I mean, I basically live on the internet when it comes to these games. I'm simultaneously browsing and commenting on dakka while also doing the same on reddit, facebook, and discord. I don't really interact with any other communities or hobbies. I also have a pretty great memory and thats the kind of thing I absolutely would have noticed because its kind of an out there take. So uhh... if I haven't noticed it, I am inclined to think that its not really a thing aside from maybe an absolutely tiny minority of individuals.
Maybe you're in a "ultracasual community oriented tabletop gaming fan group" on facebook which is giving you that echo chamber effect to amplify the signal, but aside form that I don't see it.
Nah. I'm on bog standard groups that bristle whenever you complain about bad balance, and the canned response is the balance isn't the main reason you play these games.
Thats ok. We're just talking around each other at this point so there's not much else to comment on this topic with you.
chaos0xomega wrote: ehhh. I don't know that "they spent the money they were spending on WHFB previously on 40k instead" really flies as an explanation for why there wasn't a bigger decline.
I just know the player base in the wargaming scene here around but there was the historical crowd who had not much to do with GW games, the GW crowd, and later the LotR crowd who had not much to do with the other GW people
yet from the GW crowd, there were not many who only played WHFB or 40k, most it an army for each and with the end of an edition and the rules decline in quality, everyone changed to the other system
it was the whole Club and the 2 FLGS either playing 40k or Fantasy, which ever got the new Edition and sales for the shops were based on bringing your collection up to date
and they played both because the games were different, no one wanted to have a 40k but with Fantasy minis as for this he could just play 40k instead
looking at the people there now, one difference is the the 2 FLGS were replaced by 1 GW store and the AoS and 40k group are different people
the former Warhammer players who still play are all doing 40k now and avoid AoS because no interest in a similar game with different setting, and the AoS people avoid 40k for the same reason
and this also let the community grow, in the past it was one community with the same people, now there are 2 of them
auticus wrote: Do I think the Old World will die? Nope. I think Kings of War, 9th age, and Conquest players right now are sweating (and are being quite vocal about it in other social media hubs) because they know that they are going to lose some players as well back to the GW mothership because a lot of WHFB players would have kept playing WHFB but only started playing KOW or 9th or whatever because their game that they loved vanished overnight.
those KoW players who are just there until GW comes back with something are not a lot, they are rather with T9A or other community rules
what I have seen is that people who like KoW for the rules will never go back to GW type of rules, those people already struggle with T9A for that reason
same for Conquest, those games are too different to GW style that once you are used to it, it is hard to go back and just play the game and enjoy it
Whenever I am in a balance conversation in a forum, facebook, discord, wherever, inevitably there will always be responses that say "I dont care about balance, I just want to hang out with my friends playing what they are playing and chucking dice."
YOU LIE MISTER!
I am very active in online communities for these games, I have literally never once seen someone say that
I say it all the time. Am I invisible?
From my experience there is a small but vocal subsection of gamers who care deeply about balance, and the majority just try not to engage with them.
auticus wrote: lol hahaha. Its all over the dakka aos forum. Like... in dozens if not hundreds of places over the years. There was a subsection in one of the total warhammer facebooks I'm in now on why balance is secondary to community. The TGA forums ... again littered everywhere. Commonly stated. The Conquest discord we talked about that fairly regularly. Same thing.
Its literally everywhere. If you have never seen anyone say that community is what matters most and balance is not their primary reason they play, you are simply willfully blinding yourself to it being said.
Yeah I have absolutely seen this a lot too. Comes up on Dakka every once in a while; just look at any of the 'how important is balance to you' threads.
AOS players dropping napalm on The Old World does not surprise me at all because no one wants their playerbase fragmenting off. There ARE a lot of AOS players that want to play the Old World, and that means less time for AOS (in some cases, people only play one game or another so thats a permanent loss for some). No matter how you slice it, its at the very least going to remove some players from the aos player pool for a time, and THAT is where a lot of the "its going to die lol" comments come from. A gatekeeping attempt to keep AOS the primary game.
I find this quite funny because I've not seen any large number of AoS hobbyists hoping for TOW to fail or being afraid it's going to kill AoS. In fact, all I have seen is legacy WHFB people baying for the death of AoS and praising GW for returning WHFB. The TOW Facebook group is particularly toxic towards AoS and I've seen more comments on how AoS sucks and should be replaced with TOW since its announcement, that it's kind of souring the whole thing for me. I love TW:WH and the Old World has its own merits as a setting but I'm not jumping into a community that's already filled with chuds before the game has even been released.
Indeed. I've seen plenty on facebook - and in this thread - predicting or hoping for AoS demise. Admittedly I've seen a few predicting or hoping for TOWs demise as well, but an absolute minority by comparison. The overwhelming attitude of AoS fans interested in TOW - such as myself - is basically "calm the feth down and check your expectations". EDIT - I suppose to a WHFB diehard anything short of "hail our lord and savior, the second coming of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. May it deliver us from the great Satan of Age of Sigmar!" might seem like hate or a desire for TOW to die an inglorious death, but that perspective is a "you" problem.
I can kind of understand WHFB fans wanting the world of AoS to be destroyed in hellfire (or the bubbles popped, whatever). After all, it's what happened to them, and a lot of the time they get called out as moaning grognards simply because they subsequently dared to complain that GW decided to terminate the hobby that they loved.
They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
Olthannon wrote: The dumbest forum/internet trend is to decide that anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
Well, anecdotes by definition are unreliable. Its usually why folks who use anecdotes in good faith preface their statement with “I know its anecdotal, but…” as opposed to folks who use anecdotes as a statement of irrefutable truth.
Much like "in my opinion" to me is a waste of words because any given opinion is of course an opinion and not a fact, "i know its anecdotal" to me doesn't need stated because if one is stating something from their own experience, it is by default anecdotal unless they are citing a solid reference.
In the case of wargaming, there are no solid numbers anywhere that anyone can use and so all of our opinions are opinions and all of our experiences are anecdotal without needing to state that they are.
At least to me. That might be my technical writing portion of what I do coming out but we eliminate needless words in our communication if it is an understood default.
Anyone speaking as if their opinion and anecdotes were global fact are of course not correct in their assumption that their opinions etc are facts.
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to. I would have started a new army or two if they sold the damn models, paying extortionist ebay prices is out of the question for many.
They also removed the square bases from a lot of the packages, I got a couple boxes of marauders recently and they don't have squares.
Not only did they destroy WHFB but they tried to force everyone to convert to AoS or piss off. It should be easy to understand that there's a lot of resentment there.
They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to. I would have started a new army or two if they sold the damn models, paying extortionist ebay prices is out of the question for many.
Weird cos I can build a whole army of what is basically the Empire, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Skaven, Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Chaos Daemons, Vampire Counts, or Ogre Kingdoms. On top of that Orcs & Goblins are now both fairly expansive armies of their own.
They also removed the square bases from a lot of the packages, I got a couple boxes of marauders recently and they don't have squares.
And yet nothing is stopping someone who already has a square base army from playing AoS nor is it stopping you from getting square bases for your own army.
Not only did they destroy WHFB but they tried to force everyone to convert to AoS or piss off. It should be easy to understand that there's a lot of resentment there.
Did they come into people's homes and burn their 8th Edition army books and rules? Did they rip all the square bases off their models and replace them with circular ones? I even remember how in AoS 1st Edition, Narrative Play was suggested as a way to relive Old World battles using the new system.
I could understand resentment initially but 6 years on? No. Not at all.
They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
Which is what I do , but I do have at least 3 occasional opponents, who will be much more frequent when TOW actually releases.
They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
Which is what I do , but I do have at least 3 occasional opponents, who will be much more frequent when TOW actually releases.
Same here. There will be a TOW group all ready to go on release. Can't say the same for saying "hey guys who wants to play a dead version of warhammer?" which will 99 times out of 100 yield no response.
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
My counterpoint would be that if WHFB was so great and superior to AoS, why did people not keep it going in a meaningful way? Instead, they moved to AoS/KoW/9th Age.
