Overread wrote: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 expect the current edition of the game will last about 10 years, ala
HH and similar to where Necromunda seems headed. Kislev and Cathay will be out within the next couple years at the latest (well, Kislev anyway, all signs point to Cathay being a bit further behind). I expect there will be other armies beyond Kislev/Cathay that are further down the pipe and not mentioned in the core book (Norsca, for example). Kislev and Cathay being featured there isn't the be-all end-all as to what armies will and won't be supported. World Eaters and Votann, for example, were not in the
40k core rulebook, yet were still added to the game. When
HH 1.0 launched, Solar Auxilia, Daemons of the Ruinstorm, Blackshields, Custodes/Sisters of Silence, and Imperialis Militia were not present, etc.
Simply put, they've already made clear investments into Kislev being in the game, and the turnaround time to produce molds and plastic kits is pretty lengthy, they aren't waiting for the success of
TOW to play out to determine if they are going to fund them and wait years to release them - they started down that path before the game ever released. That entire theory is just so asinine in general (and I'm not calling you out Overread, its just something that I've seen so many people speculate on, its something that taken on a life of its own) -
GW made substantial investments into launching whole new model ranges for
LI,
AI, and
AT without any sales data to indicate whether or not the games would be successful first, theres no reason why they would treat
TOW any differently. The cost investment needed to put Bretonnia and Tomb Kings and the other core factions back out is substantially lower and the rate of return substantially higher, because those molds are long since paid for and/or fully depreciated, etc. The majority of TOWs initial project budget would thus logically be used funding Kislev and Cathay rather than in refurbishing old kits, just because they aren't released at launch doesn't change that, and theres pretty obvious reasons why they wouldn't want them to be available on launch - better to have the core factions that people know and love in the game and playable first to get your community back and have people investing their hobby dollars into the old stuff first before hitting them with the new shinies. If Kislev and Cathay were available on launch I would not bother for one second with any of the other factions and their ancient minis and would just wait for
GW to get around to resculpting them over time. The same is true for a lot of others most likely. You have to consider that
GW developed a sales strategy and a business plan in association with the game, with an approach that was intended to maximize their sales and revenue flows.
Cyel wrote: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 .
I understand that, some of the others here seem to be taking it at face value though.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: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.
Staaaaaaahp. Give up the ghost. Drop the copium. Stop trying to peddle hopium to the ignorant masses.
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.
Yeah, don't think so.
I think the only reason you're seeing
WHFB back is because
AoS was successful and proved to management that there was still a strong market for a fantasy miniatures game that wasn't tied to the new hotness in film and television, and TWW created pent-up demand for its predecessor. If
AoS had crashed and burned it would have been abandoned like
WHFB was (or like
AI seems to have been, more recently), and I think
GW would have written off its fantasy IP as being too generic and indistinct to be legally defensible and the market too saturated or competitive or whatever you want to think of it is as for a fantasy miniatures game to be financially profitable or competitively viable for them to continue supporting it. The success of TWW on its own would not have changed anything, as two (three if you consider the supposed decline of
MESBG) failed fantasy miniatures games would have simply communicated to
GWs management that there was too much risk assciated with fantasy miniatures gaming and the market demand for that type of product line was too niche and minimal for the company to see meaningful ROI from pursuing it. The idea that the return of
WHFB/
TOW was pre-ordained in the stars is just a laughable work of fiction resulting from an overactive imagination.
Those legacy armies don't need to "come back". The models exist today, are being sold, and fully supported in another IP where they are amongst the best selling products in that games product range, and that game is the companies flagship fantasy miniatures game product. What you think makes sense as a consumer is not what
GW necessarily thinks is best for the long term strength of their business. The biggest questions that need to be asked and answered are, in my mind:
-Does adding those 7 factions into
TOW hurt the long term health of
AoS as
GW's flagship fantasy game and as a marketable intellectual property?
(I believe the answer is actually yes, it does. There is probably a not insubstantial segment of players of these factions who would port their armies out of
AoS back into
TOW on a semi-permanent or permanent basis if they received the level of support in
TOW that they have received in
AoS. This thins out the
AoS community by removing what is actually a large segment of its current playerbase, as these are literally some of the best selling and most popular factions in the game. This in turn hurts the remainder of the community, as a substantial reduction in playerbase hollows-out opportunities for the remaining players to enjoy the game themselves. Likewise, the direct overlap of these factions being in both systems creates direct internal competition between them that results in consumer perceptions that can further weaken the strength of one or both brands - you want consumers to compare your products favorably to products made by your competitors, you don't want them to debate which of your two products is better than the other. If, for example, the writing and development on
TOW Skaven somehow outperformed that of
AoS Skaven, you could find yourself in a situation where your customers craft a secondary narrative that poisons brand perception, i.e. if an overwhelming segment of your customer base buys into a secondary narrative like "
TOW Skaven are so much better than
AoS Skaven,
AoS Skaven are too woke and are just gakky fan service,
TOW Skaven are where real Skaven fans go", then you are creating conditions that will disuade potential new consumers interested in Skaven from getting into
AoS on the basis of the different perceptions held between the two brands.
As it currently stands theres not a lot of overlap between
TOW and
AOS, and it seems that
GW has plans to build differentiation between the two where that overlap does exist (mainly in Chaos Warriors and Beastmen). Nobody is ever going to really compare Cities of Sigmar to Bretonnia or Empire as equivalents - they are stylistically, aesthetically, thematically, and mechanically disimilar enough that people won't directly compare them and in many cases may even see them as complimentary (i.e. "I play Cities of Sigmar in
AoS, but I also decided to play Empire in
TOW because they both scratch a similar itch but in very different ways"). Likewise, Lumineth and High Elves are very different, but may appeal to similar sensibilities. Skaven in
AoS though? Pretty directly the same as Skaven in
TOW. Daemons in
Aos? Exactly the same as
TOW. Vampire Counts in
TOW? Yeah, pretty overwhelmingly similar to Soulblight Gravelords in
AoS, with some elements of
FEC and Nighthaunt thrown in.
And likewise, having the same factions in multiple brands just weakens the strength of those brands and IPs by diluting their respective images. Having Skaven be recongizable as a core element of
AoS makes
AoS stronger. Having Skaven be identifiable with both
TOW and
AoS weakens the strength of both by creating confusion as to which franchise they belong to as well as weakening the identity of the faction itself by creating uncertainty as to which franchise it should be associated with. Space Marines have a strong identity because they are closely associated with
40k and only
40k, if
GW licensed them out to George Lucas/Disney for inclusion in a Star Wars film then suddenly thats no longer true, and they could end up being associated more strongly with something that you can't make as much money off of. So again, I say the answer to this question is "Yes", and on that basis alone those 7 factions are unlikely to ever see a return to
TOW in a fashion that isn't rendered distinct from their legacy form - i.e. vampire pirates instead of vammpire counts, southlands frogmen instead of lustrian lizardmen, etc.)
-Does adding those 7 factions into
TOW generate more long term sales revenue of products than firewalling them into
AoS?
(I believe the answer is likely no, it doesn't - there are a lot of people who play multiple games in the
GW portfolio, cross-compatability comes at the expense of selling them separate armies/model collections for separate games.)
-Does
TOW *NEED* these 7 factions in order to be successful, and does their inclusion in
TOW strengthen the
TOW brand in a manner that can't be achieved through other means/factions?
(No, I don't think it does. We've already heard the peanut gallery claiming that the launch of
TOW with just Bretonnia and Tomb King was some sort of massive unmitigated success, so clearly
GW can do just fine without those 7 factions - their exclusion isn't holding
GW back at all. I think
GW has already laid the groundwork for another dozen factions worth of stuff they can include in the game in just one-off references in the rulebook and interactive map that will help redefine
TOW as something different from
AoS with a stronger and more distinct identity than
WHFB ever had, while still being recognizable as part of the same universe by fans old and new. Besides, why bother trying to sell
TOW fans the same models that they can already buy - and many cases already have or will have in ~5-10 years time - when you can sell them something new in much larger numbers instead?)
