Warhammer - The Old World

[Ggom]

37 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Funny, historicals wargamers are usually the opposite in my experience, far more likely in games like Flames of War to take an 'authentic' force than whatever is the most overpowered combination of units very little historical context or grounding, as well as scenarios and terrain that's not strictly fair if it makes sense in context.

Hell, it's why 30k's community is often compared to historical wargaming so much. the emphasis on fluff and immersion than raw stats. 

I do 30k as my main hobby and yeah, most games I’ve played are pretty fast/loose on rules with a goal of having a narrative and fair game. Don’t hate on historicals guys. We don’t take the winning part seriously. (Or many of us don’t)

[Gaz Taylor]

6 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Funny, historicals wargamers are usually the opposite in my experience, far more likely in games like Flames of War to take an 'authentic' force than whatever is the most overpowered combination of units very little historical context or grounding, as well as scenarios and terrain that's not strictly fair if it makes sense in context.

Hell, it's why 30k's community is often compared to historical wargaming so much. the emphasis on fluff and immersion than raw stats. 

I do think in general most historical gamers are all about the story of the battle and doing fun stuff with the narrative. But this group were the complete oppersite and some thought themselves as experts. It generally led to games that became frustrating as you couldn’t get past turn two as if you had a lucky dice roll it turned into a grumpy debate about what could do what. I just wanted to play games. 
 

Anyway, I have faith in GW that the Old World game will be fun and great to play. Not sure it’s something I would jump straight into unless there’s a good gaming group near by.

[AGPO]

I'm kinda peeved about the confirmed square bases, having re-based most of my collection at this stage at great cost to my time and bank balance. Hopefully GW are more flexible with base size and allow the use of movement trays for people who want to use minis for both systems.

For me the major lesson that needs to be learned from 8e is that the number of models required needs to be considered in the pricing. IMO a big part of the reason 8e died wasn't the system itself so much as GW massively inflating the number of core troops needed whilst at the same time pushing the price per mini to 40k levels. It pushed the barrier to entry too high for new players, especially with limited efforts to engage people in small scale gaming.

[Beastmaster]

I have no idea how rebasing would even work for miniatures with fragile legs and feet without destroying them in the process. I even struggled and sweated with rebasing Ogors. 😬

[finngamer]

On 1/6/2020 at 11:02 AM, RuneBrush said:

Nothing was actually revealed, so the following is my own impression of what I'd call the "current thinking".

.

Square bases are indeed one of the things that is 100% confirmed.

Sorry to have to ask, but did they directly say that squares are back? This is huge breaking news if true, would be the first ever confirmation for this.

All GW has officially done is some teasing that confirms nothing. A meme that says "Everything comes round again" and a meme video, that has a thumbnail of a square base that says "The shape of things to come...?".

[King Under the Mountain]

1 hour ago, finngamer said:

Sorry to have to ask, but did they directly say that squares are back? This is huge breaking news if true, would be the first ever confirmation for this.

All GW has officially done is some teasing that confirms nothing. A meme that says "Everything comes round again" and a meme video, that has a thumbnail of a square base that says "The shape of things to come...?".

I would say that is a massive clue that they are going back to square bases and would be silly if they don't.

[finngamer]

8 minutes ago, King Under the Mountain said:

I would say that is a massive clue that they are going back to square bases and would be silly if they don't.

Then why not say it? Why not mention bases at all in the official announcement? Why have a "...?" at the end of "shape of things to come"?

Square bases are synonymous with Fantasy Battle, so it's a valid way of teasing things. But since this is a different game called The Old World, it could be they just wanted to evoke the lore and feel of the setting, instead of setting the gameplay in stone.

What has been confirmed is that Old World is to Age of Sigmar, as Horus Heresy is to 40k. A source of background for the lore, sure, but you can also easily use many HH figures in 40k. They're not rival products, like The Old World would be with square bases. Makes no sense to bring different bases, IF the scale is same.

But maybe I'm speculating in vain, and RuneBrush actually heard the words.

Edited January 13, 2020 by finngamer

[EccentricCircle]

I'm hoping for squares being the standard, but with the option to use rounds or movement trays. In the same way that Circles are standard in AoS, but you can still use a square based army if you want.

I've never had the slightest interest in re-basing anything. I like my armies to look consistant, so anything which I started as a WFB army is on squares, while anything I started for AoS is largely based on circles.

Ironically I agonised over whether to go with squares or circles for my new Night Goblin/ Gloomspite force, and finally went for circles, since it woudl have been really expensive to buy square bases for hundreds of goblins who didn't come with them. Then days after I finished assembling them all they announced the Old World.