Isn't that what 9th Age though? An attempt at making a 9th Edition of WHFB?
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to. I would have started a new army or two if they sold the damn models, paying extortionist ebay prices is out of the question for many.
They also removed the square bases from a lot of the packages, I got a couple boxes of marauders recently and they don't have squares.
Not only did they destroy WHFB but they tried to force everyone to convert to AoS or piss off. It should be easy to understand that there's a lot of resentment there.
this is a very interesting thing as during the time were Warhammer still was there, no cared to buy the original models for the exorbitant prices GW sold them and was looking for alternative models
now there are more "Warhammer" models available than in the best days of GW, for much less money so starting an army won't cost a 800€ for the base
but now that the game is dead, it is important to everyone to only use official GW models to play with house-rules, were back than it was the other way around
everyone who claims he cannot start a Warhammer army because there are no models just never tried and is searching for a cheap excuse of not doing it
PS: and why are people thinking new prices will be better?
I guess as soon as the first boxes with 5 models for 40€, and you need 15 for a minimum sized unit, come up people will again claim that only official rules must be used but buy the cheapest models available while at the same time claiming that they only play the game for the superior models GW make
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't that what 9th Age though? An attempt at making a 9th Edition of WHFB?
9th Age started as a "better balanced 8th Edition" and is now transforming into their own game with 8th Edition mechanics as their core
Warhammer Armies is the project that tried to make a 9th Edition by doing the best of every Edition thing
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
My counterpoint would be that if WHFB was so great and superior to AoS, why did people not keep it going in a meaningful way?
If AOS were to suddenly stop being supported today with no future content or models for AOS and they just went back to WHFB full on, you would have the same situation in AOS land. You'd probably have a community driven version of AOS the same as you have 9th today.
Also - WHFB being so great and superior to AOS would depend on who you talk to. That sounds like trying to say the old world failed because no one wanted to play it.
Which is objectively false.
Or that AOS is superior because it has more people interested in it. Which doesn't really matter. AOS probably does have more people interested in it because the rules are super simple and the tactics etc super simple which gives it a wider appeal.
That doesn't negate or diminish a return to WHFB as an alternative product. The only thing that it does is make people that like AOS feel better that they are playing a game that the majority plays. However not only is that not provable as the numbers will differ from locale to locale (in Louisville in 2015 when AOS died, we had 30+ campaign players actively playing a whfb campaign, the largest AOS tournament we had in the six years since was 18 players so /anecdotealy/ in Louisville, whfb was 2x more popular than AOS - but Louisville is Louisville and not the whole of the US or global. Additionally the vast majority of our playerbase in Louisville loved WHFB... but never bought anything retail. GW never saw a dime because they got their models second hand or from cheaper sources - so to GW it was a huge failure because even though we had a lot of players - they could never move retail product to most of us) it largely doesn't matter.
When I play WHFB when its out again, I have no care that more people enjoy AOS over WHFB. That literally doesn't matter to me. Same as when I watch football, I dont care if more people like baseball where I am. All that matters is that I can get in games and have a community for it again without having to make community building my second full-time job which is what you have to do with any non-gw game or fan based system.
Gert wrote: My counterpoint would be that if WHFB was so great and superior to AoS, why did people not keep it going in a meaningful way?
because they were not happy with the rules in the first place but just played it because it was "official" and everyone else played it
as soon as it died, the projects to make a better version started growing and the better ones are still out there
Warhammer Armies, Fluffhammer, WarhammerCE and 9th Age are the ones that are played here as each community takes the one that fits their needs
there are also many groups out there playing 6th with ravening hordes
yet AoS itself is short of filling any tournament here beyond 30 people, were Warhammer was filling several 100+ events a year
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to.
Yet I literally just bought and built a square based 6000+ point Orc army for 8th Ed in the past year. And the only eBay stuff were some of Ruglud's Armored Orcs, a discounted 'Ard Boyz box, and a job lot of the 6th ed starter Orcs. The rest were sourced from cheap lots on Facebook, clearance tables from local stores, and other collectors. It's very possible to still build a proper WHFB army with patience and knowing where to look.
this is a very interesting thing as during the time were Warhammer still was there, no cared to buy the original models for the exorbitant prices GW sold them and was looking for alternative models
now there are more "Warhammer" models available than in the best days of GW, for much less money so starting an army won't cost a 800€ for the base
but now that the game is dead, it is important to everyone to only use official GW models to play with house-rules, were back than it was the other way around
everyone who claims he cannot start a Warhammer army because there are no models just never tried and is searching for a cheap excuse of not doing it
PS: and why are people thinking new prices will be better?
I guess as soon as the first boxes with 5 models for 40€, and you need 15 for a minimum sized unit, come up people will again claim that only official rules must be used but buy the cheapest models available while at the same time claiming that they only play the game for the superior models GW make
Not sure what you're talking about to be honest, I wouldn't care if someone else proxies their entire army with cardboard cutouts. I'd advise them not to pay for GWs rulebooks while they're at it.
I doubt anyone here thinks the prices "will be better" so I don't know where you're coming from with that either.
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to.
Yet I literally just bought and built a square based 6000+ point Orc army for 8th Ed in the past year. And the only eBay stuff were some of Ruglud's Armored Orcs, a discounted 'Ard Boyz box, and a job lot of the 6th ed starter Orcs. The rest were sourced from cheap lots on Facebook, clearance tables from local stores, and other collectors. It's very possible to still build a proper WHFB army with patience and knowing where to look.
Or just play other games, buy everything you need from your favourite stores, and wait for GW to come to their senses.
You can hunt ebay, facebook, or travel to mars and build a new WHFB army, or you can just play a different game. It's an easy choice for most.
Olthannon wrote: The dumbest forum/internet trend is to decide that anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
it is the only one we have (as there are not official numbers for anything, neither a collective GW community side)
and during the early days, some 20-30 years ago, the not-historical wargaming community was small enough that anecdotal evidence was good enough
Haha yes I know, I was saying there's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence. But some people just refute it, but there's not enough actual data to make it any more reliable.
Can't wait for the boomers to celebrate the impeding fall of AoS in MySpace and Blogpost.
Much like social media today is rife with AOS fans saying this will die as soon as it comes out because no one wants to play a game like warhammer fantasy today.
Yet AoS has been alive well for over a lustrum and the nayers keep telling that next BT will kill the game for real this time, meanwhile AoS players know that the WHFB is already extremely fractured and that having so many flavours to appeal make it harder to nail a ruleset that satisfies the broader playerbase possible.
I would also like to compare this to the Nostalgia effect from remasters/remakes/revivals/reboots; see WoW Classic and TBC Classic as examples (don't include pirate servers numbers up, A., they are not "private" servers: the official servers ARE THE PRIVATE ONES because you have a monthly fee to access it, it is not a P2P or F2P game, B., they can lie about numbers): lots of hype, then a notorious steep because people didn't liked for whatever reason or just didn't wanted to pay for the month. This was even worst with TBC because executive meddling to give the playerbase "the best experience for everyone possible".
CMLR wrote: I want to play the game and see it thrive (so I can get plastic Kroxigors), but I'm just pointing out that AoS already has a playerbase and only two real editions of the game, while TOW will have to engage people from different systems, ever since 6th Edition. And they just said that they will partially base the game on 8E. That already is a "No" for diehard detractors of that Edition that don't wan't anything to do with it.
Goose LeChance wrote: Gatekeep everything AoS, including model design. If you want to play AoS just play AoS.
You know that won't happen. Good luck getting Finecrap/metal Greater Daemons. What about the new, plastic Ogor Tyrant? can't anyone just base him on a square base instead of using a lame resin one?
Such a dumb mentality; again, looks a lot like "#NoChanges" from WoW Classic. I knew people that legitimately thought that Classic was going to be hard as nails, and then they left because raiding MC "was not the same".
You can't compare WHFB players to World of Warcraft players.
WoW players are always chasing the next content high, they devour DLC/Expansions in a month and get bored, it's only natural they would lose interest in Classic.
