Warhammer - The Old World

[TaeRam]

46 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

100% agree.

Imo, the biggest problem for TOW is that it is a side game for GW, but at the same time the magnitude of TOW is almost at the same level as AoS. I didn't do the math, but the sheer number of different miniature sets / characters mini's that are needed to be available for TOW is immense even with only 9 core factions. It's quite possible that TOW is just to big to be handled as a side game.

To make it even harder for GW they are selling i.e. night goblin mob for TOW and Stabbas for AoS. But they are the same night goblins, an older and a newer variant. Both existed before AoS even was a thing. Instead of just using the same night goblins for both games, but no. GW want to complicate things.

I think the night goblins example is the source of most of GW's problems with ToW

[TaeRam]

49 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I think you don't understand how complex the situation actually is from GW's point of view. Sure, you could sell the night goblin for both AoS and Old World...but then there's the base issue. If you keep the boxes for AoS (thus only round bases), that means the customers need to buy Old World square bases separately. And that means, of course, an extra buy (and extra price). Not even talking about availability of said bases at the time you want to buy your night goblins (online or in retail, double issue because one doesn't necessarily have the same stock disponibility than the other). Same if you do the opposite (box for Old World with square bases, then buy the round bases separately). Selling 2 boxes, 1 for AoS and 1 for Old World also has issues for retailers : technically it's the same product but with different bases, and shops have a limited space for storage. They'll likely try to have only one box type to spare that.

So you'd say the solution is to sell a box with both square and round bases inside, right ? Well that's an issue too : it means a  box repackaging, that takes time and production too because the covers have to include the change of content. And most importantly, including both bases mean a significant increase cost in production (well, you have both bases for say 20 night goblins, so 20 round bases and 20 square bases : it doesn't come free) AND in box space (20 more bases mean certainly a slightly bigger box, thus taking more space on the shelves in retail and logistic : sure, one box isn't much, but multiply it by 100 and suddenly a small difference in size becomes a big one in storage). And I'm not sure AoS players would be happy to pay their night goblins more because they have square bases inside that they absolutely don't care about.

In comparison, releasing old night goblins that have their own boxes feel a lot simpler (a new product for a specific game system, you don't have to deal with the mess from retailers having "old boxes that don't sell" or confusion with sales going for AoS or Old World). From GW's point of view, of course.

Honestly, I think these are not the reasons why GW wants to sell us the old miniatures again...

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

I think you don't understand how complex the situation actually is from GW's point of view. Sure, you could sell the night goblin for both AoS and Old World...but then there's the base issue. If you keep the boxes for AoS (thus only round bases), that means the customers need to buy Old World square bases separately. And that means, of course, an extra buy (and extra price). Not even talking about availability of said bases at the time you want to buy your night goblins (online or in retail, double issue because one doesn't necessarily have the same stock disponibility than the other). Same if you do the opposite (box for Old World with square bases, then buy the round bases separately). Selling 2 boxes, 1 for AoS and 1 for Old World also has issues for retailers : technically it's the same product but with different bases, and shops have a limited space for storage. They'll likely try to have only one box type to spare that.

So you'd say the solution is to sell a box with both square and round bases inside, right ? Well that's an issue too : it means a  box repackaging, that takes time and production too because the covers have to include the change of content. And most importantly, including both bases mean a significant increase cost in production (well, you have both bases for say 20 night goblins, so 20 round bases and 20 square bases : it doesn't come free) AND in box space (20 more bases mean certainly a slightly bigger box, thus taking more space on the shelves in retail and logistic : sure, one box isn't much, but multiply it by 100 and suddenly a small difference in size becomes a big one in storage). And I'm not sure AoS players would be happy to pay their night goblins more because they have square bases inside that they absolutely don't care about.

In comparison, releasing old night goblins that have their own boxes feel a lot simpler (a new product for a specific game system, you don't have to deal with the mess from retailers having "old boxes that don't sell" or confusion with sales going for AoS or Old World). From GW's point of view, of course.

😉 GW is a multinational company with a market cap above 3 billion euro, I am certain that they can come up with something that is not as stupid as the night goblin debacle. 

If I remember correctly i.e the Cities of Sigmar Dreadspears/bleakswords still come with 20mm squares and 25mm rounds. Or atleast they did. So no bigger boxes are needed.

Adding another set of bases and adding The Old World logo to the box in the same way as Daemons have Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40K logo on the box is not a big problem. Add some 25mm or 30mm square to it and voila.

And the truth is that it doesn't really matter, 25mm round or 25 square take the same plase on a movement tray.

You don't need square bases for a mass ranked wargame. 25mm rounds rank exactly the same as 25mm square and instead of 30mm square they could just have gone for 32mm rounds. It does not matter for the game itself. Only proper movement trays are needed.

