Wraith

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.

This is much more interesting speculation than all that boring talk about the Bohemian Hussites of Sigmar. (Will CoS adopt Bohemian Rhapsody as their new anthem? "Is this the real world...or is it just fantasy..."...). I am hopeful that all finecast and metal minis will be updated for Skaven. Also new models to replace the 1990's plastic ninja monkeys. I never did buy the ninja monkeys. With all the other older models I might do the square base thing. Anyway, if they do replace all the non plastic, that will be a big release. Let me see if I can list them all: Pestilence: Priest ( Lord Skrolk) - resin Censor Bearers - resin Moulder: Master Moulder (Skweel Gnawtooth) - metal Rat Swarms - metal Eshin: Gutter Runners - metal Ninja Monkeys - plastic, but please GW, do something about this eyesore! (Even if it means leaving all the metal and resin in the range. Just update this one kit.) Skyre: Arch-warlock (was this one Ikit Klaw?) -metal Warlock-Engineers - metal Doomflayers - resin Gattling gun team - metal Warpfire Thrower team - metal Warp-grinder team - metal Skyre Acolytes - metal I think Master Clan and Clan Verminous are OK or now. Did I miss anything? The plastic rat orges are functional, but not really inspired sculpts. That would mean replacing the whole kit including packmasters and the rat-rat-ratties. That would be 12 units to upgrade plus a few really bad plastic kits that are in desperate need of replacement. This is assuming they don't add anything new to the range. TW:Warhammer is getting some new Skaven stuff, I believe. Some sort of mutant clan a bit like Moulder. Will they show up in AoS? Will GW really do a Skaven release of that size?

There was a time when Scandinavians who didn't like British prices, would row right on over to 'renegotiate' a fair distribution of British production. The young are too soft these days.

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.

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

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?

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:

IN response to the notion that Gorgnards are a small but vocal minority amount WFB fans, I would think that someone who wants WFB to return would be a great example to use in a dictionary to describe "Grognard" in the vernacular context. Present company excluded, of course.

See Hanlon's Razor for a discussion of this phenomena.

Oh, I see. Hey, Forgeworld dudes!!! If you are reading this, how about a model of Sigmar himself? There is a model of just about every other god hero in the Mortal Realms. So where is Sigmar? Make of model of him and put it in the FW AoS section. My model of Archaon is waiting to slap him around the table top.

It seems awfully empty in the Forgeworld AoS section: https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-AU/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar

I agree with you that AoS could use a more interactive turn sequence. But it is no so simple as you have laid it out. Consider.... Infinity is a I go You go game. Yet most wouldn't describe it as an old fashion rule system. What it does have is exceptional engagement for both players throughout the turn sequence, thanks to the ARO system. It should also be noted that most, sometimes all, available activation can be pumped through one unit. Another I go You go game, this time from the 1980's, was WGR 7th Edition Ancient rules. It also have a high degree of involvement of players in both player's turns. Counter charge, skirmisher evasions and shooting allowed the player in his off turn to respond to the first player's actions. On the other hand, ASOIAF game has issues with it's activation system as the player that runs out of units to activate has to sit there and take what his opponent can dis out, just like in a straight forward I go You go system. The individual unit action approach can introduce it's own problems. So it isn't the I go You go that matters, but rather the degree of interactivity for both players through the turn sequence. OK, so how to improve interactivity in AoS? I see two possibilities; 1/ introduce extra response options for player in his off turn, in addition to Unleash Hell and Redeploy. EG: Counter Charge. This might work if the first player failed a charge within 12"? 2/ Unit Activation. I would suggest the Battletech method of alternate activate each phase would be best. EG: every alternates activation of units to move. Then go on to shooting phase. Everyone alternatively activates units to shoot. Move on the Combat phase and do he same thing. Note this might require a balancing of combat, since we would have changed this par of the game very significantly. I would prefer option 1. Stick with I go You go but add more response mechanics. As to the idea that anything from the 1990's is to be regarded as old, I must point out that rules design actually reached its peak in the 1980's. After that complex rules moved into computer games and physical mini games trended toward the simple and fast play. 7th ed Ancients I mentioned above was a milestone in this regard, as the DBx and Impetuous style rules that followed extended the simplifying assumptions that began with that rule system. Impetous is the same concept of rules as KoW, BTW. It was Magic the Gathering which was the watershed between old school and modern fantasy/sci-fi games. Check out Jordan Sorcery's videos to see this history unfold from a Warhammer perspective:

Me too. I am hoping the TOW rules will be good. I have 6th and 7th, but a lot of models came out with 8th ed. So it would be nice to have a set of rules to tie it all together. 3rd ed had some fun features that were lost after 4th ed simplifications. My dream rules would be 3rd ed based but with some later ideas included plus the model range of 8th ed. Anyway, just have to wait and see what they have done. If it is not so good, then back to garagehammer. I agree TOW is going to be a backwater game, alongside MESBG. I think both will be maintained for legal reasons. Warhammer TW is a good source of royalties, so GW needs to keep the IP current. Must be something like that with their ME business. In this regard @KingBrodd is right about the cash grab motive. But it is not quite a direct cash grab. But that is fine by me. It will have a lot of hype at first, then settle down to being a quiet fringe game. Which is what I want. Regarding AoS, it is very well supported by the GW studio. As is 40k. Both become full time jobs for players to keep up with as the rules develop fast. This both keeps the most engaged players satisfied and keeps the cashflow going through new product. The major GW games are very much a case of life in the fast lane. It might be worth contrasting AoS and WFB design concepts. AoS is a modern system in that it incorporates a MTG like rules synergy concepts (look at SW Legion or ASOIAF for other examples). WFB uses 1960s/70s historical wargame design concepts like panic tests when near by units rout (KoW is also old school). To use a railway analogy, it is like comparing a steam engine with a diesel locomotive. In fact WFB was obsolete by the time 6th ed was launched. Everyone has their favourite theory why GW canned WFB, but it was too old fashion for modern gamers and just couldn’t attract a sustainable player base. To be honest, it is surprising it lasted as long as it did. And why does anyone play KoW? I guess the reason is that some people like steam locomotives. But that is only going to be a small but dedicated following.