[Overread]

Lets face it, outside of leaders and monsters on their own, most people used movement trays for Old World if they could. The rank and file formation doesn't change that often and its far easier to move the models from one tray to another than it is to keep moving 40 warriors up in rank and file all the time. The tray makes 5mins into 30seconds. A big saving in time. 

 

I can well see GW selling them on square bases, but offering rounds and also doing round slot movement trays - and if GW doesn't do it you can bet 3rd parties will very fast. 

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Ideally they would come out with a line of Circle-to-square adaptable bases, that simply squares the edges of the appropriately sized bases. That or bases like ASOIAF uses, same idea but for whole units. 

[gjnoronh]

2 hours ago, Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll said:

Ideally they would come out with a line of Circle-to-square adaptable bases, that simply squares the edges of the appropriately sized bases. That or bases like ASOIAF uses, same idea but for whole units. 

GW did (does) that for Lord of the Rings battle game. I don't follow it but the previous (I think) edition had those kinds of bases for converting rounds for skirmish play to big ranked units. At least I think so -I can't find a pic on a quick google search just now.  

[Evangelist of Cinders]

11 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

I have no idea how rebasing would even work for miniatures with fragile legs and feet without destroying them in the process. I even struggled and sweated with rebasing Ogors. 😬

use the same method for pinning drill a hole under and into the foot first. with the bit still securely in the foot it'll stabilize/brace the legsa bit more. though I think at this point myself i'm going to work the next three years finding a way to magnatize models to bases so I can just swap em out

[RuneBrush]

19 hours ago, finngamer said:

Sorry to have to ask, but did they directly say that squares are back? This is huge breaking news if true, would be the first ever confirmation for this.

Yes.  It was confirmed by Andy in the seminar I attended at the NY Open Day that Square bases are back.  Now we're assuming that square bases are on models - it's feasibly he meant that there was a way of making scenery out of them 😉

15 hours ago, Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll said:

Ideally they would come out with a line of Circle-to-square adaptable bases, that simply squares the edges of the appropriately sized bases. That or bases like ASOIAF uses, same idea but for whole units. 

Hand on heart, I think the likelihood of using models from your AoS army in The Old World is zero.  When we moved from fantasy to AoS, almost everything took an increase in base size and removed the requirement for models to rank up together.  As an example, a unit of skeletons went from 20mm square bases to 25mm round.  I know this is going to be super disappointing for some people, but ultimately The Old World is going to be a brand new game - yes it'll be based on classic Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but it's a new game none the less.

Now, I could see it being possible to use your old square based fantasy armies in The Old World.  However until we have confirmation of the scale, we're simply not going to know this for sure.

[HorticulusTGA]

For GW to create a distinct enough aesthetic with TOW - without changing the scales from 28mm (AOS) to 25mm again (LOTR) -, they will have to deal with the many kits that are currently used in AOS (but designed for Fantasy). I could see those going OOP before TOW launches, only to be re-released with it. 

- LoN / FEC : Skeleton Warriors / Zombies (if they are still around) / Ghouls ;

- Gloomspite : Night Goblins, Spider Goblins ;

- Sylvaneth : Dryads and some other Wood Elves-era tree spirits ;

- Bonesplitterz  & Ogors : almost their entire ranges

- Beast Of Chaos / Skaven : almost their entire ranges ;

- Cities Of Sigmar : Dark Elves (with / without Daughters Of Khaine because "dynamic poses") / Phoenix Elves / Wanderer Elves / Ranger Elves / Dwarfs / Freeguild & Co. ;

- Few units / Characters for the other ranges, including Slaves to Darkness and other Chaos factions.

---

GW could : use the same models for both games. And sell Square Bases packs next to round bases.

GW should (😜) : transfer the WFB kits to TOW, and should keep releasing new "full-AOS" armies like Idoneth or Ossiarch. Finally, they should release remplacement kits for Dryads and the like but truly AOSified.

(But then, for example, the Skaven Underworld warband is totally fine for WFB. I've been musing over using the new Ogor Hunter and the Grot Wolf riders for a WFB Skirmish campaign set in the Dark Lands.......). 

[Beastmaster]

8 minutes ago, HorticulusTGA said:

For GW to create a distinct enough aesthetic with TOW - without changing the scales from 28mm (AOS) to 25mm again (LOTR) -, they will have to deal with the many kits that are currently used in AOS (but designed for Fantasy). I could see those going OOP before TOW launches, only to be re-released with it. 

- LoN / FEC : Skeleton Warriors / Zombies (if they are still around) / Ghouls ;

- Gloomspite : Night Goblins, Spider Goblins ;

- Sylvaneth : Dryads and some other Wood Elves-era tree spirits ;

- Bonesplitterz  & Ogors : almost their entire ranges

- Beast Of Chaos / Skaven : almost their entire ranges ;

- Cities Of Sigmar : Dark Elves (with / without Daughters Of Khaine because "dynamic poses") / Phoenix Elves / Wanderer Elves / Ranger Elves / Dwarfs / Freeguild & Co. ;

- Few units / Characters for the other ranges, including Slaves to Darkness and other Chaos

And Seraphon.

