Warhammer - The Old World

[novakai]

8 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

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.

I doubt Skaven and Seraphon stayed because of driving opposing counter forces, they probably stay because an analysis was done that they where salvageable into AoS compare to their other more generic armies that did not.

Skaven at the time just got new models from Endtime, and Seraphon was at least mostly plastic core compare to other armies.

at the end the biggest push was probably and still is IP strength 

[Noserenda]

Skaven are also one of the few, almost entirely original IP's GW has in AoS, which is worth maintaining even if they havent been much bothered with the army itself recently.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Noserenda

[Wraith]

6 hours ago, novakai said:

I doubt Skaven and Seraphon stayed because of driving opposing counter forces, they probably stay because an analysis was done that they where salvageable into AoS compare to their other more generic armies that did not.

Skaven at the time just got new models from Endtime, and Seraphon was at least mostly plastic core compare to other armies.

at the end the biggest push was probably and still is IP strength 

 

Both @Bosskelot and yourself make good points. Understanding that a company like GW can be complex makes it easier to see that there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I might add to the list of corporate politics and competent people continuing with their work, there is also corporate strategies, various shareholder interests and deals with other companies.

 

The relationship with Creative Assembly might be in transition as there isn't much more to do with Total War Warhammer, other than rake in profits from future sales. Maybe ToW is a play to retain a living IP, or create create new materiel in that IP, which CA  would have to pay royalties for again? Why did GW go with Frontier Developments rather than stay with CA and do a TW AoS series? No doubt GW could get a better business deal with FD than CA, even though I would have liked to see TW AoS.

 

Is GW handling this well? We don't really have enough information to say.

 

 

[novakai]

Not sure if it’s the reasoning but CA is a subsidiary of Sega who is generally their publisher as well so there a bit of three parties involved in their agreement.

while Frontier is both a developer and publisher so negotiations is between just two parties and there probably some business benefits.

GW also like using Focus interactive who both a developer and publisher with multiple subsidiary studio under them. 

[Hollow]

The team at Creative Assembly has done an AMAZING job at bringing ToW to life. The cinematics and trailers they make are top-tier "Warhammer Content" IMHO. I would love to see them continue to support ToW for years to come, but I realise that the majority of the work is done. It would be my personal dream to see them actually release a full run of End Times DLC expansions starting in 1/2 year's time.

With entire sections of the world getting destroyed, heroic last stands, final goodbyes, and desperate attempts by great characters to navigate the End Times to try and see their souls be carried into the void. Cumulating in complete world destruction and the launch of a new Total War Warhammer: Age of Sigmar game. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Hollow

[novakai]

i mean the have to express interest but i have never seen them or their community asking for an AoS game, they seem to have more of a historical background and interest in doing actual period piece then fantasy relams.

probably why they keep pumping out niches like Pharoah

[JerekKruger]

On 7/8/2023 at 10:22 PM, Noserenda said:

Skaven are also one of the few, almost entirely original IP's GW has in AoS, which is worth maintaining even if they havent been much bothered with the army itself recently.

Yep, notably skaven didn't receive the aelves, orruks, duardin renaming treatment, and I suspect that's because GW's lawyers decided that GW had enough evidence of having invented the name to support it being their IP. That tells you just how original an invention shaven were.

[TaeRam]

Hello, greetings to all.
I don't know if it's me, but it seems that, given the apparently poor treatment that GW is giving ToW, and the generally rather negative reception that it is finding in the community to which it is directed, do you see possible that part of the gaming community may get angry again with AoS/GW like they did when they finished Fantasy?. What do you think about it?.

[Hollow]

14 minutes ago, TaeRam said:

Hello, greetings to all.
I don't know if it's me, but it seems that, given the apparently poor treatment that GW is giving ToW, and the generally rather negative reception that it is finding in the community to which it is directed, do you see possible that part of the gaming community may get angry again with AoS/GW like they did when they finished Fantasy?. What do you think about it?.

I'm sure GW really hopes that "people" get angry like they did last time. "Last time" was the beginning of a meteoric rise in GW success and sales. 

[Wraith]

6 hours ago, Hollow said:

I'm sure GW really hopes that "people" get angry like they did last time. "Last time" was the beginning of a meteoric rise in GW success and sales. 

Yeah! Quite possibly GW is running a cunning reverse psychology marketing campaign that gets everyone sucked in by manipulating their emotions. Soon people will be racing out to buy whole new armies to build, paint up and then burn in protest.

[Noserenda]

Well, arguably it was a continuation of disappointing sales until the Generals Handbook made it a bit more popular

I dont think this is deliberate exactly, just mission creep and wildly over enthusiastic marketing spread out over years coming home to roost. Still, i suspect the re-releases to be the backbone of the game and some of those are quite exciting, albeit as bits for my 3/40k armies! 

(Already got a Dwarf host ill try out in TOW, might expand if it takes off) 

[Clan's Cynic]

Another Old World Diary, this time touching on the rules. 

[Noserenda]

Characters not in units was my main extra takeaway

Interesting if they've pulled back the pushing mechanics from ancient Warhammer, I'd assumed they were exaggerating about looking at every edition of Warhammer 

[KingKull]

Not sure I like the "whole first rank fights always" thing, but the wizards thing seems promising, if vague.