WHFB players have kept the game going long after GW told them all to go away. Either through old editions or alternative companies, they'll be around until they die.
I can compare them and I will. Don't be obtuse.
Overgeneralization too much?: not everyone will want what everone else wanted (I don't play current expansions until their first +50% discount and I play for the actual RP that imply questing, for example, and I'm well aware that I'm on the extreme minority), and WoW was divided by those who didn't care about Classic and those who did tantrums for it, and the later half was in a big number only wanting to do Classic because "it is actually hard/good", then the game only lasted for the guys who really wanted the official experience and stay in Classic forever, which was about one to three in the entire server, meanwhile, the rest of players started to leave in flocks once they realised that the game is extremely primitive and that the sweet, sweet memories where because they didn't readed the manual, or because they couldn't use X or Y addon, they didn't liked that there is no refreshing, you have to sub to it for what it's worth, drop/xp/other rates, etc. First imprensions matter and you are not always going to revive the experience the first time.
There are no DLCs and people don't burn content as you put it out, not to mention that Current players as a majority can't give any less of a dump for Classic.
This happens everywhere every single time something changes, can't you see?
WFHB zealots condemned GW for killing off the Old World, some because they killed the setting (technically murdered, but AoS is happening on the same Universe so they didn't full-on deleted Fantasy), some other because they got half-assed ABs and ther would no longer get support (if they had one in 8E, imagine those who still had to use 7E ABs), then the new playerbase slowly grew up alongside the remainig payers who just wanted to keep buying new, pretty toy soldiers, but meanwhile level-headed veterans said "not for me, thanks, but have fun if you can", "I'd rather stay on my favourite edition", "game was dead since 6th" and so on.
See this? It is an example, but the overall topic here is NOSTALGIA, which can and will bring satisfaction to the minority that want the product for what it was worth it, but when you start a bandwagon hyping a product, expect it to derail, crash and burn, more when you have to factor in that people will want different stuff because everyone is nostalgic for specific parts of a product, rather then the entirety of it.
I don't really remember any outright insults, but the previous CEOs attitude (to which he made clear verbal/written statements to) was that they were a miniatures company and that only a minority of their customers actually played their games.
Oh, I see. Cheers.
There was that one investor report where Kirby was high on crack and said they sell to people genetically predisposed to hoard toys or some such, and also mentioned losing the Chapterhouse case because legislation was written with swine theft in mind, not IP.
Judging by that one Reddit post of a guy who bought 5000pts of Mechanicus stuff in one go, only one of those things may be false.
It's not that he was wrong about the customers, the customers just don't like hearing it. They are a miniature company and they make a lot of money off people who aren't going to paint and play with, or possibly even assemble, the stuff they are buying for months or years to come.
They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
Depends simply where you are asking.
I admit I am helped by the fact I'm still in touch with friends still having their WFB armies and rules, so we can just keep playing 8th edition if we want. We'll be playing a good old 3000 pts night goblins vs dwarves this weekend, by the way.
Still possible to find fellow nostalgic players who don't care about playing a dead game - just about playing the game they loved and have fond memories with, and more than glad to make more of them.
Just need to keep trying and not giving up at the first absence of answer, thinking "it's not worth it anyway".
Hell, I even know a forum where new players in 8th edition build their armies from scrap. If they can do it, it can be done elsewhere.
Even though, to me, the Old World project won't be the rebirth of WFB. It will be a new game, inspired by its ancestor, but I'm expecting it won't be like 8th. They said they'll take mechanisms from a bunch of previous editions but also new ones. I'm pretty ready to bet it will these new mechanisms that will horrify the people expecting the WFB savior here.
And besides, I still have a lot of time to keep playing 8th edition with my group of friends until it's finally released...not even talking about all the miniatures needed to build a new army that won't be able to be made from AoS boxes to be available. If it follows the Horus Heresy pattern of releases, or Necromunda or Bloodbowl...it's going to be a huge disappointment if you put the expectation/hype bar way too high.
Just need to keep trying and not giving up at the first absence of answer, thinking "it's not worth it anyway".
I tried for a solid six years. No one wanted to play whfb near me. They were more open to trying out Conquest which is where I jumped for a while. Of course your mileage may vary depending on where you are.
I've never played WHFB, nor have I played AOS, but I have played the total war games, and have come to like Skaven a lot. For some reason, I'm not interested at all in AOS, but would like to try WHFB.
I played WFB back in the day then they just nuked it... AoS was the replacement... so I rebased every damn thing and got rid of some armies I had no patience to rebase... but never got to grips with playing much now, specially with covid.... now they bring back WFB...square bases and make funny remarks about it... Im not laughing and I doubt people that changed their armies and spent money and time on rebasing loads and loads of models are amused!
You know what? Keep your Freaking games and shove your square pointy bases up your...noses. No patience for this crap.
I will build minis and armies for the looks only and thats it. I mean I moved on and dont want to go back, specially after only 4 or 5 years.
GW is drunk to rehash all the bad vibes about the nuking. Potentially will split and kill both games. Probably not, people have fish memory.
That sucks, but you shouldn't have rebased in the first place. 5 years is nothing, you need to have the iron will of a monk to navigate GWs garbage business practices.
I rebased my huge Daemon army on rounds for use in 40K. It took forever (I have over 100 Plaguebearers alone). But I have some movement trays made from the WOTR trays for when I play Old Hammer.
Depending on what's playable, I'll either run my Daemons in TOW or finish rebasing my Warriors of Chaos (which I started for AD&D) and use the same movement tray trick.
Either way, I'm very curious to see what they do with the new ruleset.
KidCthulhu wrote: I rebased my huge Daemon army on rounds for use in 40K. It took forever (I have over 100 Plaguebearers alone). But I have some movement trays made from the WOTR trays for when I play Old Hammer.
Depending on what's playable, I'll either run my Daemons in TOW or finish rebasing my Warriors of Chaos (which I started for AD&D) and use the same movement tray trick.
Either way, I'm very curious to see what they do with the new ruleset.
I went to 9th Age after they shot WHFB behind the barn. So I didn't need to rebase. GW don't have good people for rules writing anymore so don't hold your breath.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goose LeChance wrote: I'm surprised they're committing to square bases but it's a good sign.
Gatekeep everything AoS, including model design. If you want to play AoS just play AoS.
Honestly, you guys shouldn't have re-based onto circles in the first place.. bunch of traitors.
It'll be interesting to see how well new units rank up, WHFB had a lot of problems with scale creep, base sizes and ranking up. CAD design should help, but can the sculptors resist making every model breakdance or do a backflip? Can they resist increasing weapon sizes, hands and arms with every new kit?!?
Sabotage! wrote: With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.
Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?
I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).
If TOW ends up to be a R&F game then it will become a train wreck from the start. Meanwhile I will be standing at the sidelines and taking pictures.
They already said that The Old World is essentially a new version of WHFB taking the parts they like from 3rd through 8th - so yeah it'll be rank and flank.
And yeah - I think it will do well. There is a larger demand for rank and flank than people that have no interest in rank and flank think.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I've never played WHFB, nor have I played AOS, but I have played the total war games, and have come to like Skaven a lot. For some reason, I'm not interested at all in AOS, but would like to try WHFB.
Have you actually played it? I'd recommend trying it before passing judgement, it's a very good game with a fantastic playerbase full of friendly people.
I went to 9th Age after they shot WHFB behind the barn. So I didn't need to rebase. GW don't have good people for rules writing anymore so don't hold your breath.
I wasn't necessarily holding my breath, just curious to see how this plays out.
In the meantime, I'm going back to Oldhammer. I've just ordered a secondhand copy of Ravening Hordes to play 6th again for funsies. There's also getting crushed in 8th by my only remaining opponent.
AOS is a "meh" game. It's better than 40k, but still far too aura-reroll-MW dependent. Like 40k, most "special" rules are a handful of simple effects with different names. From what Iv'e seen on GMG, AOS 3.0 is even more static with the big objective control zones.
I wasn't able to start WHFB, so I am crossing my fingers that TOW is a good ruleset. I do wish GW had just started right before the End Times and branched off. Insisting on continuity with AOS is silly.
