.

If something as basic as a Space Marine today is a jigsaw I don't think anything else can escape.

Tyel wrote:

Actuve wrote:
Earlier people were talking about what was in the Arcane Journal vs the other books.

Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes have
“Each army gets an introduction, a gallery of miniatures, a grand army composition list, a complete set of unit profiles (so you’ll have no need for a separate army book to play), special rules, magic items, and unique spells.”

Journal has
“special characters, magic items, spells, a historical scenario, and thematic Armies of Infamy which let you select armies of very different compositions.”
Aka extra stuff.

Yes. But this is what feels like a cash grab. There's no obvious reason why the content of the Journals couldn't be in Ravening Hordes etc. If the line becomes "but the book would be too big" then maybe this wasn't the best way of doing it. Walking into a store and being told "you want to play Brets? You always liked the Green Knight back in the day? You should buy a rulebook, the Forces of Fantasy (don't worry if you don't care about the other factions) and the Journal. What's that? Yes, nearly £90. Before you've bought any models. Wait, come back..."

Supplementary stuff later is fine (up to a certain price point). You've had your Brets for a year or two - now here's some new rules/items/special characters/scenarios to shake things up. Having it on the day of release feels like day 1 DLC because it is day 1 DLC. This could have been in the first product, but has been hived off to make more money. It winds people up for much the same reason.

Instead of Arcane Journals, I'd rather have seen expansions printed for FoF and for RH over time that added something for each faction at the same time, and have their release decoupled from the timing of model releases.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

A sensible post here. At last some logic.

ToW is Warhammer FB, the same as LI is Epic. GW decided, for some marketing reason, to name them differently and "say" that those are new games, which they clearly aren't (for gosh sake, it's the same mechanics, style, design...).

 Astmeister wrote:
Do we have any infos yet on the return of Warhammer Fantasy Terrain like the Manor etc?

As far as I'm aware GW has said nothing about the return of terrain kits.

SU-152 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

A sensible post here. At last some logic.

ToW is Warhammer FB, the same as LI is Epic. GW decided, for some marketing reason, to name them differently and "say" that those are new games, which they clearly aren't (for gosh sake, it's the same mechanics, style, design...).

Them naming it different is pretty irrelevant. When it's an entirely different team making their own game years after the original version was discontinued, establishing their own background and lore for the setting of the game to take place within, and it wasn't just as simple as taking stuff from before and making a few changes but instead they've had to come up with their own ideas about just what the fundamentals of armies are and how to adjust and interpret things both lore, miniature, rulewise etc, it's not just WHF.

Neither is stuff like Legions Imperialis or Necromunda the same as the previous games just because they're based on the original and have similarities. They retain some core elements, but it's it's a re-imagining to the extent of a new game.

And I'm sure you call warhammer 40k 9th ed totally new game to 3rd ed as well

and the very same for 40k, BloodBowl and even AoS

just that marketing decided that some are better released as new games, while others are released as new edition and this s the only difference

It's funny how movie and video game industries try to ride their existing titles so much that they'll literally name a new and completely different movie/game the same name as a previous one (not even a number next to it).

Games Workshop on the other hand make sure they rename games, and give units such whacky names that your average person will never find their products in an unrelated google search.

I can kind of appreciate it for WHFB and Epic though. Other companies have started using "Epic" as a moniker for small scale games, and GW decided to rebrand themselves as Warhammer so "Warhammer Fantasy" isn't as distinctive as it might have been previously.