8th Ed. Old World revamp

[pendrake]

Unless they copy the KoW system, it is going to be ugly.

KOW System?

What aspect of it were you thinking?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

KOW System?

Kings of War

What aspect of it were you thinking?

Rather than ranking individual models, the system uses different sizes of (essentially) movement trays upon which models can be placed in a diorama sort of setup as opposed to strict model placement. The entire movement tray-like base represents a set number of troops (as opposed to individual models being "wound makers"). Using this sort of idea, you could create movement trays that could easily house rounds or squares.

Building off of that idea, if GW were to introduce a space between ranked up models (like WFB skirmishers, but instead of 0.5" space they'd use something smaller like .25"), they could create movement trays that accept squares or rounds and have them rank up. In this setup, models would once again work as they do in WFB/AoS/40k as wound markers. This would also assist square based WFB models as they would rank up significantly easier.


Don't get me wrong, this isn't what I'm personally hoping for. I want TOW to be as close to 8th edition WFB as possible. I don't want round bases in my game.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

This would also assist square based WFB models as they would rank up significantly easier.

That would be pretty neat though as ranking up a lot of models is can be a real pain.

 

[pendrake]

Rather than ranking individual models, the system uses different sizes of (essentially) movement trays upon which models can be placed in a diorama sort of setup as opposed to strict model placement. The entire movement tray-like base represents a set number of troops (as opposed to individual models being "wound makers"). Using this sort of idea, you could create movement trays that could easily house rounds or squares.

I have KoW 2. (I did know the KoW acronym.) It had a guideline a little different from that, but mostly the same. Is the way you explained it the way things are in KoW 3?

Kings of War 2 needed a minimum of 11 guys for a nominal 20 man unit. It was one half the nominal size + 1 guy.

Building off of that idea, if GW were to introduce a space between ranked up models (like WFB skirmishers, but instead of 0.5" space they'd use something smaller like .25"), they could create movement trays that accept squares or rounds and have them rank up. In this setup, models would once again work as they do in WFB/AoS/40k as wound markers. This would also assist square based WFB models as they would rank up significantly easier.

I would be disappointed (to an extreme) if they created yet another official spacing and associated move trays. That is not player friendly. That is not industry friendly.

There are a variety of move trays already in existence thanks to and inspired by rules they have previously published. My opinion is they need to allow for all the kinds that exist and restrain themselves from adding anything new.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't what I'm personally hoping for. I want TOW to be as close to 8th edition WFB as possible. I don't want round bases in my game.

This is a classic moment ^ to file under:

Be Careful What You Wish For

Recall the rage, anger, fury, disappointment, frustration, annoyance, et. al. that happened when AoSiggy was revealed to be a game of rounds.

There were people annoyed at seeing tabletops with mixtures of rounds and squares (mildest reaction) all the way to the guy that rage-quit and burned his fully painted Army (madness). But the reaction was all negative. The actions of GW were harsh.


Do you really want Games Workshop to visit that same harshness on all the AoSiggy collectors, the new guys (who have nothing but round based figs) for your sake because you want to see nothing but square corners in the new rules?


We are not real far apart. I think you are close to a solution with some of this:

Building off of that idea, if GW were to introduce .... movement trays that accept squares or rounds and have them .... once again work as they do in WFB/AoS/40k as wound markers. This would also assist square based WFB models as they would rank up significantly easier.

I have just excised some of the words.

I very much like the idea of square based models not having to wedge together precisely but still be usable.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Kings of War 2 needed a minimum of 11 guys for a nominal 20 man unit. It was one half the nominal size + 1 guy.

That's how I understand it as well. I don't play KoW myself, but that is what I've been told.

I would be disappointed (to an extreme) if they created yet another official spacing and associated move trays. That is not player friendly. That is not industry friendly.

There are a variety of move trays already in existence thanks to and inspired by rules they have previously published. My opinion is they need to allow for all the kinds that exist and restrain themselves from adding anything new.

Well it was just an idea. Most of the AoS rounds are too large to rank up next to the WFB squares. The spacing would allow for this. Nobody would have to re-base and units would have identical footprints regardless of base type.

Do you really want Games Workshop to visit that same harshness on all the AoSiggy collectors, the new guys (who have nothing but round based figs) for your sake because you want to see nothing but square corners in the new rules?

I'm expressing what I personally would like to see in the game. For me, TOW has to come pretty close to 8th edition for it to be worth jumping ship. If they can come up with a clever system to make it work, fine, but I don't want a hybrid WFB + AoS game.