Blastaar wrote: AOS is a "meh" game. It's better than 40k, but still far too aura-reroll-MW dependent. Like 40k, most "special" rules are a handful of simple effects with different names. From what Iv'e seen on GMG, AOS 3.0 is even more static with the big objective control zones.
I wasn't able to start WHFB, so I am crossing my fingers that TOW is a good ruleset. I do wish GW had just started right before the End Times and branched off. Insisting on continuity with AOS is silly.
On a good note, AoS3.0 is so far removing a lot of re-rolls (sans charges, spellcasting, and prayers) in favor of capped modifiers.
Goose LeChance wrote: That sucks, but you shouldn't have rebased in the first place. 5 years is nothing, you need to have the iron will of a monk to navigate GWs garbage business practices.
If it wasn't on squares it would probably be DOA.
I would be more interested if it had circle bases as I find them more aesthetically pleasing.
I get it that square bases are more useful for a rank & formation game, but the circle bases are prettier
Square bases in Skirmish look ok to good, depending on the Skirmish
the difference is more like that round bases give an impression of 360° vision, were square make you think of 90-180°
for now there are more more models for Fantasy R&F available than ever and it is also cheaper than ever to get an army
everyone who claims that it is impossible to make a Warhammer Army today did not even try to make one
and if one claims that he means a "true" Warhammer Army with all original models, well this did not even happen back than when GW was the only one selling plastic fantasy models and is just an excuse to make it impossible
Strg Alt wrote: If TOW ends up to be a R&F game then it will become a train wreck from the start. Meanwhile I will be standing at the sidelines and taking pictures.
if it will be a train wreck or not depends only if GW makes the same mistakes again and this has nothing to do if it is R&F (which it it will) or Skirmish
it is all about initial rules and support
if it is a one box game with 2 follow up books and nothing else for a year combined with the usual bad rules, it will be dead after the first hype wave
if GW at least try to make rules, give out FAQ/Errata on time and comes up with a campaign book every 6 months, there is nothing to stop it
specially in countries like Germany
Just Tony wrote: Anyone with access to the lexicon knows that Warmaster stopped receiving shelf retail support 6 months after release.
Weird, anyone with access to lexicanum, or wikipedia, or who actually played the game knows that it received 2 editions, multiple expansion books, and 3 official spinoff games (2 historicals, 1 lord of the rings) over the period of a decade. Officially, it had more support than Battlefleet Gothic did. But okay, "6 months". *eyeroll*
Weird, anyone with access to lexicanum, or wikipedia, or could read my damn post could see it was pulled FROM RETAIL after 6 months. It did so well that Inquisitor got new releases on shelves longer. I was going to say was ON shelves longer, but the fact that I was able to walk into Castle Comics and Cards in Lafayette, IN and find Warmaster stuff from initial release STILL ON THE GODDAMN SHELVES tells me all I need to know.
You know damn well you saw the retail part of my comment, so you're either arguing in bad faith to troll or willfully misrepresenting facts to win an argument.
Warmaster is so unpopular that sculpting 10mm fantasy minis is a day job for half a dozen 3D artists.
Indeed, my local group has been buying up those minis by the bucketload the last few months. Some are playing warmaster, others are playing "microhammer" or something (basically 7th ed whfb using centimeters instead of inches) with them. Locally there were a lot of people bummed that the game would be 28mm, it works so much better in 10mm and the minis are incredible (tons of detail, easy to paint, look great in rank and file, and you can actually build and play with massive armies like you imagined and were depicted in the artwork without any of the headache that comes with doing so in 28mm).
I'll address Fang in your quote. SO many people were playing it that it became a special order only thing, and I'm expected to believe it's so immensely popular despite me not being able to find a single person playing it in stores locally that it can keep a half dozen 3D artists so busy they can suppor their families with it? I'm going to go ahead and push X to doubt. Unless, of course, you guys can provide links showing where there was any measure of success from that system?
And no, special order only through Specialist/Fanatic games isn't it.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to. I would have started a new army or two if they sold the damn models, paying extortionist ebay prices is out of the question for many.
Weird cos I can build a whole army of what is basically the Empire, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Skaven, Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Chaos Daemons, Vampire Counts, or Ogre Kingdoms. On top of that Orcs & Goblins are now both fairly expansive armies of their own.
A Wood Elf army without Glade Guard and Glade Riders?
Without Spellsingers, without Wardancers, without Waywatchers, without Tree Kin, without Warhawks, without a Forest Dragon or a Great Stag?
Sure, you can perhaps proxy a few of those. Possibly use some of the remaining High/Dark Elf units to fill a few of the gaps. But let's not pretend even a reasonable proportion of the range is still available.
GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to. I would have started a new army or two if they sold the damn models, paying extortionist ebay prices is out of the question for many.
Weird cos I can build a whole army of what is basically the Empire, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Skaven, Warriors of Chaos, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Chaos Daemons, Vampire Counts, or Ogre Kingdoms. On top of that Orcs & Goblins are now both fairly expansive armies of their own.
A Wood Elf army without Glade Guard and Glade Riders?
Without Spellsingers, without Wardancers, without Waywatchers, without Tree Kin, without Warhawks, without a Forest Dragon or a Great Stag?
Sure, you can perhaps proxy a few of those. Possibly use some of the remaining High/Dark Elf units to fill a few of the gaps. But let's not pretend even a reasonable proportion of the range is still available.
There's a few armies where you can still basically make them in their entirety, a few are completely gone, and the rest you can make a pretty incomplete army.
But the biggest obstacle, IMO, is the lack of a community. A WHFB is such a big investment that it's hard to start a community and undesirable to start an army without knowing if you'll ever find someone to play a game with. Then what community does exist is divided among which rules they play, some went to KoW, some went to 9th age, some went to a classic edition, some crazies even stayed with 8th.
One thing WHFB needed, especially toward the end of its life, was better scaling for playing small games to give new players a start.
Sabotage! wrote: With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.
Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?
I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).
They really think the video-game people will swarm to spend up to $1k to buy and glue plastic toy soldiers. The game will no doubt drag in all the battered housewives of WHFB because this time it won't be so bad, but I don't know how many vidya-only gamers they will capture with their pricing model.
How is this at all battered house wife like ? They burned my system, I bought nothing for AoS. They are remaking my system, so if they do it right I will support it. They say the bases are the same and the old models will be workable sounds like GW actually doing something good for me or those like me. That would be amazing but time will tell. I really don't get why you have to be so bitter sounding about this.
If they drag in video gamers, who knows. I don't think any old guard is insane enough to believe this will be perfect but if I can use my old armies and the rules feel good, I'll welcome a go with it. If it's good and fun for me I'll even buy some models to add and of course the rules. I'm pretty bitter with GW stuff but I will support a good idea or a good for me choice and for me and some of us this feels like a good idea, finally.
Idk, I'm not the one crawling back to GW after they cancelled my system out of the blue and only return to it once they figured there's some money left in the grognard community. I guess some people will take that and think it's fine.
Whenever I am in a balance conversation in a forum, facebook, discord, wherever, inevitably there will always be responses that say "I dont care about balance, I just want to hang out with my friends playing what they are playing and chucking dice."
YOU LIE MISTER!
I am very active in online communities for these games, I have literally never once seen someone say that
lol hahaha. Its all over the dakka aos forum. Like... in dozens if not hundreds of places over the years. There was a subsection in one of the total warhammer facebooks I'm in now on why balance is secondary to community. The TGA forums ... again littered everywhere. Commonly stated. The Conquest discord we talked about that fairly regularly. Same thing.
Its literally everywhere. If you have never seen anyone say that community is what matters most and balance is not their primary reason they play, you are simply willfully blinding yourself to it being said.
I've played this game before on here. I think even with you. Posting screenshots / links just gets the automatic rebuttal of "well yeah that was just ONE or TWO, its not a LOT". So I'll pass on your game. Anyone who has been around the internet reading wargaming content knows exactly what I'm talking about though. I'll sleep easy at night being ok with that.
