Warhammer - The Old World

[Golgfag]

Maybe it really depends on the area, can only speak from my own experience as never attended a tournament in my life but I did help out and spent a lot of time around gaming stores in my part of the UK during the last few years of WFB but the main reason we heard time after time from dozens of new players who went from excited to burnt out was the lack of desire to paint up fifty of the same model for one unit due to the rules favouring one or two large units over more small units, so while the actual model count may not have changed too much, to people completely new to the miniature wargaming hobby, one unit of forty is psychologically more intimidating a prospect to finish then two units of twenty, especially if those two units of twenty are different models.

If the game had favoured more reasonable unit sizes, more variety and had a more enjoyable way of playing smaller point games then I don't believe WFB would have failed.

Simpler rules would help too though, I just never heard that as a reason from those players who dropped out or switched to 40k in my area during that period of time, possibly due to in my part of the UK at that time, anything not being made by GW might as well not have existed, so GW did not have competition from other companies putting out more beginner friendly rules.

[Gareth 🍄]

1 hour ago, Golgfag said:

Maybe it really depends on the area, can only speak from my own experience as never attended a tournament in my life but I did help out and spent a lot of time around gaming stores in my part of the UK during the last few years of WFB but the main reason we heard time after time from dozens of new players who went from excited to burnt out was the lack of desire to paint up fifty of the same model for one unit due to the rules favouring one or two large units over more small units, so while the actual model count may not have changed too much, to people completely new to the miniature wargaming hobby, one unit of forty is psychologically more intimidating a prospect to finish then two units of twenty, especially if those two units of twenty are different models.

If the game had favoured more reasonable unit sizes, more variety and had a more enjoyable way of playing smaller point games then I don't believe WFB would have failed.

Simpler rules would help too though, I just never heard that as a reason from those players who dropped out or switched to 40k in my area during that period of time, possibly due to in my part of the UK at that time, anything not being made by GW might as well not have existed, so GW did not have competition from other companies putting out more beginner friendly rules.

I really didn't like hordes either TBH.

[Panzer]

8th definitely made things a lot worse and it's when my group basically quit warhammer.

[EccentricCircle]

I got into warhammer fantasy around the transition to 8e, having played 40k and Lotr previously. I immediately loved the lore ( although I knew a fair bit of it already, it must be admitted) and I didn't have too much trouble with units, which i really enjoyed painting. However to this day I still haven't actually played 8e wfb, because I could never find the energy to work out all the rules. I got into Aos largely because of its simplicity. 

I'm not sure what it was about that big red book that i struggled with. I'd been playing other gw games for years. I play multiple rpgs, including D&D 3.5 with its hundreds of rulebooks. But 8e warhammer I just couldn't crack despite loving the setting and reading everything I could find about the lore.

[Panzer]

1 hour ago, EccentricCircle said:

I got into warhammer fantasy around the transition to 8e, having played 40k and Lotr previously. I immediately loved the lore ( although I knew a fair bit of it already, it must be admitted) and I didn't have too much trouble with units, which i really enjoyed painting. However to this day I still haven't actually played 8e wfb, because I could never find the energy to work out all the rules. I got into Aos largely because of its simplicity. 

I'm not sure what it was about that big red book that i struggled with. I'd been playing other gw games for years. I play multiple rpgs, including D&D 3.5 with its hundreds of rulebooks. But 8e warhammer I just couldn't crack despite loving the setting and reading everything I could find about the lore.

Probably the pages of pages of special rules. Same thing that people hated about 40k 7e core rules so now those are neat and tidy on the Datasheets where you only have them infront of you when you actually need them and if you need them you don't have to bring out the rulebook and search through it.

Also, at least during WHFB 7e, the BRB was really weirdly sorted. Without the index you could barely find anything if you didn't memorize it (which I did so some people usually came to me or our local warhammer guru to ask about rules).

[EccentricCircle]

1 minute ago, Panzer said:

Probably the pages of pages of special rules. Same thing that people hated about 40k 7e core rules so now those are neat and tidy on the Datasheets where you only have them infront of you when you actually need them and if you need them you don't have to bring out the rulebook and search through it.