It will be a tough balancing act to cater to AoS players and WFB players. If push comes to shove, and a choice has to be made, I'd rather have the loyal WFB players on board.

I have just excised some of the words.

I very much like the idea of square based models not having to wedge together precisely but still be usable.

How is this different than what I had suggested? The small spacing between the models would ensure that squares don't have to be wedged together so tightly AND allow the necessary space to slot in the round bases.

 

[airjamy]

I have KoW 2. (I did know the KoW acronym.) It had a guideline a little different from that, but mostly the same. Is the way you explained it the way things are in KoW 3?

Kings of War 2 needed a minimum of 11 guys for a nominal 20 man unit. It was one half the nominal size + 1 guy.


I would be disappointed (to an extreme) if they created yet another official spacing and associated move trays. That is not player friendly. That is not industry friendly.

There are a variety of move trays already in existence thanks to and inspired by rules they have previously published. My opinion is they need to allow for all the kinds that exist and restrain themselves from adding anything new.


This is a classic moment ^ to file under:

Be Careful What You Wish For

Recall the rage, anger, fury, disappointment, frustration, annoyance, et. al. that happened when AoSiggy was revealed to be a game of rounds.

There were people annoyed at seeing tabletops with mixtures of rounds and squares (mildest reaction) all the way to the guy that rage-quit and burned his fully painted Army (madness). But the reaction was all negative. The actions of GW were harsh.


Do you really want Games Workshop to visit that same harshness on all the AoSiggy collectors, the new guys (who have nothing but round based figs) for your sake because you want to see nothing but square corners in the new rules?


We are not real far apart. I think you are close to a solution with some of this:

I have just excised some of the words.

I very much like the idea of square based models not having to wedge together precisely but still be usable.

As @NIGHTBRINGER pointed out, this is a grave they dug for themselves. I think the KOW system, I didn't know about that one, could be a great compromise. It is something new, that keeps in the round and the square while keeping the old feel (block based movement).

Do however keep in mind that they have had massive rebase campaigns for no clear reasons. I still remember the hundreds of Marines I had to rebase when they increased their base size to make them look better..

My prediction would be that they need to go back to square. Imagine the memes if they do not, with the type of announcement they did..

 

[Karnus]

I think it is important to understand that I do not think GW are going to "force" anyone to do anything with regard to re-basing. Anyone who re-bases to play a different game is doing it through their own choice.

The old world is going to play along side AOS byt he looks of things. You don't have to play the old world if you are happy playing AOS.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

That's how I understand it as well. I don't play KoW myself, but that is what I've been told.



Well it was just an idea. Most of the AoS rounds are too large to rank up next to the WFB squares. The spacing would allow for this. Nobody would have to re-base and units would have identical footprints regardless of base type.


I'm expressing what I personally would like to see in the game. For me, TOW has to come pretty close to 8th edition for it to be worth jumping ship. If they can come up with a clever system to make it work, fine, but I don't want a hybrid WFB + AoS game.

It will be a tough balancing act to cater to AoS players and WFB players. If push comes to shove, and a choice has to be made, I'd rather have the loyal WFB players on board.


How is this different than what I had suggested? The small spacing between the models would ensure that squares don't have to be wedged together so tightly AND allow the necessary space to slot in the round bases.

I am completely with you on this one.

I came back to Warhammer after a space of twenty years, after some encouragement from a friend. I picked up the AOS rulebook and, to be perfectly blunt, was horrified at what they had done to the rules. In my opinion, WFB was the real strategy game that required some really well thought out army lists and tactics as opposed to 40K which was a real messy free-for-all, every shooting at everyone immediately game which was about as subtle as a freight train.

I put together a defiantly square-based army (apart from my Carnosaurs that I couldn't find with a square base and didn't want to ruin the basing work) and am stubbornly sticking with 8th rules.


I have a really bad feeling that GW is going to opt for a completely new rule set and new models just to force fan/addicts to buy an entirely new army. Maybe that's a bit cynical but after they killed all special characters and units in AOS I believe them capable of anything.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I have a really bad feeling that GW is going to opt for a completely new rule set and new models just to force fan/addicts to buy an entirely new army.

I'd be curious to see how much of the WFB player base they could capture with that strategy. I wouldn't play it, but that's just me.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

I'd be curious to see how much of the WFB player base they could capture with that strategy. I wouldn't play it, but that's just me.

Yeah, I know. It would be reassuring to know if actual fans of the game were in charge of the decisions, rule making and financial decisions. Because Murphy's law is true more often than not, I could see some meeting coming up with a "bright idea" that mullers the whole thing. Unless TOW is faithful to the 8th I won't be moving on to be honest.