Wise to avoid that, as I can say for sure when WHFB died the slings of AoS supporters was often and hateful to anyone who didn't appreciate the coming of the new age of AoS. I think people saying both sides won't fling the poo is being willfully ignorant to human nature in this regard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Yes but its 5 years old now its time to move on.
I hate to sound mean but what gives you the right to tell someone they should just get over it and move on ? I'm sorry but people wrong me I may not live everyday in boundless rage but I don't just forget that it happened either. Some people actually spent a lot of time, money and heart in their game so it being crapped on did build some memorable hate for people and I'm sure if the same thing happened now to AoS players the cries of " Just like get over it man ! " wouldn't be met with much understanding.
In my community - and in communities that I have heard /anecdotally/ - but from my experience in my community - nobody is excited to play a dead game.
So yes its technically possible to play whfb. But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
My counterpoint would be that if WHFB was so great and superior to AoS, why did people not keep it going in a meaningful way?
Why ? Because people in their mentality don't like dead things in the terms of games. Dead is bad, static is bad, growing and changing is good. WHFB was not killed because no one enjoyed it, it died because they tried to make it insanely expensive to even get started and pushed a game system to force dull, grindy games where they drained a lot of the spirit from the armies while raising costs like crazy and leaving some armies to languish so long it was insane. It was for many making love out of nothing at all.
I mean by that stance 40k must have always sucked because 7th edition was crap. If the company messes it up and people just step back, that isn't because the game itself was terrible but the current handling of it may be.
Cronch wrote: Idk, I'm not the one crawling back to GW after they cancelled my system out of the blue and only return to it once they figured there's some money left in the grognard community. I guess some people will take that and think it's fine.
This is an odd take. Buying a product you like is a commercial transaction, not a personal one. There is no 'crawling back' involved. If a company releases a product I want to buy, I'll buy it. If they stop selling that product, I stop buying it. If they start selling it again later on, and I'm still interested in buying it, I'll buy it. I'm not going to refuse to buy it now just because I couldn't buy it last month. That's cutting off my nose to spite my face.
There would certainly be a case for being hesitant about buying back in if you're concerned about long term support, and whether or not they'll just dump the game again... But it's not a character flaw to buy a relaunched product.
Overread wrote: Yes but its 5 years old now its time to move on.
I hate to sound mean but what gives you the right to tell someone they should just get over it and move on ? I'm sorry but people wrong me I may not live everyday in boundless rage but I don't just forget that it happened either. Some people actually spent a lot of time, money and heart in their game so it being crapped on did build some memorable hate for people and I'm sure if the same thing happened now to AoS players the cries of " Just like get over it man ! " wouldn't be met with much understanding.
.
I was cut up about Old World closing down as well and disliked the start of AoS. I only got into AoS once GW fixed it with 2.0 and had a huge change of attitude.
That said my point is more that its a 5 year old thing that happened. Yes many people hated it and no they don't have to love GW for it. But I think that its important that they move on from it. Commenting on it, hating GW for it still, being active in warhammer groups and hating on GW etc.... In general this not only makes them less enthusiastic about the hobby in general because they are constantly reminding themselves of the dislike; but it also creates a very negative and sometimes hostile atmosphere in the community.
To the point where you have some people hating on AoS players just because they play AoS. Or AoS players hating on Old World.
Basically its behaviour that, so long after the event, generates no net gain for anyone. What happened happened, no one really liked it (even AoS fans accept that the way GW handled it was an utter train wreck) and mistakes were made. Things have changed since then. I think even if you can't "forgive" GW its still healthier to just move on completely than hang onto the hate.
Cronch wrote: Idk, I'm not the one crawling back to GW after they cancelled my system out of the blue and only return to it once they figured there's some money left in the grognard community. I guess some people will take that and think it's fine.
So you are the one buying some other system of theirs knowing they can just up and destroy it out of the blue ? Who is more foolish in that regard ?
If you can use your old army, which they hint to, and all it needs is a rule book/s if it ends up being a better experience than the last couple of fantasy editions and builds a community off of that, that's a win win. That is in fact me saving money as I will use my already in hand army. I mean you can be all full of hate on this idea if you want but you just kind of sound like a salty hater attacking people who are wishing for the best.
You must not know me, I will throw down calling GW all the names under the sun, but if they do something that may give new life to my already purchased guys I'd be short sighted and stupid to not at least look at it.
I'd also say calling people who look forward to this " battered wives " or say they are " crawling back " makes you sound first hyperbolic and second like a loathsome wingnut.
This company can be a big ol pos and this may end up far worse than it sounds right now but if it is good I won't feel one bit of shame in enjoying it while it lasts. What is the worst thing that will happen, I'll get more use from my armies ? Lord no !!!! Whatever will I do ? What is dead may never die, and they were already dead so a second lease on life in a rank and file not aos medium sounds good to me.
Cronch wrote: Idk, I'm not the one crawling back to GW after they cancelled my system out of the blue and only return to it once they figured there's some money left in the grognard community. I guess some people will take that and think it's fine.
This is an odd take. Buying a product you like is a commercial transaction, not a personal one. There is no 'crawling back' involved. If a company releases a product I want to buy, I'll buy it. If they stop selling that product, I stop buying it. If they start selling it again later on, and I'm still interested in buying it, I'll buy it. I'm not going to refuse to buy it now just because I couldn't buy it last month. That's cutting off my nose to spite my face.
There would certainly be a case for being hesitant about buying back in if you're concerned about long term support, and whether or not they'll just dump the game again... But it's not a character flaw to buy a relaunched product.
Of course this is a wise way to look at it. Be skeptical and be cautious, it is GW, but to not at least look at something you may like because it is GW seems like a bit of an odd way to view this developing story of TOW.
Overread wrote: Yes but its 5 years old now its time to move on.
I hate to sound mean but what gives you the right to tell someone they should just get over it and move on ? I'm sorry but people wrong me I may not live everyday in boundless rage but I don't just forget that it happened either. Some people actually spent a lot of time, money and heart in their game so it being crapped on did build some memorable hate for people and I'm sure if the same thing happened now to AoS players the cries of " Just like get over it man ! " wouldn't be met with much understanding.
.
I was cut up about Old World closing down as well and disliked the start of AoS. I only got into AoS once GW fixed it with 2.0 and had a huge change of attitude.
That said my point is more that its a 5 year old thing that happened. Yes many people hated it and no they don't have to love GW for it. But I think that its important that they move on from it. Commenting on it, hating GW for it still, being active in warhammer groups and hating on GW etc.... In general this not only makes them less enthusiastic about the hobby in general because they are constantly reminding themselves of the dislike; but it also creates a very negative and sometimes hostile atmosphere in the community.
To the point where you have some people hating on AoS players just because they play AoS. Or AoS players hating on Old World.
Basically its behaviour that, so long after the event, generates no net gain for anyone. What happened happened, no one really liked it (even AoS fans accept that the way GW handled it was an utter train wreck) and mistakes were made. Things have changed since then. I think even if you can't "forgive" GW its still healthier to just move on completely than hang onto the hate.
That is all fine, you shouldn't hate the player but hate the game. Like I think AoS is far too over the top high fantasy silly often times. I don't fault the people who like it, it's just not my thing. I liked the feel of old fantasy and the game. So yeah I am over it but I'm not going to forget what they did. However I'm also one of the people saying I am excited over this new news so I am in fact giving GW a chance to let me down or wow me. I'm not going to bash the people who enjoy AoS or any of the GW games but I'm not going to just say good things about GW for no reason. This is a good thing for me, this TOW stuff so I'm pleased.
I will keep hanging onto my hate though, but it doesn't blind me that this TOW could be a good thing. You can both hold a grudge and not let it blind you, trust me, I play Dwarfs, we understand grudges.
NAVARRO wrote: I played WFB back in the day then they just nuked it... AoS was the replacement... so I rebased every damn thing and got rid of some armies I had no patience to rebase... but never got to grips with playing much now, specially with covid.... now they bring back WFB...square bases and make funny remarks about it... Im not laughing and I doubt people that changed their armies and spent money and time on rebasing loads and loads of models are amused!