Also, at least during WHFB 7e, the BRB was really weirdly sorted. Without the index you could barely find anything if you didn't memorize it (which I did so some people usually came to me or our local warhammer guru to ask about rules).

Yeah, definitely. It felt as though I had to learn everything, before I could figure out what I actually wanted/needed to use. With AoS, its obvious what bits of rules you need to learn, and you can gradually build up a familiarity with it. I find it easier to focus in short bursts as well, so being able to read the whole rulebook in one go, rather than over several days of study and revision definitely helped!

[Golgfag]

In an ideal world, the new WFB would be like the old LOTR rules, have both a skirmish version and a ranked up version that you can play with the same models.

[gjnoronh]

2 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

Yeah, definitely. It felt as though I had to learn everything, before I could figure out what I actually wanted/needed to use. With AoS, its obvious what bits of rules you need to learn, and you can gradually build up a familiarity with it. I find it easier to focus in short bursts as well, so being able to read the whole rulebook in one go, rather than over several days of study and revision definitely helped!

Agreed and the rules interactions are pretty intricate in WFB - and FAQ's might have changed the meaning of the written rules quite a bit in  8th.   For example Unmodified Leadership for Spirit Leach I think went through 5-6 different official FAQ interpretations over the lifespan of the edition with widely varying effect on the game for what was a common spell effect.      

It wasn't just the amount of rules it was how hard it was to figure out what they meant - and the layers of nuance added in FAQ.

 

AoS 1.0 was pretty straightforward that way.  AoS 2.0 is significantly more rules heavy and interaction heavy (terrain placement with faction terrain for example) I hope they push the needle back towards clean and simple rules that don't require reading FAQs for the average player to know what to do with common situations.

 

[Vomikron]

My main hope for the re-release(?) would be to make it entirely distinct from AoS. I want more troops, more cavalry, more cannons and less big monsters and characters.

[Overread]

But I want troops and cannon and cavalry in AoS! 

 

Personally I think that GW has made armies in AoS more expensive in points to cut down the model count to make it easier to get accepted and established. 40K has much bigger armies in terms of model count at 2K points than AoS in general. However 40K didn't get there overnight; for years armies were much much smaller. Heck even Tyranids wouldn't have originally had 40 gaunts in a single unit and then had multiple units of that many. 

It was also one of the big problems for Old World in that many armies needed to get to at least 1K to work and 2K to really work in terms of points; that put a huge load on people to build and paint up before they could get started. With GW now pushing games like Skirmish and Warcry; with things like 1K Meeting Engagement rules - I can well see that AoS will steadily get bigger and bigger armies over time. Much like 40K has done. 

 

 

[amysrevenge]

I think that making any hobby plans based on this (non-) announcement would be dramatically premature.  Or even non-plans (in the case of not re-basing some stuff you were planning to re-base).

a) it's soooo far in the future that anything could happen (it's almost as far forward from now as the start of AoS is backward from now) - would it really be reasonable for an AoS fan back in 2015 to do no AoS hobby work because there might be a new version in 2018?

b) it's sooooo ephemeral - they go out of their way in the article to say there is literally nothing other than a name and a logo.  Some of the cheeky memes *imply* that it will be normal sized models on old-style square bases, but they haven't come out and actually said anything explicit.

[Cèsar de Quart]

Honestly, the special rules and specific functions was a bad thing both in 40k and Fantasy. I got into WHFB with the start of the 6th Edition, and not even for a moment do I remember having problems understanding the rules. The Big Red Book may have looked intimidating, but the core of it was simple, and most of the rules followed a pattern which was easy to understand. It played around mostly with the stats of each unit and the movement they were able to do. WHFB was a game of positioning and timing. You had to move to the right spot at the right turn. Like chess.

When a game bloats the ruleset with special ruels not contained in the big red book or not easily recognisable by the stats of the mini, it ends up filled with "Well, I didn't know that rule existed" moments. Not fun.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Cèsar de Quart

[Fairbanks]

I’m not worried about the game, it will probably be rank/flank and have some capability to get AoS Round Base in.

The Fluff is the key.

They could redo The End Times and have plenty of new material, Orcs, Goblins and Ogres were left out. The intro to Nagash had a Bret/Wood Elf/Beasts War that could have updated two of those armies to 8th Ed standards. Sigmar’s Blood was a fantastic little intro book that I really wish I had had someone to play with when it came out.