In short, this can all be summed up as follows:
-Is the opportunity cost of not including those 7 factions in
TOW greater than the benefits of leaving them only in
AoS? Or, phrased differently: Is the benefit to
GW of including these 7 factions in
TOW greater than the benefit of leaving these factions only in
AoS?
(I believe the answer is no. I believe leaving them as
AoS only is the better business case for
GW for a multitude of reasons, and for that reason you won't see that crossover happen, no matter how much short-sighted poorly thought out surface-level rationalization a segment of this community tries to throw at it to argue otherwise.)
Tyel wrote: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.
The communication about these 7 factions is remarkably different from how
GW handled the communication about things like Mechanicum, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Solar Auxilia, Blackshields, Daemons of the Ruinstorm, Knights-Errant, Imperialis Militia and Warp Cults, etc. in
HH. In the case of some of those factions in
HH,
GW was pretty clear in saying that they would be coming in a future publication and that some would receive interrim pdf rules until that time arrived, etc. In that case,
GW essentially did say "watch this space" for what the future would bring. In this case though? Multiple flat, straightforward denials of that being a thing, nor any sort of acknowledgement of even the potential of it possibly occuring.
And again "what about the rest of our back catalog" isn't really a question that needs to be asked - those models have been updated and replaced already or are rumored to be coming soon - in Age of Sigmar. They are a product available to buy from
GW today. Kislev, Cathay, Norsca, Araby, Vampire Pirates, Tilea, Estalia, etc. etc. etc. are very much not. That those 7 factions exist in a different game/setting is kind of inconsequential to
GW, they are very much still of the belief that the models mostly sell themselves on the basis of their quality and the strength of the underlying brand and that most of their customers are really collectors and hobbyists rather than players, even if they have stopped treating the player community with utter contempt. We know enough of
GWs business dynamics to understand that the majority of those kits lifetime sales were made within a few weeks of them being released, so from that rationale how much more money do they potentially stand to make from throwing them back into
TOW? The majority of people that want to play those factions in
TOW already have them or will be buying them on the basis of the legacy lists, you're just squeezing blood from a stone by trying to double-dip down the line by "formalizing" them into
TOW later on.
And if the thought is that
TOW is just going to become a repository for old and obsolete kits to go live once they get replaced in
AoS, lets just nip that in the bud.
GW will absolutely be replacing all the kits for
TOW in the future. They've already telegraphed it with the foot knights and lords/paladin on pegasus kits they released for Bretonnia. We know that
GW sculpts basically entire armies at one time and then slowly releases the kits over a span of years. They did not just sculpt a handful of models and call it a day, they sculpted a whole new Bretonnian army and released a tiny fraction of what they worked on (and in this case I would guess that they actually are waiting to see financial performance before greenlighting the release of some of those sculpts). The AdMech Archaeopter kit for example was released in 2020, but was confirmed by the designer to have been sculpted alongside the initial wave of kits that released for Codex: Cult Mechanicus and Codex: Skitarii in 2015, with the sculpting of those kits having been completed around the 2012-2013 timeframe. As I've noted in some previous posts in this thread, the molds for these kits have limited lifespans,
iirc i calculated that the men-at-arms kit will likely exhaust its useful cycle-life in the next 2-3 years based on some estimates of past sales vs estimated future sales. When that comes, they are going to need to replace it with a whole new kit. The same is true of many of the units across the various factions, with the more popular factions likely needing a lot more attention sooner (warriors of chaos, empire, high elves, and orcs will probably see a lot of attention in this realm, especially since some of those kits were active in
AoS until recently). Point is, if you were expecting them to replace the Skaven model range (for example) in
AoS with new kits in 6 months and then port the old kits over to
TOW in 4-5 years time, I think you're going to be disappointed. By that point I would expect a hefty chunk of the
TOW range to have been modernized and the legacy skaven kits will be showing their age, assuming the legacy skaven kits would even have any real life left in them given their age and longstanding popularity.
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.
Exalted.
Mr Morden wrote: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.
I wouldn't call oblique references to something hitting like a rampaging carnosaur from the jungles of lustria or references to the vampire wars to be "all over the narrative". They are window dressing. They aren't part of the narrative, they are background detail to flesh out the world. Same as things like the Interex, Megarachnids, Hrud, Laer, Jorgall, rak'gol, etc. or hell even orks and eldar are in Horus Heresy. How many of those have rules in
HH again? None? Yeah.
