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.
2024/02/07 05:38:52
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Stormonu wrote: My Brettonia set just arrived, been sifting through it. I've only glanced through the rulebook, but really feel I could just use my behemoth 8E rulebook and I'm a bit disheartened that at the price of the set, it didn't come with a full "army" book (paperback mini would have been acceptable) instead of just a flier for the enclosed forces.
Still, I expect I'm going to have fun with this, so I'm off to start assembling and then painting ....
I hear you but you do have enough for a 1250 point game, great for learning. And if you wanna build a list, https://old-world-builder.com/ Has been really helpful for me.
ToW armies I own:
Empire: 10,000+
Chaos Legions: DoC- 10,000+; WoC- 7,500+; Beastmen- 2,500+; Chaos Dwarves- 3,500+
Unaligned: Ogres- 2,500; Tomb Kings- 3,000
Hotek: Dark Elves- 7,500+; High Elves- 2,500
40k armies I own:
CSM- 25,000+
2024/02/07 07:47:06
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Stormonu wrote: My Brettonia set just arrived, been sifting through it. I've only glanced through the rulebook, but really feel I could just use my behemoth 8E rulebook and I'm a bit disheartened that at the price of the set, it didn't come with a full "army" book (paperback mini would have been acceptable) instead of just a flier for the enclosed forces.
The very broadest strokes might be similar; that’s true of basically every other edition though. The details are very different, between the more subtle changes to the toughness and weapon skill tables and the sudden appearance and relevance of troop and formation types, and so you’d make many mistakes using the 8e book.
For example I saw someone ask earlier if ranks were four wide or five in this version; the answer is: either or neither, depending on your troop type.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/02/07 07:47:25
"Three months? I'm going to go crazy …and I'm taking you with me!"
— Vala Mal Doran
2024/02/07 14:59:49
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Im opposite. Legacy factions taking core allies is a non-issue for me. Core factions taking legacy allies is a backdoor for legacy stuff in core games when I'd prefer to not play with legacy stuff (to clarify - I'm ok with having games against or with legacy armies on occasion, but I'd really prefer to play core-only most of the time. Allowing core factions to take legacy allies creates potentially awkward situations where myself/others of the same mindset could be taken by surprise and have to tactfully work out how to turn down the game or ask your opponent to modify their list, etc.).
I take it you're a tournament player? Every game must count towards practice against a tournament worthy opponent?
And those GW diehards who just so happened to have invested years in the 'wrong' faction and have been booted out the old world now, can sod off?
Lovely way to split the community for the sake of following GW's tournament only rules. I expect in 40k you no longer play on 6' x 4' and only play on official 5' x 3'8 tables.
Sheesh.
Haven't touched a tournament for any GW game since ~2011 nor more broadly for any tabletop wargame since ~2014, so... no.
Dysartes wrote: Why would you object to legacy allies at this point anyway? They're in pretty much the same boat as all bar two factions today as it is.
And as it is, I'm now convinced GW actually DOES have a plan for at least one of them. Why are repeater crossbows listed in the main rules when Dark Elves are the only army that uses them?
Because despite what some people think, the Legacy armies are just as valid a part of the game as Tomb Kings etc.
Not to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mind you I say that as someone who still has my Ogre Kingdoms army set up for WHFB, and likewise has a Chaos Dwarf army ready to go, and is eyeing a dark elf army. The legacy armies are a tier above fanmade in my eyes. I'll have an occasional game with them and enjoy them as hobby projects, but at GW has made abundantly clear, "they aren't part of the journey" and they clearly have no long term future as GW moves forward with updates and revisions to the core factions and leaves them behind with power creep.
Dysartes wrote: Why would you object to legacy allies at this point anyway? They're in pretty much the same boat as all bar two factions today as it is.
For the poster you're addressing it's been evident that it's pure schadenfreude. Their emotional investment in trying to convince everyone of the impossibility of official TW factions being expanded -- not to mention the similar way they've historically spoken to anyone making a "why can't they do xenos armies in system X" lamentation in other threads -- has always given their game away.
if thats what you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel better? I'm sorry I hurt you.
Dysartes wrote: Why would you object to legacy allies at this point anyway? They're in pretty much the same boat as all bar two factions today as it is.