A redo of The End Times would be a horrible waste of one of, if not the, best fantasy setting ever.

I want to see all of historical events redone in earnest. The War of the Beard, the Elves pre-Sundering, Archaon’s Epic Journey, Sigmar and Nagash’s clash, the close places that got no love (like Arabs) and far off places such as Cathay. I want to see more than just a revision of the old armies. I want to see Brets and TK again, but I want to see armies we hadn’t and some more regional specific forces (Like a Nuln or Middenheim list, a Dwarf Slayer army, a Morathi army (even if it would be just Daughters in Fantasy).)

Honestly, it worries me a little when they compare it to Horus Heresy. It’s a fantastic setting, but I feel like GW (or FW rather) have totally dropped the ball on supporting it the past three years.

/end two cents

[Dead Scribe]

Thats great, hopefully its just a novelty game that people collect but never really play, like the Silver Tower and other things GW have released.

[Johann]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats great, hopefully its just a novelty game that people collect but never really play, like the Silver Tower and other things GW have released.

perhaps you should think about the people who love the old game and be happy for them instead of thinking just about yourself. Reads a little too selfish.

 

I hope for a more easy and accessible R&F Game, I mostly played 6th Edition (stopped during university) and started AoS in the early days due to the simple rule set.
With complex rules like 8th Edition I wouldn’t be back playing tabletop, which would be ashame. But I really prefer the old world setting and looking forward the (new) old world.

[Moldek]

Honestly @Dead Scribe I don’t understand if you’re trolling or what. Litterally dozens of people have offered solutions to grow your group, perspective about the impact of the game, real life experiences that show how to foster a great community. You have not responded to any of these comments and you keep repeating that this game will be your doom, that it’s not fair, that you hope it sucks. I get your fears, I really do, but you seem determined to just be negative.

Do you not see how that attitude itself hurts your chance of growing your group? I’d much rather learn fantasy  than join a group where playing any other game than aos is unthinkable. Who wants to be part of a group where playing a different system makes you the enemy?

 I’m puzzled on why you even continue to post about it since you’re just repeating the same thing, and ignoring or dismissing any attempt from people to help you. If you’re like that in real life don’t be surprised that people are leaving your group.

I hope this doesn’t come off too harsh but I needed to say it.

[VBS]

It'd be nice if we could stick to the TGA policy of not posting if it's only to be recurringly negative and not even bothering to engage in a conversation.

As for myself, I think I'll make a Tomb King army (like everyone else, right? ). I'll be getting models from the Desert of the Dead KS which will make a perfect base.

That's hoping it will be a 28mm game. Wouldn't mind though if they made it 15 or 10mm, it's a scale that I never got into but find appealing. As long as TOW is something completely new and distinct from everything else, I'll be happy.

Might be surprising, but I've seen many whfb groups meet the announcement with hostility, thinking it may affect "their game" (for the record, whfb 6th ed is still very strong in this area of the planet). Funny as it's the same reaction certain AoS folks had. Think about it, the impossible happened: TOW, bringing AoS and WHFB fans together against GW.

[Moldek]

10 minutes ago, VBS said:

It'd be nice if we could stick to the TGA policy of not posting if it's only to be recurringly negative and not even bothering to engage in a conversation.

As for myself, I think I'll make a Tomb King army (like everyone else, right? ). I'll be getting models from the Desert of the Dead KS which will make a perfect base.

That's hoping it will be a 28mm game. Wouldn't mind though if they made it 15 or 10mm, it's a scale that I never got into but find appealing. As long as TOW is something completely new and distinct from everything else, I'll be happy.

Might be surprising, but I've seen many whfb groups meet the announcement with hostility, thinking it may affect "their game" (for the record, whfb 6th ed is still very strong in this area of the planet). Funny as it's the same reaction certain AoS folks had. Think about it, the impossible happened: TOW, bringing AoS and WHFB fans together against GW.

Yeah it’s really interesting how much of a touchy subject GW can be to the fans themselves. I think a lot of people have emotional memories of their best gaming period and it’s a painful thing to realize times are moving on, and that GW is first and foremost a company that needs to sell their products. Honestly I wish the DIY approach you see in rpgs (and even historical wargaming) was more prevalent; you don’t have to tie your hopes and dreams to a company’s strategy.