Hoffa76 wrote: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"
I'm a high profile project manager (really more of a program manager despite my job title) and industrial engineer for a Fortune 500 publically trademultinational d company (literally one of the "Worlds Most Admired Companies") supporting a business unit of said company that does about a billion USD in revenue annually, including participating in proposal development for 9-10 figure product development contracts, but go on. Tell me I don't know how businesses operate when this is exactly how real businesses operate.
It takes
GW 3-5 years just to bring a set of new kits to market, hell its taken them *4 years* to bring
TOW to market, and you *dont* think they plan that far in advance? You think they authorized investment into and development of a whole new product line 4 years ago with no plan for when or how it would release or what it would look like or entail as a product line or how it would impact their production and logistical capacity or how it might impact the rest of their product portfolio? You don't think they did any production planning or sales forecasting or any sort of cash flow analysis to determine depreciation and amortization of assets or a rate of return or payback period for it, nor any sort of risk analysis on it? Really? You don't think the company developed any sort of plan up-front for how it would actually make money before spending it? You think they just said "Okay, lets make this game. We'll give you an annual budget of $5 million or whatever to spend on staffing, art, writing, game design, model design, refurbishing molds, and whatever else you need for the next few years, just make sure you eventually launch some products that are going to make back all the money you spent. Sound good?"
Thats not how real businesses operate or how the real world works at all. Their initial planning discussions, before commiting to investing into the game (i.e. before they announced it in November 2019) would have required them to plan at least far enough into the future to determine what the payback period and ROI/IRR/NPV would be from that initial investment, which would have in turn required them to have had a pretty good product development and release roadmap in place from the getgo - you can't determine what your payback period or ROI/IRR/NPV are if you have no idea what it is you're going to produce or sell or how much its going to cost you to design, develop, produce, and deliver it. As this is a product that requires continued development and support, that plan not only needed to extend through a 3-5 year development period to release day, but also some amount of time *post* release, which likely includes at a *MINIMUM* the span of time it will take them to get the 9 core factions back onto the market and see a return generated on the activities needed to bring them there. I say that releasing the 9 factions will take 12-18 months max, others seem to think 2-3 years. We'll say that gives us a range of 1-3 years *post-release* that
GW needed to plan for up front at a minium, which brings us to a total 6-8 year horizon at least, not including how much farther beyond that they may have needed to look in order to achieve an ROI.
tneva82 wrote: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.
Its bold of you to say "people like me" said Legions Imperialis would never come, when I've been waiting for it since the moment that they announced Adeptus Titanicus.
pogey wrote:chaos0xomega wrote: I stand firm on my position that we will not, regardless of the commercial success of the system. I imagine that there will be a long list of new armies (beyond Kislev and Cathay) added to the game over time as well as resculpts of what are fairly extensive model ranges (those molds won't last forever,
tbh the Tomb King skeleton molds are probably being pushed to their absolute limit at this point), well before they ever reach the point where its worthwhile or even necessary for them to double back on bringing in what are now squarely Age of Sigmar factions.
They can always make new molds. They still have the masters
Bold assumptions there. I touched on it earlier in this post, but to re-iterate: No, they probably can't.
I'm assuming when you say "masters" you mean "master" sculpts and not master molds - there is no such thing as a master mold in plastic injection molding. Its not like metal/resin kits where you produce a master mold that you then produce your production molds from. Thats an additive mold-making process, whereas tooling for plastic injection molds is generally subtractive and can only be done by cutting and removing material from stock material. You can't create a steel master and then cast production molds from it. The only way to make injection molding tooling via an additive process is to 3D print the mold, which is not yet a mature technology, and wouldn't really be applicable to this situation as the kits were hand-sculpted and no digital assets exist to reproduce them from.
