Warhammer - The Old World

[The Lost Sigmarite]

35 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

At least anecdotally, the Dawn of War series definitely boosted the popularity of the 40K tabletop game in the past. The demographics are not a complete match, that is true. In general, the barrier to entry for video games is lower, so the expectation should definitely not be "Every Total War player will want to buy a full Warhammer Fantasy army". But there is enough overlap between the markets for video games, RPGs and tabletop games that I would expect at least some crossover.

I don't think we'll see massive influxes of TWW players in GW stores to grab Old World launch boxes when they release. But over the course of a few years, some of them might bridge the gap. But it's gotta be a difficult one to bridge. WFB was always more demanding to get into than 40k, and for a TWW player fresh of his nth Karl Franz campaign, not seeing half the character he knows will be weird. If they cross over, it's gonna be a long term thing. 

[Sathrut]

It's disingenuous to claim that the majority of the Fantasy community, along with people interested in TOW, are all bitter, hateful grognards who want to see AoS burn. That particular segment of the community are not welcome or tolerated in the Fantasy spaces I frequent.

I've seen posts from these groups of people in said Fantasy spaces:

- Total War players

- Total War players that took up AoS before TOW was announced

- AoS Players who intend to play AoS and TOW alongside each other

- Ex-Fantasy players who intend to play AoS and TOW alongside each other

- Fantasy players not interested in the game but in the returning minis to complete an army

- AoS players excited for the chance to play in the setting that ended before they started playing

- AoS players not interested in the game but looking forward to returning kits for kitbashing/use in an AoS army (or armies)

As Hollow said, there is no such thing as a "single community". Even in the AoS community, there is a minority who hate Fantasy and wish GW would excise all traces of it from the game and setting. But like their Fantasy counterparts, those aren't welcome or tolerated either. I'm also aware that after AoS was released it fractured most of the playerbase; gaming groups dissolved over night, online spaces devolved into vicious arguments between those who liked the new game, and those who didn't.

But most people moved on; they transitioned to AoS, returned to a prior edition of Fantasy, left the hobby entirely, moved to other games or continued playing both. Most of the "grognard" comments are ignored, or outright removed depending on their content. I see more people using AoS minis in their Fantasy armies, or Fantasy minis in AoS armies, and people who have solely played either system now wanting to start the other, than I do rage filled posts about how "TOW IS PROOF THAT AoS IS FAILING" or "AoS STILL SUCKS AND THE REAL GAME IS RETURNING". 

It's clear that some worries people had that TOW would impact AoS were unfounded, so for those who don't care for TOW or Fantasy, it's easy to ignore. There does seem to be more of a positive reaction among AoS players, which given some of the comments other AoS players have made prior to the minis being revealed, were on the more negative side in regards to TOW.

28 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

However, as part of that movement, there are also exists a significant minority I would call grognards, who basically just want to play the same game of DnD 1e that they played as children and deny that any innovation of the last 40 years was in any way worthwhile. I think it's similar with the current WHFB player base. I don't think the majority there is "anti-progress" in the way I take grognards to be.

This. In a Fantasy context, I have only ever seen "grognards" used to mean someone who is bitter, hateful, "anti-progress" generally erring towards the older demographic, but it is demonstrably not applicable to the majority of collecters/players of Fantasy, as the Fantasy community is not a monothlic entity.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Sathrut

[novakai]

I get the feeling internally GW doesn’t feel that the video game community or TW players to be some magically untap market potential as they value dedicated customer base over potential new player. which is probably why this game is marketed for veterans over newbies.

in the end this game could be the result of filling the void left by HH when it became a mainline game

likewise this game has overtly overhype by TW internet people and Valrek who even sometime mislead GW compacity as a miniature company by going hit dirt billion dollar company

[The Lost Sigmarite]

53 minutes ago, novakai said:

likewise this game has overtly overhype by TW internet people and Valrek who even sometime mislead GW compacity as a miniature company by going hit dirt billion dollar company

I don't really get what you mean here. You're talking about TOW ? And what do you mean by "compacity" and what's the connection with Valrak ?