I’d be really surprised if it’s not 28 mm, but a warmaster style approach could look really good. I just doubt they’d sell half as much.

I don’t know what army I’d make. I’ve always liked the idea of a very grimy, border patrolling empire army. Or maybe chaos dwarfs dredged from the depths of ebay...

[JPjr]

31 minutes ago, Moldek said:

Yeah it’s really interesting how much of a touchy subject GW can be to the fans themselves.

Yeah, total weirdos. What's best is all the angry fist shaking at phantoms they've conjured up themselves. You see someone wonder if it will be like X, and then a page later loads of people are viscerally reacting to that random baseless assumption as if it was fact and proceed to build up a big head of steam about how X shows just how bad GW is or how this apparent now concrete information will destroy the ****** hobby universe.

The building army lists for a game maybe 3 years out that we don't know what format it will take, what period it will be set in or what factions will be supported is a close second. I mean I do get it, it's exciting and but damn it's a great way to get incredibly disappointed when the revealed game ends up having no relation to the fantasy you've created in your heads and Tomb Kings, Brets, Ironweld Cannons etc don't feature at all.

I'm sure if or when it turns out that GW aren't pumping 3+ years of resources into creating a game solely for the purpose allowing people to play with their 10-20 yr old models it will then be greeted in an incredibly emotionally mature manner.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by JPjr

[Moldek]

5 minutes ago, JPjr said:

I'm sure when it turns out that GW aren't pumping 3+ years of resources into creating a game solely for the purpose allowing people to play with their 10-20 yr old models it will be greeted in an incredibly emotionally mature manner.

Haha yeah, I’ve had that thought too. As a slight counterpoint I’m sure a lot of Fantasy fans would jump at the chance to buy updated sculpts even if they have a full army.

To be honest I hope that announcement gets people playing warhammer fantasy again, even based on a false assumption. It’s sad to have a painted army gathering dust!

If I had some friends that played it I’d definitely be down to put together a small oldhammer army. If it turns out it can be used in TOW it’s a bonus

 

[Overread]

Honestly when you look at people who tend to own 1 army that they still use and they've been gaming for 20 or more years they tend to have new sculpts. Sure they imght have a whole bunch of legacy models too; but they tend to remain active because building and painting are parts of the hobby too. Those who tend to cry out the most when new armies get new models tend to be those who army-hop a lot and thus tend to have less "loyalty" to the vision of a specific army and are more after the pure meta game aspect of the experience. So new models often cost them more to get and they are only expecting to hold into them for a year or so before they swap over to the new meta-power choice.

 

I think that when the new game comes most will react in a positive way. Those who will be negative are "more likely" to be those who are already bitter against GW and whom are really not customers of them any more.  I don't blame them after how GW handled the transfer from Old World to AoS, however at the same time each year that passes its another year under the bridge past that choice. At some point it stop being healthy to keep that hate going and to ignore what the company is doing; or to simply move on to other firms and other product lines.

[VBS]

2 hours ago, Moldek said:

Yeah it’s really interesting how much of a touchy subject GW can be to the fans themselves. I think a lot of people have emotional memories of their best gaming period and it’s a painful thing to realize times are moving on, and that GW is first and foremost a company that needs to sell their products. Honestly I wish the DIY approach you see in rpgs (and even historical wargaming) was more prevalent; you don’t have to tie your hopes and dreams to a company’s strategy.

I’d be really surprised if it’s not 28 mm, but a warmaster style approach could look really good. I just doubt they’d sell half as much.

I don’t know what army I’d make. I’ve always liked the idea of a very grimy, border patrolling empire army. Or maybe chaos dwarfs dredged from the depths of ebay...

I agree about the DIY approach. I think we can find this in other wargames that are more "open" in terms of miniatures and/or rules, either asking gamers to have a little bit of imagination or simply being deliberately vague (perfect example: Warlords of Erehwon). Probably more prevalent in rpgs though, I think tabletop wargaming actually moves in the opposite direction for some reason....