You know what? Keep your Freaking games and shove your square pointy bases up your...noses. No patience for this crap.
I will build minis and armies for the looks only and thats it. I mean I moved on and dont want to go back, specially after only 4 or 5 years.
GW is drunk to rehash all the bad vibes about the nuking. Potentially will split and kill both games. Probably not, people have fish memory.
Not for me.
Sorry to hear you rebased your army and feel that way, though personally I'm on the other side, I just shelved my models and left them on their square bases because I had no interest in changing them for a skirmish game when I already have 40k armies.
I think bringing WHFB back and turning it into a circle base skirmish game would have been a bad move and brought about much more ill will than retaining the squares. A middle ground might have been keeping rank and files, but swapping to movement trays with circle bases, though personally I do prefer the square on square style of WHFB to the ASOIF method of square movement trays with circle bases, maybe that would have been a better compromise.
Personally, if you were my opponent, I'd be happy for you to make up some square movement trays that match the size of what they should be and just fit as many circle bases on them as makes sense and just use separate wound counters (e.g., for models on 20mm square bases, make a 100mm wide movement tray to represent a 5 wide regiment). It might be a bit abstract, but would let you play without rebasing perhaps.
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
I agree with you on the 2nd point there, just because you yourself have been badly affected absolutely doesn't mean you should wish it on anyone else.
On the first point, while I wasn't a massive WHFB player (one army and the occasional game) I don't think you can understate what an impact it had on the game playing community. My local club had probably 15-20 guys who would go to tournaments and events several times a year across the UK. They lived and breathed that game and when it was abruptly terminated it fragmented that community. Of course some went on to play AoS (even though the rules at the beginning, for anyone coming from tournament WHFB play, must have been like going back to throwing Playmobil pieces at each other) some persisted with 8th and others went to other games. But the point was they all had something special playing together, preparing the armies for tournaments, a friendly competitive camaraderie, and GWs decision to Squat the game (rather than just let it run alongside AoS, which would have been the fan-friendly approach) wrecked that for them.
Actually one guy describing the above to me had a big lump in his throat when he was recounting what had happened. For GW to manage to do that to people I think was so heartless and impactful, I can absolutely forgive people for harbouring a grudge.
NAVARRO wrote: I played WFB back in the day then they just nuked it... AoS was the replacement... so I rebased every damn thing and got rid of some armies I had no patience to rebase... but never got to grips with playing much now, specially with covid.... now they bring back WFB...square bases and make funny remarks about it... Im not laughing and I doubt people that changed their armies and spent money and time on rebasing loads and loads of models are amused!
You know what? Keep your Freaking games and shove your square pointy bases up your...noses. No patience for this crap.
I will build minis and armies for the looks only and thats it. I mean I moved on and dont want to go back, specially after only 4 or 5 years.
GW is drunk to rehash all the bad vibes about the nuking. Potentially will split and kill both games. Probably not, people have fish memory.
Not for me.
Sorry to hear you rebased your army and feel that way, though personally I'm on the other side, I just shelved my models and left them on their square bases because I had no interest in changing them for a skirmish game when I already have 40k armies.
I think bringing WHFB back and turning it into a circle base skirmish game would have been a bad move and brought about much more ill will than retaining the squares. A middle ground might have been keeping rank and files, but swapping to movement trays with circle bases, though personally I do prefer the square on square style of WHFB to the ASOIF method of square movement trays with circle bases, maybe that would have been a better compromise.
Personally, if you were my opponent, I'd be happy for you to make up some square movement trays that match the size of what they should be and just fit as many circle bases on them as makes sense and just use separate wound counters (e.g., for models on 20mm square bases, make a 100mm wide movement tray to represent a 5 wide regiment). It might be a bit abstract, but would let you play without rebasing perhaps.
Yeah I should have known better to be honest but I jumped with both feet into AoS believing WFB was no more. Ideally I should have shelved the armies rather than amending them but these things are really hard to predict.
Either way someone will find a clever way to use round bases and for all we know the new rules may say the trays are representative of a x number and you will not need individual minis. Thing is atm im a bit not a happy bunny so I will just sit back and not get into rules or army amends again.
I think some people here forgot what happened when GW killed WHFB. They not only removed the setting but insulted it's loyal player base.
What kind of insults? Players of legacy armies were burdened with silly special army rules in AoS. So when you wanted to benefit from them you had to behave like a fool. In addition to that the death of the Old World was accompanied by snide articles in White Dwarf and the local GW employee tried to sell AoS to new customers by spouting the official doctrine which sounded like this:
"The Old World was on the brink of destruction for so many years that it was ludicrous to stay. So it is good for AoS to step in and bring something new to the table."
And oh boy did they bring new stuff to the table namely things no one asked for. Which stuff? No point values and four pages of rules. Four pages! WHFB players were badly treated and left for Oldhammer, KOW, 9th Age, etc.
GW intends now to bring TOW back. Lol! This is one of the most stupid decisions ever. Why? Well, there are several good reasons for a fail akin to DREADFLEET.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
2. GW is incapable to write good rules. You want evidence? Check out the needless reprints of rules in all those Necromunda source books. And the most recent rules fail is the handling of weapon ranges in the new Kill Team. Instead of printing Range of X inches like it is handled in each sane games company they printed something along the lines of 2 circles, triangles, squares and other geometric shapes. Total stupid gibberish! Who gave the green light for that? LMAO!
3. Most vets with fully painted armies won't go back as described earlier. The few sods which will must really suffer from "Stockholm Syndrome" as they seemingly love to stay in an abusive relationship.
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
But AoS and 40k also use a lot of models?
And yeah, I remember some of the rules that were released when AoS dropped. It was some infantile stuff, like "pretend you are riding a horse to get this bonus" or "insult your opponent"
The players were not amused.
Im still amazed that these "rules" managed to make it to the final version. Seems like no one in the company had any common sense at that time.
It's a wonder that AOS manage to pull itself out after what was one of the worst launch for a product (kudos to GW for that, the did listen to their customers afterwards)
I wouldn't consider them fun, and they becomes even more idiotic when you have to do it every game, sometime multiple times per game.
Ill give it to them that the settra rule was funny and clever (if you bend the knee during the match you lose), but most of them were screaming some word/phrase or dancing around. These kind of thing can be fun if done spontaneously, but when forced it's very very lame.
Just Tony wrote: Anyone with access to the lexicon knows that Warmaster stopped receiving shelf retail support 6 months after release.
Weird, anyone with access to lexicanum, or wikipedia, or who actually played the game knows that it received 2 editions, multiple expansion books, and 3 official spinoff games (2 historicals, 1 lord of the rings) over the period of a decade. Officially, it had more support than Battlefleet Gothic did. But okay, "6 months". *eyeroll*
Weird, anyone with access to lexicanum, or wikipedia, or could read my damn post could see it was pulled FROM RETAIL after 6 months.
Dude, just stop making gak up and be a goddamned adult. This is honestly embarassing. Fun fact, the word "retail" doesn't appear in the wikipedia entry for Warmaster on wikipedia or lexicanum (or any of the various other fansites around the internet). Nor does anything implying it was pulled from shelves.
Likewise, lived experience - I was able to buy Warmaster at about half of the independent GW retailers in the area until around 2010/2011, likewise the three times I went into GW stores between 2004 and 2007 Warmaster was on the shelves (as well as the Battle of the Five Armies spinoff game).
FYI - at some point *all* Specialist Games were pulled off the shelves from GW retailers, including Mordheim, Necromunda, Battlefleet Gothic, etc. That was around 2010, probably not long after Warmaster 2nd Edition was released. Maybe thats why you're so convinced that it had a 6 month lifetime *eyeroll*.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streetsamurai wrote: Im still amazed that these "rules" managed to make it to the final version. Seems like no one in the company had any common sense at that time.