 

[pendrake]

Yeah, I know. It would be reassuring to know if actual fans of the game were in charge of the decisions, rule making and financial decisions. Because Murphy's law is true more often than not, I could see some meeting coming up with a "bright idea" that mullers the whole thing. Unless TOW is faithful to the 8th I won't be moving on to be honest.

Mullers?? I have heard of Mullets. I know what a Mullet is.

 

[pendrake]

Maybe that's a bit cynical but after they killed all special characters and units in AOS I believe them capable of anything.

Well yes, they are. You’d hope they could restrain themselves, though.

I think it is important to understand that I do not think GW are going to "force" anyone to do anything with regard to re-basing. Anyone who re-bases to play a different game is doing it through their own choice.

That is a rather positive spin to put on it. People rebased. Uultimately, some rebased because they were given a hard choice. This:

1. Rebase to the new standard
2. Don’t play at all
3. Buy all new models with round bases

That is exactly ^ my definition ^ forcing rebasing.

The old world is going to play along side AOS by the looks of things. You don't have to play the old world if you are happy playing AOS.

Just have a different army or armies for each game. $$$$ no problem $$$$

I have a really bad feeling that GW is going to opt for a completely new rule set and new models just to force fan/addicts to buy an entirely new army.

I think you can count on some new models.

But an all new ruleset would be surprising. I would hope they might streamline and delete some rules but keep the basics.

Also, I don’t understand how having a completely different ruleset would require completely new models?

 

[Karnus]

Well yes, they are. You’d hope they could restrain themselves, though.



That is a rather positive spin to put on it. People rebased. Uultimately, some rebased because they were given a hard choice. This:

1. Rebase to the new standard
2. Don’t play at all
3. Buy all new models with round bases

That is exactly ^ my definition ^ forcing rebasing.


Just have a different army or armies for each game. $$$$ no problem $$$$



I think you can count on some new models.

But an all new ruleset would be surprising. I would hope they might streamline and delete some rules but keep the basics.

Also, I don’t understand how having a completely different ruleset would require completely new models?

It’s early days but GW hinted that the new system would work with both squares and round bases somehow which would make the rebasing argument moot

Edit: *hopefully moot

 

[pendrake]

...GW hinted that the new system would work with both squares and round bases somehow...

That is hopeful. Do you recall where this hint was published?

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Mullers?? I have heard of Mullets. I know what a Mullet is.

Sorry, my own personal slang "mullered" meaning to get completely destroyed; or when something is totally f'ed up.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Well yes, they are. You’d hope they could restrain themselves, though.



That is a rather positive spin to put on it. People rebased. Uultimately, some rebased because they were given a hard choice. This:

1. Rebase to the new standard
2. Don’t play at all
3. Buy all new models with round bases

That is exactly ^ my definition ^ forcing rebasing.


Just have a different army or armies for each game. $$$$ no problem $$$$



I think you can count on some new models.

But an all new ruleset would be surprising. I would hope they might streamline and delete some rules but keep the basics.

Also, I don’t understand how having a completely different ruleset would require completely new models?

Ha! Yes, exactly my point. Have entire armies for different games. Well, I’m hoping it’s not that bad.

I’m with you on hoping that they take the best of what we’ve had and refine it. Would be good to get an online survey to see which rules gave gamers the most problems.

I wasn’t referring to a new rule set requiring new models, just new army lists. I think I’m being a bit doom and gloom even for myself right now, as you could probably adapt models. Anyways, whatever I’ll keep crossing my fingers and playing the 8th.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Sorry, my own personal slang "mullered" meaning to get completely destroyed; or when something is totally f'ed up.

Mullers?? I have heard of Mullets. I know what a Mullet is.

As in Mueller Rice, as in chopped into little tiny slimy pieces.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Uultimately, some rebased because they were given a hard choice. This:

1. Rebase to the new standard
2. Don’t play at all
3. Buy all new models with round bases

"Well, that' an easy choice for us, Arcadian!"


Go through the trouble of rebasing in order to play an inferior game or leave the bases as is and play a significantly better game!

 

[Karnus]

That is hopeful. Do you recall where this hint was published?

Literally the only thing I have to go on is a meme they uploaded to one of their official pages (Facebook or warhammer community? Can’t find it now). The theme was basically saying there isn’t a need to argue about round vs square because you can have both. Like I say it was just a hint, too early to tell anything for definite.

 

[pendrake]

That is hopeful. Do you recall where this hint was published?

Literally the only thing I have to go on is a meme they uploaded to one of their official pages (Facebook or warhammer community? Can’t find it now)

Was it this: