|
Post by lordofskullpass on Mar 14, 2023 10:46:38 GMT
Seems like sails are set for a Brets vs Tomb Kings starter set, as it was mentioned in some roumors, but let's see. It'd be a dream come true if so!
|
|
|
Post by Darnok on Mar 14, 2023 11:15:11 GMT
Seems like sails are set for a Brets vs Tomb Kings starter set, as it was mentioned in some roumors, but let's see.
I am not convinced - but you could of course be right.
GW has done some weird WHF starter sets in the past, Brets/Lizardmen for 5th and HE/Skaven for 8th come to mind. Especially the 5th edition starter - introducing new ranges for both Bretonnia and Lizardmen - strongly supports a Bret/TK box for TOW... but still. Would it make sense to put the weight of a whole games relaunch on the shoulders on these two fringe factions? I have my doubts.
I remain in the camp of "box similar to HH, with Empire vs. Empire setup", as this just makes more sense to me personally. But then I would also buy a Bret/TK starter, so I do not care that much either way.
|
|
simon
Full Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by simon on Mar 14, 2023 11:25:47 GMT
Is it just me or does anyone else have a sense of dread about TOW? I suppose just a fear that it will not be an improvement on 8th ed. With the exception of a few spells being overpowered and cavalry being generally overcosted, 8th ed is pretty much perfect for me. That said, one aspect I expect them to focus on is the scalability. I tried playing smaller games of 8th at 1000 and 1500 pts and I don't think it works very well. The horde and steadfast rules encourage big units and therefore what's the incentive not to take those big units in a smaller game? For me a low point game like 1250pts doesn't feel like a small army, it feels like half of a big army, because it still includes that big horde that I would take in a 2500pt game. I personally think Warhammer 8th works pretty well at small points levels (1000 or 1200 for example) so long as both players are hoping to have a fun game with fun lists and not playing waac. Generally nothing over 250 points as a rule of thumb at that level. That said, most if my games are 2k or above but smaller points work well for quicker games and trying new things. Imo 5 wide is better than 4 wide as I like the idea and look of 3 command dudes in the centre and a regular dude either side. I personally like the horde rule as it gives an in game benefit to making a big, unweildy unit which looks cool. Visually I think a nicely painted unit of say 50 Beastmen gor or 50 night Goblins 10 wide looks amazing on the tabletop. It tickles my hobby pickle. 5 wide, 10 wide...don't care....give me more! I agree 100% that big units look stunning and the last thing I want is for the horde and steadfast rules to go and for there to no longer be a reward for taking a big unwieldy unit, just from an artistic standpoint. Of course I would like the cost of models to come down, so it's more accessible for people, but, at the risk of sounding a bit elitist, I don't want there to be a very low time investment needed to start playing the game competitively. I think armies should be big and include lots of models, especially infantry. If you can't invest the time to assemble and paint lots of models then best to play AoS or one of the many skirmish games instead. I don't want GW to lower the bar so much that it ceases to be big battles with big units.. and everyone has 10 different armies..
|
|
simon
Full Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by simon on Mar 14, 2023 11:32:53 GMT
I am also expecting them to loosen up the base size restrictions. In fact I predict that 20mm bases might disappear altogether, to allow for more dynamic models to be ranked up.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Mar 14, 2023 12:16:32 GMT
I remain in the camp of "box similar to HH, with Empire vs. Empire setup", as this just makes more sense to me personally. But then I would also buy a Bret/TK starter, so I do not care that much either way. I must say, though, that that would be easily the most boring starter box they could ever release for TOW, and a great way to put off the big customer base that isn't interested in playing Empire. Nobody except Empire players gives two hoots about the War of the Three-plus Emperors, and making the starter set essentially one giant Empire starter box, in a game with a far more diverse and interesting range of factions than the Horus Heresy, would be a maddening waste of the game's potential.
|
|
|
Post by bastardfromhell on Mar 14, 2023 12:19:22 GMT
Seems like sails are set for a Brets vs Tomb Kings starter set, as it was mentioned in some roumors, but let's see.
I am not convinced - but you could of course be right.
GW has done some weird WHF starter sets in the past, Brets/Lizardmen for 5th and HE/Skaven for 8th come to mind. Especially the 5th edition starter - introducing new ranges for both Bretonnia and Lizardmen - strongly supports a Bret/TK box for TOW... but still. Would it make sense to put the weight of a whole games relaunch on the shoulders on these two fringe factions? I have my doubts.
