Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the plan now?

The part of the original idea that interested me the most was the idea to do an online campaign to advance the background timeline by players sending in their battle results. Much like the 40K "Eye of Terror" and "Medusa V" campaigns done by GW.

That requires the building of a system to handle player inputs, which is a different thing to designing tabletop rules and models.

That was one of my main hopes for it also. I think with modern communications technology there is a massive potential in that kind of interactive environment between developer and player, at a level not seen before. Of course, I would imagine this kind of thing would cost a fair amount of money..

And, what Apologist said!

 Pacific wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the plan now?

The part of the original idea that interested me the most was the idea to do an online campaign to advance the background timeline by players sending in their battle results. Much like the 40K "Eye of Terror" and "Medusa V" campaigns done by GW.

That requires the building of a system to handle player inputs, which is a different thing to designing tabletop rules and models.

That was one of my main hopes for it also. I think with modern communications technology there is a massive potential in that kind of interactive environment between developer and player, at a level not seen before. Of course, I would imagine this kind of thing would cost a fair amount of money..

And, what Apologist said!

And the problem is, wargames settings have to be relatively static. What if the campaign leads to one side being annihilated, or permanently changed such as to eliminate what players originally liked about them?

Ah yes, the Eye of Terror campaign results and codex: Cadians Imperial Guard getting its release not long after, awkward!

 Elemental wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the plan now?

The part of the original idea that interested me the most was the idea to do an online campaign to advance the background timeline by players sending in their battle results. Much like the 40K "Eye of Terror" and "Medusa V" campaigns done by GW.

That requires the building of a system to handle player inputs, which is a different thing to designing tabletop rules and models.

That was one of my main hopes for it also. I think with modern communications technology there is a massive potential in that kind of interactive environment between developer and player, at a level not seen before. Of course, I would imagine this kind of thing would cost a fair amount of money..

And, what Apologist said!

And the problem is, wargames settings have to be relatively static. What if the campaign leads to one side being annihilated, or permanently changed such as to eliminate what players originally liked about them?

Infinity has a progressing storyline, although I agree that you would have to be careful (and certainly not give any false premises, like the Eye of Terror campaign!).
I'm sure with careful writing and good handling it could be achievable.

And thinking back, the Eye of Terror was tremendous fun, and had a great effect of pulling games-players together. I think these days it would be that much easier to pull off just because of the communications technology available, that could have only been dreamt about at that time.

 Elemental wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the plan now?

The part of the original idea that interested me the most was the idea to do an online campaign to advance the background timeline by players sending in their battle results. Much like the 40K "Eye of Terror" and "Medusa V" campaigns done by GW.

That requires the building of a system to handle player inputs, which is a different thing to designing tabletop rules and models.

That was one of my main hopes for it also. I think with modern communications technology there is a massive potential in that kind of interactive environment between developer and player, at a level not seen before. Of course, I would imagine this kind of thing would cost a fair amount of money..

And, what Apologist said!

And the problem is, wargames settings have to be relatively static. What if the campaign leads to one side being annihilated, or permanently changed such as to eliminate what players originally liked about them?

Start a new campaign on a different planet. The previously defeated side can get their revenge.

I have sometimes pondered things like a living game system. Sure, there's the worries about drastically changing the makeup of the armies, but as long as no models are invalidated, it doesn't seem to be too bad.

To take 40k as an example, you have all the different marine codices, that are, at the core, based on the same range of models (broadly speaking). Imagine if, instead of them being different armies, it was the same army but changed throughout time.

Perhaps, something like, over the course of, say, 10 years, you start off with an 'Army' being a horde-ish force of troops (aka, traditional Black Templars), that lose their numbers, but become more organised after conquering a world (aka traditional Codex Space Marines). However, disaster strikes in the next set of campaigns, resulting in there being a relatively small number but significantly higher elite troop concentrations left (EG, Deathwing Dark Angels). Then, flash forward a few years and you get a force desparate for revenge, having lost their home and are entirely assault based (Blood Angels).

Essentially using the same models, nothing is particularly invalidated but things are kept fresh and you see the army evolves with the campaigns by changing their points costs, force structures.

It seems do-able, if a company was sufficiently motivated.

I just hope we have access to a "generic" force selector that allows you to create your own armies. For example, I'd love to be able to create a mercenary force or my own planetary militia.