For the poster you're addressing it's been evident that it's pure schadenfreude. Their emotional investment in trying to convince everyone of the impossibility of official TW factions being expanded -- not to mention the similar way they've historically spoken to anyone making a "why can't they do xenos armies in system X" lamentation in other threads -- has always given their game away.
Nah. Warcoms definition of "forseeable future" is somewhere between a week and three months. A month before the current daemon prince kit was released I commented on a facebook post (don't remember the context) about how I was hoping for a resculpted daemon prince kit. Warcom responded to the effect of "we haven't heard anything about one but we'll be sure to share news about it if we ever do!" or something to that. Lo and behold a few weeks later they literally previewed the exact model. And thats just one personal anecdote, over the years theres been a number of other examples of Warcom saying "we don't know anything" or "we have no news about this" etc. only for a few weeks or months later that exact thing to happen.
Now, if this was one of the articles written by a member of the design studio, then I would take the message seriously - but its not.
phandaal wrote: This is a perfect case study for why people get disappointed when their thing does not come out.
GW is literally calling it out, voluntarily, in their article that Kislev is not on the menu for the Old World. That means they think it is important to be as clear as possible that this thing is NOT happening. Nobody made them write that - they chose to do so because it is important to them that you understand this.
The responses? "Nah, that doesn't mean anything, could even be released in May, whatever, nothing new here."
Working at GW must feel like that guy trying to get Patrick Star to admit that the wallet is his.
Ehh. Yes, but also no. Theres a lot of news that GW puts out and either people never read or understand it to mean something completely different than what it actually says. This is something that those who follow the company know closely should know better about, because they've made exact statements like this on numerous occasions only for it to happen a short span later. Likewise, the frequency with which they say things are coming "soon" only for them to not show up until much later. Point is that the warcom team generally doesn't know much aside from the limited window that GW provides them - which is actually very limited. I think it was Louise Sugden who said post-departure that often Warcom were amongst the last within the company to know about upcoming releases, etc.
The truly bizarro world interpretation of this bit of news is from those who are reading it and saying "well clearly we won't see Kislev for many many years, if at all".
Fayric wrote: I think the most problematic thing with Kislev right now is that GW has revived whole ranges of old models of a very specific charming style, and if we would see new Kislev they would be of a more modern style.
Perhaps not a big problem, but I think if they had dropped brand new kislev lots of people would assume their favourite faction is about to get an update, and rather wait than getting the old models. .
Why would that be a problem for Kislev and not for Bretonnia (or to a lesser extent Khemri) who are getting a handful of new kits in a modern style? Theres certainly a part of me that thinks its foolish of me to throw my cash at the current kits for both factions instead of just waiting it out a couple years to buy the inevitable resculpts, but then I'd basically have to sit on the sidelines until that happened barring the occasional game with my legacy armies.
Stormonu wrote: After the return of Genestealer Cults, Sisters and Squats (Votann), never discount GW as never (re)doing something.
It’s looking like this will be a case that all the Old World will return at some point, they’re just dribbling and doling it out between their main moneymakers. When they run out of old stuff to reissue, they’ll likely turn their attention to new forces like Kislev and Cathay - but we’re probably talking 3-5 years at least.
A couple of the legacy factions (vampire counts, DE, Skaven) *were* some of WHFBs big moneymakers. Tomb Kings and Bretonnia were actually the least played and lowest selling range of minis in the game, along with Beastmen and Wood Elves. HE IIRC was the top-selling overall, Empire, Orcs/Goblins, and Warriors of Chaos were towards the upper middle/lower top-end.
You should try on 6x5 tables. The extra deployment zone really does open up tactical possibilities, especially in 40K. It also reduces the possibility of table flees on the panic roll.
For everyone who has been waiting with bated breath for confirmation about how buying Made to Order from the Aussie webstore works:
(spoiler tagged so the other 100% of you can skip over it)
Spoiler:
I am reliably informed by Oz GW customer service that anything from different warehouses (i.e. countries) is charged separately for shipping purposes.
This applies to all deliveries, including home addresses--not just delivering to GW shops.
Therefore, if you try to combine, say, $50 of regular stuff that ships from the Oz warehouse with $50 of 'Made to Order' items that ship from the UK, in order to get over the $85 threshold for free shipping, you'll instead shoot yourself in the foot and be charged double shipping instead of no shipping (since you're purchasing less than $85 from each warehouse).