With time, I tend to gravitate more towards such "open" view of the hobby as I know that a game held by a company obsessed with controlling and locking everything behind their way is going to lead to disappointment at some point in the future (AoS is often like this, unfortunately...). It is a perfectly legitimate business model, but since I mainly care about having fun when dealing with little soldiers, I tend to see myself pushed towards a certain niche within a niche.

I think if one doesn't condition their enjoyment to what companies or other fellow hobbyists do, it makes your time dedicated to toy soldiers nicer. This can apply to many many other things. I also find such mentality leads to healthier groups, there is less tension and uncertainty (often source of negativity, visceral whining and yada yada yada). For example, I said I'll be building a Tomb Kings army without even knowing if the scale will be 28mm or if they will even be included in TOW. I'm not doing this because TOW will be out in 3+ years but because I simply want to, regardless of the TOW outcome. If I can later use it, fantastic!! Otherwise, it's not like there are least 3 other gaming systems that I like that could accommodate them or just appreciate the process of building a painting cool miniatures.

Bottom line is that the problem isn't what others do, but your attitude towards it. Of course it's easier and more comforting to just blame a company for making business decisions you don't like but then you'll have to suck it up and be a sad panda because - newsflash - they don't care about your opinion.

[Golgfag]

Speaking of the more negative elements of the discussion, one complaint I have seen repeated on so many sites online is people saying GW will deliberately change the models available it so that it is impossible for people to use their past collections, I doubt that heavily as GW is clearly basing this heavily on nostalgia so what would be the point of bringing back the Old World but changing all the armies.

I can't believe that for example Dwarfs are back but the basic infantry won't be able to have shields, hand axes, handguns, crossbows, great axes etc

It makes much more sense that the selling point will be updated sculpts, new units to add to those classic armies and those updated sculpts for example Dwarf Warriors now coming with a new bonus weaponry option on top of the classic ways of arming them. 

That is how they have handled Blood Bowl which is has been my favourite GW game for the last seven years before GW started supporting it again, they have added player options to some teams, rather then change them so that people would struggle to use their old team miniatures.

Hopefully they bring back most of the plastic kits that have vanished from AoS as with the new factory they should be able to manage it, as most of them are still great plastic kits even in the modern era, the one thing they need to avoid is not to do something silly that in my opinion would kill it on launch like only having rules for example Empire vs Chaos, then adding rules for another couple of armies a few months down the line.

Support all the armies from the start, even if for most of them it does not include any new models.

[Cèsar de Quart]

2 minutes ago, Golgfag said:

Speaking of the more negative elements of the discussion, one complaint I have seen repeated on so many sites online is people saying GW will deliberately change the models available it so that it is impossible for people to use their past collections, I doubt that heavily as GW is clearly basing this heavily on nostalgia so what would be the point of bringing back the Old World but changing all the armies.

I can't believe that for example Dwarfs are back but the basic infantry won't be able to have shields, hand axes, handguns, crossbows, great axes etc

It makes much more sense that the selling point will be updated sculpts, new units to add to those classic armies and those updated sculpts for example Dwarf Warriors now coming with a new bonus weaponry option on top of the classic ways of arming them. 

That is how they have handled Blood Bowl which is has been my favourite GW game for the last seven years before GW started supporting it again, they have added player options to some teams, rather then change them so that people would struggle to use their old team miniatures.

Hopefully they bring back most of the plastic kits that have vanished from AoS as with the new factory they should be able to manage it, as most of them are still great plastic kits even in the modern era, the one thing they need to avoid is not to do something silly that in my opinion would kill it on launch like only having rules for example Empire vs Chaos, then adding rules for another couple of armies a few months down the line.

Support all the armies from the start, even if for most of them it does not include any new models.

I can see the problem for some people. To me, new WHFB models is always good news.

[Overread]

GW will change things without a doubt; but honestly the biggest chance would likely be bases. Otherwise an elf with a spear is an elf with a spear. Doesn't matter really what the armour looks like - on the tabletop with a paint job its an elf with a spear - its an elf spearman. 

 

 

I think the biggest potential disappointment will be the range of armies supported at launch. GW might support them all or only a few; so there's always a risk that some will get all excited and then not be supported at launch. This goes doubly for armies like Tomb Kings.