It would need to be heavily playtested to keep from being abused, but it could really help the game have a rich universe and attract players. A basic system could be something like

1.Pick race(s) that your force is made of, from a list of the major races in the setting.

2.Pick tech level you want available, with everything from improvised weapons and reserve tier weapons, to high tech special forces equipment.

3.Tech level dictates the type of troops you can take. For example, reservists wouldn't have access to heaps of high tech weaponry, but special forces might be allowed to take a little from any tech level, simulating them using whatever they can find if they're stuck behind enemy lines.

4.The type of troops you take as a core dictates your force selector. A reservist militia might be allowed to take a ton of regular squads, but be severely limited in access to heavy weapons and vehicles. A veteran infantry company on the other hand may be low on regular squads, but have a high concentration of special and heavy weapons to make up for their low numbers.


Besides the obvious ability to draw in players from other systems by using minis they already own, it gives players the ability to make a force that they truly feel is their own. If enough players band together, they may even be able to create a new faction, which would be awesome to see (and give you a new miniature line to make inspired by the conversions the players came up with)

I doubt it would happen since there's all sorts of potential problems a system like that could run into, but it would really help the universe to come alive. It would also help a global campaign system out if there's a decent chunk of mercenary players, as you could provide incentives for them to side with the losing faction to balance the fight. Just a thought.

Either way I'll be keeping an eye on this. I like the core of the Bolt Action rules, and felt they could be truly great with a bit of expansion and tweaking. Since that seems to be the direction this rules system is going, I think it has a lot of potential. Even if I don't like any of the factions Warlord makes, I'll probably try proxying models from other systems to give the game a try.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I just hope we have access to a "generic" force selector that allows you to create your own armies. For example, I'd love to be able to create a mercenary force or my own planetary militia.

This. this this this. i've spent my miniatures gaming life looking for a good generic sci fi ruleset. SG2 and TW are close but I'd really like something with a points system that would at least get to approximate equality for pick up and play scenarios. I've got several sci fi forces from Urban War Viridians, Pig Iron, Copplestone, EM4, Defiance UAMC, Mantic Corporation, Khurusan Federal, etc, that are itching to be played with on a regular basis and not just "let's give this system a try and see if my group likes it".

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Start a new campaign on a different planet. The previously defeated side can get their revenge.

I don't think that would work. People are not likely to get all fired up for the worldwide campaign, Battle For The Planet Of The Ah Who Cares? It Doesn't Matter Anyway. If the campaigns are so generic that you can just pick a new planet and everything's groovy, then there's no reason for people to get excited. If the campaigns happen on worlds (or Rings or Spheres, etc.) that matter, then people will get upset when something important happens to the background that they don't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I have sometimes pondered things like a living game system. Sure, there's the worries about drastically changing the makeup of the armies, but as long as no models are invalidated, it doesn't seem to be too bad.

To take 40k as an example, you have all the different marine codices, that are, at the core, based on the same range of models (broadly speaking). Imagine if, instead of them being different armies, it was the same army but changed throughout time.

Perhaps, something like, over the course of, say, 10 years, you start off with an 'Army' being a horde-ish force of troops (aka, traditional Black Templars), that lose their numbers, but become more organised after conquering a world (aka traditional Codex Space Marines). However, disaster strikes in the next set of campaigns, resulting in there being a relatively small number but significantly higher elite troop concentrations left (EG, Deathwing Dark Angels). Then, flash forward a few years and you get a force desparate for revenge, having lost their home and are entirely assault based (Blood Angels).

Essentially using the same models, nothing is particularly invalidated but things are kept fresh and you see the army evolves with the campaigns by changing their points costs, force structures.

It seems do-able, if a company was sufficiently motivated.

See, I started 3 armies based on the Oldcrons' fluff surrounding the War in Heaven and the C'Tan. The Newcron codex killed almost all of my enthusiasm for the projects instantly. The models have not been invalidated or anything, but their flavor has soured for sure. Sometimes the background actually matters.

If it's managed properly there's no reason that you couldn't have new units that reflect the campaign (Guerilla units as a force loses resources etc.) while still legitimately using existing units.

If it's a galaxy spanning conflict you could easily see a force fighting in it's original manner in one sector, while they've had to adapt tactics/ gear/ hire mercenaries in another sector.

This is sort of what Warmachine does, at least as far as releases go, and I think it's a good model. Obviously it's based on written backstory and not really on player input.

Well I have to say, my first Gates of Antares purchase is.... Disappointing.

As someone who had pledged a decent amount during the kickstarter, I thought I'd buy the Hansa figure to support the project. I find warlord selling it for £5, which is fair enough, but they charge £4 for postage. Against my better judgement, I ordered it anyway.

The figure arrived today. The sculpt itself is nice. No major mold line issues or anything, but they don't even include a base! Nor does it have a tab for slotting in a base. Just a thin strip of metal between the feet like you used to get on some cheap 80's metal figs. It has issues standing up on this, and will take a lot of work with file and clippers to remove it so I can mount it on a 25mm round (like the promo pics has it...) Not even GW has gotten to the point where they don't include bases with their models. If this is the route the project is going down, I'm afraid I'll be spending my money elsewhere.

Shame, because I really liked the look of this project.

I know the feeling that the company was too cheap to include such a minor item, but surely a 5p plastic base won't break the deal.

I mean it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, if you like the figure.

If it's so minor, then why not include it! It's not just the base though. It's the time it'll take to prep the feet. Don't mind doing it for a one off, but if the whole army is cast on these daft flat metal tabs, that'll be hours of work I could be doing something more constructive. And after shelling out £9 for the figure, I really don't see why I should have to shell out more just to make the model stand up!

I picked up the resin version on release with the same tab. Took a bit of work to remove it and I ended up basing it on a spare 30mm wm base. I must say the cast was really good but I wish they'd reconsider doing this on all the figures as is planned.

Very few companies (excluding companies with closed systems) include bases with their figures, especially with Warlord being a historicals company. it's almost pointless as there are so many rulesystems that all use different basing methods.

But it's for their own rule system. Warlord are only the distributor, and I have to say, I've never bought a mini from any other company that didn't include a base. Privateer press, Corvus belli, games workshop, raging heroes, fantasy flight etc. all these companies are going to be direct competitors for this game, and all include an appropriate base for the relevant rule set. Not including one just seems unnecessarily cheap.

It's definitely a holdover from historicals - with most historical ranges bases are usually sold separately or improvised, rather than coming with the models. This is because the same figures may be intended for use with an individually round bnased skirmish game, a mass battle game with 4 or 5 models on a single base, or anything in between.

Having said that, it does seem a bit cheap when compared with other sci-fi and fantasy ranges. I tihnk its just a case of Warlord rather feeling their way in a new market.

Im pretty sure its been said on the forum that the minis will come equipped with a lipped base. Cant link as im on my phone atm. I think it could be due to hansa being initially released before they knew what bases to include for the new rules.

I know all my Zulu War stuff did not come with bases, but the figures (even the metal ones) had an integral base. I ended up putting all the figures on metal washers.

Email them, it could be that they just forgot to pack it and they'll pop one in an envelope and sent it off to you.

 Eggs wrote:
But it's for their own rule system. Warlord are only the distributor, and I have to say, I've never bought a mini from any other company that didn't include a base. Privateer press, Corvus belli, games workshop, raging heroes, fantasy flight etc. all these companies are going to be direct competitors for this game, and all include an appropriate base for the relevant rule set. Not including one just seems unnecessarily cheap.

Only the latest Warlord plastic sets come with bases as part of the sprue, and some bundles come with a set of bases from Renedra, but the majority of the line doesn't come with bases. The same applies to most historical companies from what I can tell.

Herzlos wrote:
Only the latest Warlord plastic sets come with bases as part of the sprue, and some bundles come with a set of bases from Renedra, but the majority of the line doesn't come with bases. The same applies to most historical companies from what I can tell.

Yes I think it's pretty common with historicals stuff. A lot of it probably comes from a lack of standard convention for basing, with people using multi-mounted models or single bases depending on the rulesets people want to use, a lot of the time it makes sense not to include bases.

As a consequence, I think a lot of collectors have big mixes of bases that have been bought separately, leftovers from other kits, or made (at least, I know I do!)

And .. TBH I'm amazed that anyone would complain about having to cut off a tab to stick it on a base!

Eggs wrote:Well I have to say, my first Gates of Antares purchase is.... Disappointing.

As someone who had pledged a decent amount during the kickstarter, I thought I'd buy the Hansa figure to support the project. I find warlord selling it for £5, which is fair enough, but they charge £4 for postage. Against my better judgement, I ordered it anyway.