Anyway, plastic injection molds pre ~2009-ish were done using 2-up and 3-up sculpts (sometimes referred to as "masters") and cut into a mold using a pantagraph which ran a stylus (I forget the actual technical term, I think its stylus but not sure as its obsolete technology and I don't have any experience with them myself) over the body of the master sculpt (which was prior to this cut up and laid out on a 3-up sprue assembly). The pantagraph translated the motion of that stylus over the master sculpt at a fixed ration (i.e. 2:1 or 3:1) to a cutting tool at the other end of it which produced a negative imprint of the 3-up sprue assembly into the tool steel.
After the molds were cut, the masters were variously tossed out, taken home as souvenirs by various sculptors and staff-members (and in some cases gifted to retiring staff), or assembled, painted, and put on display in the WHW Museum (not sure if they're still there or not), or otherwise damaged or loss (see the recent discourse from the design studio about how they basically had to go dumpster diving to scrounge up old production assets, original sculpts, and master molds to bring some of these kits back to production).
Assuming they *HAVE* the original 3-up sculpts, and are able to restore them to a workable condition (patch and repair damage, disassemble and strip paint off them as applicable, re-frame them into a 3-up sprue assembly, etc.), they will quickly run into the problem that nobody at
GW has produced a plastic kit using a 3-up sculpt and pantagraph tool in something like 15 years and the key engineers and tool-makers responsible for producing those molds way back when were all fired, quit, or retired (they now run Renedra which makes kits for some of
GWs competitors). They probably don't have anyone on staff that really knows how to work that process anymore, if they do they are way out of practice and doing it that way takes a lot of experience and skill and is more like an art (a friends dad is a retired union tool-cutter that made his living doing this for other industries here in the States, its a lost and dying art-form and something that requires a lot of skill and familiarity to do right). Likewise, I would be stunned if they kept their pantagraph mills, as
GWs plastic tools have been cut 100% by CAM tools for well over a decade and pantagraph mills are generally large, heavy pieces of equipment that require regular use and maintenance in order to stop them from rusting and rotting in-place (otherwise they become considerably less precise and will screw up your molds).
And doing all of that is way, way, way more expensive than just producing a new set of digital sculpts, using
CAD/CAM tools to do the necessary engineering analysis and toolmaking processes, and moving forward with a new kit.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:pogey wrote:chaos0xomega wrote: I stand firm on my position that we will not, regardless of the commercial success of the system. I imagine that there will be a long list of new armies (beyond Kislev and Cathay) added to the game over time as well as resculpts of what are fairly extensive model ranges (those molds won't last forever,
tbh the Tomb King skeleton molds are probably being pushed to their absolute limit at this point), well before they ever reach the point where its worthwhile or even necessary for them to double back on bringing in what are now squarely Age of Sigmar factions.
They can always make new molds. They still have the masters
One reviewer mentioned the mould lines on the "old" kits weren't too bad, which makes me wonder if they have already remade the moulds as it's was my understanding that stuff like that usually gets worse the more worn out a mould gets.
Those moulds are probably going back to the days of pantographing.
The mold lines are probably a combination of the age, wear, and the refurbishing needed to get them back into production ready state. They basically have to resurface/polish the mold to remove oxidation and rust build-up on the mold surface so you can try to get a better seal between the two halves. That by necessity basically results in removal of a layer of the mold surface itself, which results in the two haves of the mold cavity not having their original alignment, which leads to mold lines. Also they may (i'm not sure as I've never done it or seen it done) have to anneal the steel as well as part of all this, which might result in some issues as a result of thermal expansion/contraction that occurs through that process.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 
StudentOfEtherium wrote:I'm looking at the
DE PDF, and one thing that stands out is that they can take a bunch of
DoK units. Sisters of Slaughter/Witch Elves, the Cauldron of Blood/Bloodwrack Shrine, and the extra models like the hag or medusa. are these kits just older than i thought they were? fantasy was far before my time, but i assumed all of these were
aos-original
All
WHFB kits before
AoS, though I don't know that the medusa was a unit option for
DE in
WHFB, I think that was turned into a separate unit that you could build from your leftover parts in
AoS. Same with Vargheists in Vampire Counts
IIRC - the Crypt Horrors and Haunters were in
VC, but
IIRC the Vargheists were added in
AoS as a third alternate build option by mix-and-matching parts from the other two units.
Your #1 Fan 
