Crimson wrote: I would love to have a proper 40K skirmish game, but Kill Team isn't what I want. It is just 40K in small scale, there is nothing unique to it. I want something between Kill Team and Necromunda, I want official Inquisimunda! I want a game where you can use some some 40K stuff, but there is a lot of customisability and ability to wield all sorts of weirdoes.
I do wish they would revise the original Rogue Trader book into something new that covers the smaller encounters of 40K. As well as hive gangs it could focus on Commoragh gangs, Inquistion purges, Gene-cult infiltrations, Corsair raids, Harlequin interference, Sisters of Silence hunts, Navigators and - naturally - Rogue Traders. The selling point could be to allow a unit to break up into individual units and to then form up again, a tactical decision to sacrifice mobility and coverage for stronger leadership, morale and concentrated fire.
True, if they did do away with Kill Team then it wouldn't be so bad as we would still have Necromunda, but hive-gangs are a bit limited in their scope and we naturally want a bit more than that without going into full-on 40K. And players would like that game that does encourage kitbashing and diy scenery projects, while exploring the non-military escapades of the 40K universe. With the reappearance of the Ambull and Zoat, they could release new versions of the manual's classic bestiary, such as the Astral Hounds, Grynx and even the Ymargl Genestealer.
So glad I still have that classic tome, because there is definitely something there that is left untapped.
I do wonder if they’ve just paused Kill Team to avoid encroaching on the release of 9th Ed. They may well release stuff later in the year/early 2021 once we’re clear of the release window.
If Killteam is the intro game I'd wager once 9th is out then they'll bring Killteam back too with a new version to be the new intro game once again.
Though with Corona things are likely a bit messed up - much like how we've clearly an extended gap before we get the Necron and Marine codex for the new boxed set and start of the game etc...
Yeah I see WarCry and Underworlds as a source of new models, plus as Overread said the problem for KT is that it relies on existing unit boxes so to build something interesting you need multiple boxes, while WarCry sets are complete- you can add to if you wish. The current KT starter is really boring -a box of primaris and a box of Fire Warriors isn't that interesting a build, the terrain is cracking though. The Rogue Trader box was more interesting, if they had followed it up with other faction team boxes it might have worked a bit better. Hopefully they are revamping KT and we will see something new soon. I'd love them to bring out Squats, Inquisitors retinue, Eldar Corsairs, Chaos Renegades etc..I don't really have time for building armies now but small forces played on boards look brilliant.
Maybe the plan is to bring out a new Killteam box out for Christmas after 9th has firmly launched..
I like that idea of using Rogue Trader as the setting/basis - it was a lot wilder and the universe was bigger and less defined with all sorts fo oddities around. Maybe we will se something in a later reveal, bound to have something to show in October for the run up to Christmas/New Year..
There were faction team boxes.
Drukhari, Space Wolves, Tau, Necrons, Scions, Orks(they actually had two! this was the first one though), Tyranids(theirs were Genestealers but specifically were Tyranids rather than GSC), and Deathwatch.
The originalKT starter set(the current one is the second one and brought the Wolves and Tau sets into the starter) had a box of Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard and Genestealer Cult Neophyte Hybrids plus a whole heck of a lot of scenery.
Spoiler:
After Rogue Trader(Starstriders and Gellerpox), we got the Commanders expansion which put a bunch of character blisters into a box format with traits and stuff.
Then we got to Elites.
Elites brought in a Death Guard box, Thousand Sons box, the second Ork box, and a second AdMech box(which was the only way to obtain the Techpriest Manipulus) and GSC box(only way to get the Kelermorph).
I want to say there was a Custodes box but I can't recall. The only three I know didn't see boxes were Chaos Marines(vanilla), Harlequins, and Aeldari...which was super weird because they were in from launch.
They were all units people already had, the rules within weren't great, the setups wouldn't translate well over to 40k proper(things like Pulse Blasters with Carbines and Rifles), etc were kind of a Big Deal. The boxes were effectively just a good way to get a piece of scenery and a unit of models at a discount.
What needs, IMO, to happen with KT? I don't know. But there needs to be a 'hook' like WarCry has. Even when there wasn't every single faction involved in WarCry, it was an easy way to start because of the fact that the warbands lent themselves to you playing just them.
With any luck, Kill Team will be crossing over with Crusade. The two seem to be opposite sides of the same coin for my money.
Honestly I wouldn’t be that surprised if GW kind of just let KT die as they push more people towards Combat Patrol as the intro to the game. I could see them maybe publishing a few WD articles now and then for new units for KT and keeping it in print for a while, but with all the emphasis placed on Combat Patrol I feel like they are trying to move people away from KT as an intro to 40k.
silverstu wrote: The Rogue Trader box was more interesting, if they had followed it up with other faction team boxes it might have worked a bit better.
The Rogue Trader models were great, but the issue with the faction with the Kill Team was that there were not rules for generic Rogue Trader faction, you could only play those specific people as they were with zero customisation. I was super disappointed with that.
My absolutely wild, pie in the sky speculation is that we're going to get a "WarCry 40k" with the Eye of Terror as its environs with a Kill Team reboot.
We know there are still Imperial forces fighting on Cadia, we know there's the Croneworlds, there's the Daemon Worlds, a few Tomb Worlds, etc. There's more or less a reason for every faction to get involved fighting around it.
It would be a great way to introduce Inquisitors in plastic, with each of the Ordos getting a warband box. Hell, you could match the original 6 Warbands(Iron Golems, Untamed Beasts, Splintered Fang, Unmade, Corvus Cabal, and the Cypher Lords) from WarCry just by doing Radical+Puritan sets!
It would also be a great way to bring in some 'themed' Cultists for each of the Chaos Marine factions. Thousand Sons spell-seeker Cultists, Khorne Berzerker Cultists, Emperor's Children Cultists, 'Generic' Cultists/Renegade Guardsmen for the main CSM, and lastly Death Guard 'Plague Doctor' Cultists.
Having the campaigns being themed around the Cultists of each Chaos Legion fighting each other to pave the way for their masters to be able to bring a new world/region on a Daemon World into the fold or the other forces preventing it would be ace without making it be super lore important. Just say the worlds are "in a state of constant conflict" and boom.
The only factions really left out would be the Tau and Tyranids, but even then...we just need a lore bit about a warp tear on the Eastern Fringe depositing forces in the EoT and baaaaaaam.
I always got the impression Daemons were so strangely kept out of Kill-Team's core teams to sell them in an Inquisition expansion, but it doesn't seem like Rogue Trader did all that well and thus the bigger expansions were, presumably, tossed in the bin.
Sabotage! wrote: Honestly I wouldn’t be that surprised if GW kind of just let KT die as they push more people towards Combat Patrol as the intro to the game. I could see them maybe publishing a few WD articles now and then for new units for KT and keeping it in print for a while, but with all the emphasis placed on Combat Patrol I feel like they are trying to move people away from KT as an intro to 40k.
Pretty much what I'm expecting as well. Maybe in a couple of years we'll see a Shadow War: Armageddon situation where they tossed out a new version before the new 40k edition to rake in some sales.
Mr_Rose wrote: The thing is that Kill Team is explicitly 40K in skirmish mode which actually puts off some new players because it’s so blatantly also a gateway game.
Now, if there was a 40K Warcry equivalent, it might well do better to focus down to forces that typically operate at a similar scale like inquisition warbands rather than reusing units from the bigger game.
The trouble is finding a place where you can have multiple factions without a clear “good guys vs. bad guys” distinction. Necromunda would be an obvious location but not a lot of Necromunda players would be happy with that…
The sad thing is, they already hit the jackpot in terms of gateway game - one of plastic HH boxes had excellent skirmish system that worked very well with 40K miniatures. Sadly, very few people had given it a chance. If they used this one, instead of 'more complicated 40K' Kill Team had, I bet the game would be far more popular.
As for setting, multiple good suggestions above, but by far the best one would be on Terra - we know Custodes capture things from all over the Galaxy and make them fight each other (with Custodes sometimes joining in) to observe how they think and fight - why not use this relatively new lore bit?
Yeah, I really like the core mechanic in Betrayal at Calth, it’s just a bit too closely tied to the hex grid. That said it could turn into a great skirmish game if you changed the squad designation a little. The tactical choice of which weapon effect to apply was particularly interesting.
silverstu wrote: The Rogue Trader box was more interesting, if they had followed it up with other faction team boxes it might have worked a bit better.
The Rogue Trader models were great, but the issue with the faction with the Kill Team was that there were not rules for generic Rogue Trader faction, you could only play those specific people as they were with zero customisation. I was super disappointed with that.
It always felt to me like RT had been developed as a standalone game, possibly with a bespoke ruleset, and was shoehorned into KT at the last moment, that's why it meshed so poorly.
Sabotage! wrote: Honestly I wouldn’t be that surprised if GW kind of just let KT die as they push more people towards Combat Patrol as the intro to the game. I could see them maybe publishing a few WD articles now and then for new units for KT and keeping it in print for a while, but with all the emphasis placed on Combat Patrol I feel like they are trying to move people away from KT as an intro to 40k.
As wonderful as combat patrol is, its still going to cost a lot more than kill team to get started; £40 rulebook, £60 start collecting box and £25 for one codex. If a player wants to try out another faction its going to be another codex and start collecting box on top of that. Its possible to be up-and-running with kill team for £50, and most of the factions are already covered in the core manual.
GW would also be effectively withdrawing a top contender from the highly popular skirmish market, which also represents their flagship product, 40K.
You could be right and GW does drop it, but they would definitely be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.
Right now GW are trying to arrest control their games back from their communities.
They're changing the base rules for Blood Bowl to take the power away from the BB community.
They're changing the board sizes that games of 40K are played on.
They're about to release a book where playing the game requires you to bring half the terrain. And they're about to release new terrain boxes that appear to mesh with that new book (if that box doesn't = "half the terrain" by GW's standards, I'll be amazed).
Everything GW is doing at the moment is about ensuring that they have control over how their games are played. They want to dictate terms, and this is why Warcry is GW's ideal game. Underworlds is similar, as you have no options in that game outside of the cards, which they supply.
silverstu wrote: The Rogue Trader box was more interesting, if they had followed it up with other faction team boxes it might have worked a bit better.
The Rogue Trader models were great, but the issue with the faction with the Kill Team was that there were not rules for generic Rogue Trader faction, you could only play those specific people as they were with zero customisation. I was super disappointed with that.
It always felt to me like RT had been developed as a standalone game, possibly with a bespoke ruleset, and was shoehorned into KT at the last moment, that's why it meshed so poorly.
It's funny but Rogue Trader felt the most like how they introduced Kill Team to new players.
Preset 'Kill Teams' with a mix of equipment and skills. Look at the boxes to see how goofy things could be in them, remembering that they did have preset Kill Teams if you chose to go that route.
Mr_Rose wrote: The thing is that Kill Team is explicitly 40K in skirmish mode which actually puts off some new players because it’s so blatantly also a gateway game.
Now, if there was a 40K Warcry equivalent, it might well do better to focus down to forces that typically operate at a similar scale like inquisition warbands rather than reusing units from the bigger game.
The trouble is finding a place where you can have multiple factions without a clear “good guys vs. bad guys” distinction. Necromunda would be an obvious location but not a lot of Necromunda players would be happy with that…
The sad thing is, they already hit the jackpot in terms of gateway game - one of plastic HH boxes had excellent skirmish system that worked very well with 40K miniatures. Sadly, very few people had given it a chance. If they used this one, instead of 'more complicated 40K' Kill Team had, I bet the game would be far more popular.
As for setting, multiple good suggestions above, but by far the best one would be on Terra - we know Custodes capture things from all over the Galaxy and make them fight each other (with Custodes sometimes joining in) to observe how they think and fight - why not use this relatively new lore bit?
Yeah, I really like the core mechanic in Betrayal at Calth, it’s just a bit too closely tied to the hex grid. That said it could turn into a great skirmish game if you changed the squad designation a little. The tactical choice of which weapon effect to apply was particularly interesting.
I really enjoyed BaC and wished they did more with it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Right now GW are trying to arrest control their games back from their communities.
They're changing the base rules for Blood Bowl to take the power away from the BB community.
They're changing the board sizes that games of 40K are played on.
They're about to release a book where playing the game requires you to bring half the terrain. And they're about to release new terrain boxes that appear to mesh with that new book (if that box doesn't = "half the terrain" by GW's standards, I'll be amazed).
Everything GW is doing at the moment is about ensuring that they have control over how their games are played. They want to dictate terms, and this is why Warcry is GW's ideal game. Underworlds is similar, as you have no options in that game outside of the cards, which they supply.
Stopping snaffling all the tinfoil. Nobody needs more hats. Nobody is going to break down your door and take control 'back' or force table sizes on you.
Voss wrote: Selling models, which people can do what they want with?
You're being intentionally obtuse here.
As I said, Warcry represents what GW wants their skirmish games to be. Necromunda is the aberration. If they think they could get away with it, Necromunda would have set gangs with no options, but right now the Necromunda community wouldn't accept that.
It'd take another edition to get to that level of change, a bit like with the new BB rules.
With Kill Team I think GW's plan was always to support it for about 18 months and that's it. It did really well early on and in places, like mine, did pretty well over the long haul. The game has some quirks in the mechanics, but I found it generally more enjoyable that 8th edition. I suspect that GW is probably going to lean on Combat Patrol and Crusade (Crusade is going well in my area even if it is only TTS play) for getting new players until at least next year. I don't really expect there will be a Kill Team 2021 Annual, but I do think there's a good chance of an updated 9th edition version of Kill Team then. I am personally okay with Kill Team aping 40k's rules with unique twists (except Kill Team's LoS complications I hated explaining how you can see a unit with a gun barrel, but that unit can't use that same gun barrel to claim cover). I can see how that doesn't appeal to everyone.
I am less enthused about Kill Team generating a new game system like Warcry did. Chances are I will have be the one learning the rules well enough to teach others which I never could bring myself to do with Warcry. Even though I have the starter and most of the Slaves to Darkness Warcry Cultists for my AoS army. I simply can't be bothered to learn the rules for Warcry (simple as they are) and nobody at my gaming store seems interested in learning them either. That's not to say I don't want to play Warcry, I just don't want to be the person that has to teach the game to everyone else as well. Every year I fade further and further from really caring to learn games well enough to teach them and just want to play or be taught them. I most certainly would play Warcry, or a version of Kill Team like that, if it were the case. As it stands, I kinda want to move away from playing Kill Team (which I have played a couple hundred games probably) to going back to both 40k (3 full armies) and AoS (1 army plus Lumineth when they are released) once pandemic restrictions are eased.
I do have to agree that Betrayal At Calth was rather good game. I would have liked to see that system expanded further into 40k for more miniatures board gaming. I suppose it was never a decent gateway game to GW though. I liked it for the minimum setup time and foot print things that allow my non-table top gaming friends agree to play it more than even Kill Team or Space Hulk.
Sabotage! wrote: Honestly I wouldn’t be that surprised if GW kind of just let KT die as they push more people towards Combat Patrol as the intro to the game. I could see them maybe publishing a few WD articles now and then for new units for KT and keeping it in print for a while, but with all the emphasis placed on Combat Patrol I feel like they are trying to move people away from KT as an intro to 40k.
As wonderful as combat patrol is, its still going to cost a lot more than kill team to get started; £40 rulebook, £60 start collecting box and £25 for one codex. If a player wants to try out another faction its going to be another codex and start collecting box on top of that. Its possible to be up-and-running with kill team for £50, and most of the factions are already covered in the core manual.
GW would also be effectively withdrawing a top contender from the highly popular skirmish market, which also represents their flagship product, 40K.
You could be right and GW does drop it, but they would definitely be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Right now GW are trying to arrest control their games back from their communities.
They're changing the base rules for Blood Bowl to take the power away from the BB community.
They're changing the board sizes that games of 40K are played on.
They're about to release a book where playing the game requires you to bring half the terrain. And they're about to release new terrain boxes that appear to mesh with that new book (if that box doesn't = "half the terrain" by GW's standards, I'll be amazed).
Everything GW is doing at the moment is about ensuring that they have control over how their games are played. They want to dictate terms, and this is why Warcry is GW's ideal game. Underworlds is similar, as you have no options in that game outside of the cards, which they supply.
...Nobody is going to break down your door and take control 'back' or force table sizes on you....
They don’t have to. All they have to do is make it so your opponents play using only the new rules, table size, etc. Not a problem if you have opponents willing to play older editions, off brand games and so forth. A problem though if your community insists on following GW’s official mode of play.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
And truthfully, that's where Kill Team kinda falls apart for me. It's "squads" for all intents and purposes when people build their lists.
Yeah, yeah, yeah there's customizing and stuff but I rarely saw lists that weren't super-optimized stuff just being ported over from 40k proper. It might just have been my local community but that's not what I saw with WarCry. I saw people building to the warband they liked, not the squads they 'needed' for 40k.
I don't know how you solve that problem, because it will always be there as long as it's just 40k units ported over.
They don’t have to. All they have to do is make it so your opponents play using only the new rules, table size, etc. Not a problem if you have opponents willing to play older editions, off brand games and so forth. A problem though if your community insists on following GW’s official mode of play.
The whole table size thing is just nonsense anyways. It's a minimum table size. It can go larger.
Kanluwen wrote: The whole table size thing is just nonsense anyways.
It's not though. It's not when tournaments adopt the new sizes basically overnight, so much so that the people making mats start making mats of that size a couple of months (or less) later to meet the demand. It's not, as the post you quoted said, when communities at game stores start only using the explicit sizes as put down in the new rulebook.
Yes, games can go larger, we all know that, but so many people will start playing by the new sizes, which just happen to fit with the boards GW produce. And will just happen to fit with GW's new 40K expansion where you bring half the terrain, where, and I'll be shocked if this isn't true, one or two of the new Killzone boxes just magically happen to equal what GW considers "half" the terrain (remember that the new Killzone box comes with two of the new boards, which is, what, half a board by their new sizes?).
They're setting up a new game ecosystem where they dictate the exact sizes and requirements of games, taking it out of the hands of tournaments. Official support = follow these rules cannot be far behind.
So you can say "It's just a minimum" until you are blue in the face. "Minimum" will very quickly become "standard" (we can literally see that happening already in the tournament world, which I know you don't care about personally because you think they're all WAAC cheaters, but it's still important regardless of your own silly biases). And "standard" will very quickly become "only", especially at larger events/communities.
You mentioned "Official support" in the BB thread too where you also referenced this tenuous conspiracy, and how unfortunate it would be to BB to lose this official support. What exactly is this official support that NAF blood bowl / the 40K tournament scene gets from GW that they can't do without? I'd be interested to know what the various scenes will be losing should they decide not to cave to this nefarious GW power grab.
JWBS wrote: You mentioned "Official support" in the BB thread too where you also referenced this tenuous conspiracy, and how unfortunate it would be to BB to lose this official support. What exactly is this official support that NAF blood bowl / the 40K tournament scene gets from GW that they can't do without? I'd be interested to know what the various scenes will be losing should they decide not to cave to this nefarious GW power grab.
Perhaps it would be better stated that right now the BB community doesn't need GW, and GW want to change that.
Whether they will be successful in such endeavours is another matter: GW's executions often fail to live up to their lofty concepts.
JWBS wrote: You mentioned "Official support" in the BB thread too where you also referenced this tenuous conspiracy, and how unfortunate it would be to BB to lose this official support. What exactly is this official support that NAF blood bowl / the 40K tournament scene gets from GW that they can't do without? I'd be interested to know what the various scenes will be losing should they decide not to cave to this nefarious GW power grab.
The support, to me at least, is a unifying-ish rule set. Bb 2016 is very close to the living rule book. BB 2020 changes several things including breaking out a passing stat. That means players have to decide to play with one rule set or the other or even both. That splinters the already niche community, potentially making it harder to find opponents. GW could have just released the two new teams in a starter with 2016 rules and kept on rolling. But that’s cutting out quasi forcing current bb owners into buying the new rules in order to stay part of the presumptive official community.
Looking back on it now, the Kill Team starter is looking like a bundle of stuff which didn't sell all that well recently (Firewarriors, Reivers, Sector Mechanicus). The second edition of the box already signifies GW's stance on it ie. "low effort". If it were up to me, I would have put infiltrators/incursors and Tau pathfinder kits to the starter instead, but whatever..
I will expect the same effort level to continue going forward.. a new boxed set with badly selling terrain & two troop slot kits, a few books and that's it. I don't really mind this personally. I love Kill Team and to me its the distraction I need with my 40K proper. I got the spare kits and bits to build the teams, and I don't need a constant flow of new content for it, just give me a solid core game and datasheets for every faction and I'm good thx.
I dont vet why the KT rules are so disliked. To me they are my fave 40K rules distro yet. Simple and fast enough while still offering interesting tactical gameplay (Disclaimer: We play with core + elites and only use the 6 global tactics + specialist tactics)
tauist wrote: Looking back on it now, the Kill Team starter is looking like a bundle of stuff which didn't sell all that well recently (Firewarriors, Reivers, Sector Mechanicus)...
Sector Mechanicus? Did that not sell well?
JWBS wrote: If they do release a new KT starter and the terrain included isn't an expanded set of that wild west 40K terrain I'd consider it some sort of crime.
Unfortunately the Ryza Pattern ruins, which would include the Sector Fronteris Killzone stuff, is all but OOP.
tauist wrote: Looking back on it now, the Kill Team starter is looking like a bundle of stuff which didn't sell all that well recently (Firewarriors, Reivers, Sector Mechanicus)...
Sector Mechanicus? Did that not sell well?
Firewarriors kit probably sold well too.. when it was still relatively new. I'm talking about "recent" sales figures relevant to the launch date of the KT boxed set. I think people who are into buying terrain kits (like you and I) are a minority.
Manchu wrote: If I was running GW, I would want to take tighter control over how my product was being used in light of events like the mortifying 2018 London GT.
Manchu wrote: If I was running GW, I would want to take tighter control over how my product was being used in light of events like the mortifying 2018 London GT.
Manchu wrote: If I was running GW, I would want to take tighter control over how my product was being used in light of events like the mortifying 2018 London GT.
Manchu wrote: If I was running GW, I would want to take tighter control over how my product was being used in light of events like the mortifying 2018 London GT.
So this idea of having people who enter tournaments bring assembled and painted terrain along with their assembled and painted armies is pretty clever IMO and honestly it was about time that terrain stopped being considered “extra” when it is obvi an essential part of the game.
Well, clever it might be, but it's also a whole lot of an additional hassle, as you're basically doubling the amount stuff people need to carry to a tourney. If you're going to one in your own town/city it might not be that bigger of a problem... but it might be.
What we already have is the hassle of transporting unwieldy, delicate items and adding terrain means people will have to transport a bit more unwieldy, delicate items. It doesn’t amount to a difference in kind and not much of a difference in degree. Against this is the major pro of taking a HUGE amount of hassle away from TOs, who don’t always handle the responsibility well and TBH it probably should never have been considered their responsibility.
Yep i doubt that flies well with players. And players have ultimately final authority on what flies and what not. Requirement to buy hundreds pounds terrain for tournaments and haul along is not likely to be accepted
(not to mention that would also invalidate gt20 pack right away)
I think you need to consider the people that don't have their own car for such games etc. Carrying multiple cases on public transport, ensuring it is packaged safely if you need to fly etc.
Anyone who's ever played in bands etc will tell you it is not easy or a desirable thing to court around big music instruments, and if it is guitars etc then peddles, sometimes amp heads etc. That's annoying and impracticle even if you have a car. It gets more annoying when you have multiple people, from the same band, with additional bands at shows etc when you have a load of equipment cases etc clogging up everywhere.
I think this is a case of absolutely the right intentions by GW but it has absolutely not considered the impact and logistics of it.
Also, and this is me being cynical... I wonder how much the tournament organisers influence had in this decision, are they going to charge less if the gamers are bringing their own terrain? I hope so. It seems a very 'Reece' decision...
So what we've identified here is a need for more gamers to hit the gym to have the muscle to carry one more bag of terrain to events?
This is what plastic has done to us! Back in the days of METAL the average gamer would be far more muscled and ready to take on such a challenge - today the light plastic kits have made gamers weak! Sapped their strength and left them vulnerable!
Overread wrote: So what we've identified here is a need for more gamers to hit the gym to have the muscle to carry one more bag of terrain to events?
This is what plastic has done to us! Back in the days of METAL the average gamer would be far more muscled and ready to take on such a challenge - today the light plastic kits have made gamers weak! Sapped their strength and left them vulnerable!
it's not the mass it's the bulk. sure carrying around some terrain isn't a big deal if you're running a custodes army, but if you're running guard or orks you're proably already packing a large mini case already
If players are providing the terrain, perhaps tournaments should cost less to enter. That is a reasonable point. But relieving TOs from having to provide terrain lowers the threshold for being a TO. So who can be a TO is opened up, meaning there can be more tournaments and therefore more consumer choice about what to attend, which impacts pricing.
But players bringing tournament terrain isn’t just a benefit to GW and TOs. The tables will definitely look better under this regime. And spectacle is a big part of the enjoyment. For many, better looking tables will mean a better game experience (all else being equal).
This will also incentivize GW to make more and more vaired terrain kits. I am still shocked there is a already a SOB terrain kit!
The whole hobby, both in terms of publishers like GW and consumers, need to get over this strange idea that terrain is an afterthought.
No doubt this will create some short term irritation. But I think it will be very positive in a big picture sense.
I haven't played this game for many years and therefore haven't had to carry bags of miniatures around anywhere. I just paint minis and lately terrain too. Having said that, as a person, with eyes, and a brain, I can clearly see that transporting an army plus an adequate amount of terrain is very obviously going to be more difficult than transporting an army alone. Like maybe even exponentially so. You can tell due to having constructed and painted it all. In fact you can tell just by looking at it. I honestly don't know whether the people saying "It's gonna be as easy as carrying an army" are arguing in bad faith or if they're just completely oblivious. Neither option seems to make much sense.
Can't wait to see the snow boards with majestically painted desert terrain and/or tropical trees all over it
BTW, my specific issue with the idea is not the weight of carrying the plastic, it is the bulk of the carrying cases, even if they are light, they are big.
Manchu wrote: If players are providing the terrain, perhaps tournaments should cost less to enter. That is a reasonable point. But relieving TOs from having to provide terrain lowers the threshold for being a TO. So who can be a TO is opened up, meaning there can be more tournaments and therefore more consumer choice about what to attend, which impacts pricing.
But players bringing tournament terrain isn’t just a benefit to GW and TOs. The tables will definitely look better under this regime. And spectacle is a big part of the enjoyment. For many, better looking tables will mean a better game experience (all else being equal).
This will also incentivize GW to make more and more vaired terrain kits. I am still shocked there is a already a SOB terrain kit!
The whole hobby, both in terms of publishers like GW and consumers, need to get over this strange idea that terrain is an afterthought.
No doubt this will create some short term irritation. But I think it will be very positive in a big picture sense.
Better for GW's wallet, no doubt. I really don't think TO will charge less for tournaments btw.
So in the end, it will cost us a lot of money to have the exact same thing than before. Your definition of "looking good" is very subjective, for example I dislike a lot GW's terrain. Tournaments like 2018 London GT are an exception, all the tournaments I did in my life had beautiful terrain with a lot of diversity. Now it will be a GW city in ruins on every board...
The only reason GW is doing this,(beside making more money ofc), is to shut down the many manufacturers that provide MDF terrain etc...They want the monopoly on everything, like they had a long time ago. That's why they sued a guy who called his novel "space marine", that's why they didn't update Bretonnians back in the days, because it was too easy for other manufacturers to copy their stuff due to no intellectual property, that's why they rename everyhing (Eldar = Aeldari, Dark Eldars = Drukhari, etc...). Like H.B.M.C said, they want to control everything. I'm not sure that is a "good thing" like you said in the long term for us customers
Many of us already have a game board full of terrains, so I won't buy some more just to go to a tournament, no way.
Money that you will need to spend :
- The book (likely 25-30 euros/dollars),
- 100-150 + euros/dollars/whatever is your currency of GW's terrain, because yeah, that's not 2-3 terrain you will need to buy, in 9th edition, there's 20 terrain on a 44*60 board, so you will need 10...
- More paints (depends of what you already have though),
- Another big suitcase to carry all of this.
That's likely 200-250 + euros/dollars, just to have the same thing than before (on top of having terrains that I don't like and don't use at home)? Sorry but I'll pass
Oh and I'm not a GW hater, on the contrary, I love their minis, love the lore, love the game, but that kind of things they do sometimes, I mean come on...^^
I don’t see a problem with GW wanting to have a coherent and complete brand experience. I think the amount of attention they have shown to producing terrain in the past couple of years has been phenomenal.
I truly hope the miniatures gaming hobby beyond GW follows their lead as far as considering terrain a necessary component of gaming.
I don't see a problem for THEM yep. I stated all the problems for us though, did you read my post? ^^
Terrain has always been a necessary component of the game...Or are you playing on a Golf's field? ^^
But that doesn't mean that we should have to buy GW's Terrain just to attend to a tournament, sorry.
Isn't the hobby expensive enough already? Or are you all rich, because I'm not :p
Manchu wrote: I don’t see a problem with GW wanting to have a coherent and complete brand experience. I think the amount of attention they have shown to producing terrain in the past couple of years has been phenomenal.
I truly hope the miniatures gaming hobby beyond GW follows their lead as far as considering terrain a necessary component of gaming.
If they organize everything I don't either. I do have a problem with them also wanting to control the brand experience on stuff that they are not organizing.
Want a full on brand experience, GW? Great! Organize all GTs and everything else yourself then.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Can't wait to see the snow boards with majestically painted desert terrain and/or tropical trees all over it
BTW, my specific issue with the idea is not the weight of carrying the plastic, it is the bulk of the carrying cases, even if they are light, they are big.
Reading my last post again, I've come across as very condescending. Apologies to anyone that noticed that. But yes, it's the volume that would be the problem. Sure if you're just chucking the extra volume in the back seat of your car it might not seem much at all, but I can imagine that carrying all that extra on public transport would be uncomfortable for everyone around, not just the person with the extra baggage. How much are we talking here? As much as comes in the KT main box, per person? That box is large. Yes, half of it is minis and rules, but once you've assembled the terrain it takes up at least as much space as that fairly large box.
LMAO @ that London GT. In Finland, we call that kinda thing "rahat pois ja rappuun" behaviour
If I needed any more proof that tourney gaming is a joke, this was it. And people actually paid to enter, enjoyed getting frisked too no doubt. Flocking nuts
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Can't wait to see the snow boards with majestically painted desert terrain and/or tropical trees all over it
BTW, my specific issue with the idea is not the weight of carrying the plastic, it is the bulk of the carrying cases, even if they are light, they are big.
Reading my last post again, I've come across as very condescending. Apologies to anyone that noticed that. But yes, it's the volume that would be the problem. Sure if you're just chucking the extra volume in the back seat of your car it might not seem much at all, but I can imagine that carrying all that extra on public transport would be uncomfortable for everyone around, not just the person with the extra baggage. How much are we talking here? As much as comes in the KT main box, per person? That box is large. Yes, half of it is minis and rules, but once you've assembled the terrain it takes up at least as much space as that fairly large box.
There’s also the question of “cherry picking” your terrain, and worse, setting it up in a way most favourable to yourself.
There may also be snobbery about it. Me, I love GW’s terrain, and whilst my collection pales before HBMC’s Smaug like hoard (rumours that he’s secretly building a second planet out of it remain unconfirmed), I’ve still got an awful lot. Because I can afford it. But what of people with more restricted budgets? People who unlike me have actual life responsibilities, like kids? If I’m packing three of those gorgeous Imperial Ruins, three or four stories high, and my opponent brings some home made trees? Now, I wouldn’t be a phallus about it at all. But you know that to TFG, it’s just more ammo for the Jerk Cannon.
It’s also, arguably, another price barrier to tournament gaming. Tickets themselves aren’t cheap, neither is transport, and let’s face it, it’s not uncommon to book a hotel room as well, at least for one night. That all adds up, and having to bring X pieces of terrain? Well, something tells me it could be the final thing that prices others out.
One way around it? TO issues some simple instructions for DIY terrain. This gives uniform dimensions, and can be made relatively cheaply by even the most cack handed hobbyist (like me, I’m a bloody liability when it comes to non-plastic kit building). It also prevents people bringing highly favourable terrain, where others don’t have the luxury or space for a large, varied collection.
As for my local gaming group? You know the extensive collection I mentioned earlier, yeah? All being donated to the club, as with working from home, my gaming table is now my home office area, so no more home gaming. But as I can get to the club now, no need for home gaming! Win/Win really.
Guess we’ll need to see the actual rules before we can really dig into it. They might’ve said more in the live stream, but I was driving when it was on so missed it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: TO issues some simple instructions for DIY terrain. This gives uniform dimensions...
And then every table looks the same... and who wants to live in that world other than hardcore ITC players?
Also, you need to think about things more practically than that. Yeah, ITC give guidance on what terrain is required.... What happens to other TO's then? What if they want to go down a different route with terrain? The ITC crowd will whinge that they need to make even more terrain, at which point TO's will concede to their whim and next thing you know, all GT's etc are under the ITC banner, either directly or indirectly.
Let's not hand any power whatsoever to the ITC and its cult following, please. GW should have the common sense to dictate terrain requirements and follow a practical solution that doesn't gimp anyone.... Terrain piece 1 must conform to these min/max dimension standards, it must be at least 6 inches tall and no taller than 8, it may have 2 floors in addition to the ground floor.
I think we can comfortably assume that the rules from GW will require their own kits.
Now, mercenary as it seems, that’s not a terrible idea in itself, as GW’s kits are of course incredibly standardised, so they can be mixed together in many cunning ways. Seriously, the designer behind them is a genius, and no mistake.
Of course, with specific, set elements (height of a given floor, width being ‘3 sections long’) it’s not hard to make your own using those same dimensions.
But with TLOS (sorry, I think I’m about to rabbit hole, I’ll try not to), not all terrain is equal. For instance, we can have two pieces of terrain identical in footprint, height, width and depth. But, if I’ve used GW’s kits, there’ll be arched windows and other greeblies. For someone who made it themself, the walls might all be solid, windows at different heights and widths etc. At that point, the two pieces actually interact in the game in different ways.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Personally I just think GW is overplaying the "Combat patrol" card too much of late, to the point where they might as well be suggesting a new spin-off game called Warhammer 40K: Combat Patrol, when its really just a fancy name for "500 points" with more restrictions than benefits.
There is definitely something lacking for quite a few KT factions. Some factions seem to have healthy model and wargear options while others are woefully limited. Marines are a good example of having a decent selection( nothing wrong with that, of course ), but Necrons lack wargear and Harlequins have but one model to choose from(not counting Commanders nor elites). Its like there was no effort applied in designing the teams save for slapping in material directly from 40K. Having some background setting would be nice but would rather not with Warcry's theme of Chaos focused warbands and every other faction an after thought. I didn't invest in the game but it really looked like the AOS version of Necromunda with Kill Team bolted on. That said, Warcry seems to be doing something right, so maybe that is the way to go.
Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
MaxT wrote: Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
Overread wrote: So what we've identified here is a need for more gamers to hit the gym to have the muscle to carry one more bag of terrain to events?
This is what plastic has done to us! Back in the days of METAL the average gamer would be far more muscled and ready to take on such a challenge - today the light plastic kits have made gamers weak! Sapped their strength and left them vulnerable!
I already carry 4 containers. Only reason i see ahead is they are transparent. Adding container or two more ain't feasible,
Not to mention with easy 400e for army you think players will be happy to shell another couple hundred for terrain to play? And invalidate gt20 book as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The tables will definitely look better under this regime. .
Bwahaha. Good joke. At least i hope you were joking
MaxT wrote: Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum, I have missed you so.
Business wants to sell products is reducing the argument to the absurd? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Is there a backstory to just how it went so incredibly wrong? I’d say there definitely is. But to date, I’ve not heard it.
IIRC - It was their first time at that venue, and might have been their first event (or second). They massively underestimated what goes into running a tournament. They were also outsiders - none of the London clubs knew who they were.
Edit: Going off their FB page, 2018 was their second or third event.
Also - the narrative & 30k events were run by different people (but same venue) and did a much better job -
Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
MaxT wrote: Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum, I have missed you so.
Business wants to sell products is reducing the argument to the absurd? I don't think that means what you think it means.
I think he meant that with the first sentence, this guy is reducing people who say that there other reasons that money for this book (and there is, example : intellectual property) to idiots
Also - the narrative & 30k events were run by different people (but same venue) and did a much better job -
Spoiler:
Huh, imagine staring across your table of unpainted polystyrene at the people having more fun on these tables.
-Ekko- wrote:
Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
Where did you see a conspiracy in previous posts?
HBMC was saying that GW are gradually seeking to take control on several fronts and this is one of the steps. Might have been a different thread though.
HBMC was saying that GW are gradually seeking to take control on several fronts and this is one of the steps. Might have been a different thread though.
Well, he's not wrong. They want to sell their products, so playing on things like intellectual property and such is a classic move to get rid of competition and put your hands on everything. GW is known for this, I gave some examples (Bretonnians, the space marine novel, rename everything,...), nothing to do with conspiracy that a company wants to put their hands on everything they can ^^
HBMC was saying that GW are gradually seeking to take control on several fronts and this is one of the steps. Might have been a different thread though.
Well, he's not wrong. They want to sell their products, so playing on things like intellectual property and such is a classic move to get rid of competition and put your hands on everything. GW is known for this, I gave some examples (Bretonnians, the space marine novel, rename everything,...), nothing to do with conspiracy that a company wants to put their hands on everything they can ^^
It's funny you mention the "Spots the Space Marine" nonsense.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: LGT is notable for being the exception though. That’s why it’s so notorious. Total lack of organisation and communication etc.
I didn’t attend myself, but quite a few members of my local club did. It’s not representative of the tournament scene as a whole.
Is there a backstory to just how it went so incredibly wrong? I’d say there definitely is. But to date, I’ve not heard it.
Trying to run "biggest tournament in UK ever" just like that has habit of resulting that. You don't magically cast tables worth of terrain needed for that out of thin air. And rather than build capacity steadily straight with gung ho attitude.
Rather than letting your tournaments grow naturally as you build your capability they went for straight to be biggest in UK.
I could theorize more nasty reasons but let's just give them benefit of doubt and assume it was more of too much ambition in too short time frame.
HBMC was saying that GW are gradually seeking to take control on several fronts and this is one of the steps. Might have been a different thread though.
Well, he's not wrong. They want to sell their products, so playing on things like intellectual property and such is a classic move to get rid of competition and put your hands on everything. GW is known for this, I gave some examples (Bretonnians, the space marine novel, rename everything,...), nothing to do with conspiracy that a company wants to put their hands on everything they can ^^
It's funny you mention the "Spots the Space Marine" nonsense.
So, someone back then from two fairly big companies had the sense to seek permission. And yet the author of "Spots" didn't. Crazy how that works
I didn't know that, thanks ^^
But what I said is still revelant though, intellectual property is a big issue for GW, what was the name again of the website they shutdown, the one who sold bitz for Space marines and a few heads for Taus, I don't remeber the name...
Just throwing this out there, but as far as I know they haven't actually shut down any websites. They've (allegedly) sent cease and desists. The only one we know for sure is Chapterhouse and that's because it actually went to a trial.
I'm sure to catch hell from the usuals about this, but it seems like a super convenient way for people to shut down or cease operations by saying "GW says I can't anymore" and just calling it quits, then open up another endeavor of their own concepts and models rather than just selling you bits for someone else's.
Kanluwen wrote: Just throwing this out there, but as far as I know they haven't actually shut down any websites. They've (allegedly) sent cease and desists. The only one we know for sure is Chapterhouse and that's because it actually went to a trial.
I'm sure to catch hell from the usuals about this, but it seems like a super convenient way for people to shut down or cease operations by saying "GW says I can't anymore" and just calling it quits, then open up another endeavor of their own concepts and models rather than just selling you bits for someone else's.
Yeah, for some reason, a lot of people like to act as though a C&D letter is a legal instrument equivalent to an eviction notice or something when it is actually just a letter someone sent you. In fact, they are an invitation to a dialogue wherein the matter can be resolved outside the courts because no-oneactuallywants that level of hassle. Well, except “sovereign citizen” type fruit loops.
When GW’s legal team sent one to the team behind the 40K files for army builder, the team wrote back pointing out that copyright doesn’t actually cover single lines or references, just complete works, so there was no case to answer as the files don’t actually reproduce the entire work, nor do they seek to replace it. GW’s team evidently agreed because afaik no further action was taken.
And, as ever, copyright law requires the party that reckons they own it to actively defend IP and that. Hence for most businesses, it’s better to be a bit trigger happy. Because if you’re not, you stand to lose a lot.
Does that make it bullying? I’ll leave that to the individual.
Kanluwen wrote: Just throwing this out there, but as far as I know they haven't actually shut down any websites. They've (allegedly) sent cease and desists.
A couple of companies (Taro Modelmaker & Wargame Exclusive) have said that GW just approached them and asked them to do some things differently, rather than fire off a C&D.
MaxT wrote: Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum, I have missed you so.
Business wants to sell products is reducing the argument to the absurd? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Maybe look at the bolded part. If that's not enough I don't know what to tell you.
GW wants as many people as possible playing on GW boards with GW terrain and GW models and using GW paints and tools. They will do what they can to promote this material through various means. From sponsoring school and hobby clubs with small packs which have official tools inside and encourage people to use them; to staff in their stores; to the rules system they release.
Of course they'll promote their own stuff, its what is making them money. Even back when they didn't make much terrain they still sold flock and other accessories and encouraged gamers to buy GW flock and the GW "how to make terrain book" and such.
The only difference now is that GW is making a lot of terrain so it makes sense that they want to promote game modes and ideas that will promote that terrain.
In the end though its the market that will decide if they take up GW's marketing options. Board size changes will only be taken up if major events want to and choose to do it.
MaxT wrote: Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.
And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.
Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum, I have missed you so.
Business wants to sell products is reducing the argument to the absurd? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Maybe look at the bolded part. If that's not enough I don't know what to tell you.
Ah, yes. The sarcastic opener in response to the hyperbole was clearly the substance of the argument.
How did I miss that.
@Overread- going to disagree with you there. It will only matter if local groups change board sizes.
What 'major events' do means spit to the majority of players. Admittedly, conveniently the same majority that don't bother with forums, Facebook, and whatever. But if the local game shop doesn't randomly throw out their old boards and pointlessly buy new mats, it isn't going to be relevant at all.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
And truthfully, that's where Kill Team kinda falls apart for me. It's "squads" for all intents and purposes when people build their lists.
Yeah, yeah, yeah there's customizing and stuff but I rarely saw lists that weren't super-optimized stuff just being ported over from 40k proper. It might just have been my local community but that's not what I saw with WarCry. I saw people building to the warband they liked, not the squads they 'needed' for 40k.
I don't know how you solve that problem, because it will always be there as long as it's just 40k units ported over.
Yeah, I agree that was a major problem, particularly for a lot of the factions that didn't have a lot of options. I saw so many guard lists that had all their gunners with plasma, and a pair of scion gunners with plasma for "MAX PLASMA," and it didn't really feel like a special ops squad, but rather just a bunch of models picked out a collection for maximum efficiency. I haven't seen much of that in Warcry, people I have played with just seem to pick a faction they like and use the models they like for the most part, and while their are a few exceptions, most of the models are relatively useful in one way or another.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Personally I just think GW is overplaying the "Combat patrol" card too much of late, to the point where they might as well be suggesting a new spin-off game called Warhammer 40K: Combat Patrol, when its really just a fancy name for "500 points" with more restrictions than benefits.
There is definitely something lacking for quite a few KT factions. Some factions seem to have healthy model and wargear options while others are woefully limited. Marines are a good example of having a decent selection( nothing wrong with that, of course ), but Necrons lack wargear and Harlequins have but one model to choose from(not counting Commanders nor elites). Its like there was no effort applied in designing the teams save for slapping in material directly from 40K. Having some background setting would be nice but would rather not with Warcry's theme of Chaos focused warbands and every other faction an after thought. I didn't invest in the game but it really looked like the AOS version of Necromunda with Kill Team bolted on. That said, Warcry seems to be doing something right, so maybe that is the way to go.
I agree. While I think Combat Patrol is a neat idea, and it's cool it has different objective rules I really think it needed more unique missions and restrictions because I don't think the game's natural balancing factors come into play very well at 500 points. Some armies will have no answers for a unit in another army, etc. I think if they made CP a bit more like the older versions which limited vehicles and certain units selections, and had all unique missions and what not it would be a bit more fun. But it's not really a replacement for KT, and I feel like they are pushing it as such. One is an individual model game vs a squad based game - that right there is a huge difference.
I agree on KT - it seemed a very minimum effort game for the most part and that left a lot of factions in the lurch. I think if GW did a 40k version of Warcry they would include a lot more than Chaos than the primary focus (while I like Kan's EoT idea personally, there are a lot of other great things they could do). Warcry gameplay wise is totally fresh compared to the other GW games - I feel it's really fun personally. Short game times and the mission generators really make you play to the objectives rather than just focus on shooting your opponent into oblivion. It definitely doesn't offer as much customization as KT (and nowhere near as much as Necromunda) in that a model has a card with it's stats and that's what it is (with some of the campaign rules they can get minor upgrades and with the expansion books injuries) - so an Iron Legionnairy with different equipment load-out has a different stat card and associated point cost. Still I think most factions have a good variety of units to take and it makes building an army a breeze for a pick up game.
In the end I just want GW to make a 40k skirmish game that plays fluidly and has effort put into it as opposed to "we just ported over 40k rules with some slight modifications." Even if they just updated the Kill Team rules to be less cumbersome and stopped just porting over data slates verbatim and put a bit of thought into the translation of them into the smaller game, I think it would help immensely.
Actually, the argument that combat patrol needs better missions and such has a point. GW is putting out a new book for crusade and matched play. They could easily put out a book specifically for combat patrol. And it would be something easy to tie in to a model release of say low level hq options, like an ork big boss, admech tribune, and sisters palatine, lower level hqs better suited for smaller games?
MajorWesJanson wrote: Actually, the argument that combat patrol needs better missions and such has a point. GW is putting out a new book for crusade and matched play. They could easily put out a book specifically for combat patrol. And it would be something easy to tie in to a model release of say low level hq options, like an ork big boss, admech tribune, and sisters palatine, lower level hqs better suited for smaller games?
Honestly, I've been wondering if that's what the Crusade book will drop alongside of.
Because Crusade getting Combat Patrol level stuff within it is also not wildly out of reach for an idea.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: TO issues some simple instructions for DIY terrain. This gives uniform dimensions...
And then every table looks the same... and who wants to live in that world other than hardcore ITC players?
Maybe it is my misunderstanding but I was under the impression that GW had in mind tournament entrants bringing GW terrain rather than another company’s products or DIY terrain.
lord_blackfang wrote: The next generation of players won't even know that there are worlds other than ruined imperial cities in the galaxy
Part of my hope, and I think it is rationally based on what GW has already been doing, is that GW will produce not only more but also more varied terrain sets and this new regime with incentivize that.
I agree. While I think Combat Patrol is a neat idea, and it's cool it has different objective rules I really think it needed more unique missions and restrictions because I don't think the game's natural balancing factors come into play very well at 500 points. Some armies will have no answers for a unit in another army, etc. I think if they made CP a bit more like the older versions which limited vehicles and certain units selections, and had all unique missions and what not it would be a bit more fun. But it's not really a replacement for KT, and I feel like they are pushing it as such. One is an individual model game vs a squad based game - that right there is a huge difference.
I agree on KT - it seemed a very minimum effort game for the most part and that left a lot of factions in the lurch. I think if GW did a 40k version of Warcry they would include a lot more than Chaos than the primary focus (while I like Kan's EoT idea personally, there are a lot of other great things they could do). Warcry gameplay wise is totally fresh compared to the other GW games - I feel it's really fun personally. Short game times and the mission generators really make you play to the objectives rather than just focus on shooting your opponent into oblivion. It definitely doesn't offer as much customization as KT (and nowhere near as much as Necromunda) in that a model has a card with it's stats and that's what it is (with some of the campaign rules they can get minor upgrades and with the expansion books injuries) - so an Iron Legionnairy with different equipment load-out has a different stat card and associated point cost. Still I think most factions have a good variety of units to take and it makes building an army a breeze for a pick up game.
In the end I just want GW to make a 40k skirmish game that plays fluidly and has effort put into it as opposed to "we just ported over 40k rules with some slight modifications." Even if they just updated the Kill Team rules to be less cumbersome and stopped just porting over data slates verbatim and put a bit of thought into the translation of them into the smaller game, I think it would help immensely.
You certainly aren't alone in the opinion of Warcry being good fun and thats gotta count for something. I've got an alarmingly large amount of AoS models building up( thanks to Mortal Realms ), which could be put to better use...and I suppose the Pink Horrors kill team would appreciate a change of scenery...
Has Warcry suffered much FAQ and Errata shenanigans?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: TO issues some simple instructions for DIY terrain. This gives uniform dimensions...
And then every table looks the same... and who wants to live in that world other than hardcore ITC players?
Maybe it is my misunderstanding but I was under the impression that GW had in mind tournament entrants bringing GW terrain rather than another company’s products or DIY terrain.
lord_blackfang wrote: The next generation of players won't even know that there are worlds other than ruined imperial cities in the galaxy
Part of my hope, and I think it is rationally based on what GW has already been doing, is that GW will produce not only more but also more varied terrain sets and this new regime with incentivize that.
Whilst they’ll definitely be pimping their own wares, I think it’s more an effort to drive home the importance of terrain to the game mechanics. Too little, and assault armies have nowhere to hide, or cover their advance. Too much, and lines of fire can be so restricted the game becomes frustrating.
I think that's a little simplistic way of thinking terrain and sounds very "matched pickup game" to me. I think there should be room for all sorts of terrain setups and not just some "goldilocks" (not too much, not too little, just right) ideal that is to be adhered to at all costs. IMO its totally OK for some missions be so full of terrain as to be claustrophobic, or some other missions so bare of terrain as to almost pass as Planet Bowling Baal. But perhaps this requires some sort of longer campaing arc in order to feel satisfying..
All I'm saying, if the amount and type of terrain become a static constant parameter, games will feel more samey. Ideally there should be some variety.
There should certainly be a lot of variety in the overall context of gaming but this requirement is only relevant to a subset of gaming, tournament play.
tauist wrote: I think that's a little simplistic way of thinking terrain and sounds very "matched pickup game" to me. I think there should be room for all sorts of terrain setups and not just some "goldilocks" (not too much, not too little, just right) ideal that is to be adhered to at all costs. IMO its totally OK for some missions be so full of terrain as to be claustrophobic, or some other missions so bare of terrain as to almost pass as Planet Bowling Baal. But perhaps this requires some sort of longer campaing arc in order to feel satisfying..
All I'm saying, if the amount and type of terrain become a static constant parameter, games will feel more samey. Ideally there should be some variety.
I don’t disagree, as terrain can be used to better balance things, and really force the players to get cunning.
But the subject here is tournament gaming specifically. With it being tied to set terrain and that, there are fewer nasty surprises such as Planet Bowling Ball, which really only suits Shooty Armies, and heavily impacted close combat forces.
[spoiler][spoiler]Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
And truthfully, that's where Kill Team kinda falls apart for me. It's "squads" for all intents and purposes when people build their lists.
Yeah, yeah, yeah there's customizing and stuff but I rarely saw lists that weren't super-optimized stuff just being ported over from 40k proper. It might just have been my local community but that's not what I saw with WarCry. I saw people building to the warband they liked, not the squads they 'needed' for 40k.
I don't know how you solve that problem, because it will always be there as long as it's just 40k units ported over.
Yeah, I agree that was a major problem, particularly for a lot of the factions that didn't have a lot of options. I saw so many guard lists that had all their gunners with plasma, and a pair of scion gunners with plasma for "MAX PLASMA," and it didn't really feel like a special ops squad, but rather just a bunch of models picked out a collection for maximum efficiency. I haven't seen much of that in Warcry, people I have played with just seem to pick a faction they like and use the models they like for the most part, and while their are a few exceptions, most of the models are relatively useful in one way or another.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.
If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Personally I just think GW is overplaying the "Combat patrol" card too much of late, to the point where they might as well be suggesting a new spin-off game called Warhammer 40K: Combat Patrol, when its really just a fancy name for "500 points" with more restrictions than benefits.
There is definitely something lacking for quite a few KT factions. Some factions seem to have healthy model and wargear options while others are woefully limited. Marines are a good example of having a decent selection( nothing wrong with that, of course ), but Necrons lack wargear and Harlequins have but one model to choose from(not counting Commanders nor elites). Its like there was no effort applied in designing the teams save for slapping in material directly from 40K. Having some background setting would be nice but would rather not with Warcry's theme of Chaos focused warbands and every other faction an after thought. I didn't invest in the game but it really looked like the AOS version of Necromunda with Kill Team bolted on. That said, Warcry seems to be doing something right, so maybe that is the way to go.
I agree. While I think Combat Patrol is a neat idea, and it's cool it has different objective rules I really think it needed more unique missions and restrictions because I don't think the game's natural balancing factors come into play very well at 500 points. Some armies will have no answers for a unit in another army, etc. I think if they made CP a bit more like the older versions which limited vehicles and certain units selections, and had all unique missions and what not it would be a bit more fun. But it's not really a replacement for KT, and I feel like they are pushing it as such. One is an individual model game vs a squad based game - that right there is a huge difference.
I agree on KT - it seemed a very minimum effort game for the most part and that left a lot of factions in the lurch. I think if GW did a 40k version of Warcry they would include a lot more than Chaos than the primary focus (while I like Kan's EoT idea personally, there are a lot of other great things they could do). Warcry gameplay wise is totally fresh compared to the other GW games - I feel it's really fun personally. Short game times and the mission generators really make you play to the objectives rather than just focus on shooting your opponent into oblivion. It definitely doesn't offer as much customization as KT (and nowhere near as much as Necromunda) in that a model has a card with it's stats and that's what it is (with some of the campaign rules they can get minor upgrades and with the expansion books injuries) - so an Iron Legionnairy with different equipment load-out has a different stat card and associated point cost. Still I think most factions have a good variety of units to take and it makes building an army a breeze for a pick up game.
In the end I just want GW to make a 40k skirmish game that plays fluidly and has effort put into it as opposed to "we just ported over 40k rules with some slight modifications." Even if they just updated the Kill Team rules to be less cumbersome and stopped just porting over data slates verbatim and put a bit of thought into the translation of them into the smaller game, I think it would help immensely.
I agree with all this- I think the problem id40k is so big now its lost its granularity. Having a version scaled around Warcry levels, with the setting around Rogue Trader era would be great where the occasional big monster/dread would be a big deal, but not OP. Thinking about the cool models that came out for Blackstone- the Zoat, Ambull, the Spindle Drones- these need a place beyond that game and 40k proper isn't it. I don't think everything should necessarily be for 40k, useable within it as a proxy/conversion or simply having rules but I think its too restricting to force everything to fit into that level of the game. A smaller system below it would allow a lot more exploration of the wider universe, accessible to those with little funds or time- elements which could be built on to create a larger force maybe to combat patrol level. It means that GWisn't then compelled to make Codex Zoats with a full range but could do a single box or series of single sculpts. Maybe useable in 40k but not dedicated for it. It means we could have team sets of eldar corsairs, chaos cultists, ork commandos, inquisitor henchmen etc.. with the odd monster through in too. Things which exist in the 40k universe but perhaps don't suit/aren't seen on the battlefield.
Manchu wrote: There should certainly be a lot of variety in the overall context of gaming but this requirement is only relevant to a subset of gaming, tournament play.
Seeing the book won't be using gt20 pack(aka tournament pack) not that relevant to tournament play.
GT20 does good job at it already so hardly need to replace it already. Wouldn't say it becomes easier for organizers to have tables with desert and winter terrain mixed up randomly. And players without terrain. And players not coming because attending requires hundreds of euro's worth of terrain.
Again, with no further details, we can’t say what the impact might be.
If we look at GW’s site, and the available 40k terrain, there’s a reasonable variety of types and price points, starting at £25 for the smaller, scatter ruins. The prices do seem inconsistent (I’d plump for the administratum building over Manufactorum, for instance. £5 cheaper, and a more flexible kit).
The missing info is what the missions actually require.
Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
Aye and if GW can help people organise more tournaments it means more events going on even at the local level. Local clubs often have issues with advertising and recruitment of new gamers. Encouraging more events to take place gives them more reason to advertise and more focus to their advertising that might well help draw in more gamers. It might also help firm up local communication and gaming, getting some of those "garage/home" only gamers into more social groups.
Big events that have storage and ample terrain likely won't need to adopt a "bring your own" because they'll have the terrain to hand and its easier for them to use their own in pre-setup tables to speed things along. If you've hundreds of gamers you don't want every game to add a block of time to setting up the terrain. You want it setup and ready to go from the start.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Actually, the argument that combat patrol needs better missions and such has a point. GW is putting out a new book for crusade and matched play. They could easily put out a book specifically for combat patrol. And it would be something easy to tie in to a model release of say low level hq options, like an ork big boss, admech tribune, and sisters palatine, lower level hqs better suited for smaller games?
Hasn't Infinity: Code One been pretty successful? And that's just a rather stripped down, fewer model version of... well, Infinity. I definitely think at this point, a Combat Patrol softback with the basic 40k rules and a 'core army list' for the factions included within and then put out as a replacement for Kill-Team isn't a stretch.
Code One:Kaldstrom, as a game, has seemingly not been successful.
Code One: Kaldstrom, as a product that launched a brand new pair of Sectorials, has been successful.
You can't separate the two unfortunately, but the gameplay has been panned anywhere I've looked.
Kanluwen wrote: Code One:Kaldstrom, as a game, has seemingly not been successful.
Code One: Kaldstrom, as a product that launched a brand new pair of Sectorials, has been successful.
You can't separate the two unfortunately, but the gameplay has been panned anywhere I've looked.
Has it been panned by the usual Infinity crowd, though, or new players using it as their first Infinity experience?
Has it been panned by the usual Infinity crowd, though, or new players using it as their first Infinity experience?
That's a tough one to answer, because there's also another crowd in there that think any kind of simplification is Bad.
By and large, the complaints seem to be centered around the fact that what is supposed to be 'a simplified version of Infinity' isn't. It's Infinity with chunks of the game cut out.
There's no Link Teams, no plans to introduce Sectorial play into Code One, and a limited roster of units.
Separating the crowd that thinks simplification is Bad, there's still a lot of negativity surrounding the fact that it doesn't feel like an attempt was actually made to get the game to be more open and inviting.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
If only there were bundles sold by GW that gave decent amounts of scenery for discounts!
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
If only there were bundles sold by GW that gave decent amounts of scenery for discounts!
ARGH!
Did not know that GW sells bundles of non-GW terrain
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
If only there were bundles sold by GW that gave decent amounts of scenery for discounts!
ARGH!
Did not know that GW sells bundles of non-GW terrain
I'd love to see anywhere that suggests the posts I replied to or my own imply non-GW terrain.
Constantly whining that "everything's so expensive that I can't ever afford GW items!" is garbage at this point. They literally just dropped this item:
Spoiler:
It's $90 for a good chunk of scenery and a 22.4 inch by 30 inch double-sided gameboard.
Oh and then there's the "Command Edition" version of the starter box which includes the dang scenery.
You want non-GW scenery? Cool!
You don't like their prices? Bring it up with them.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
Do people really play professionally on the village hall circuit? I doubt that very many people only play at tournaments too. So it's stuff you have already.
It's not like the GW stuff isn't modular enough that you can model for advantage (the wall of Martyrs already is!) anyway, so I expect there's some rules that either randomise deployment (location or orientation) somewhat or let your opponent specifically redeploy certain pieces.
Those seem like obvious strats and issues that would happen regardless of the origin of the terrain.
Alternatively you have set footprints and either <3", <5" 5"+ as height options, which with the opponent having some option to "unilaterally disagree" to the terrain deployment in some way seems like it's fix most glaring issues.
Maybe even a film set for 'Lord Bartholomew Bogue vs The Maleficent Eight', which largely features a facade town front along with a few card board cut outs of Crisis suits and a Riptide.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
If only there were bundles sold by GW that gave decent amounts of scenery for discounts!
ARGH!
Did not know that GW sells bundles of non-GW terrain
I'd love to see anywhere that suggests the posts I replied to or my own imply non-GW terrain.
Constantly whining that "everything's so expensive that I can't ever afford GW items!" is garbage at this point. They literally just dropped this item:
Spoiler:
It's $90 for a good chunk of scenery and a 22.4 inch by 30 inch double-sided gameboard.
Oh and then there's the "Command Edition" version of the starter box which includes the dang scenery.
You want non-GW scenery? Cool! You don't like their prices? Bring it up with them.
Yeah, I can get way more terrain for $90 from various MDF places than the measly amount GW offers in that box and as a bonus I don't have to pay the "waste of card 'gameboard' going straight into the recycling" tax either. That's not as much of a deal as you think it is, Kan.
I genuinely don't look at MDF stuff, so can't comment. I'm not a huge fan of it so don't seek it out.
I've actually not had bad experiences using those gameboards for what it's worth. It's the same stuff as the Underworld boards from what I can tell, and those things have been solid for me.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
If only there were bundles sold by GW that gave decent amounts of scenery for discounts!
ARGH!
Did not know that GW sells bundles of non-GW terrain
I'd love to see anywhere that suggests the posts I replied to or my own imply non-GW terrain.
.
a decent amount of scenery means a playable table full and "discount" should mean less to pay
paying double the price for less terrain is never "a decent amount for discount"
as long as I can get a 72*48" table full of terrain for 100-150€ (plastic, not even talking about MDF) there is now why to ever consider a 100€ for a 20*30" "a decent amount"
if you like GW terrain because of its Gothic style, fine
but it will never be a decent amount for a good price not even for Kill Team
A few small bits of pipe that don’t block LOS and a couple of small ruins that probably don’t block it much isn’t very useful, and it isn’t very cheap by any yardstick. If you like it, that’s cool, but it’s not a great option for the price and won’t give you a good battle.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
I could recoup hundreds in a few days : )
so you take dozens and dozens of tournaments in few days? I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllyyy doubt that.
small store tournaments don't have huge tournament fees anyway so to recoup hundreds in few days you would need to be taking lots of tournaments.
Tygre wrote: Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.
So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.
I could recoup hundreds in a few days : )
so you take dozens and dozens of tournaments in few days? I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllyyy doubt that.
small store tournaments don't have huge tournament fees anyway so to recoup hundreds in few days you would need to be taking lots of tournaments.
Well, I meant recoup through other means (a job), if you're looking to recoup the cost from prize money that seems a bit bizarre tbh. Do you view the rest of your hobby spending through this lense? Miniatures and travel and the rest of your expenses? I mean, most people are going to be able to afford a bus ticket and a box of Primaris every six months from 40k tourney winnings if this is the case aren't they? Unless I've vastly underestimated the amount of money floating around the 40k tourney scene. Is it possible to make a living at this?
But really it was just a joke (and I amused myself for a second, which is the most important thing).
the point was that it is cheaper to buy your own terrain for lower tournament fees and therefore bring people to events who had not the money to do it before
a table worth of GW terrain costs a lot and there is now way that it this is cheaper for those people than paying a standard fee (unless they become event players and visit 2-3 per month, but than entry fee is not a problem anyway)
using non-GW terrain is a different story but there is the question if the GW events will allow it
kodos wrote: using non-GW terrain is a different story but there is the question if the GW events will allow it
Which is precisely the purpose behind this book...
Aren't the GW 'events' ones held at one of there major hubs.. like Warhammer World. Where all terrain is supplied.
Or is the assumption really now that the tournament circuit is going to be so closely controlled and monitored that only official GW terrain is allowed on official GW boards/mats?
It's tin-foil-hat at least until GW starts sponsoring events in a big way. At which point its an acceptable trade-off. You get the official GW stamp; sponsoring support, marketing, etc... So your event gets far more attention and attendees and perhaps even more. Meanwhile you use GW brand boards, terrain and models which helps advertise and market GW products.
Both sides win.
Right now GW isn't really pushing that angle heavily so sure you can use GW brand terrain, but if you don't use it then there's really no issue.
I'd also note that some areas GW has to lean back on. It's like custom bases, GW can push hard that you only use GW bases, but it was never accepted by the community and now GW doesn't care in general. Same for paint schemes being "official schemes". That was pushed out a while back, but in general it was pushed back against.
GW can push for things, but its up to the community to accept and tolerate them. GW has never been like Apple or some other brands in totalitarian control. GW will TRY it, but if it gets enough pushback (sensible pushback that is) then GW might well learn back.
Esp for events not held on GW property by GW staff
At this point, complaining about the costs of GW terrain and its use (potentially need) to play in GW sanctioned events is about as useless as complaining about having to pay for GW models to have to use in the same event. GW took away model proxies a long time ago and might do the same with terrain proxies. But we can simply choose not to play or participate at that point if the costs are too high. However, I (and probably a lot of you) are too invested to make this an easy decision.
One last though...I like the look of a well painted GW army mixed in with a nicely painted set of GW terrain...hate the price...like the look.
I, too, would like to know how GW wanting people to use their product is comparable to corrupt employers effectively forcing their employees into indentured servitude.
We aren't even talking about GW employees either. It's 3rd party events getting sponsoring by GW and the only "demand" we are theorising at this stage is that along with GW models, they also might have to use (or have heavily encouraged to use) GW terrain features and boards.
EnTyme wrote:I, too, would like to know how GW wanting people to use their product is comparable to corrupt employers effectively forcing their employees into indentured servitude.
It's a really hyperbolic comparison, but mandating GW terrain for third-party events would be a means of pushing out third-party terrain manufacturers and creating a closed ecosystem, which I assume is what was meant by the 'company store' reference.
If GW were to give out full terrain sets for tournaments, with the caveat that only that GW terrain could be used, I don't think they'd have a hard time pitching that to organizers struggling to produce enough terrain on their own. Then, if you're going to play on tables with GW terrain at any event, you need to use GW terrain in your practice games. If everyone's buying GW terrain for practice games, then GW terrain becomes the de facto standard (even if it's technically only a tournament requirement- remember Rule of Three?) and third-party terrain starts to become unwelcome.
None of this would impact strictly casual clubs, but all the same, the tournament standard has a strong shaping effect on how the game is played. And while GW might not have won the fight regarding custom bases, I would say they pretty much did regarding third-party proxies, which seem to be often treated like ersatz substitutes and unacceptable in 'official' play. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'd really hate for terrain to get the same treatment.
EnTyme wrote:I, too, would like to know how GW wanting people to use their product is comparable to corrupt employers effectively forcing their employees into indentured servitude.
It's a really hyperbolic comparison, but mandating GW terrain for third-party events would be a means of pushing out third-party terrain manufacturers and creating a closed ecosystem, which I assume is what was meant by the 'company store' reference.
If GW were to give out full terrain sets for tournaments, with the caveat that only that GW terrain could be used, I don't think they'd have a hard time pitching that to organizers struggling to produce enough terrain on their own. Then, if you're going to play on tables with GW terrain at any event, you need to use GW terrain in your practice games. If everyone's buying GW terrain for practice games, then GW terrain becomes the de facto standard (even if it's technically only a tournament requirement- remember Rule of Three?) and third-party terrain starts to become unwelcome.
None of this would impact strictly casual clubs, but all the same, the tournament standard has a strong shaping effect on how the game is played. And while GW might not have won the fight regarding custom bases, I would say they pretty much did regarding third-party proxies, which seem to be often treated like ersatz substitutes and unacceptable in 'official' play. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'd really hate for terrain to get the same treatment.
The problem is that this is self defeating. Tournaments would only buy the terrain if it was significantly cheaper than most alternatives (because GW plastic terrain requires FAR more setup than an MDF lemonade stand) so GW would likely have to give the terrain away entirely for free. Which means that a decent chunk of FLGSs in those areas would already have access to full boards of terrain, or the players would have access to the terrain secondhand should the TOs decide to liquidate a ton of it. Both options result in less sales, not more.
Then you have the copycat thing. If GW terrain silhouettes become the absolute tournament standard, third party producers are just going to change up their terrain so that the silhouette and footprint are the same, same thing that happened with the Void Shield Generator when it was 150$ and OP as balls.
This is more likely going to be a "major event" thing rather than your local scene club doing a tournament weekend. It's going to be big name tournaments that GW might well be sponsoring so the tournament might well get terrain on the cheap. It's advertising for GW and getting boons of their own. This might be staff attending; doing talks; authors from BL signing books; a sales booth; place in the WD magazine (before and after) and on the community website (before and after) etc... Heck get big enough and a twitch live stream on the GW stream channel.
Basically the event isn't just doing it because GW demands it, but because they get something out of it too.
Sure if GW terrain shapes become standard the 3rd parties will copy them ;but that just means GW is really pushing their own terrain and the customer base wants it/needs it. So it means GW will be getting good sales on it. Plus I'm sure the hobby and home scene will remain using cardboard, shoeboxes or 3rd party terrain features still.
Heck converting terrain might well be encouraged by GW creating a whole setup where instead of building from scratch you're modifying existing GW terrain.
Overread wrote: Same for paint schemes being "official schemes".
What? They did that? I'm surprised, I don't remember any moment in the history of the game where the codex didn't explicitly allowed you to create custom space marines chapters with custom heraldry!
Overread wrote: Same for paint schemes being "official schemes".
What? They did that? I'm surprised, I don't remember any moment in the history of the game where the codex didn't explicitly allowed you to create custom space marines chapters with custom heraldry!
If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
Overread wrote: This is more likely going to be a "major event" thing rather than your local scene club doing a tournament weekend. It's going to be big name tournaments that GW might well be sponsoring so the tournament might well get terrain on the cheap. It's advertising for GW and getting boons of their own. This might be staff attending; doing talks; authors from BL signing books; a sales booth; place in the WD magazine (before and after) and on the community website (before and after) etc... Heck get big enough and a twitch live stream on the GW stream channel.
Basically the event isn't just doing it because GW demands it, but because they get something out of it too.
Sure if GW terrain shapes become standard the 3rd parties will copy them ;but that just means GW is really pushing their own terrain and the customer base wants it/needs it. So it means GW will be getting good sales on it. Plus I'm sure the hobby and home scene will remain using cardboard, shoeboxes or 3rd party terrain features still.
Heck converting terrain might well be encouraged by GW creating a whole setup where instead of building from scratch you're modifying existing GW terrain.
The thing is, if it's just the big events that get it, it will have negligible impact on the playerbase at large. No one goes out of their way to copy adepticon or nova or even ITC terrain setups at the local level. They just play with whatever terrain is available.
Sure, it's good advertisement for GW terrain if all the big events use it, but that's all it is. It's not like it suddenly becomes the standard. They'd get roughly the same result with sponsoring big name youtubers.
If GW is sponsoring the event anyway then a major event using only GW terrain is a win for GW. It's "costing" them nothing more than normal sponsoring; whilst at the same time it is advertising to the gaming market.
It's subtle advertising and sure many might not change, but some will. It also helps normalise the idea of using GW terrain over home made or 3rd party. The more you can drive that point home into communities the more accepting they are of buying GW terrain.
GW uses other things too - Warcry is a fantastic way to help push sales of terrain kits by having a random terrain generator based on cards in the pack for the game. It makes buying the terrain like buying a functional part of the game much like models to the average gamer. It's no longer just "scenery" its part of the game mechanics itself closer to the models. Same as how they've used faction terrain.
The fact these missions "forcing" players to bring their terrain is actually a game supplement defeats the "tin hat conspiracy theory", IMHO.
If GW wanted to do such an evil scheme, they would have put it in the core rules. That's the best way to "force" players into thinking they must bring GW terrain to their game.
While I do believe it's intentionnal, I don't think it's really a scheme to cut 3rd manufacturers out ot tournaments. It's just a set of rules ready to use and suggesting another way to organize tournaments for organizers who struggle to gather enough terrain. And of course GW advertises bringing GW terrain to the tables...they're selling these, in the end. Just like other manufacturers tend to put their own products on the front line rather than what's sold by their rivals.
also the terrain rules are very modular, as compared to 8th edition which had minimal rules for terrain in general but gave special rules to each GW specific peice of terrain
The way I see it is super simple. Terrain has long been the “second class citizen” of miniatures gaming product. And the more you think about it, the less sense that makes.
In the past, you’d generally only see a focus on beautiful, sophisticated terrain as exhibitions at major events. Outside of that, terrain was mostly DIY, pretty basic, and something that only a small percentage of players put much time and effort into. The store/club, as a hub for pick-up and competitive play, normalized this lack of proportion and it just became an assumption that most players expected to spend money and time on figures and NOT on terrain.
I see this as an unfortunate mistake that can be and needs to be corrected. Terrain is integral to miniatures gaming. But as long as it is conceived of as a subniche product, there isn’t strong incentive to spend a ton of resources bringing it to market. For a number of reasons I won’t delve into (unless someone really wants to get into it), the “second class” status of terrain has been breaking apart over the last ten years or so. But not coincidentally it tends to persist around pick up and competitive gaming. So GW is encouraging that segment of their customer base to value terrain more equally to figures.
Manchu wrote: The way I see it is super simple. Terrain has long been the “second class citizen” of miniatures gaming product. And the more you think about it, the less sense that makes.
In the past, you’d generally only see a focus on beautiful, sophisticated terrain as exhibitions at major events. Outside of that, terrain was mostly DIY, pretty basic, and something that only a small percentage of players put much time and effort into. The store/club, as a hub for pick-up and competitive play, normalized this lack of proportion and it just became an assumption that most players expected to spend money and time on figures and NOT on terrain.
I see this as an unfortunate mistake that can be and needs to be corrected. Terrain is integral to miniatures gaming. But as long as it is conceived of as a subniche product, there isn’t strong incentive to spend a ton of resources bringing it to market. For a number of reasons I won’t delve into (unless someone really wants to get into it), the “second class” status of terrain has been breaking apart over the last ten years or so. But not coincidentally it tends to persist around pick up and competitive gaming. So GW is encouraging that segment of their customer base to value terrain more equally to figures.
The big breakdown here is that the competitive crowd doesn't really get a choice between investing in figures or investing in terrain. A competitive player especially can't just buy less models and more terrain because he needs the correct models to be competitive. By emphasizing terrain, that segment of the playerbase is forced to either increase what is likely already a very significant investment; or not play the game in a the way that they enjoy.
It'd be like if you were mostly focused on the painting part of the hobby, if you had to buy a special GW plynth in order for paint to stick to your models
In all fairness though, if everyone brought even just 3 pieces of terrain, (that's 6 per table total) it would make the boards much fuller.
Add in the fact that you set up terrain before anything else and before you know what table edge you get and you can see how it may not actually be an issue.
Also it may just be a case of you have 2 pieces of dense cover and 1 piece of Obscuring, bam set up the board and be done.
As I understand it, the mission pack in question does not replace the GT mission pack but rather is an additional resource. So isn’t it premature to worry about pricing out players? And is pricing out players even a coherent worry? Competitive play itself already prices out players. There’s always going to be a straw that breaks the camel’s back for a given individual. But as a group, people committed to organized play don’t seem especially cost sensitive.
I think the objection of transporting terrain is a better one than additional spend.
EDIT: Ugh, I don’t even want to get involved in a discussion about the cost of playing miniatures games. The underlying issue is, if you want to play miniatures games then you need to understand that terrain is just as integral to that goal as figures.
Overread wrote: This is more likely going to be a "major event" thing rather than your local scene club doing a tournament weekend. It's going to be big name tournaments that GW might well be sponsoring so the tournament might well get terrain on the cheap. It's advertising for GW and getting boons of their own. This might be staff attending; doing talks; authors from BL signing books; a sales booth; place in the WD magazine (before and after) and on the community website (before and after) etc... Heck get big enough and a twitch live stream on the GW stream channel.
Gt20 pack is more likely to be major event thing than this one.