Imo, it is just pure incompentence how GW handles TOW.

 

Edited June 18 by Tonhel

[AquaRegis]

Never underestimate GWs ability to hop between well executed models and rules to complete incompetence, right after each other. 

[Sarouan]

2 hours ago, Tonhel said:

You don't need square bases for a mass ranked wargame. 25mm rounds rank exactly the same as 25mm square and instead of 30mm square they could just have gone for 32mm rounds. It does not matter for the game itself. Only proper movement trays are needed.

That's because you dont think from a business' point of view. Talk about that with your local shop, I think they'll have a few things to tell you on how customers of a game are actually quite sensitive to the "official base size" to be included in their official plastic boxes meant for their game, and how they'd rather buy something with all they need to play in one easy box.

Old Warhammer Battle kits were indeed repackaged when AoS started, but it was gradual and took quite some time. I was there where the rules said "bases don't matter, use whatever you have". It's really with second edition they did include round bases for everything in all their boxes. And it had a cost too, even though you don't care about that as a customer.

[Ejecutor]

@Tonhel The iteration with Kislev was just 5-6 factions and all humans. So it was smaller than the current one in terms of factions count.

[Tonhel]

6 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

@Tonhel The iteration with Kislev was just 5-6 factions and all humans. So it was smaller than the current one in terms of factions count.

Really? If so, that would have been very strange and a very narrow part of Warhammer.

[JerekKruger]

9 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

@Tonhel The iteration with Kislev was just 5-6 factions and all humans. So it was smaller than the current one in terms of factions count.

What's iteration with Kislev is this?

[Ejecutor]

3 hours ago, JerekKruger said:

What's iteration with Kislev is this?

I am not sure 100% about the armies that were thought to be included, according to the rumours, but it was something like Kislev, Empire with some different armies and Bretonnia, IIRC.

I think this was the initial plan.

[Sathrut]

38 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

I am not sure 100% about the armies that were thought to be included, according to the rumours, but it was something like Kislev, Empire with some different armies and Bretonnia, IIRC.

I think this was the initial plan.

Speculation was TOW would be focused primarily on the civil war occuring within the Empire of Man, so first release would be 3-4 human armies, each representing one of the warring factions, and then after that Kislev/Bretonnia.

Of course, people were adamant that TK would not be part of TOW after TK icons were shown on a map, and yet... It's pretty obvious at this point that stuff has changed behind the scenes at various points in development: From Kislev/Cathay, to Empire of Man civil war, to TK and Bretonnia being the first factions.

Edited June 23 by Sathrut

[Sarouan]

Until I read an actual interview with TOW designer team about that matter, I will dismiss any rumor talking about what was the initial plan.

It won't come out after a few years, I believe, like the one we got with one of AoS designer member that left the company.

[JerekKruger]

1 hour ago, Ejecutor said:

I am not sure 100% about the armies that were thought to be included, according to the rumours, but it was something like Kislev, Empire with some different armies and Bretonnia, IIRC.

Oh gotcha. I thought you meant an older version of WHFB. Yeah, I think you might be right: I think it was originally going to be very focused on the Empire and its direct neighbours.

[Tonhel]

2 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Until I read an actual interview with TOW designer team about that matter, I will dismiss any rumor talking about what was the initial plan.

It won't come out after a few years, I believe, like the one we got with one of AoS designer member that left the company.

Yeah, you are correct. All the speculation while fun also becomes heated very quickly.

[Ejecutor]

[Ejecutor]

Dawis Arcane Journal Potential Leak:

[Skreech Verminking]

So finished building some good looking rattling gun/ warpfire thrower weapon teams that I can use for tow and aos.

took a lot of magnetization

[petitionercity]

On 6/18/2024 at 11:28 AM, Sarouan said:

I think you don't understand how complex the situation actually is from GW's point of view. Sure, you could sell the night goblin for both AoS and Old World...but then there's the base issue. If you keep the boxes for AoS (thus only round bases), that means the customers need to buy Old World square bases separately. And that means, of course, an extra buy (and extra price). Not even talking about availability of said bases at the time you want to buy your night goblins (online or in retail, double issue because one doesn't necessarily have the same stock disponibility than the other). Same if you do the opposite (box for Old World with square bases, then buy the round bases separately). Selling 2 boxes, 1 for AoS and 1 for Old World also has issues for retailers : technically it's the same product but with different bases, and shops have a limited space for storage. They'll likely try to have only one box type to spare that.