If you only want one or two MtO items for the Old World, you may have to either pay shipping, or get something you don't really want to reach the free shipping threshold, since you can't just chuck in a paintbrush or some other useful thing to get over the line like you normally could.
(You can however back out when you get to the 'delivery/shipping' page of the checkout process, which is before the actual payment screen, if you realise you've doubled your shipping accidentally and need to change your cart.)
On the bright side it seems cheaper to get Forgeworld free shipping now that's all under the same webstore.
The recent pricing of the Damels of the Lady at $84 strikes me as especially suss in this context.
I am irked to a mild and lukewarm degree.
2024/02/07 15:06:32
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Prometheum5 wrote: Banking on any of the current Old World factions to be getting full line resculpts any time in the relevant future still seems delusional to me.
Indeed. If they had stones for that, surely they would have started with Bretonnians and Tomb Kings.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
FWIW on the live stream last night Valrak said that there would be a "wave 2" for the core factions later on (presumably after they have done their first releases) with more characters etc.
It was only a throwaway comment in the context of the absence of models for Emperor Sigusmund/King Louen Orc-Slayer etc, so no more context to give you. But didn't appear to be supposition on his part.
2024/02/07 19:05:24
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Stormonu wrote: My Brettonia set just arrived, been sifting through it. I've only glanced through the rulebook, but really feel I could just use my behemoth 8E rulebook and I'm a bit disheartened that at the price of the set, it didn't come with a full "army" book (paperback mini would have been acceptable) instead of just a flier for the enclosed forces.
The very broadest strokes might be similar; that’s true of basically every other edition though. The details are very different, between the more subtle changes to the toughness and weapon skill tables and the sudden appearance and relevance of troop and formation types, and so you’d make many mistakes using the 8e book.
For example I saw someone ask earlier if ranks were four wide or five in this version; the answer is: either or neither, depending on your troop type.
That was actually me asking about the ranking. As you probably guessed, I haven’t much time with WHFB (one game of 5th, about three of 8th) - so I’m not attached to a particular ruleset, especially as I also have access to Kings of War, One Page Rules, Dragon Rampant and even old Battlesystem rulebooks lying about. If I get about to playing, I’ll probably just stick to the 8E rules, as I still have my army books for those (High Elves, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen and whatever the last edition Brets had a book for - I think 6th?). I’ve got no regular opponent, so it’s probably going to me playing myself or a friend I let use one of my other armies anyways.
My more immediate decision is bases - my other armies are on the old bases and I’m debating buying/making smaller bases to match those, and possibly pick up spaced trays if I need to “convert up” to the new size.
It never ends well
2024/02/07 20:37:11
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
MaxT wrote: I don’t think “GW plans to release more models for its announced supported factions” would be a surprise to anyone.
I dunno, there’s probably someone out there still claiming TOW is low effort/vapourware.
Literally in this thread... the idea that GW is prioritizing getting the 9 factions out and playable first AND THEN is going to prioritize updating their model ranges and introducing additional factions seems pretty reasonable/logical/obvious to me.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2024/02/08 05:59:32
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
I don't see were this has anything to do with the "low effort" claim as that one was never about how get things first but what the faction get to be playable
and by now "playable" is rather stretched of you don't already own a large enough collection to model a TOW army from it
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2024/02/08 14:04:43
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
and by now "playable" is rather stretched of you don't already own a large enough collection to model a TOW army from it
Or have an older army that didn't get selected to be a part of this version and have people like chaos0xomega refuse to play against your army.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/02/08 14:10:21
My Painting Blog: http://gimgamgoo.com/ Currently most played: Silent Death, Xenos Rampant, Mars Code Aurora and Battletech.
I tried dabbling with 40k9/10 again and tried AoS3 - Nice models, naff games, but I'm enjoying HH2 and loving Battletech Classic and Alpha Strike.
2024/02/08 18:37:07
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
nathan2004 wrote: Spaced out trays work great, I can vouch for those....hopefully Gdubs allows them in tournaments.
A lot of tray companies are offering them with grid lines marking the "correct" base size, so I don't really see why they wouldn't allow them since bringing back past players was most of the point.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2024/02/08 21:18:52
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Well, there is a blurb in the new rulebook, "Matched play requires the correct base size" (paraphrased), so its likely expected for GW sponsored games you'll have to upbase (and the book pictures seem to indicate that at least the elvin models had their smaller bases glued onto larger bases).
But I won't be playing in any tournaments, so it doesn't matter to me - in fact, I've already ordered smaller bases. Though I could only find one seller for cavalry bases with the slots already cut out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/02/09 10:54:47
It never ends well
2024/02/09 11:54:07
Subject: Re:Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
If you don’t want to rebase your older models individually, you are welcome to pop them onto a movement tray with the right footprint. In practice, movement trays are a useful tool, even if your army is on the right base size, as it speeds up gameplay and makes for more accurate unit manoeuvring.
In the original article that talked about the new base sizes. So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll be fine with using the trays.
2024/02/09 12:02:22
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
I'm the only one in this thread, yes, but not the only one in the TOW playerbase. We seem the minority, for now, but I expect that attitude will shift over time.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2024/02/09 12:36:25
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
MaxT wrote: I don’t think “GW plans to release more models for its announced supported factions” would be a surprise to anyone.
I dunno, there’s probably someone out there still claiming TOW is low effort/vapourware.
Low effort and vapourware are two different things.
I still think it's low effort, at least based on what we've seen so far. Several years in development and we get a few characters, rules that are just an incremental step from what we had, then the rest is a remake of pre-existing models.
If they'd released this the year they announced it, I might have thought they'd put some effort into it, but we know they've been working on it for a while, so it feels like a backburner type project.
2024/02/09 13:32:52
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
MaxT wrote: I don’t think “GW plans to release more models for its announced supported factions” would be a surprise to anyone.
I dunno, there’s probably someone out there still claiming TOW is low effort/vapourware.
Low effort and vapourware are two different things.
I still think it's low effort, at least based on what we've seen so far. Several years in development and we get a few characters, rules that are just an incremental step from what we had, then the rest is a remake of pre-existing models.
If they'd released this the year they announced it, I might have thought they'd put some effort into it, but we know they've been working on it for a while, so it feels like a backburner type project.
Pretty much. It sure does not feel like TOW spent five years in development. What it looks like is they had a plan to do something grand originally (including Kislev, which was one of their big selling points), and somewhere along the line that work got scrapped and we got what we got. And what we got was a pared-back version of the original plan that was put together in less time. Judging from some of the additions to the rules, it looks to me like it happened some time around the development of 10th Edition 40k.
Maybe people feel like if they acknowledge this, it takes away from their ability to like what we did get? Who knows.
2024/02/09 13:39:38
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
There's a lot of different potential reasons and its likely not just one big reason but many.
I even proposed earlier that GW did it this way around so that they'd start the game with older models rather than start with new ones for two full new armies and then release old models which would appear VERY old and clunky after brand new ones.
Esp if part of the draw is to get people BACK into play not just fresh into the game; then putting the old stuff up and getting a lot of armies out the door fast is important.
Maybe one of the original plans was JUST for 2 new factions for a year or more. To slow grow like they've done with their 30K edition games in various forms. However someone likely argued strongly that that would likely backfire with slow sales and a lot of "HEY GW why can't I buy old models for my old army that I've already got" etc...
So yes its very possible that they started with a bigger budget and that got cut or diverted; however its equally possible that another contributing factor was the desire to draw old players back in to bolster the launch and that part of that was bringing back older stuff with reworked moulds; new stuff and updated stuff.
Covid may have partially scrapped or have changed their plans for the Old World.
This release strikes me much like the Index release of 40K 8E. I could see if it sells well that it will enter the 2-3 year release cycle like AOS and 40K. As if GW doesn't already have enough on its plate...
It never ends well
2024/02/09 15:04:21
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
With the production limitations gw is having keeping up with demand as is, it probably makes sense to maximize profits by mostly reusing existing molds, with a few new centerpiece models for now. Then the investment in new molds that would just replace existing kits could be diverted, which would explain why LI and Solar Aux for heresy have so many unique sprues in a relatively limited time.
On the release cycle, it would be nice if it spread to a 4 year cycle, with 40k, Sigmar, Horus Heresy, and Old World all getting updates as a result. Not necessarily full new editions, but revisions would be nice to address balance and new introductions by various armies over the 4 year span.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/02/09 15:07:28
2024/02/09 15:49:29
Subject: Warhammer - The Old World news and rumors. TK and Bret MTO. p. 245.
Years ago they sold me on Cathay and Kislev, and now those factions are still not coming in the foreseeable future. Feels enough like vapor ware to me.