Covered the point about the bases above, but really what were you doing ordering some Warlord stuff without availing of some of their terrific Hail Caesar or Bolt Action stuff?

 Pacific wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Only the latest Warlord plastic sets come with bases as part of the sprue, and some bundles come with a set of bases from Renedra, but the majority of the line doesn't come with bases. The same applies to most historical companies from what I can tell.

Yes I think it's pretty common with historicals stuff. A lot of it probably comes from a lack of standard convention for basing, with people using multi-mounted models or single bases depending on the rulesets people want to use, a lot of the time it makes sense not to include bases.

As a consequence, I think a lot of collectors have big mixes of bases that have been bought separately, leftovers from other kits, or made (at least, I know I do!)

And .. TBH I'm amazed that anyone would complain about having to cut off a tab to stick it on a base!

Eggs wrote:Well I have to say, my first Gates of Antares purchase is.... Disappointing.

As someone who had pledged a decent amount during the kickstarter, I thought I'd buy the Hansa figure to support the project. I find warlord selling it for £5, which is fair enough, but they charge £4 for postage. Against my better judgement, I ordered it anyway.

Covered the point about the bases above, but really what were you doing ordering some Warlord stuff without availing of some of their terrific Hail Caesar or Bolt Action stuff?

To be honest, another system is the last thing I need at the minute. With factions under way for warmachine, 40k, infinity, dust, xwing and whfb, I really just wanted the Hansa figure.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason I liked GoA, is because by the time it's a fully fledged system, I should be just about caught up with my other stuff.

 Pacific wrote:
And .. TBH I'm amazed that anyone would complain about having to cut off a tab to stick it on a base!

The extra work itself doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But it sends a strong message - this is a half-assed project from a team that's 20 years behind the times. Not that we didn't know it already.

It's not a big deal. It's just not very well thought out is my point


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not a big deal. It's just not very well thought out is my point

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And .. TBH I'm amazed that anyone would complain about having to cut off a tab to stick it on a base!

The extra work itself doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But it sends a strong message - this is a half-assed project from a team that's 20 years behind the times. Not that we didn't know it already.

I'm confused - are the principle designers of 40k and WHFB also working on this project? Both of those systems need a hard reset, with rules firmly mired in the 90's.

Eggs, I admire your self restraint in not buying miniatures for yet another game system!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And .. TBH I'm amazed that anyone would complain about having to cut off a tab to stick it on a base!

The extra work itself doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But it sends a strong message - this is a half-assed project from a team that's 20 years behind the times. Not that we didn't know it already.

Have you seen some of their later Hail Caesar and Bolt Action stuff? Some of their plastics are fantastic, think the new ranges are probably up there with GW plastics.

 Pacific wrote:
Eggs, I admire your self restraint in not buying miniatures for yet another game system!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And .. TBH I'm amazed that anyone would complain about having to cut off a tab to stick it on a base!

The extra work itself doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But it sends a strong message - this is a half-assed project from a team that's 20 years behind the times. Not that we didn't know it already.

Have you seen some of their later Hail Caesar and Bolt Action stuff? Some of their plastics are fantastic, think the new ranges are probably up there with GW plastics.

Really?

Which ones in particular?

 Eggs wrote:
If it's so minor, then why not include it! It's not just the base though. It's the time it'll take to prep the feet. Don't mind doing it for a one off, but if the whole army is cast on these daft flat metal tabs, that'll be hours of work I could be doing something more constructive. And after shelling out £9 for the figure, I really don't see why I should have to shell out more just to make the model stand up!

I don't either, but if the stark choice is between a great figure you really like, for which you have to provide a base, and some other figure that isn't as nice but you get a free base, I know what I would choose.

To be fair, I have zillions of spare bases lying around from whatever sources I don't know, and it really doesn't hurt me if I need to get my own base.

Should have clarified that in terms of rank and file/standard units. Not character pieces, some of the new plastic GW ones are excellent.

But for your standard units the Hail Caesar Legionnaires are brilliant, really nicely detailed. Found some pics, this is the kind of standard you can get with a kit that costs about 60p a miniature, the Imperial Roman era and Celt miniatures are great also.


And the Bolt Action stuff I have seen is really nice as well, the US and Brit plastic sets are much better than the GW Cadians and Catachans I think. Much cheaper as well, and you get a lot more random little bits on the sprues.