8th Ed. THE OLD WORLD - Things you want, things you don't want, must haves and deal breakers!

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I'm not sure if others feel the same, but my participation (and financial expenditure) in TOW is anything but certain. Despite being excited for TOW, I have no intention of blindly jumping on board if it doesn't end up being a faithful successor to WFB. If the game doesn't match up to 8th Edition, I will happily forgo TOW and continue on with 8th Edition WFB.

With that in mind, I'm setting this thread up for us to discuss and explore the things we expect out of the game. The goal is to see if there is a general consensus in relation to want we want to (and what we don't want to) see when TOW is released. Specifically, let's use the following criteria to delve further into the topic.

MUST HAVES➜ these things must be in the game for you to get into TOW

Things I want in the game➜ the inclusion of these things will increase your chances of buying into TOW

Things I'm flexible on➜ the inclusion of these things will have little to no effect on your decision to get into TOW

Things I don't want in the game➜ the inclusion of these things will decrease your chances of buying into TOW

DEAL BREAKERS➜ the presence of these things will result in you almost certainly abandoning TOW



MUST HAVES:

• game complexity approximating that of 8th edition
• ability to play my WoC, LM,TK and CD armies
• square bases
• rank and file

Things I want in the game:

• to hit and to wound charts or similar (i.e. not hitting/wounding on static numbers)
• inclusion of all WFB armies
• traditional army books (i.e. centralized rules)
• regular FAQs / support
• new art

Things I am flexible on:

• time-frame within WFB
• contents of the starter box
• creation/inclusion of new armies (that still fit within WFB)
• story progression

Things I don't want in the game:

• inclusion of AoS models/units that don't fit within the WFB setting
• silly AoS naming convention
• discontinuation of models/units (like 40k is seeing)

DEAL BREAKERS:

• inclusion of Stormcast Eternals
• any change to the scale of the game (i.e. not 28mm)
• too many updates

That should be a good start, I plan to update my list as ideas are generated.

And one more thing for GW (1:24)...

 

[DeathBringer125]

Yes I am definitely worried they may try and change the scale or something to force you to buy a whole new army. If they don't however I'm sure I can use most of my seraphon stuff in TOW

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Here’s my list:

MUST HAVES:

• All the generic character types and rank-and-file units from all factions made in Citadel plastic and priced suitably affordably
• Rank-and-flank style gameplay
• Ability to play my Dwarf, Lizardman, High Elf, Greenskin and Skaven armies
• Square bases
• A suitable level of complexity that compares well with the previous editions of Fantasy

Things I want:

• All armies to be in the middle tier of power level (no particularly powerful ones or weak ones)
• Bretonnia and Tomb Kings to return in full
• New factions that fit in with the lore and beyond those that existed in previous editions to be released periodically (like the Creative Assembly have done with Vampire Coast in Warhammer: Total War)
• Affordable rulesets, smaller versions of the starter box (in case the armies included are ones I like) and army books, all of which are accessible from GW themselves and not just Forge World
• Regular FAQs and support

Things I am flexible on:

• Scale of the miniatures (28mm would of course be compatible with older Fantasy miniatures, but it would also be fun if GW developed a mass battle game with 15mm Fantasy miniatures or something too - a 'Warmaster revisited' if you like, given that they have branched out into making smaller-scale minis in games like Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis).
• Story progression (as long as it isn't stupid or biased like the 8th Edition 40K story progression arcs)
• The time frame within the Warhammer Fantasy timeline
• Named characters and/or especially large models being made in Forge World resin
• Whether GW reuse existing Fantasy plastics or create new ones (as long as most of the units and generic characters are plastic I don't mind).