It's a wonder that AOS manage to pull itself out after what was one of the worst launch for a product (kudos to GW for that, the did listen to their customers afterwards)
Read James Hewitts interview to find out how those rules came to be. Long story short, managerial interference by people who knew nothing about game design or even playing the game forced the rules into existence.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
Warhammer fantasy 6th-8th edition - armies averaged roughly 70-85 or 90 models, not hundreds. Unless you played goblins or skaven. I know that number from regular tournament play and being a tournament organizer with folders full of army lists that spanned 1998-2015.
Age of Sigmar - my armies averaged around what my warhammer fantasy armies averaged.
The caveat is they made AOS capable to be played with 20 models or so to market to people not wanting huge armies.
The Old World is not going to require hundreds of models. The number of models is roughly similar in either game unless one chooses to go the super horde route.
Only skaven and goblin armies are likely to have regiments over 30 minis. Again, by "skirmish" setting they mean higher points per unit cost like the earlier editions so smaller armies. The take away from this is that they're actively saying it will be less like 8th edition.
All I care about is them returning comically unbalanced magic phases. I want some mad gak to come out of nowhere and cause ruination and death.
I can't really speak for 7th to 8th as I really didn't do much playing at that point, but there was definitely a jump in average army sizes from 6th to 7th, as there was from 5th to 6th (the shift in focus from heroes to units meant people invested less points into the heroes and more into the units but it didn't really amount to much of an increase). Really, a lot of army growth occurred at the tail end of 6th ed as a result of codex creep - points vslaues started dropping dramatically and armies got bigger because you could field a lot more of them. The early 6th ed books had a lot more in line with the 5th ed books and represented a more "big skirmish"/"small battle" type game as opposed to the mass battle approach espused by 7th/8th edition.
The reason why I don't see a huge hike is we didn't get higher than 2000 points whereas the tournament standard went to 2250 in 7th to 2400 or 2500 pts in 8th.
Thats why the model count rose. People decided to play with more points because tournaments told them they had to.
We kept our campaigns and tournaments at 2000 points still.
The tournament community made that decision to make armies bigger and the community in general tends to follow the tournament community blindly. If the community wants to keep model count manageable, keep the points down to 2000 or so which was the GW standard.
And oh boy did they bring new stuff to the table namely things no one asked for. Which stuff? No point values and four pages of rules. Four pages! WHFB players were badly treated and left for Oldhammer, KOW, 9th Age, etc.
GW intends now to bring TOW back. Lol! This is one of the most stupid decisions ever. Why? Well, there are several good reasons for a fail akin to DREADFLEET.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
2. GW is incapable to write good rules. You want evidence? Check out the needless reprints of rules in all those Necromunda source books. And the most recent rules fail is the handling of weapon ranges in the new Kill Team. Instead of printing Range of X inches like it is handled in each sane games company they printed something along the lines of 2 circles, triangles, squares and other geometric shapes. Total stupid gibberish! Who gave the green light for that? LMAO!
3. Most vets with fully painted armies won't go back as described earlier. The few sods which will must really suffer from "Stockholm Syndrome" as they seemingly love to stay in an abusive relationship.
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
It's almost as if some peoples interest in this might go beyond just the rules and gameplay itself, like they're looking forward to seeing the iconic, beloved fantasy setting once again (or perhaps were introduced to the setting via video games and then want to experience more of it, only to find out it no longer exists) and exploring a new time period that'll no doubt include more lore and backstory....
I'm firmly in the "wait and see" camp. I don't really care that GW were jerks about the release of AoS and did a bad job with it. I just want to see if the game is good, if it has a decent community I can join, and if I can get models in the right scale to play it with.
I'd figure they'll just re-make the old minis because new designs would be a big investment of resources. They'll probably make new stuff for a couple of factions but that's it. If the models are out of scale like their modern models then I'm instantly not interested. If the rules are crap I'm instantly not interested. And if the game doesn't have a vibrant community that's easy to join, I'm instantly not interested.
I don't want to waste my time and money on sub par stuff nowadays. I don't play AoS because of double turn alone, so I'm pretty skeptical that the GW designers with their terrible track record will make something decent for this game. But I'm open to being proved wrong.
auticus wrote: The reason why I don't see a huge hike is we didn't get higher than 2000 points whereas the tournament standard went to 2250 in 7th to 2400 or 2500 pts in 8th.
Thats why the model count rose. People decided to play with more points because tournaments told them they had to.
We kept our campaigns and tournaments at 2000 points still.
The tournament community made that decision to make armies bigger and the community in general tends to follow the tournament community blindly. If the community wants to keep model count manageable, keep the points down to 2000 or so which was the GW standard.
I never played any structured / organised tournaments in WHFB, only ever casual games and mini-tournies with friends. Casual games went up in model counts over the editions, I tend to think largely because the rules functioned better with larger unit sizes as the rules developed, so as units grew larger, armies grew larger and in the later editions it was increasingly rare to see small battles being played.
Early days it was pretty common around these parts for people to play 1000pts or even sub-1000pts, with people bringing maybe 1 monster and a few small regiments. I didn't see to many games like that later on as I don't think the rules functioned well down at those model counts in later editions.
I just never saw the ARMY model counts rising. I seriously have dozens of army lists spanning 6th - 8th edition from our players that they submitted that show that the model count stayed similar.
UNIT MODEL count rose. You went from many smaller units to fewer larger units. That was absolutely true, but the overall ARMY model count did not rise drastically unless you were also playing LARGER POINT games.
I'll pull three rosters to demonstrate that were tournament lists from my own:
6th edition 2002 - GT season - my vampire counts are listed as 77 models.
7th edition 2009 - my vampire counts army here is 81 models
8th edition 2012 - my vampire counts army is 74 models.
2013 - our tamurkhan casual campaign - my chaos army has a model count here of 54 models. This again is 8th edition.
2014 - we did a lustria casual campaign. My dark elf army is sitting at 62 models.
I have 67 army rosters in this folder from various players and other than the goblin or skaven players, the count is in the same ballpark.
My Age of Sigmar slaanesh army was 71 models and my khorne army 62 models which has a few more larger models. My AOS nurgle army in 2017 has 83 models.
These numbers are all similar to each other.
That is a mix of competitive stomp your balls lists to casual campaign for fun lists.
Point size matters of course. These were all 2000 points. If your casual game was 2500 points, you would of course have more models.
Players and organizers have the ability to set a points limit that doesn't require a ton of models. Going up to 2500 points IMO is a mistake and just creates this narrative that you need massive armies.
Of course 2500 points would be more of an investment than 2000. And of course being in a group that insisted on 2500 points to play would make the investment and model count required rise. Same as if you were in a group that wanted to always play 3000 point games. But thats not the game enforcing that, thats the individual playgroup wanting to play bigger and bigger games.
auticus wrote: The reason why I don't see a huge hike is we didn't get higher than 2000 points whereas the tournament standard went to 2250 in 7th to 2400 or 2500 pts in 8th.
Thats why the model count rose. People decided to play with more points because tournaments told them they had to.
We kept our campaigns and tournaments at 2000 points still.
The tournament community made that decision to make armies bigger and the community in general tends to follow the tournament community blindly. If the community wants to keep model count manageable, keep the points down to 2000 or so which was the GW standard.
I never played any official tournaments in WHFB, only ever casual games. Casual games went up in model counts over the editions, I tend to think largely because the rules functioned better with larger unit sizes as the rules developed, so as units grew larger, armies grew larger and in the later editions it was increasingly rare to see small battles being played.
Aside from rules and tournaments, I think that people generally amassing more and more minis for their armies want to play bigger and bigger games. I know the community I’m in is such an example. But we rarely played competitively, more just for fun of it and the spectacle
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
I agree with you on the 2nd point there, just because you yourself have been badly affected absolutely doesn't mean you should wish it on anyone else.
On the first point, while I wasn't a massive WHFB player (one army and the occasional game) I don't think you can understate what an impact it had on the game playing community. My local club had probably 15-20 guys who would go to tournaments and events several times a year across the UK. They lived and breathed that game and when it was abruptly terminated it fragmented that community. Of course some went on to play AoS (even though the rules at the beginning, for anyone coming from tournament WHFB play, must have been like going back to throwing Playmobil pieces at each other) some persisted with 8th and others went to other games. But the point was they all had something special playing together, preparing the armies for tournaments, a friendly competitive camaraderie, and GWs decision to Squat the game (rather than just let it run alongside AoS, which would have been the fan-friendly approach) wrecked that for them.