I remain in the camp of "box similar to HH, with Empire vs. Empire setup", as this just makes more sense to me personally. But then I would also buy a Bret/TK starter, so I do not care that much either way. I agree, it sounds strange. Maybe they picked two factions which did not get a model release already covered by some AOS factions, so people are tempted to buy new shiny stuff Bretonnians and Tomb kings are gone for quite some time now. At least the scenario would make sense. I am thankful for the 5th edition starter set as this is were my core Bretonnian army is from, but the match up was a weird one.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Mar 14, 2023 12:19:34 GMT
Would it make sense to put the weight of a whole games relaunch on the shoulders on these two fringe factions? I have my doubts. I agree. Tomb Kings and Bretonnia coming back is exciting for sure. But let's be honest they were never among the most popular factions. They also have unique rules and play mechanics making them bad for introducing the game to new players. Putting both in the game's starter box would be a bizarre choice.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Mar 14, 2023 12:21:07 GMT
I remain in the camp of "box similar to HH, with Empire vs. Empire setup", as this just makes more sense to me personally. But then I would also buy a Bret/TK starter, so I do not care that much either way. I must say, though, that that would be easily the most boring starter box they could ever release for TOW, and a great way to put off the big customer base that isn't interested in playing Empire. Nobody except Empire players gives two hoots about the War of the Three-plus Emperors, and making the starter set essentially one giant Empire starter box, in a game with a far more diverse and interesting range of factions than the Horus Heresy, would be a maddening waste of the game's potential. Yes, an all Empire starter box would be a horrible choice as well.
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Mar 14, 2023 12:37:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Mar 14, 2023 13:18:20 GMT
I'm loving this sneaky sneak peack at ACTUAL MODELS! but hands up, who else is triggerred by this.... Yep. Hate that lack of symmetry. Now if it's designed for some kind if side on shield stab I'll give it a pass.
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Mar 14, 2023 13:26:07 GMT
I am also expecting them to loosen up the base size restrictions. In fact I predict that 20mm bases might disappear altogether, to allow for more dynamic models to be ranked up. I hope for this too. The new AoS are beautiful but are not soo great at ranking.
|
|
|
Post by Luigino on Mar 14, 2023 13:48:25 GMT
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. The unnecessary and callous execution of those armies is the biggest symbol of the stupidity GW showed during the period when they also eradicated Fantasy. In the past few years, however, to their credit, GW seem to have been committed to apologizing to fanbases they offended over the years by squatting/mistreating armies (if their successful resurrections of Genestealer Cults and Squats and their dedication to making plastic Sisters of Battle are anything to go by), and releasing a starter box with those two armies for the revived Warhammer Fantasy game would be the ultimate display of apology to all the people GW offended in the 2015-16 era. Eh... Does it? As much as I like disliking GW, the fact that both ranges were quickly removed after the demise of Fantasy (despite TK having some of the newest models at the time) surely would imply that they never sold well. Otherwise they would have had no problem in porting them over to AoS. now it could be argued that with proper support they could have flourished, but support was not given. The reason GW changed their act was necause they understood that it would sell them more models, not because they felt they had to right any kind of wrong. So this automatically denotes them as being unworthy of a place in the starter box? That's a good way to insult two extremely dedicated cult fanbases. Even if only a minority does play them, they still deserve to have their favourite armies treated with respect, and including them in the starter box would be the ultimate expression of that. Not to mention it would give these dedicated fanbases some much-needed new blood as a lot of new players will enter the game through the starter box, and perhaps turn those minorities into majorities, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all. It's about time some of the underdogs were given some time in the sun. I think there's a disconnect here between why things happens and how we feel about things that should happen. For GW TK and Bretonnia (or anything they produce, really) is nothing but another line of product that costs them tons in capital and time investments (designing, planning, tools, machinery, advertising, stocking, distributing ecc ecc) at the possible detriment of other, more profitable, lines of products. No particular line is more or less deserving. "Deserving" isn't even a word that should come up in these discussions and I would bet my whole collection that the concept of deserving does not even crosses the mind of those making decisions. They're just trying to make a profit on a possible investment or