2 hours ago, Sathrut said:

That particular segment of the community are not welcome or tolerated in the Fantasy spaces I frequent.

Maybe that's the reason why they're mostly active on the Internet. Because they're not tolerated in Fantasy spaces, so their forums and social media groups are their "last haven". Anyway, you gotta be on a different level of ****** to be mad at someone because they play with the "wrong" plastic toy soldiers (aka those you don't like). 

Edited July 6, 2023 by The Lost Sigmarite

[cyrus]

7 hours ago, novakai said:

If there no full release reveal at Nova is most likely not being release this year 

but even so releasing in early December is like the no-man land schedule, you miss out on the Black Friday holiday sales and you basically hoping for last minute Christmas sales at a rather less opportunistic time to release stuff, probably why Middle earth was release at that moment.

I think its is totally possible to have a full reveal at Nova (30th august) , two weeks advance preorder in September and then release in December before Xmas ( as It was for Battle for Osgiliath box) : it is a way to mark the 40th anniversary of WHFB.

 

TOW itself looks to me more an IP oriented project ,they even changed the name of the legacy armies : Dwarfs now are Dwarfen Mountain holds !!!!

 

[Beliman]

5 minutes ago, cyrus said:

TOW itself looks to me more an IP oriented project ,they even changed the name of the legacy armies : Dwarfs now are Dwarfen Mountain holds !!!!

 I think that's more about wording than something related to IP. You can't copyright Dwarven Holds or High Elf Realms.

[Twisted Firaun]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

 I think that's more about wording than something related to IP. You can't copyright Dwarven Holds or High Elf Realms.

Agreed, though you can probably copyright TOMB KINGS OF KHEMRI!!! 

[Freemeta]

On 3/31/2023 at 6:46 PM, Mandzak-Miniatures said:

Thinking about it. I think 3 ranks of 5 should be the cap for units. It’s still a lot to build, paint, rank and move around. Any more it becomes cumbersome

it was 4 rank of 4 a long time ago. then it was in creased to 5.

[Wraith]

10 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I would disagree with that, at least to a degree. I think the definitive feature of grognards is not just a preference/nostalgia for older games, but the grumbling about how new games are generally bad.

The Old World is a cool setting that a lot of people like. I personally prefer the Mortal Realms in their current state (this was not the case when AoS launched), but it's not like the existence of a new setting "obsoletes" the old one. The same goes for gameplay: I prefer AoS style squads, but I don't think people are wrong for wanting historicals-inspired rank-and-flank.

If you are into tabletop RPGs, there exists a movement called "old school renaissance", where people are finding value in the design of the earliest editions of DnD and try to build games around the play style of that time. Some of those games are innovative and do certain things better than later evolutions of the genre. I don't necessarily think they have mass appeal in the same way that some newer games have, but they have thought-out solutions for problems many players have that draw upon older design paradigms.

However, as part of that movement, there are also exists a significant minority I would call grognards, who basically just want to play the same game of DnD 1e that they played as children and deny that any innovation of the last 40 years was in any way worthwhile. I think it's similar with the current WHFB player base. I don't think the majority there is "anti-progress" in the way I take grognards to be.

I think it is a very good idea to define our terms.

 

I have found at least three definitions of "Grognard":

 

1/ old soldier

2/ original term is from Napoleon's Old Guard, literary "grumblers"

3/ Wargamers who likes to play old versions of rules

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard

 

I would say that we are all Grognards, in the term's general sense. But it is being used to describe those people who disparage AoS with comments like "I can't stand a game with flying eels". I might point out that back in the 1980's that Fantasy gaming was fringe and it was Ancients and Napoleonics that were the main games, in the way that 40K is dominate today. So those who don't like AoS wackiness would have been playing historical games back in the day. I find it ironic that they play scifi or fantasy games today. Anyway...

 

So yes, I guess that is what we are talking about in regard to a "Grognard", right? 

 

The sense in which people here are using it is in an American pejorative sense which seems to come out of the D&D sub culture. I would urge caution is accepting this definition of the term at face value as it leads one into rather a cliche mindset. Perhaps the D&D sub culture is a little bit, how do we say...toxic? That is not an example that I think Warhammer communities need to follow. I see no reason why such grumblers should be excluded from gaming groups. Let them grumble.

 

This video is a nice explanation and the term's origin (and correct pronunciation) and it's uses:

 

 

 

 

[Wraith]

1 hour ago, Freemeta said:

it was 4 rank of 4 a long time ago. then it was in creased to 5.

That is one thing that I am curious about. I think the 5 model wide rank rules came in with 7th edition. One of the development dairies mentioned the rules would be based on 7th edition but including "the best features" of 3rd through to 8th edition. So I am assuming it will be 5 models wide to qualify for the rank bonus. It would be good if GW let us know what it is going to be some we can better plan our armies.

I am hoping that they will bring back the push back mechanic and "fight over the standard" rules from 3rd edition. And perhaps the weapon profiles and formations available from 3rd ed. Maybe even the old rout mechanic where you had to run them all down. 4th ed and on was a bit too simplified in combat resolution and routing, in my opinion. Or am I grumbling too much?

[Noserenda]

A lot of people just use Grognard as a "veteran veteran" which often means they have plenty of grumbling in them but thats just a trait most people get with age

Personally id long expected a disappointment engine but was still irked at them not covering Dogs of War, mostly because thats the army i was interested in building. I still have a big old Dwarf army for my younger years plus random adds that i stripped and prepped before the true horror of launch AoS was announced (its great now, but launch AoS was dire) so i can just run that, and maybe rebase if the game is good and played in our area. 

Honestly though, it might do well simply off the back of 40k and AoD hacking half my group off (For mostly petty reasons, see above lol) but Epic is coming along too, and that has none of the baggage OW has built up the last while.

[novakai]

See it was probably unrealistic to expect thing out side of the 15 original armies

things like crossover between system, full plastic release of many different armies, mainline game status, support of all new armies, Kislev, Cathay, Vampire coast, and other wacky things was probably where people didn’t set there expectations correctly.

[Hollow]

To be fair GamesWorkshop literally put out Kislev concept art as one of their first updates. They were the ones who set expectations that Kislev would be represented and did or said nothing to dissuade that perception for nearly 3 years! Booo. 

[Wraith]

Dogs of War and Pirates of the Vampire Coast should have been the two factions in the launch box.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

Dogs of War and Pirates of the Vampire Coast should have been the two factions in the launch box.

Agree. I need walking ships with canons on their arms! YARR

[Bosskelot]

The rank bonus being made 5 was one of the things that started WHFB's decline.

So I fully expect it to be the case in TOW.

[novakai]

4 hours ago, Hollow said:

To be fair GamesWorkshop literally put out Kislev concept art as one of their first updates. They were the ones who set expectations that Kislev would be represented and did or said nothing to dissuade that perception for nearly 3 years! Booo. 

I don’t think people realize that those where meant for the TW3 game promotion but then again they play too close to the chest sometimes

[Jator]

On 7/6/2023 at 8:08 AM, Bosskelot said:

Really does feel like someone somewhere in GW wanted to do the project to keep eyes on the IP, but several other forces within the company are incredibly hostile towards it. My experience of GW employees during the early-mid 10's, during that time but also hearing them talk since then, is that the entire company was just looking for any excuse to get rid of Fantasy. This wasn't just some financial thing either this was a lot of the creatives wanting it gone and replaced by what would eventually become AOS.

I also has the impression that some higher-ups hate the project, but iIdon't really have anything to back it up. You seem to be more in the known, why do you think they would feel this way? Some kind of beef towards the Old Guard?