Things I don't want:

• Much of the lore being biased towards one or more particular races (especially if it's for a boring faction like the Empire as the previous editions have been, but even if it's for a race I do like I understand how annoying it would be for others).
• Some factions having especially powerful and game-breaking rules and others having weak and/or underpowered ones
• GW adding in extra rules to encourage players to use larger, more cumbersome units as a money-grabbing strategy, especially if those units are supposed to be elite troops, as 8th tried this with the horde rule and I can't stand this rule.
• The scale of battles continually escalating if GW release ever bigger and more powerful models (7th and 8th Edition 40K have this problem, and I don't want this new Fantasy game to share the fate of becoming simply 'who has the biggest and most powerful monster/vehicle/character wins')
• AoS lore, factions and names being injected into the game (as it would wreck established Fantasy canon)

DEAL BREAKERS:

• Discontinuation of factions, models and units (especially if they are ones I like)
• All or most of the models being made in Forge World resin and/or given the same pricing conventions
• Rules being Forge World exclusive and/or especially expensive
• Army book cover art being the same as ones from previous editions (I'm looking at you 8th Edition 40K again)
• One or more factions getting more and better releases than others (like Dark Elves, Warriors of Chaos and Vampire Counts in 8th)

 

[DeathBringer125]

From what I read of fantasy (though I may be wrong). The rules were a bit odd and complicated. My hope is that they keep concepts like regiments of renown, grouping different squads together, and named characters but edit the rules a bit. Not necessarily to be like AOS but make the rules a little bit simpler.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

From what I read of fantasy (though I may be wrong). The rules were a bit odd and complicated. My hope is that they keep concepts like regiments of renown, grouping different squads together, and named characters but edit the rules a bit. Not necessarily to be like AOS but make the rules a little bit simpler.

A little bit of streamlining to make it easier to learn wouldn't hurt, just make sure it isn't AoS-level streamlining, or else there would be a mutiny of global scale on your hands

 

[DeathBringer125]

A little bit of streamlining to make it easier to learn wouldn't hurt, just make sure it isn't AoS-level streamlining, or else there would be a mutiny of global scale on your hands

lol yeah. Also I'm hoping it will be balanced enough to play whatever way you like. One issue in age of Sigmar is balance issues that prevent you from playing things like a saurus list competitively. Also try and prevent factions from having units strong enough to where they can practically faceroll the game and still win against a powerful competitive list. Cough cough Khorne cough cough. I've tried everything but he wins practically every game. I've used tournament lists and everything but he just picks random best units and wins.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

lol yeah. Also I'm hoping it will be balanced enough to play whatever way you like. One issue in age of Sigmar is balance issues that prevent you from playing things like a saurus list competitively. Also try and prevent factions from having units strong enough to where they can practically faceroll the game and still win against a powerful competitive list. Cough cough Khorne cough cough. I've tried everything but he wins practically every game. I've used tournament lists and everything but he just picks random best units and wins.

That's one of the main things I put in my 'Things I Want' list:

• All armies to be in the middle tier of power level (no particularly powerful ones or weak ones)

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Balance would be great, but it is something I can never see happening (from GW). 7th edition WFB was brutally balanced; 8th was much better, but still far from perfect. AoS sounds fairly unbalanced from what I have read and 40k has never really been balanced either.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Balance would be great, but it is something I can never see happening (from GW). 7th edition WFB was brutally balanced; 8th was much better, but still far from perfect. AoS sounds fairly unbalanced from what I have read and 40k has never really been balanced either.

Alas, that is true. GW seem to think that by making some armies easier to powergame, powergamers will spend more on those specific armies and specific builds than casual gamers do on any armies and units they want, and it is sad when they try to attract the former at the expense of the latter.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Alas, that is true. GW seem to think that by making some armies easier to powergame, powergamers will spend more on those specific armies and specific builds than casual players do on any armies and units they want.

There is also the risk of going too far with balance, for example The 9th Age. Not to say that I wouldn't want more balance from GW games, but only if it doesn't come at the expense of fun and flavour.

 

[DeathBringer125]

Oh yeah and hopefully if the rebalance saurus and make them good then a melee faction like Khorne can't just waltz up to the objectives and win. No matter what I do I can't best him in melee so even if I'm winning the fighting over time he just wins from objectives. Maybe I'm just taking the wrong approach though.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

There is also the risk of going too far with balance, for example The 9th Age. Not to say that I wouldn't want more balance from GW games, but only if it doesn't come at the expense of fun and flavour.