So you'd say the solution is to sell a box with both square and round bases inside, right ? Well that's an issue too : it means a  box repackaging, that takes time and production too because the covers have to include the change of content. And most importantly, including both bases mean a significant increase cost in production (well, you have both bases for say 20 night goblins, so 20 round bases and 20 square bases : it doesn't come free) AND in box space (20 more bases mean certainly a slightly bigger box, thus taking more space on the shelves in retail and logistic : sure, one box isn't much, but multiply it by 100 and suddenly a small difference in size becomes a big one in storage). And I'm not sure AoS players would be happy to pay their night goblins more because they have square bases inside that they absolutely don't care about.

In comparison, releasing old night goblins that have their own boxes feel a lot simpler (a new product for a specific game system, you don't have to deal with the mess from retailers having "old boxes that don't sell" or confusion with sales going for AoS or Old World). From GW's point of view, of course.

This is a nonsense; for how many years did wfb miniatures sold after AoS arrived have both round and square bases? Can you really say 20 square and round bases will take up more space, when they fit flat in the same plastic packet?

[Morovir]

Also, didn't Chaos Daemons have both squares and rounds in their boxes for years?

[Ejecutor]

12 minutes ago, Morovir said:

Also, didn't Chaos Daemons have both squares and rounds in their boxes for years?

Yeah, because they shared 40k and WHFB.

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, petitionercity said:

This is a nonsense; for how many years did wfb miniatures sold after AoS arrived have both round and square bases? Can you really say 20 square and round bases will take up more space, when they fit flat in the same plastic packet?

Of course it takes more space. I regularly put unused bases in plastic bags, I can see it gets bigger when I put 20 instead of 10.

 

Quote

Also, didn't Chaos Daemons have both squares and rounds in their boxes for years?

Well, that's why we don't see that anymore. It's more expensive to produce.

[petitionercity]

10 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Of course it takes more space. I regularly put unused bases in plastic bags, I can see it gets bigger when I put 20 instead of 10.

 

Well, that's why we don't see that anymore. It's more expensive to produce.

By a pittance, across all items. Yes that's a bigger cost across all boxes, but it's a worthwhile thing to do.

Honestly they can easily fit 20 bases in a box for a set of ten modes, or even 40 25s in a small plastic packet where 20 are currently. The horizontal space for base packets (either one or two) is there, always, since it is half a standard sprue. I don't know why you are arguing this isn't feasible when GW did it from 2015 to 2023 for many models, long after WFB ended? It wasn't more expensive to include them for the customer. The only annoying thing is I have a lot of 20*20 now that I'm not sure what to do with

 

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, petitionercity said:

 The only annoying thing is I have a lot of 20*20 now that I'm not sure what to do with

That's the thing. It's lost, both for the producer and for the customer. Even with old demon boxes, people were mostly basing them either on square or round bases, but very few bothered to make it possible to use both (mostly involving magnets / pins). Only people playing both 40k and Battle were having a use of both bases (and even amongst them, that's not a general rule either : you usually ended with mores bases than needed anyway). And only a small part actually bothered to sell / exchange these bases.

I'm not saying it's not possible anymore. I'm just saying it's not profitable for GW to do so in these times where production costs have risen and we can expect them to rise even more in the (near) future.

 

[Beliman]

All my Dwarf units painted and/or ready to play (appart from 3 war machines and 1 gyro). Now I only need TOW Dwarf release.

Sadly, our first tournament was canceled and the next thing that we want to try is a mini-league to learn, play and maybe build a community around TOW.

[Skreech Verminking]

So Guess I was thinking particularly about making arcane journals for the legacy factions, as soon as the official ones have come out

and lately my thoughts where about Skaven.

I asked myself which clans would probably make the most sense to represent with the armies of renown edition, and as of lore I think clan skryre and clan Rictus are probably the two clans that where most active during that edition, although for the sake of fun, I wouldn’t say no to a clan moulder and clan pestilence themed armies.

any thoughts?

[Sarouan]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I asked myself which clans would probably make the most sense to represent with the armies of renown edition, and as of lore I think clan skryre and clan Rictus are probably the two clans that where most active during that edition, although for the sake of fun, I wouldn’t say no to a clan moulder and clan pestilence themed armies.

Well, I feel like the main list is already a bit representing a clan like Rictus, since it's basically warriors clans having to include allies from the other clans with a "hero tax" involved.

IMHO if I'd do skaven armies of infamy, I would focus on Skryre and Moulder first. Because they're the ones whose style goes a bit different from the "let's swarm enemies with huge numbers" : Skryre is more artillery / shooting, and Moulder can bring the beasts / big monsters (monstruous infantry included). Pestilens is a bit about numbers too...and I'm not convinced about a Eshin army TBH (I mean, hordes of ninja rats sound cool, but I feel like their style is more about bringing small specialized teams as support / assassination missions rather than bringing out a true army from their own ranks).

Can have fun with bringing back the wolf rats as new unit with Moulder !