[Hollow]

I kinda got the impression that the Design Studio isn't really "GW Design Studio" but there are almost 3 separate design studios (40k, AoS, Specialist Games) and that there is some competition between them. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Hollow

[Kronos]

So this, this has indefinitely killed my hype for this release. From the Wierd way its being previewed, the return of metal minis (Resin over metal any day, fight me). And the facts that they keep pushing things to a unknowable date. I was really excited for this release, I guess what I was really excited about was a Slann kit. So, thanks AoS. 
 

 

[Clan's Cynic]

20 minutes ago, Kronos said:

 (Resin over metal any day, fight me). 

I will not have my precious pewter slandered. Pistols at dawn. 

[Kronos]

57 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

I will not have my precious pewter slandered. Pistols at dawn. 

I accept 🔫

But, and I’ve said this before so apologies if it come off repetitive. I don’t play, I sometimes but rarley build the models as they come. I like converting, remodelling. Chopping and reattaching. Take my current Work Bench project. Remodelling Finecast Kroak into 1 of 3 Slann Relics. No way Would I have been able to do this with Metal. The details are crisp, flash was minimal and no worse than a plastic mould line to remove being frank. It’s also solid enough because I don’t plan on using it as a battering ram. Metal is heavy, chips, and nothing wants to stick to anything without pinning. And if it tumbles, which it will because it’s made of heavy metal, everything becomes pieces once again. Everytime I’ve thought “well, Warhammer might not be for me” has been when I’ve gone anywhere near a metal Miniature. Last metal thing I bought were the Temple Guard way back when. Never again.

 

 

[Bosskelot]

15 hours ago, Jator said:

I also has the impression that some higher-ups hate the project, but iIdon't really have anything to back it up. You seem to be more in the known, why do you think they would feel this way? Some kind of beef towards the Old Guard?

I don't have any firm info about it, but certainly hearing ex-studio or head office people speak about WHFB vs AOS there was a constant desire to do something new with the setting. A lot of the creatives at the time didn't like the faux-historical setting and wanted to do their own thing. More than anything else I think this was the actual driving force behind the move. People will bring up financials but literally everything GW was doing during this time period was tanking. Even 40k was doing poorly. We also have some evidence that 8th edition 40k was doing to be an AOS-style reset, and even though it didn't go that far it did move things forward and heralded a shift in how that game has been developed.

Having had experience of management types in large corpo settings I would imagine going back to WHFB in any way shape or form looks like some kind of admission of failure or backtracking to them. I wouldn't be surprised if there are several forces at work within the company that want to get rid off all traces of the old game and the only reason we still have stuff like Skaven, or new Seraphon sculpts, is that the counter-forces were loud enough to keep them around. People act like big corporations are these hyper logical perfect business entities that are always doing the most hyper optimal moves; the reality is they're full of and run by absolute morons a lot of the time who have just consistently gotten lucky, or cornered a niche in the market and are operating on pure inertia, and the internal workings of said companies can be riven by drama, inter-office politics and giant egos.

Whenever you see any big public management change in a large company, entertainment companies especially, you can almost always expect a load of in-dev projects being canned because the new boss wants to "put their mark on the company." Or whatever. Really wouldn't be surprised that whoever or however the main GW studio is being run really doesn't like that the specialist games team wants to try out WHFB again.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Bosskelot

[Hollow]

3 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

People act like big corporations are these hyper logical perfect business entities that are always doing the most hyper optimal moves; the reality is they're full of and run by absolute morons a lot of the time who have just consistently gotten lucky, or cornered a niche in the market and are operating on pure inertia, and the internal workings of said companies can be riven by drama, inter-office politics and giant egos.

Truuuuue. 😅

[Jator]

7 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

 

Having had experience of management types in large corpo settings I would imagine going back to WHFB in any way shape or form looks like some kind of admission of failure or backtracking to them. I

 

Thanks for your answer, I think this part probably hit the nail on the head. Let's hope egos don't hurt the project further ( We might not see how that would be possible but I'm sure they could find a way).