I suppose too much of either side is bad, as you say, but given that most of the games I play with my dad just using the thematic armies I've collected are both fun and balanced, it is possible to achieve a medium.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Oh yeah and hopefully if the rebalance saurus and make them good then a melee faction like Khorne can't just waltz up to the objectives and win. No matter what I do I can't best him in melee so even if I'm winning the fighting over time he just wins from objectives. Maybe I'm just taking the wrong approach though.

Perhaps you should try to stop him waltzing up to the objectives by using more missile troops - most Blades of Khorne infantry are not that well-armoured or durable (that's Nurgle's thing). Alternatively you could just play Fyreslayers and beat him at his own game

In any case, you're now derailing a Fantasy thread with AoS tactics!

 

[childishknight]

Am I the only one that doesn't like rank and file? That was the main thing I hated about fantasy and just how damn complicated it is. Granted, I have always like the modeling aspect of the hobby WAY more then the game itself. I haven't played AoS in about a year and I'm fine with that....

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Am I the only one that doesn't like rank and file? That was the main thing I hated about fantasy and just how damn complicated it is. Granted, I have always like the modeling aspect of the hobby WAY more then the game itself. I haven't played AoS in about a year and I'm fine with that....

To be fair, some people do just buy and paint the models and don't game, so even if you don't like rank-and-flank, you still might get something out of TOW.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Am I the only one that doesn't like rank and file?

I'm sure there are others, but I'm not one of them. GW already has AoS and 40K for skirmish battles, so TOW should differentiate itself.

That was the main thing I hated about fantasy and just how damn complicated it is.

That's exactly what I liked about it. Also, I like the idea of GW offering a range of games at a range of difficulty levels.

Some people want to play Lego video games, while others want to play Dark Souls! To each their own.

To be fair, some people do just buy and paint the models and don't game, so even if you don't like rank-and-flank, you still might get something out of TOW.

That's a good point!

 

[DeathBringer125]

Perhaps you should try to stop him waltzing up to the objectives by using more missile troops - most Blades of Khorne infantry are not that well-armoured or durable (that's Nurgle's thing). Alternatively you could just play Fyreslayers and beat him at his own game

In any case, you're now derailing a Fantasy thread with AoS tactics!

well I'm not totally derailing it lol. I just hope TOW fixes these issues. But I am extremely excited for TOW (whfb had waaaay better lore then AOS). I never liked the realm match up each game. It always felt sort of like match making in a multiplayer game. It felt weird to me.
EDIT: another thing I'm hyped up for is the return of BRETTONIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol thats my favorite faction in TWW1, though they are super hard to play.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Army book cover art being the same as ones from previous editions (I'm looking at you 8th Edition 40K again)

I'm surprised to see that you listed this as a deal breaker. I want to see new art (and reusing cover art is exceptionally lazy on GW's part), but it wouldn't dissuade me from playing the game if all the other elements were properly in their place.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I'm surprised to see that you listed this as a deal breaker. I want to see new art (and reusing cover art is exceptionally lazy on GW's part), but it wouldn't dissuade me from playing the game if all the other elements were properly in their place.

It's probably just due to me being a perfectionist, but If I see GW reusing the exact cover art from the previous army books on their new ones, that just rings a little bell in my mind that GW are going to be lazy with the whole game, and I'm not eager to play a game that GW are going to be lazy with (or having two books with pretty much the same cover on my shelf just because they're from different editions). Look at the mess 8th Edition 40K is as an example of said laziness - do you want Warhammer: The Old World to end up sharing that fate?

 

[Killer Angel]

MUST HAVES / Things i want:

Discontinued armies
only old lore
square bases

Things I am flexible on:

new armies 8th style
regular FAQ
rank and file
(in 8th there were skirmishers, but it lacked the idea of chaotic horde. I wouldn't mind a mechanic as "you can field that unit in rank and file or disorganized: the first will give you move restriction but gain combat bonuses")


Things I don't want in the game / DEAL BREAKERS:

inclusion of AoS models/units that don't fit within the WFB setting
game not 28mm
Use of generic heroes instead of old named characters