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.

Some base sizes from The Old World facebook account:

All Orc infantry 30s
The best units in the game (Goblins) 25s
Squigs Herds and Hoppers 25s
Giant Cave Squig character mounts are on 50s
Manglers Squigs on 50x75s
Trolls 40s

Standard ogres 40s
Gnoblars 25s
Ogre Lords 40s,
Butchers are 40s, but 50x100 with their cauldron,
Hunters are 50s,
Maneaters are 40s
Yheties are 40s
Gorgers are 50s.

Gors 25s
Bestigors 30s
Beastman Lords/Shamans 25s or 30s
All Minotaurs 50s
Ghorgon/Cygor 60x100

Brettonian Pegasi.
Mounts: Barded pegasus 40 x 60, Royal pegasus 50x50.
Pegasus knights 40x60s

Demigryphs 50 x 75s

Chaos Knights/Chosen Knights/Marauder Horsemen 30x60s
All Chaos warrior infantry 30s
Chaos Marauders 25s

All Dwarf infantry 25s
Shield Bearer Mount 50
Gyrocopters 50s
Bolt thrower/cannon/organ gun 50s
Flame Cannon/Grudgethrower 50x75s

Wild Riders/Sisters of the Thorn/Glade Riders 30x60
Dryads and Branchwraiths 30s
Treekin 50s
Treemen 50 x 50 mm (min), 50 x 75 mm (max)
Warhawk Riders 50s
Giant Eagles 50s
Forest Dragons 60x100

Ashitaka wrote:
Some base sizes from The Old World facebook account:

All Orc infantry 30s
The best units in the game (Goblins) 25s
Squigs Herds and Hoppers 25s
Giant Cave Squig character mounts are on 50s
Manglers Squigs on 50x75s
Trolls 40s

Standard ogres 40s
Gnoblars 25s
Ogre Lords 40s,
Butchers are 40s, but 50x100 with their cauldron,
Hunters are 50s,
Maneaters are 40s
Yheties are 40s
Gorgers are 50s.

Gors 25s
Bestigors 30s
Beastman Lords/Shamans 25s or 30s
All Minotaurs 50s
Ghorgon/Cygor 60x100

Brettonian Pegasi.
Mounts: Barded pegasus 40 x 60, Royal pegasus 50x50.
Pegasus knights 40x60s

Demigryphs 50 x 75s

Chaos Knights/Chosen Knights/Marauder Horsemen 30x60s
All Chaos warrior infantry 30s
Chaos Marauders 25s

All Dwarf infantry 25s
Shield Bearer Mount 50
Gyrocopters 50s
Bolt thrower/cannon/organ gun 50s
Flame Cannon/Grudgethrower 50x75s

Wild Riders/Sisters of the Thorn/Glade Riders 30x60
Dryads and Branchwraiths 30s
Treekin 50s
Treemen 50 x 50 mm (min), 50 x 75 mm (max)
Warhawk Riders 50s
Giant Eagles 50s
Forest Dragons 60x100

About what I expected. Can't say I'm thrilled at chaos warriors etc on 30mm, I'm sure they rank up better but I'd rather not need another base size not commonly available (other than the overpriced €50 base set of them from GW direct).

A little bit surprised at trolls being 40mm, I assume they will re-release all the old but smaller metal ones. I'd honestly expected them to have gone to 50mm. I'll probably go up to 50mm for them so I can field my whole collection easily.

Goblins on 25s are going to look tiny, unless we are only going to see hill goblins back and night goblins are gone. (Though I'd love for the Brian Nelson plastics to return in place of the newer night goblins )

The scenario is not new, it already existed in the 8th edition xD

War machines are on square bases? And what are Chosen knights?

Chosen knights were an upgrade to regular chaos knights in some editions, later editions basically made knights chosen by default and git rid of the "lesser" knights that were a closer equivalent to warriors.

 Mallo wrote:
About what I expected. Can't say I'm thrilled at chaos warriors etc on 30mm, I'm sure they rank up better but I'd rather not need another base size not commonly available (other than the overpriced €50 base set of them from GW direct).

30mm is a common size and plastic bases that size are already sold for 10+ years
just not marketed to warhammer players


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
War machines are on square bases?

most of them, some on rectangular bases

Dysartes wrote:

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"...

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

Less lethal is STILL lethal. Same argument for those of us, including All-Seeing Skink's group, who don't want random charges at all.





I did note that the base chart neglected Ungors completely and left Gors on the same size squares they were in previous editions. So the upgrade wasn't universal across the board. I'm giddy thinking about all the people that rebased months ago...

If Gors are on 25's then Ungors will be too since that is the minimum basesize. Unless you are trying to imply that people rebased Gors to 30s and you are happy that they were wrong?

In either case, that is a pretty pathetic thing to be 'giddy' about.

I'm sure 3d print files for nase extenders are doing the rounds already

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I liked step up, and I fear this will revert to Cavalry Hammer without it.

All step up did was throw tactics out the window. If I out-maneuver you, that should count for something.

I'd say budget stubborn had more to do with that than step-up.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/04/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-painting-the-miniatures/

A little bit of info on the painting of the bretonnians

They discuss future proofing, to me suggesting that they worked on the armies knowing some of this would get replaced in time.

A nice article, if a little bit light. Would be nice to have seen and heard more of these kind of things as they had been working on the game as a whole.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I liked step up, and I fear this will revert to Cavalry Hammer without it.

All step up did was throw tactics out the window. If I out-maneuver you, that should count for something.

I'd say budget stubborn had more to do with that than step-up.

Don't remind me of the skavenslave bus >.>

 Mallo wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/04/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-painting-the-miniatures/

A little bit of info on the painting of the bretonnians

They discuss future proofing, to me suggesting that they worked on the armies knowing some of this would get replaced in time.

A nice article, if a little bit light. Would be nice to have seen and heard more of these kind of things as they had been working on the game as a whole.

To me it sounds like what they meant was more painting miniatures in a way that isn't going to become obviously outdated after a while, like right before that part they say it used to be about using bright colours that would stand out in photos rather than focusing on detail. That style of painting is less relevant now and miniatures painted with that in mind are going to look a bit different.

Some of those base sizes feel weird to me. Dryads, for example, don't exactly overflow 25mm rounds, let alone squares. So a 30mm base seems unnecessary, and skews the look of the army a bit.

30x60 makes sense for chaos knights (those kits swamped the standard cav bases and bits knocked together in ranks), but the marauder horsemen were fine.

As someone with a big beasts of chaos army, definitely don't like bestigors on 30s and characters being variable. They either won't rank properly in bestigors or won't rank in beast herds. Pick a base size and stick with it.

Well I would had been interested why TK Skeletons weren't repainted in similar fashion.

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well I would had been interested why TK Skeletons weren't repainted in similar fashion.

There's a limit to how much polish you can put on a turd. I think they decided to leave it to make the characters 'pop' more.

Hopefully because the kit is soon to be replaced!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well I would had been interested why TK Skeletons weren't repainted in similar fashion.

There's a limit to how much polish you can put on a turd.

Exalted.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Hopefully because the kit is soon to be replaced!

Well that would be kick in the groin!


Atleast, if they do that, they wait 2+ years so everyone just forget about spending on big starter army.

I think realistically we see all 9 factions released + Kislev + Cathay + whatever other new units are coming (border prince bombards and brigands for example) before gw starts going back and doing resculpts of older kits. I would imagine we are 3+ years out from that happening unless demand grossly outstrips projections and the molds run out their useful life much earlier than planned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, didn't see it mentioned, but shops are starting to report bigly cuts to their order allocations. FOMO seems to be in rare form for the release.

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

Having a discerning opinion does not equal 'might as well shut down all discussion'. Your comment is reductive, contributes nothing, and doesn't serve as any kind of counter argument.

SU-152 wrote:
]Premeasurement is a must, so random charges "have to be" in (how would you do it otherwise?).

Random charges do not have to be in, and were one of the many reasons I despised 8th edition - just because it's less random than it was doesn't make it acceptable. Other games have both premeasuring and fixed charge distances and manage just fine. Random charge distances belong only to things that should be that random; Chaos Spawn, Pump Wagons, and the like.

chaos0xomega wrote:
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.

Nothing is so drastically different about ToW, gameplay wise, as to distinguish it more than a new edition would. It's 9th edition in all but name; if they'd called it that, no one would have been saying 'this is a totally new game, not WHFB!'. Just because GW says it's 'not WHFB' doesn't classify it as an entirely new creative endeavour. In other words...

ccs wrote:
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.

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.

...precisely all of this.

chaos0xomega wrote:
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.

And yet you have to go fairly far back to find an edition launch that had less to offer, within itself, than TOW. As I've said already, I wasn't expecting every army to get an entire range of new kits right away, and knew that some old models would be brought back (which is a good thing as far as Bretonnians are concerned). But managing to create as much for just two armies as previous starter boxes have was the bare minimum, and the old models should have come at a major discount (not just the pittance versus their last known RRP that we got) to reflect their age and relative quality.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep calling this a low effort cashgrab yet have nothing to back that up other than breathless screamy nonsense.

There's just no need for rudeness like that. I'll reiterate: this release has less to offer than previous launches, either of core games or specialist ones, yet has no excuses for it given the time they've had and the assets available.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

No, I havn't and I'm sure you know better - but it's not the point. This is hardly the first and only time GW have produced big expensive books for a system release - Horus Heresy even followed a similar pattern of core rulebook+two faction books. So why is it that TOW in particular gets to use their development time as an excuse for the lack of overall substance? How did HH (also a specialist game) manage to put out more models with (presumably) a similar development time and the exact same number of books? And, if having those three big, expensive books ate so much of the four years that everything else has suffered, maybe they shouldn't have had that many big expensive books in the first place!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

Horus Heresy is ten thousand years prior to 40k, and represents armies with clear, distinct and significant differences in their operation and equipment from 40k's, not to mention everything else (rising empire rather than crumbling ruin of one, beings as powerful as the Emperor and Primarchs present rather than not, semi-enlightened progressive society rather than zealous fascist regressive one, etc). A hundred years or so in WHFB's timeline does not come close to the same level of difference, and it's disingenuous to suggest it is.

Tyel wrote:
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.

Absolutely this, yes. I'd go one step further and suggest that the FoF/RH books don't even need to exist, and army lists could easily have been included in the rulebook itself (again, like other games seem to manage to do). If that makes the rulebook too big, then perhaps it's too damn bloated in the first place.
But even so, to have the cheek to split up the rules the way they have in order to maximise profit but not to provide much alongside them is why it comes across as a cash grab rather than a passion project that some are claiming.

The fact that TOW exists at all does not automatically mean it has been handled in a way that is reverent or even competent, and what we have seen of the contents of the release suggests the opposite; that time was spent putting together big, expensive rulebooks to cash in on but not on making a decent opening model range or, from what we've been able to gather, a particularly solid ruleset that avoids 'standard GW' rules writing pitfalls (it's already fallen into several).

It would be nice if, for once, GW were held to some actual standards; particularly when it comes to re-releasing a once beloved game. And given how WHFB was treated at the end, a lot more than what TOW is should be needed to win people back, not just throwing a new expensive hat on it and expecting hundreds of pounds for the privelege.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

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

Having a discerning opinion does not equal 'might as well shut down all discussion'. Your comment is reductive, contributes nothing, and doesn't serve as any kind of counter argument.

What do you want? You gave an opinion, it doesn't need or require a rebuttal. Contrarily, you're more than happy to aimlessly argue with people.

My stance was that you clearly dislike the entire game, products, marketing and company ethos behind it. Am.i wrong? If not, what is there to "counter argue" if you do not wish to have your mind changed.

I am pretty sure that if GW were not being held to any standard ls the majority of this discussion thread wouldn't exist.

Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

Grail Seeker wrote:
If Gors are on 25's then Ungors will be too since that is the minimum basesize. Unless you are trying to imply that people rebased Gors to 30s and you are happy that they were wrong?

In either case, that is a pretty pathetic thing to be 'giddy' about.

Pathetic? ANY time someone can't show a little bit of patience to wait to see how something might actually function before dumping massive time, effort, and money into modifying everything they own and have it backfire to the point they have to do it all over again is FAR more pathetic than finding it funny that it blew up in their face. ESPECIALLY since base extenders are a thing.

I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for.

If you don't want to play TOW, then don't play it. GW aren't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy the minis or play the game.

I for one will be buying the TK box because I want a classic looking TK army without having to pay the ridiculous eBay prices. Goofy bobblehead skeletons and all.

And people complaining about random-but-not-really-that-random charges is silly. If you want every single thing in your game to be predetermined and assured then you probably want to try some games that aren't wholly reliant on dice.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

really? Do you know anything we don't or how are you counting those?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

well, TOW is a new Edition of Warhammer Fantasy the very same way 10th 40k is a new Edition
despite 10th Edition has different rules, different setting, different teams and just some overlaps in naming

either call both a new game or both a new edition

I don't know if this would be helpful but here is the Base Sizes that were posted today
Kingdom of Bretonnia

Tomb Kings of Khemri

Ogres

High Elf

Lizardmen


Vampire Counts Legacy List


Dwarfen Mountain Holds (Beards mandatory for entry)


Skaven Legacy List (Cheese board size not included)


Orks And Goblins


Wood Elf Realms


The Empire of Man (For Sigmar? Nah, for Squigmar!)


Warriors of Chaos (BOO HISS)

 Mallo wrote:

Goblins on 25s are going to look tiny, unless we are only going to see hill goblins back and night goblins are gone. (Though I'd love for the Brian Nelson plastics to return in place of the newer night goblins )

This was my issue with the rebasing from the start. Goblins, dwarfs, and most human-sized models look ridiculous on ranked 25mm bases.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for..

There's a common trend on the internet to see contradictory complaints and assume they're all coming from the one source. You may find it less confusing if you assume that the people who wanted WHFB back as-is and the people who didn't want WHFB back as-is are not actually the same people.

 insaniak wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for..

There's a common trend on the internet to see contradictory complaints and assume they're all coming from the one source. You may find it less confusing if you assume that the people who wanted WHFB back as-is and the people who didn't want WHFB back as-is are not actually the same people.

Unfortunately I know some people that have done literally as I described

The bulk of my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular here, it was more me ranting to whoever might be willing to listen. I'll go back to my corner now

Well I am actually lot less surprised how some are based (if the leaks are true).

Only things that surprised were:
- Gors (Orcs went 30mm but these not)
- Trolls

And Warmachines with bases is actually good thing in my books.