[KingKull]

Not sure I like the "whole first rank fights always" thing, but the wizards thing seems promising, if vague.

[KingKull]

7 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Characters not in units was my main extra takeaway

Interesting if they've pulled back the pushing mechanics from ancient Warhammer, I'd assumed they were exaggerating about looking at every edition of Warhammer 

Where did you see that?

[Hollow]

10 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Characters not in units was my main extra takeaway

Huh? You read this;

"Combined with the freedom to create and arm characters as you choose from a wide range of options, players have a lot of strategic choices to make when building their units and writing their muster lists, choices that will, in turn, inform their tactics on the battlefield." 

and that was your takeaway? 🤔

 

[Wraith]

26 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Characters not in units was my main extra takeaway

Interesting if they've pulled back the pushing mechanics from ancient Warhammer, I'd assumed they were exaggerating about looking at every edition of Warhammer 

That was the combat resolution in 3rd edition as well. I wonder if we will get the rules for fighting over the losing side’s standard?

The formation rules sound different. Did Warhammer ancients have a trade off between depth and width?

Shooting units look to be in two ranks.

Characters are seperate. Is this just for a better photo or does it reflect the rules?

 

All in all, it sounds promising.

 

[Clan's Cynic]

I'm not seeing anything about characters not being in units?

If it's regarding the way the armies in the photos are arranged, having Lords/Heroes shown by their lonesome has been the way they've structured a lot of such photos in the past - naturally it makes them pop out a lot better than nestled into units, even though they almost always are when actually playing.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Clan's Cynic

[Jator]

43 minutes ago, KingKull said:

Not sure I like the "whole first rank fights always" thing, but the wizards thing seems promising, if vague.

Seems consistent with what they're doing in all their mass battles system (removing the psychic phase in 40k/HH; not having magic phase in AoS).

I enjoyed the old magic phase in WHF, but it certainly was a lot of time consumed for what was basically a mini-game within the game  

This is the first time I feel intrigued by the rules, as I assumed a much more "conservative" approach by the Studio. 

[Freemeta]

if we can avoid column tricks, impossible charge, etc i'm good.

[HorticulusTGA]

57 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Interesting if they've pulled back the pushing mechanics from ancient Warhammer, I'd assumed they were exaggerating about looking at every edition of Warhammer 

I started in 6th ed. and didn't know it was a thing before 6th ! TBF it's probably a way more practical and interesting mechanic than the old "everyone flee in disarray" at the first combat loss...

The "large front unit" really should not hint at large infantry units being the norm again like in 8th, please GW !

Of course I'm more interested in the range and look on the battlefield and in books of The Old World than its rules. I really wish for TOW and AOS to have a distinct design and aesthetic (even if they rightfully are part of the same GW "fantasy" family). Having the exact same Dwarfs models in TOW and AOS is a bit "meh".

And I'm yet not very keen in seeing those old Trolls and Slayers... Aged quite poorly for a "new" game (and Stone Troggot have 1:1 equivalent in modern plastic now). Also, GW can surely not put back into production so much old things (even if they do Made to Order in metal, plastic or resin). That said, if they sell again the Mighty Fortress, that's instant buy from me 

But I really wish for TOW and AOS to have a distinct design and aesthetic (even if they rightfully are part of the same GW "fantasy" family). At least focusing in 6th/7th identities for TOW is a good move, but I want them to show us NEW PLASTIC FITTING THE BILL 

[Tonhel]

I am probably in the minority here, but I really like how the rules "seem" to develop. The big appeal of mass ranked rulesets as done with historicals as i.e Swordpoint is the feeling of a battleline that goes up and down. For me this preview is great. It's totally something different than AoS and I like it. Lol, this with the cool CoS news. Very cool!

Edit: The magic changes will probably mean that movement affecting spells are cast in the movement phase. Fireball and etc in the shooting phase and etc... . Imo, much better.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Tonhel

[Noserenda]

2 hours ago, KingKull said:

Where did you see that?

 

2 hours ago, Hollow said:

Huh? You read this;

"Combined with the freedom to create and arm characters as you choose from a wide range of options, players have a lot of strategic choices to make when building their units and writing their muster lists, choices that will, in turn, inform their tactics on the battlefield." 

and that was your takeaway? 🤔

 

Look at the pictures

1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:

I'm not seeing anything about characters not being in units?

If it's regarding the way the armies in the photos are arranged, having Lords/Heroes shown by their lonesome has been the way they've structured a lot of such photos in the past - naturally it makes them pop out a lot better than nestled into units, even though they almost always are when actually playing.

 

 

Never to this degree to my recollection, all of the Heroes are out of the units, and remarkably consistently placed across all the different shots, not just two heroes squaring off or something. GW has almost always set up marketing photos like a (clean, casualty free) game in progress unless its something narrative or arty, and these are definitely marketing shots.

[Hollow]

40 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Look at the pictures

Yeah... you are looking too much into that IMO. Marketing images are not representative of game rules. Never have been.