Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Beastmaster said:

I still find the whole idea of killing off an extremely popular setting, building up a completely new setting, then re-releasing the old setting 5 years later completely insane. 
Maybe I’m just getting old. 😅

Everything's gotta be reboots and sequels---the familiar is warm and safe. Nothing can stay dead. Gotta clap when you see Talabheim!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gecktron said:

I wouldnt call Warhammer Fantasy "extremly popular". The game was clearly on its way out back then. Completly dwarfed by 40K. A lot of people hyping up the old world online are mostly coming from Total War: Warhammer. Its hard to say how much this will translate into real players.  

Those on the total war forum are upset at the time period since they have to buy new models. I'm suprised they didn't expect this GW weren't planning to just do 9th edition. At the moment people are waking up to the fact that it's not set in Karl Franz's time.

Edited by shinros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

I still find the whole idea of killing off an extremely popular setting, building up a completely new setting, then re-releasing the old setting 5 years later completely insane. 
Maybe I’m just getting old. 😅

Without any evidence to back it up-  I assume this reintroduction of the Old World is due entirely to the huge success of Total War Warhammer and the fact that someone who wants to transition from that game to the tabletop game can't right now.  

I do have to admit, I have tried hard to buy into AoS since the End Times and I do like things about it.  But when these articles come out about the Old World, I realize that I just like that setting so much better.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gecktron said:

I wouldnt call Warhammer Fantasy "extremly popular". The game was clearly on its way out back then. Completly dwarfed by 40K. A lot of people hyping up the old world online are mostly coming from Total War: Warhammer. Its hard to say how much this will translate into real players.  

Eh, "unpopular" is really relative when it comes to this hobby. Being less popular than 40k doesn't make it unpopular. GW games are still head and shoulders ahead of most of the rest of the fantasy wargaming genre. Even when Lord of the Rings was at it's height WFB was still pretty much in third place, and it really took the rise of x-wing and a large shift to warmahordes to damage its standing. Even then it was still well in the top five- ten. Most other games a neither household names, or really gateway games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gecktron said:

I wouldnt call Warhammer Fantasy "extremly popular". The game was clearly on its way out back then. Completly dwarfed by 40K. A lot of people hyping up the old world online are mostly coming from Total War: Warhammer. Its hard to say how much this will translate into real players.  

40k was on it's way out around 2015 too, GW's was in it's worst state ever and haemorrhaging money. People were ditching 40k in droves as well, it just had a much larger bucket of water in which to leak.  For the first time in years it had lost it's 'top spot' to X-Wing and the like.

GW in 2015 didn't have the self-awareness to make WHFB work, anymore than other parts of the business, including AoS. All it understood was that Space Marines sell, thus the Stormcast and the absolute (in some cases, literal) joke that AoS launch was.

Remember that GW struggled to keep up to demand of the End Times releases and had to scramble to put out things like softbacks to meet demand.

What 'killed' WHFB was the almost non-existent release schedule - End Times proved that if you make it, people will buy it - and how financially steep the game had become to get into, even compared to 40k, because of GW's conscious decision to make it numbers of models in a unit king.

Edited by Clan's Cynic
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

Eh, "unpopular" is really relative when it comes to this hobby. Being less popular than 40k doesn't make it unpopular. GW games are still head and shoulders ahead of most of the rest of the fantasy wargaming genre. Even when Lord of the Rings was at it's height WFB was still pretty much in third place, and it really took the rise of x-wing and a large shift to warmahordes to damage its standing. Even then it was still well in the top five- ten. Most other games a neither household names, or really gateway games.

I didnt said unpopular. But claiming Fantasy was massivly popular is wrong. You said it yourself, Tabletop is a niche hobby, back then even more so.  And fantasy was a niche even in this niche. Even with the 7th edition in 2006. GW gave Fantasy a lot of attention during late 7th and the whole 8th edition. New armybooks for every faction besides Bretonnia, a lot of new plastic kits for all these armies, two big expansions in 8th alone. Every second release was fantasy themed back then. And even all that couldnt revive fantasy. Im not hating on it. I started the hobby with the 6th edition High Elves army book, but I want to keep the record straight. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

I didnt said unpopular. But claiming Fantasy was massivly popular is wrong. You said it yourself, Tabletop is a niche hobby, back then even more so.  And fantasy was a niche even in this niche. Even with the 7th edition in 2006. GW gave Fantasy a lot of attention during late 7th and the whole 8th edition. New armybooks for every faction besides Bretonnia, a lot of new plastic kits for all these armies, two big expansions in 8th alone. Every second release was fantasy themed back then. And even all that couldnt revive fantasy. Im not hating on it. I started the hobby with the 6th edition High Elves army book, but I want to keep the record straight. 

True, nothing in this hobby is truly popular in the way other genres can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, CaptainBerk said:

Sprues and Brews have a new article looking at Lumineth related rumour engines.  They also think they may have spotted Tyrion.  I hope they are right!

https://spruesandbrews.com/2020/02/06/lumineth-realm-lords-rumour-engine-analysis/

Interesting article ! 

 

Alas, one thing to debunk is the face in the artwork ; it's the face of the Celenar (look at the ears and jewels)  !

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Austin said:

Without any evidence to back it up-  I assume this reintroduction of the Old World is due entirely to the huge success of Total War Warhammer and the fact that someone who wants to transition from that game to the tabletop game can't right now.  

I do have to admit, I have tried hard to buy into AoS since the End Times and I do like things about it.  But when these articles come out about the Old World, I realize that I just like that setting so much better.

Which is another completely bizarre decision. Why on earth would you allow a big game studio to make Warhammer Total War at the same time as you decided to kill the Old World. And then followed it up with Warhammer Total War 2. 
Why on earth would you not push the new Mortal Realms setting for these games?  

In reality, the games would be nearly identical, but with different maps, unit/character names etc.... functionally they'd play the same way. 

Obviously now in hindsight it's clear GW simply didn't have enough (or any) lore, maps, locations etc... created for AOS 1.0. At least not enough to make a TW game out of. But these days we have maps of the various realms, you could theme campaigns in each realm, theme and skin armies depending on location etc.... 
There could be cool fights in and around realmgates.   

Back then I assume they were doing it as a "well, we're getting rid of it, maybe we can at least still make some money out of a dying brand" 
It seems like that would be a big risk for the game studio too. I'd be pretty annoyed if I found out the setting/lore that I'm using for a new game is about to be discontinued by the owner/creator.  
That's almost like making a Han Solo game and during development finding out Disney has decided to retcon all of Han Solo out of existing and future Star Wars products. 

I'm happy there was enough interest to make it into the great game it is now, and to justify an even better sequel. But I also think Warhammer Total War 3 should be set in the mortal realms. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Inquisitorsz said:

I'm happy there was enough interest to make it into the great game it is now, and to justify an even better sequel. But I also think Warhammer Total War 3 should be set in the mortal realms. 

that was never going to happen because CA had a roadmap of what each games was going to be before the first game came out, AoS was not going to be touch in the lifespan of the trilogy.

that and the TWWH  reddit and forum community form into an Anti-AoS circle so it be too much uproar for an Total War: AoS to happen anytime soon (like a very distant future).

heck even when someone release an obvious fake rendering of a Stormcast for total war, the community went full toxic mode on it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, novakai said:

that was never going to happen because CA had a roadmap of what each games was going to be before the first game came out, AoS was not going to be touch in the lifespan of the trilogy.

that and the TWWH  reddit and forum community form into an Anti-AoS circle so it be too much uproar for an Total War: AoS to happen anytime soon (like a very distant future).

heck even when someone release an obvious fake rendering of a Stormcast for total war, the community went full toxic mode on it.

It's a shame because I love TWWH and it really filled that Fantasy wargaming niche for me in between Endtimes and getting into AoS.  I have tried to put reasonable posts on the reddit saying that, Yes GW fumbled the ball hard with Endtimes and the launch of AoS but now the game has pretty good lore with a bunch of unique factions.

 

I usually get downvoted straight to hell.

 

It's a shame tho too because I think a TW:AoS would work amazingly.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

Which is another completely bizarre decision. Why on earth would you allow a big game studio to make Warhammer Total War at the same time as you decided to kill the Old World. And then followed it up with Warhammer Total War 2. 
Why on earth would you not push the new Mortal Realms setting for these games?  

In reality, the games would be nearly identical, but with different maps, unit/character names etc.... functionally they'd play the same way. 

Obviously now in hindsight it's clear GW simply didn't have enough (or any) lore, maps, locations etc... created for AOS 1.0. At least not enough to make a TW game out of. But these days we have maps of the various realms, you could theme campaigns in each realm, theme and skin armies depending on location etc.... 
There could be cool fights in and around realmgates.   

Back then I assume they were doing it as a "well, we're getting rid of it, maybe we can at least still make some money out of a dying brand" 
It seems like that would be a big risk for the game studio too. I'd be pretty annoyed if I found out the setting/lore that I'm using for a new game is about to be discontinued by the owner/creator.  
That's almost like making a Han Solo game and during development finding out Disney has decided to retcon all of Han Solo out of existing and future Star Wars products. 

I'm happy there was enough interest to make it into the great game it is now, and to justify an even better sequel. But I also think Warhammer Total War 3 should be set in the mortal realms. 

The old world was still a well known IP and so CA could bank on it for their foray into fantasy.  It also transitioned really well into total war due to the rank and file nature of that game series.  It would be insane for CA to have picked Sigmar as their setting back when Total Warhammer 1 was being done as neither company knew how the public would initially receive it (poorly) and also how well the lore was written and developed (also poorly).  Now these days it is much much better but I still think fantasy is the far stronger setting and much easier to develop a game around.  People forget it took like 20 years for Warhammer to develop its lore into something that wasn't half arsed or really generic.  Sigmar is what...5 years old?  It is going to take another 5 or so years for the lore to really come into its own and be a viable world.

Now GWs real problem was not pivoting fast enough to catch the Total Warhammer players.  They didn't even have any joint marketing ventures in (Buy this DLC and get a voucher for 50% off a sigmar kit and ask our staff how to play the game in store!) and they were going out of their way to scrap all the old fantasy lines as fast as possible.   I personally think this old world game will fall pretty flat in the market and people will still struggle to get the models they want.  It will not be new player friendly at all (good luck getting all the models you need from scratch) and as soon as your game can't get any new blood in you die a slow death as your vets lose interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

Which is another completely bizarre decision. Why on earth would you allow a big game studio to make Warhammer Total War at the same time as you decided to kill the Old World. And then followed it up with Warhammer Total War 2. 
Why on earth would you not push the new Mortal Realms setting for these games?  

Also need to factor in the ease of making this kind of game. Old World is a bunch of factions with one map, one 'world'. Mortal Realms is a ****** load of factions spread across multiple maps/worlds. From a development stand point Old World would have been faster and easier to translate into a video game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

Interesting article ! 

 

Alas, one thing to debunk is the face in the artwork ; it's the face of the Celenar (look at the ears and jewels)  !

The long hair with bands on it is also from the new Shadowsun model, and the "brackets with flame" has been seen in Scions of the Flame art. This was a pretty lazy article...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Under the Mountain said:

It's a shame because I love TWWH and it really filled that Fantasy wargaming niche for me in between Endtimes and getting into AoS.  I have tried to put reasonable posts on the reddit saying that, Yes GW fumbled the ball hard with Endtimes and the launch of AoS but now the game has pretty good lore with a bunch of unique factions.

 

I usually get downvoted straight to hell.

 

It's a shame tho too because I think a TW:AoS would work amazingly.

I think it'll come. You see more and more of the TW WH YouTubers etc. venturing into showing AOS related content. And some of these are pretty successful. AOS now has also so much more in common with the old setting (in terms of factions) than at the start where people like myself were still really angry about the whole thing, and just pissed at the "Sigmarines". 

But now, although the setting is completely different, and you have interesting new factions, there are a lot of similarities if you only look at the armies. I can't imagine they won't try out a TW AOS after WH3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

But now, although the setting is completely different, and you have interesting new factions, there are a lot of similarities if you only look at the armies. I can't imagine they won't try out a TW AOS after WH3. 

IDK I feel they venture into 40k  since it the bigger IP they could use and GW would push that more since their hasn't been a good 40k game in a while outside of Battlefleet. the Youtuber like Turin and MilkandCookies are pushing for that angle more and they haven't really change their mind about the Travesty of AoS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, xking said:

Why? 

I think he's touching on the toxicity of video/ pc gamer culture?

Wargamer culture has its own dusting of the same ofc but its nothing like the scale of the other. 

At the same time, you'd probably play a lovely game with a video gamer and not know they'd  call you all the names under the sun if you were instead playing Dota. 

Once you treat games just like other media and not an idolised thing, the Stockholm syndrome wears off. 

Games can still be cool and interesting experiences but Video game culture sucks :P

I mean it was a great thing, a cool counter culture comfort, at one time. Now it's something less cool. It took a wrong turn. 

Just some fresh, half baked personal opinions for you early in the morning not at all rumour related ^^

 

Edited by Turragor
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Turragor said:

I think he's touching on the toxicity of video/ pc gamer culture?

Wargamer culture has its own dusting of the same ofc but its nothing like the scale of the other. 

At the same time, you'd probably play a lovely game with a video gamer and not know they'd  call you all the names under the sun if you weet instead playing Dota. 

Once you treat games just like other media and not an idolised thing, the Stockholm syndrome wears off. 

Games can still be cool and interesting experiences but Video game culture sucks :P

I mean it was a great thing, a cool counter culture comfort, at one time. Now it's something less cool. It took a wrong turn. 

Just some fresh, half baked personal opinions for you early in the morning not at all rumour related ^^

 

he is just being an elitist. 

and 'the toxicity of video/ pc gamer culture' is related to the anonymity of the interactions, something which table top games lack.

It also has nothing to do with the youtube total war players, nothing toxic about them and their fans (based on stream chats), atleast the ones he mentioned.

 

maybe I am biased because I have been treated far worse (and more often) by "that guy" type players on table top then I have ever been by 'toxic' gamers on PC.

edit: and arguments over the meaning of rules is very very common, and far more toxic. at least in my experience...

Edited by Turin Turambar
added stuff
  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gecktron said:

I didnt said unpopular. But claiming Fantasy was massivly popular is wrong. You said it yourself, Tabletop is a niche hobby, back then even more so.  And fantasy was a niche even in this niche. Even with the 7th edition in 2006. GW gave Fantasy a lot of attention during late 7th and the whole 8th edition. New armybooks for every faction besides Bretonnia, a lot of new plastic kits for all these armies, two big expansions in 8th alone. Every second release was fantasy themed back then. And even all that couldnt revive fantasy. Im not hating on it. I started the hobby with the 6th edition High Elves army book, but I want to keep the record straight. 

I meant the setting, the old world. That world alone was a selling argument for countless books, several editions of RPGs and a number of pc games. That the transfer of this popularity to the tabletop game didn’t work in the last years of Wfb sure has many reasons, but it was not due to the setting.

Of course, AoS is a miniature designers paradise, the change away from rank and file, simpler rules and other changes to make the start easier for beginners were all sound choices. But I often wonder if it wouldn’t have been even more popular if they stuck all those changes in a post-end times Old World. Rebuilding empires on the ruins of those destroyed would have been a sound storyline with bits of familiar structures and still room for new crazy IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, King Under the Mountain said:

It's a shame because I love TWWH and it really filled that Fantasy wargaming niche for me in between Endtimes and getting into AoS.  I have tried to put reasonable posts on the reddit saying that, Yes GW fumbled the ball hard with Endtimes and the launch of AoS but now the game has pretty good lore with a bunch of unique factions.

 

I usually get downvoted straight to hell.

 

It's a shame tho too because I think a TW:AoS would work amazingly.

Beyond the AoS/WHFB side of things, it’s worth remembering that Total War games in general have one of the least pleasant and most toxic fanbases around. You’d see a lot of the same behaviours around the historical games: all the petulance and small scale point scoring of folks who know just enough popular history to be irritating combined the broader immaturity and narcissism of self-identified capital-G Gamers.

Edited by sandlemad
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the hobby should be inclusive and open to everyone 😺 I've had wonderful playing experiences with people who I personally feel hold highly immoral socio-political views, and I will gladly chat to them about our common interests again and again - namely, this amazing hobby! I get wanting to avoid a negative experience and having biases against certain crowds, but I feel like being open to meeting new people and connecting over painting/modelling/playing is honestly the best aspect of this hobby.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...