I sympathise with @KingBrodd as it would nice to have all legacy minis updated or removed from AoS. But the logistics make it clear why GW has not done this. Their fantasy range is just too big. Regarding epic taking up so much air time, it looks to be the next big launch, maybe for the Xmas period? So where does this leave the Old World launch? Must be 2025, since next year is AoS 4.0.

It will only be one new UW war and for me out of that lot. But I was impressed with the Legions Imperialis models. Those were a lot better than the epic scale models that I remember. I wonder if we will see a Warmaster reboot with similar quality models in a few years time?

http://goblinlee.blogspot.com/2019/05/ratspike-john-blanche.html That would be art by John Blanche. It might have been used in Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd edition rule book. Warhammer books of that era were full of art by people like JB and Chris Achilleos.

I would have thought that selling deep fried Skaven, even if the customers are Ogors, is a violation of food safety standards in most parts of the Mortal Realms.

I am hoping any Skaven release is just an UW war and nothing more. I want to see more 40k releases. I am so seriously not interested in 40k. With every 40k release, I get to save some money. More 40k please, GW. Lots of Order releases for AoS is good too. Though I am not interested in Order myself , I am very happy for all those Order players getting gorgeous new models for Seraphon and CoS. And I get to save my money. More Order for AoS, please GW. I hope we are not going to see lots of filthy rat releases for AoS. This is bad..very, very bad-bad. Just when I thought my bank account was safe. Please GW, don’t do this to me. Nooooooo!

I rather suspect IP rights protection has a lot to do with it. A copyright lawyer might be able to tell us what GW is up to, and possibly, maintaining a living IP might be what that lawyer would talk about. GW is getting a decent income out of royalties, as I understand it. IP matters to them. Anyway, I don't really care. An up to date rule-set with better base sixes looks pretty good to me. I have other people around who also want to play it. And it is a bit of a blast from the past. One from the vaults, or so to speak. After all, at the end of the day, it is a hobby and thus is all about having some fun with friends. Why over think it?

I think that is how it will be. For my own part, I am very happy that for all the factions for which I could build an army (I have a large pile of 'potential'), only one (Chaos Warriors) is in the part of the initially story at release. I can save some money and, more importantly avoid creating more storage problems. Furthermore, I am delighted fans of the long neglected factions are finally getting some love from GW. Not everyone will be pleased but I think GW struck a fairly good compromise with the release plan.

Back to bases....this guy thinks Citadel miniatures were too big for their bases from 1994 onward. I think he might be right. I have only been looking at Dark Elves, but their Black Guard from the late 90's really needed a bigger base. When you look at his size comparisons, I can see why I can't recall ranking up issues from back in the day. The original base sizes might be good for anyone playing the first 3 editions only. I might have to donate my pile of 20mm bases to some Oldhammer group.

I think we need to find out more about what the Skaven have been up to. How about something like this: Mallus is the core of the Old World, now fixed in the firmament in Azyr and used to mine Sigmarite metal to make Stormcast stuff. For many centuries now, Sigmar has been covering up rumors of lodes of Warpstone deep inside Mallus. He has also been suppressing stories of Skaven activity around those Warpstone nodes. Finally, he has been suppressing witnesses descriptions of these Skaven. Tales of the appearance of these Skaven say they look like the same old sculpts that long predate the Mortal Realms and possibly are still being mounted on square bases. So there you have it. A Skaven focused campaign in Azyr itself. After all, who else could possibly get into Azyr to cause trouble? And this would be a good opportunity to produce the model of Sigmar himself that we have all been waiting for.

I had better do this before I forget. I hope the photos show how big the new Chaos Lord on Demonic Mount and Exalted Champion are. (they are the grey ones, BTW)

Wait! I am on a role! What about Kings of War, Oathmark and Conquest? We could call them "Nothammer". To take the basing issue to a whole new level, I was measuring Citadel and unbranded bases. Citadel 20x20mm is actually 20mm in dimensions. Unbranded 25x25mm is actually 25mm in dimensions. Citadel 25x50mm is 24mm by 50mm in dimensions. I can't find a Citadel 25mm square base without opening a blister pack. Does anyone have one handy to measure? Or is this going to far?

I thought I might share some links to youtube content related to The Old World that I have been enjoying: My favorite is a ride on Rob and Val's TOW hype train (toot.toot!). You too can be #squarebased. Here is their latest discussion covering a range of issues. Dr Blaxill has lead an informed discussion of the base size issue. He is another content creator that I regard highly: I have decided to accept the new "Retrohammer" format as the newer models really need it. But this does create problems for "Oldhammer" (or "Paleohammer", if you like) and "Medihammer" gaming*. I have 3rd edition, 6th edition and 7th edition rules with a range of 6th edition supplements and army books. So I would like to maintain compatibility. But I think I will use the new base format even for older rule sets to keep the number of formats down. Otherwise I would have three basing formats: round AoS/40K, traditional square format, contemporary Retrohammer format. I wonder if we should agree that tournaments for Oldhammer/Medihammer (eg: 8th edition and earlier) should stick with the traditional base sizes? If so, I have plans for a 6th ed era "Cult of Slannesh"army, given I have some older models that look a bit small compared to more modern models, that would be happy on smaller bases. *I think AoS can be regarded as "Neohammer" and TOW should be regarded as "Retrohammer".