Not much left of AoS if that all goes to Old World.

 

Personally, I do hope for fanmade crossover gaming. AoS rules with oldworld armies & fluff would be the best of two worlds for me. I don’t think I’ll ever warm up to rank&file (or the Realms). 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Beastmaster

[zilberfrid]

4 minutes ago, HorticulusTGA said:

For GW to create a distinct enough aesthetic with TOW - without changing the scales from 28mm (AOS) to 25mm again (LOTR) -, they will have to deal with the many kits that are currently used in AOS (but designed for Fantasy). I could see those going OOP before TOW launches, only to be re-released with it. 

- LoN / FEC : Skeleton Warriors / Zombies (if they are still around) / Ghouls ;

- Gloomspite : Night Goblins, Spider Goblins ;

- Sylvaneth : Dryads and some other Wood Elves-era tree spirits ;

- Bonesplitterz  & Ogors : almost their entire ranges

- Beast Of Chaos / Skaven : almost their entire ranges ;

- Cities Of Sigmar : Dark Elves (with / without Daughters Of Khaine because "dynamic poses") / Phoenix Elves / Wanderer Elves / Ranger Elves / Dwarfs / Freeguild & Co. ;

- Few units / Characters for the other ranges, including Slaves to Darkness and other Chaos factions.

---

GW could : use the same models for both games. And sell Square Bases packs next to round bases.

GW should (😜) : transfer the WFB kits to TOW, and should keep releasing new "full-AOS" armies like Idoneth or Ossiarch. Finally, they should release remplacement kits for Dryads and the like but truly AOSified.

(But then, for example, the Skaven Underworld warband is totally fine for WFB. I've been musing over using the new Ogor Hunter and the Grot Wolf riders for a WFB Skirmish campaign set in the Dark Lands.......). 

Do they really need a "distinct enough aesthetic" if they don't drastically decrease scale (to 6-20 mm, not 25 or 28)?

30k doesn't have it, and it would help keep cost down on an as yet uncertain product to use the same sets.

[RuneBrush]

6 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

30k doesn't have it, and it would help keep cost down on an as yet uncertain product to use the same sets.

30k has the advantage in that it's the same timeline (just wound on 10,000 years), whereas I'd say that AoS doesn't really have the same lineage to things in The Old World.  That said, that's entirely supposition on my part!  I reckon we could well have another year to wait to find out any more substantial information.

[RuneBrush]

7 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

they will have to deal with the many kits that are currently used in AOS (but designed for Fantasy). I could see those going OOP before TOW launches, only to be re-released with it. 

I think if this were to happen then there would likely already be a plan in place and the AoS Design Studio would need to be made aware of it (because that's a massive list of models).  It was confirmed that they don't know anything about the project at the moment, so that discussion hasn't been had (yet?).

I'd also question about seeing some of the old plastics brought back - I had a look at an old Dwarf Warrior the other day, and in comparison to a more modern Irondrake, it looks really dated - wind that on 3 years and it's going to look really tired.  I can't see the sculptors being told "I know we can do fantastic things with 3d sculpting, but I want you to sculpt this model so that it'll fit in with something designed in 1998", could be wrong but for a company that prides itself on being at the cutting edge of miniature design it doesn't feel right.

[amysrevenge]

I think this notion of stealing models from AoS to feed TOW is a backwards one. It's like (to use an analogy from North American sports) sending your best starting pitcher down to the AAA farm team to belp the AAA team win.

AoS is the main game. TOW will be the small specialist side game.

(Also, I've said it before in this thread, but the time between now and when we can expect TOW is roughly the same as the time between the start of AoS and now. It would be silly to make hobby decisions based on something that far away just based on time, let alone on the dearth of actual information.)

[hughwyeth]

39 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I'd also question about seeing some of the old plastics brought back - I had a look at an old Dwarf Warrior the other day, and in comparison to a more modern Irondrake, it looks really dated - wind that on 3 years and it's going to look really tired.  I can't see the sculptors being told "I know we can do fantastic things with 3d sculpting, but I want you to sculpt this model so that it'll fit in with something designed in 1998", could be wrong but for a company that prides itself on being at the cutting edge of miniature design it doesn't feel right.

I think the issue is making whole armies for a smaller game is not the best return on investment. It's now basically there for 30k- but it's all space marines, not 12 distinct different races (or however many there were). It wouldn't surprise me if they did bring back some of the older plastic kits- they have the moulds and many of the kits were quite nice, though not as detailed as current ones. I mean, if they make whole 10-unit ranges for multiple armies in new designs, that would be amazing- but there's a paid cost already for WHFB models that might be too tempting to ignore! 