cut their losses on a bad commercial decision. No more no less. Will more support give these particular lines new life and energy? Very possibly so. but is a new starter set a bet GW is willing to make? I don't know. Tomb Kings and Bretonnia are both highly appealing to those with taste , and seeing them appear in the starter box would make a fantastic change from the usual suspects of Empire, High Elves and Greenskins, as much as I like the latter two. Taste is highly suggestive but, especially for TK a case could be made that they're among the most unique take on a popular fantasy trope. Why? Bretonnian infantry make even basic Skeletons look elite, so you could easily have the Bretonnian army consist of a couple of units of Knights, a unit of Peasants and perhaps a Trebuchet, vs a Tomb King army with Skeleton Warriors, Tomb Guard and Ushabti. That would pit two significantly different armies against each other - one a heavy-hitting charge-reliant cavalry army, one a slower but more numerous and resilient wall of melee infantry that can resurrect its casualties. Job done. Rules, mechanics and stats, especially something so specific and small in scope are not a deciding factor in what attracts new players (which is what a starter set is for, more than bolstering an existing player's collection). I highly doubt many people started playing Warhammer because their army had re-rolls, a stackable army save or gained extra bonuses on the charge. On the other hand, I have no doubt that good visuals instead do most of the legwork in getting people interested. So if GW thinks that TK and Bretonnia can deliver on the visual appeal more than, say, Empire and Dark Elves, they'll go ahead with that. But as others have said, if GW reinvent the Bretonnian and Tomb King range too much, it won't be similar enough to Warhammer Fantasy to appeal to the market they've been aiming for with TOW (i.e. us disgruntled fantasy players who refuse to bow to AoS). Additionally, look at Warhammer: Total War, it's kept Tomb Kings and Bretonnians pretty much as they are to nobody's complaint. GW also seem to be intending to capitalize on the market created by these games, so they would also end up turning away that customer base as well. In short, changing these cult-favourite factions too much would put off a lot of their fans, as well as compromising the ability of existing players to use their collections of them in the game. Are we sure that's the target market? I'm not saying we're not, but I'm not so sure. Especially since we're the same demographic that doesn't buy models (or not as much as GW deemed necessary to sustain all Fantasy lines) because we already have all or most of the models we need. And I agree that changing factions too much would put off a lot of fans; i Know it would me off. But I really don't think them "compromising the ability of existing players to use their collections [in] game" would be seen as a negative by GW.
|
|
|
Post by imrillion on Mar 14, 2023 15:06:33 GMT
Initial starter box will be TK vs Bretts Why would this ever happen? it makes no sense. Not from a marketing standpoint nor from a commercial one. TK and Bretonnia were NOT popular armies, had they been we would not have seen them linger behind and have their model line canned at the first occasion. And despite what a loud minority of people online might clamour, they're still not among the most popular armies. From a marketing perspective, it makes little sense as a starter box should provide an appealing army more than anything else. In that sense they could have Bretonnia (with a mix of infantry and cavalry models), but then TK makes absolutely no sense. It also doesn't make sense if they're focusing on the old world. I think most peopel think we're getting a new edition of WFB. I really don't think that's the case. I think we're getting a different game, which is vaguely set in the WH fantasy universe and is visually similar to the game we played for years. That's it. Furthermore, if Bretonnia and TK do make a serious comeback, they'll rework them to be as GW-esque specific as possible, As of now, both ranges (excluding perhaps a few unique units) are far too generic by GW standards. Lol, told ya…. 😏
|
|
|
Post by sedge on Mar 14, 2023 21:07:39 GMT
I still think Orcs and Goblins vs Brets is a strong possibility. These are the first renders we've seen, but it's definitely not confirmation they're part of the starter box. Greenskins and Empire have featured prominently in lore/map previews already, Kislev and Cathay too.
On the 20mm base size comment, I disagree - for a start, WFB infantry don't have to be dynamic. There are some utterly amazing 8th edition kits that are largely monopose, and for many types of infantry that appearance suits - think Black Guard, Ironbreakers, Tomb Guard or any of the Island of Blood infantry (Swordmasters, Lothern Sea Guard, Clanrats). None of these would look better on 25mm bases. GW also got better at fitting dynamic models such as the excellent Witch Elf kit onto 20mm bases in a way that they rank up.
I suspect there will be more bigger base units, like the End Times chaos models we saw, but the rank and file work just fine on 20s and 25s.
|
|
|
Post by tileag on Mar 15, 2023 0:45:18 GMT
Why not do like 3 starter sets for the Old World? Tk vs Brets, O&G vs Empire, and Chaos vs Kislev?
|
|