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.

So does anyone actually know anything about the design choices concerning Chaos dwarfs as that image shows them with a very tiny nose for some reason.. or is that image taken from something else? (As I do know there's some other manufacturers who made chaos dwarfs with tiny noses and all)

Can't find anything official on their appearance.. other than that..

MaxT wrote:
I think there needs to be a pinned thread where all it says is “you’re not getting anything else for legacy factions, deal with it, get over it”.

GW literally couldn’t have been any clearer.

To be fair - they also (stupidly) said that they would not be part of the ongoing narrative - which made no sense and of course they are.

I have a feeling where there's demand, 3d sculptors will step up to provide models. They seem to be getting wiser about the business. And then of course most of the Legacy armies have better model support than the supported armies, you just need to go on Amazon and buy your own square bases.

Just reading the Vamps - some interesting stuff - magic is more for Necromancers. List seems very comprehenisve and comparable to the current army lists for the "supported factions"

Really like the Daemonic alignment rules

Or more likely, depending on how Old World pans out, those armies will get a properly release as an expansion in 2 or 3 years.

The potential of more money tends to alter plans as things go along.

The first FAQ for the Rulebook is also out.

It's interesting in the article they are very clear the armies are not for Matched Play, will not be supported going forwards and are just a nod to those with existing collections. In the same article they go through how these armies are full armies with enhancements, spells and such, and that they have been carefully play tested and balanced. Seems like GW are going for a bit of a have your cake and eat it on the one hand saying don't expect anything from these armies and the other saying but they do have full and reasonable rules.

At the moment it's clear they don't want to confuse the AoS and TOW factions, much in the same way GW has divorced 30K units from 40K units. It could be confusing to have two Saurus Warriors on the store nice and shiny new for AoS and legacy sculpts for TOW. However GW has just announced 30K Leman Russ tanks which will sit on the store alongside 40K ones. It might hint that in the future once TOW is established (and if successful) they might have the confidence to have Saurus Warriors (Seraphon) and Saurus Warriors (Lizardmen) allowing these factions to be added.

MaxT wrote:
I think there needs to be a pinned thread where all it says is “you’re not getting anything else for legacy factions, deal with it, get over it”.

GW literally couldn’t have been any clearer.

GW also couldn't have been any clearer that WFB was dead until it wasn't.

Do you think warpstpne weapons works for the halberss of stormvermin?

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Or more likely, depending on how Old World pans out, those armies will get a properly release as an expansion in 2 or 3 years.

The potential of more money tends to alter plans as things go along.

They have their long term plans already mapped out and their contingencies in place and their project backlog ordered out for the next 3 years at least, a project plan through 5 years, and a long term roadmap for 10 years.

They didn't arbitrarily cut those factions, they aren't making it up as they go, nor are they arbitrarily going to decide to fly by the seat of their pants and restore them to the game. Thats not how major publicly traded corporations operate and its certainly not how GW operates, this is not a mickey mouse operation where they just jump into things without forethought and do whatever strikes them as a good idea in the moment. That is not how successful businesses (like GW) operate. They already did the analysis, determined their best, worst, and most likely case scenarios, and planned out their path forward accordingly. They communicated clear intent that the factions are cut because they don't fit in their plans at all, regardless of success factors, for the forseeable future (which is usually analyzed and assessed over 3, 5, and 10 year horizons).

If they were to change their mind, that "proper release as an expansion" is more like 10 years out, not 2 to 3.

Tallonian4th wrote:
It's interesting in the article they are very clear the armies are not for Matched Play, will not be supported going forwards and are just a nod to those with existing collections. In the same article they go through how these armies are full armies with enhancements, spells and such, and that they have been carefully play tested and balanced. Seems like GW are going for a bit of a have your cake and eat it on the one hand saying don't expect anything from these armies and the other saying but they do have full and reasonable rules.

Tallonian4th wrote:
It's interesting in the article they are very clear the armies are not for Matched Play, will not be supported going forwards and are just a nod to those with existing collections. In the same article they go through how these armies are full armies with enhancements, spells and such, and that they have been carefully play tested and balanced. Seems like GW are going for a bit of a have your cake and eat it on the one hand saying don't expect anything from these armies and the other saying but they do have full and reasonable rules.
At the moment it's clear they don't want to confuse the AoS and TOW factions, much in the same way GW has divorced 30K units from 40K units. It could be confusing to have two Saurus Warriors on the store nice and shiny new for AoS and legacy sculpts for TOW. However GW has just announced 30K Leman Russ tanks which will sit on the store alongsi

Tallonian4th wrote:
It's interesting in the article they are very clear the armies are not for Matched Play, will not be supported going forwards and are just a nod to those with existing collections. In the same article they go through how these armies are full armies with enhancements, spells and such, and that they have been carefully play tested and balanced. Seems like GW are going for a bit of a have your cake and eat it on the one hand saying don't expect anything from these armies and the other saying but they do have full and reasonable rules.
At the moment it's clear they don't want to confuse the AoS and TOW factions, much in the same way GW has divorced 30K units from 40K units. It could be confusing to have two Saurus Warriors on the store nice and shiny new for AoS and legacy sculpts for TOW. However GW has just announced 30K Leman Russ tanks which will sit on the store alongside 40K ones. It might hint that in the future once TOW is established (and if successful) they might have the confidence to have Saurus Warriors (Seraphon) and Saurus Warriors (Lizardmen) allowing these factions to be added.

de 40K ones. It might hint that in the future once TOW is established (and if successful) they might have the confidence to have Saurus Warriors (Seraphon) and Saurus Warriors (Lizardmen) allowing these factions to be added.

At the moment it's clear they don't want to confuse the AoS and TOW factions, much in the same way GW has divorced 30K units from 40K units. It could be confusing to have two Saurus Warriors on the store nice and shiny new for AoS and legacy sculpts for TOW. However GW has just announced 30K Leman Russ tanks which will sit on the store alongside 40K ones. It might hint that in the future once TOW is established (and if successful) they might have the confidence to have Saurus Warriors (Seraphon) and Saurus Warriors (Lizardmen) allowing these factions to be added.

They have been "carefully play tested and balanced" (a dubious statement to begin with, though a quick perusal indicates that for the most part they should have decent parity against the core grand armies and the 4 armies of infamy we have seen thus far) as of launch. They are no IIRC the pintle mount options are also different, so while most of the kits are intercompatible, there are both aesthetic and functional differences that make cross-use a bit more involved.t going to remain carefully balanced as TOW evolves, new factions (Kislev and Cathay are the obvious examples here) get added, narrative expansion are released and power creep sets in. With no updates in the future, they have an obviously limited shelf-life. Theres also the potential for the opposite to be true - where in actuality one or more of the legacy factions are actually busted OP and will dominate the game against the core factions - even in this case they still won't be balanced or toned down.

The existence of these PDF lists is largely for PR purposes and long term salesmanship, and not much else. They are there to entice legacy fans who may or may not have burned their armies in protest of ET and AoS to come back into the fold from Kings of War or whatever and give GW a second chance - its make-up sex for nerds basically. They aren't going to tell you that the army lists are half-assed and the effort phoned-in, obviously, that would be self-defeating and just piss off a community that they have already pissed off previously even more. At the same time though, they have to manage expectations and make clear that folks going in on these factions are basically on their own, so that in "2 to 3 years" when these factions still have zero support and still aren't on the horizon of being added into the game as an expansion, those customers can't say that GW misled them or tricked them and screwed them over a second time. Instead they will be left with the understanding that what they have is all they are going to get, and if they want something different then their only way forward is to invest into another one of the factions that GW actually is supporting.

And I'm not sure I see the parallel in the Leman Russ example. Yes, you can use the SA Leman Russ as a 40k Leman Russ - but you don't get sponsons so as of the current edition you kinda would never really want to do that unless you're ok with using 3d printed or aftermarket add-ons to give yourself those options (which, at that point, will just cost you more money than using the proper 40k LR kit). You likewise won't get full value out of the SA kits, as 40k doesn't have rules anymore for the gravis lascannon variant of the strike tank, and the volkite macro-saker variant of the assault tank is similarly unfieldable in 40k.quote=Tallonian4th 807983 11633917 null]It's interesting in the article they are very clear the armies are not for Matched Play, will not be supported going forwards and are just a nod to those with existing collections. In the same article they go through how these armies are full armies with enhancements, spells and such, and that they have been carefully play tested and balanced. Seems like GW are going for a bit of a have your cake and eat it on the one hand saying don't expect anything from these armies and the other saying but they do have full and reasonable rules.
At the moment it's clear they don't want to confuse the AoS and TOW factions, much in the same way GW has divorced 30K units from 40K units. It could be confusing to have two Saurus Warriors on the store nice and shiny new for AoS and legacy sculpts for TOW. However GW has just announced 30K Leman Russ tanks which will sit on the store alongside 40K ones. It might hint that in the future once TOW is established (and if successful) they might have the confidence to have Saurus Warriors (Seraphon) and Saurus Warriors (Lizardmen) allowing these factions to be added.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Half the armies are missing

Which armies are missing? Because I have rules for 16 armies now. Did you mean armies like Nippon from 2nd edition?

I think that Old World Edition 1 is going to be a catch-up and get it out on the shelf edition.

This might build up toward a big end of edition release of Kisleve and Cathay. Both those factions are named in the book, but there's also not a single bit of product on show in the BRB for them and the maps at the start and end don't even cover the Cathay region either.


The other option is that Old World 2.0 will start with a big launch of Cathay and Kisleve; with GW's view that all the fans generated from the 1.0 edition will result in BIG sales on those big new factions. It also means they get a sense of which armies from 1.0 and which models sell well and which don't. This might well then influence their investment and roll out plans for updates and I figure 2.0 will feature a lot of armies getting plastic updates. From big reworks to small hero additions.


I'd also predict that 2.0 or the very end of 1.0 will see the compendium rule books vanish and be replaced with single volume army books as standard for most GW games.


The other option is that 1.0 lasts longer and we instead see some of those things start to happen during its lifespan. That could happen, esp if GW doesn't put Old World on a 3 year edition rotation.

I hope that everybody here understands that phrases like "carefully playtested and balanced" is standard Soviet-style propaganda of success by GW and the same thing was said about every single one of their games in the past, with hardly any of them proving to be indeed carefully playtested or balanced .

Yeah, you gotta understand who you're dealing with, this isn't Warlord Games who play their own products and will do things because they sound awesome and then sell them. These are suits, they make decisions and then expect their underlings to make it happen. And then praise them for being geniuses.

This is WFB, but it's a Specialist Game now, where thanks to a video game GW corporate were forced to take old models and make easy money with them. That doesn't mean in 2030 that TOW 2nd Edition won't have all these changes, but they're not cutting the wheel hard astern and charting a course to unknown waters just because they're underproduced Bretonnian sets sold out. Not saying that wouldn't be a smart decision, but your expectations need to be set for the entity we're talking about here.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Or more likely, depending on how Old World pans out, those armies will get a properly release as an expansion in 2 or 3 years.

The potential of more money tends to alter plans as things go along.

They have their long term plans already mapped out and their contingencies in place and their project backlog ordered out for the next 3 years at least, a project plan through 5 years, and a long term roadmap for 10 years.

They didn't arbitrarily cut those factions, they aren't making it up as they go, nor are they arbitrarily going to decide to fly by the seat of their pants and restore them to the game. Thats not how major publicly traded corporations operate and its certainly not how GW operates, this is not a mickey mouse operation where they just jump into things without forethought and do whatever strikes them as a good idea in the moment. That is not how successful businesses (like GW) operate. They already did the analysis, determined their best, worst, and most likely case scenarios, and planned out their path forward accordingly. They communicated clear intent that the factions are cut because they don't fit in their plans at all, regardless of success factors, for the forseeable future (which is usually analyzed and assessed over 3, 5, and 10 year horizons).

The timeframe for development may be off but the principle is the same. Even when WHFB was nuked, GW was never going to completely abandon their IP and it was always a matter of time before it returned. So the idea that those "Legacy" armies wont also come back is silly.

Clearly GW are not going to announce "wow, never expected you to buy so many Brets and TKs. We have to release Dark Elves, Skaven, VCs etc now, watch this space".

If however over the course of this year/18 months these various releases are a commercial success, it doesn't take a genius to go "what about the rest of our back catalogue?" This is especially true if you believe its all pushed by corporate suits who aren't going to care about the lore reason for why they can't/shouldn't. "Just make up new lore you nerds."

Even if they decided in the next 6 months its a go though, you are probably looking at 3-4~ years.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Half the armies are missing

Which armies are missing? Because I have rules for 16 armies now. Did you mean armies like Nippon from 2nd edition?

Legacy armies quite obviously don't count as present in the context of this discussion.

Ashitaka wrote:"But while these are complete lists, there are no plans to release miniatures to use them with – the rules are intended for people who already have armies in their collection."

So it looks like no MTOs for these, as expected, though some people online thought there would be.

I was *hoping* for an MTO for Skaven, but not expecting one. An Island of Blood MTO would be especially nice.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:
So does anyone actually know anything about the design choices concerning Chaos dwarfs as that image shows them with a very tiny nose for some reason.. or is that image taken from something else? (As I do know there's some other manufacturers who made chaos dwarfs with tiny noses and all)

Can't find anything official on their appearance.. other than that..

It's from the Tamurkhan: The Throne of Chaos book released by Forge World during 8th Edition which featured the Legion of Azgorh list. All the units in the Chaos Dwarfs PDF are taken from that, but they're compatible (as were the LoA rules) with the 4th/5th Edition models.

 Mr Morden wrote:

MaxT wrote:
I think there needs to be a pinned thread where all it says is “you’re not getting anything else for legacy factions, deal with it, get over it”.

GW literally couldn’t have been any clearer.

To be fair - they also (stupidly) said that they would not be part of the ongoing narrative - which made no sense and of course they are.

But they are not. They aren’t in the rulebook, they aren’t in the army books, they aren’t in the journals. They are not “part of the narrative” for this product.

Get. Over. It.

What is "MTO"? I keep seeing it but haven't figured out what you all mean by that.

In addition, I'm excited for a 5 Terrorgheist 2k VC list.

MaxT wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

MaxT wrote:
I think there needs to be a pinned thread where all it says is “you’re not getting anything else for legacy factions, deal with it, get over it”.

GW literally couldn’t have been any clearer.

To be fair - they also (stupidly) said that they would not be part of the ongoing narrative - which made no sense and of course they are.

But they are not. They aren’t in the rulebook, they aren’t in the army books, they aren’t in the journals. They are not “part of the narrative” for this product.

Get. Over. It.

Mate - I have the books - they are all over the narrarative.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
What is "MTO"?

Made-to-order

lord_blackfang wrote:
Well, no End Times units? Nagash, Mortarchs and Stormfiends missing, off the top of my head.

Skaven are missing stormfiends, vermin lords, slaves.

I didn't expect characters, so can't say I can really be disappointed there. The legacy lists, from a quick scan, pretty much seem like what I was expecting from them. The 'don't you dare try to bring these to a tournament' note at the start feels a little passive aggressive when they know people will do what they want anyway. But I understand they need to be clear on it, probably just to cut down on the amount of emails and facebook comments they get on the subject.

I'm hoping we finally see some decent battle reports now the legacy stuff is in the wild.

I think a little more love went into this game than they really had budget for, but with it offering nothing really new and missing more than what older editions bring I think I'll stick to my plan of trying the game out but going back to older editions for running group games or campaign days. It does mean I'm going to end up with a lot of big blue books, unless we see a cheaper way of buying Bretonnian plastics before the year is out! I still plan to put the legacy armies into their own volume, probably with a lot of recycled art and maps to make it a bit nicer and get it printed so I do have a 'complete' version of the game for when I do want to try it out.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
What is "MTO"? I keep seeing it but haven't figured out what you all mean by that.

In addition, I'm excited for a 5 Terrorgheist 2k VC list.

As noted MTO is "Made To Order". It's when GW doesn't produce any stock for a product up front. Instead the product gets a pre-order window of typically around 2 weeks (varies, could be 1 week for some or more for others). GW then gathers in all those preorders and creates the models to fill that order. As a result the delivery times are typically listed as up to 180days. GW might also partially deliver during that delivery window, so some people might get them earlier than others.


Typically GW is well within that window of delivery. For models GW will sometimes produce a bulk of them up front so some can get them instantly; whilst others have to wait for production to catch up.




It's a method GW uses to have large releases on one-off items that they aren't putting into general production. So the Made to Order Bretonnia and Tomb King models going on sale this coming Saturday will all be MTO. GW won't be selling them retail after (or if not for a very long time). So you can order them during the window and then wait.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Or more likely, depending on how Old World pans out, those armies will get a properly release as an expansion in 2 or 3 years.

The potential of more money tends to alter plans as things go along.

They have their long term plans already mapped out and their contingencies in place and their project backlog ordered out for the next 3 years at least, a project plan through 5 years, and a long term roadmap for 10 years.

They didn't arbitrarily cut those factions, they aren't making it up as they go, nor are they arbitrarily going to decide to fly by the seat of their pants and restore them to the game. Thats not how major publicly traded corporations operate and its certainly not how GW operates, this is not a mickey mouse operation where they just jump into things without forethought and do whatever strikes them as a good idea in the moment. That is not how successful businesses (like GW) operate. They already did the analysis, determined their best, worst, and most likely case scenarios, and planned out their path forward accordingly. They communicated clear intent that the factions are cut because they don't fit in their plans at all, regardless of success factors, for the forseeable future (which is usually analyzed and assessed over 3, 5, and 10 year horizons).

If they were to change their mind, that "proper release as an expansion" is more like 10 years out, not 2 to 3.

What GW will or won't do neither of us can known but I know for a fact that I have worked for a number of multinational companies that are 10-30 times the size of GW and exactly none of them worked the way you describe above. Sure there are roadmaps but anything on a roadmap more than 1-2 years into the future is about how a company currently thinks things will turn out. I don't think I've ever seen a road map for the coming 3-5 years that actually "came true"

Maybe hold two leagues of TOW matches at events; Official armies and Legacy armies?

A good deal of care and attention has gone into playtesting and balancing these lists

If true then at least these seven armies should be reasonably balanced against each other. And even lacking Old World kit support, it seems that most units can be taken from the AOS range so long as given square bases.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I mean, it is dead. This is a different game. Half the armies are missing, 90% of the special characters are missing.

Looks like WHFB to me. Rules are the same as a new edition and the background is the same.

Sure, some important armies have only Legacy rules, but one was neglected before (CD), one was made of a troop type that was previously part of Empire, O&G, Chaos and Dogs of War and one should have stayed in the Chaos wastes as an own army for special campaigns.

Speaking of campaigns: as WHFB was always an amalgam of fantasy role-play and historical it was only natural that players played some and GW sold campaign boxes or had some in WD. They also had articles in the latter with timelines and restrictions who was there and who not. Casual games with whatever armies and characters or settings (invented or 'historical') at another time or special place were both WHFB. I don't see why this should be different now.

Hoffa76 wrote:

What GW will or won't do neither of us can known but I know for a fact that I have worked for a number of multinational companies that are 10-30 times the size of GW and exactly none of them worked the way you describe above. Sure there are roadmaps but anything on a roadmap more than 1-2 years into the future is about how a company currently thinks things will turn out. I don't think I've ever seen a road map for the coming 3-5 years that actually "came true"

well, that is one part of GWs problem, they a fixed plan for the next 3-5 years simply because development cycle is that long
with a 3 year edition cycle, development for what goes into the core box of the next edition starts shortly after the current one is released
that it does not always work out well it shown by amounts of models in the core box not fitting the minimum unit sizes in the rules or that GW has troubles keeping up with the new stuff or were a not planned re-print of a box messes with the release cycle for years

also pre-orders work differently than with most other companies as they change nothing for distribution or manufacturing and are more of a marketing thing

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Or more likely, depending on how Old World pans out, those armies will get a properly release as an expansion in 2 or 3 years.

The potential of more money tends to alter plans as things go along.

They have their long term plans already mapped out and their contingencies in place and their project backlog ordered out for the next 3 years at least, a project plan through 5 years, and a long term roadmap for 10 years.

.

Legions say high. Game people like you said never comes.

Or even at for that matter...

Belivability of naysayers low.

Oh and everybody knew squats ain't coming back eh?

So far gw hasn't said anything that they wouldn't say even if other armies would come.

Gw goes where there is money.