[MattT]

I´d say that AoS and WFB aren´t the same games and doesn´t compete really. The former is a combo game whereas the latter is a formation one.  I´m really excited about the return of something similar to WFB for that play style.

[GorbadIronClaw]

To be honest, actually the weirdest thing I found here and that I really can't buy is TOW beign announced by GW yet when supossedly there are still 3/4 years for it to be launched      😕???

Is there any precedent for such an anticipated reveal on WH History? What is the reason for this rush? I have the impression that we are beign deceived, and it will come out a lot sooner than we are beign told... 3/4 years is more than enough time for things to happen, like to suffer a cancellation/delay, and so. I can't see the point in taking the risk of letting down the fan base. 

[Overread]

GW doesn't normally release info that far ahead and normally never until a project is basicaly near to delivery. 

They stretched it out with Sisters of Battle and clearly the sales have been good enough to convince GW that longer heads-up time isn't a bad thing. I think that GW today is also more confident in their product and thus less worried about the 3rd parties making alternative sculpts. 

 

As for Old World I think its because they realise that there's a core of old-world gamers who are drifting away from GW every day and toward other games because GW killed the rank and file game that they loved (and lets face it the kill and launch of AoS was a total marketing disaster). So announcing it now is like throwing a life-raft to those people. It will likely keep them afloat and keeping an eye on GW and might even make them more favourable to picking up another GW game before Old World arrives.

 

Plus its also seeding the ground to get people interested in what is going to be a pretty major investment for GW. By giving people a few years it helps build anticipation; later marketing will help guide their interests and help build momentum. The basic cornerstone to marketing products early is to have a community of customers ready to throw money at you on launch day.

This is basically what GW failed with AoS (or at least one failing) and their surprise launch of it. All that super secret keeping and no marketing resulted in a community that wasn't ready for it; that wasn't asking nor crying out for it; and which honestly was expecting a new rules edition for Old World (and most certainly wasn't expecting to see it scrapped and then whole armies shattered and others removed). 

[Clan's Cynic]

1 hour ago, GorbadIronClaw said:

To be honest, actually the weirdest thing I found here and that I really can't buy is TOW beign announced by GW yet when supossedly there are still 3/4 years for it to be launched      😕???

Is there any precedent for such an anticipated reveal on WH History? What is the reason for this rush? I have the impression that we are beign deceived, and it will come out a lot sooner than we are beign told... 3/4 years is more than enough time for things to happen, like to suffer a cancellation/delay, and so. I can't see the point in taking the risk of letting down the fan base. 

There's a couple of reasons, I reckon. First is that there''s still a decent number of former WHFB players who wouldn't touch AoS due to it replacing their game. By declaring that WHFB Is 'safe' and will be coming back, for most of those people much of disdain for AoS will likely fade away since the two will co-exist next to one another, rather than be seen as one that replaced the other. In this way, you've got three years of "I never played AoS but since WHFB is coming back I guess I will give it a try." You can already see this happening quite bit with many newbies in various places. From a business perspective, it's better to have those people buy your products for 3-4 years in anticipation for what you're developing, rather than spring it on them one-two months before release.

The second is that Kings of War recently unveiled it's third edition and A Song of Ice and Fire (another ranked-formations game) has been carving out a growing audience for itself - despite the end of Game of Thrones even. GW likely tossed this announcement out there in order to knock the wind out of their sails some, especially since one thing GW can rely on is extreme brand loyalty owing to its reliably huge (compared to other wargames) playerbase.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Clan's Cynic

[Ggom]

19 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Do they really need a "distinct enough aesthetic" if they don't drastically decrease scale (to 6-20 mm, not 25 or 28)?

30k doesn't have it, and it would help keep cost down on an as yet uncertain product to use the same sets.

Sorry to keep waving the Heresy flag, but 30k has a distinct aesthetic actually. A lot of 30k players find the 40k aesthetic too “busy.” Compare for instance the 30k grey slayers forgeworld kit and the 40k grey hunters - the former goes heavier on runes and has much less “wolfy everything” and the heads are all more sculpted to look more serious (leather masks, braided hair) whereas 40k has mohawks and wolf heads on everything, and things tend to look a bit more cartoony.

It’s less true now with the move to different sculptors, but 3 years ago Heresy was very much distinct and you could easily identify the FW sculpts from the GW ones. If you are curious, the ageofdarkness podcast discusses this in their centennial episode (Myles from lillegend talks a bit towards the end about a shift in the aesthetic post Bligh)

I would not be surprised if TOW gets a different aesthetic from AoS. The story has a different tone (just like Heresy has a different tone than standard 40k)