Actually one guy describing the above to me had a big lump in his throat when he was recounting what had happened. For GW to manage to do that to people I think was so heartless and impactful, I can absolutely forgive people for harbouring a grudge.
A good story I had was from a club owner recounting the days of 6th Edition where he'd set up big campaign days in which sign ups would be completely filled in almost a day. This wasn't free either, you were paying $50 USD to enter this. By 8th edition, he couldn't even get 3. Now you barely even get interest for a AoS campaign let alone a tournament.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
Warhammer fantasy 6th-8th edition - armies averaged roughly 70-85 or 90 models, not hundreds. Unless you played goblins or skaven. I know that number from regular tournament play and being a tournament organizer with folders full of army lists that spanned 1998-2015.
Age of Sigmar - my armies averaged around what my warhammer fantasy armies averaged.
The caveat is they made AOS capable to be played with 20 models or so to market to people not wanting huge armies.
The Old World is not going to require hundreds of models. The number of models is roughly similar in either game unless one chooses to go the super horde route.
You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
The insults ranged from having older armies having to qoute "Drinking to Bugman in order to get a buff, literally praying to the lady of the lake to get much the same and if I recall... farting if you are a Nurgle player" though that last one I am not sure about. Then again, this is a game where you did have a rule about beard length deciding first turn.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
Warhammer fantasy 6th-8th edition - armies averaged roughly 70-85 or 90 models, not hundreds. Unless you played goblins or skaven. I know that number from regular tournament play and being a tournament organizer with folders full of army lists that spanned 1998-2015.
Age of Sigmar - my armies averaged around what my warhammer fantasy armies averaged.
The caveat is they made AOS capable to be played with 20 models or so to market to people not wanting huge armies.
The Old World is not going to require hundreds of models. The number of models is roughly similar in either game unless one chooses to go the super horde route.
You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
I'm sure no noob ever wanted to play Tyranids, Imperial Guard, Orks, Skaven in AoS. There simply isn't one ever at all, no sir.
A good story I had was from a club owner recounting the days of 6th Edition where he'd set up big campaign days in which sign ups would be completely filled in almost a day. This wasn't free either, you were paying $50 USD to enter this. By 8th edition, he couldn't even get 3. Now you barely even get interest for a AoS campaign let alone a tournament.
Round here theres a couple stores running AoS tournaments once or twice a month (depending on the store) and getting anywhere between 8 and 16 people showing up per event. One of them has a regular AoS game night that at times pulls in 20-30 people (more often its 6-10). Other stores on the other hand have probably only seen a handful of games of AoS played total over the past 5 years, if any games at all. I really think it just depends on what your local community is like.
You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
I have to agree with BlackoCatto on this one, its kind of a nonsensical argument. 70-90 minis isn't the problem, most 40k players do that, the problem is that you're painting 70-90 or 150 or 300 minis or whatever (depending on who you ask, your army, and the points size) and more than 80% of them are basically identical (and once ranked up can't even really be seen) and serve no purpose other than to be a wound counter. Thats why unit fillers became so popular, because it meant you didn't have to waste money buying and time painting a bunch of minis that only existed for the express purpose of being removed from the table as the unit took damage, as well as giving players an opportunity to build something which providing a cool visual break and an opportunity to flex their creative muscles.
Strg Alt wrote:You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
So no noobs existed back during WHFB? There are no noobs playing Skaven in AoS?
No noob Guardsman players? Tyranids? Orks?
People will play what they want to play. Hell, who says they even need to paint their models - there's plenty of people in the hobby who have much smaller army sizes who don't paint their models for years, if not decades, because the painting doesn't appeal to them.
The insults ranged from having older armies having to qoute "Drinking to Bugman in order to get a buff, literally praying to the lady of the lake to get much the same and if I recall... farting if you are a Nurgle player" though that last one I am not sure about. Then again, this is a game where you did have a rule about beard length deciding first turn.
To be fair It would of made for a good weekend launch party, just not for the whole life of the game. It sounds like upper-management trying to create the ultimate corporate end of year party and failing.
Blastaar wrote: AOS is a "meh" game. It's better than 40k, but still far too aura-reroll-MW dependent. Like 40k, most "special" rules are a handful of simple effects with different names. From what Iv'e seen on GMG, AOS 3.0 is even more static with the big objective control zones.
I wasn't able to start WHFB, so I am crossing my fingers that TOW is a good ruleset. I do wish GW had just started right before the End Times and branched off. Insisting on continuity with AOS is silly.
On a good note, AoS3.0 is so far removing a lot of re-rolls (sans charges, spellcasting, and prayers) in favor of capped modifiers.
1. It's 2021 guys. Noobs DON'T want to play R&F games with hundreds of models anymore. And when they realize the need to paint the stuff they are gone in a heartbeat. These guys prefer skirmish games with less than twenty models.
Warhammer fantasy 6th-8th edition - armies averaged roughly 70-85 or 90 models, not hundreds. Unless you played goblins or skaven. I know that number from regular tournament play and being a tournament organizer with folders full of army lists that spanned 1998-2015.
Age of Sigmar - my armies averaged around what my warhammer fantasy armies averaged.
The caveat is they made AOS capable to be played with 20 models or so to market to people not wanting huge armies.
The Old World is not going to require hundreds of models. The number of models is roughly similar in either game unless one chooses to go the super horde route.
You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
And yet those same noobs are painting that many models for their AOS armies so... I guess I'm not following. Or if they dont want to paint they pay someone else to do it for them. Or like 75% of where I was - its just grey plastic.
The insults ranged from having older armies having to qoute "Drinking to Bugman in order to get a buff, literally praying to the lady of the lake to get much the same and if I recall... farting if you are a Nurgle player" though that last one I am not sure about. Then again, this is a game where you did have a rule about beard length deciding first turn.
To be fair It would of made for a good weekend launch party, just not for the whole life of the game. It sounds like upper-management trying to create the ultimate corporate end of year party and failing.
A good story I had was from a club owner recounting the days of 6th Edition where he'd set up big campaign days in which sign ups would be completely filled in almost a day. This wasn't free either, you were paying $50 USD to enter this. By 8th edition, he couldn't even get 3. Now you barely even get interest for a AoS campaign let alone a tournament.
Hardly surprising since AOS is so focused on it's ongoing narrative, its actual setting is still really underbaked. Some armies are really lacking flavour or have a glut of special characters where you're almost forced into running them. These sorts of things kill narrative focused campaigns focused around the idea of "your guys."
I just never saw the ARMY model counts rising. I seriously have dozens of army lists spanning 6th - 8th edition from our players that they submitted that show that the model count stayed similar.
UNIT MODEL count rose. You went from many smaller units to fewer larger units. That was absolutely true, but the overall ARMY model count did not rise drastically unless you were also playing LARGER POINT games.
I'll pull three rosters to demonstrate that were tournament lists from my own:
6th edition 2002 - GT season - my vampire counts are listed as 77 models.
7th edition 2009 - my vampire counts army here is 81 models
8th edition 2012 - my vampire counts army is 74 models.
2013 - our tamurkhan casual campaign - my chaos army has a model count here of 54 models. This again is 8th edition.
2014 - we did a lustria casual campaign. My dark elf army is sitting at 62 models.
I have 67 army rosters in this folder from various players and other than the goblin or skaven players, the count is in the same ballpark.
My Age of Sigmar slaanesh army was 71 models and my khorne army 62 models which has a few more larger models. My AOS nurgle army in 2017 has 83 models.
These numbers are all similar to each other.
That is a mix of competitive stomp your balls lists to casual campaign for fun lists.
Point size matters of course. These were all 2000 points. If your casual game was 2500 points, you would of course have more models.
Players and organizers have the ability to set a points limit that doesn't require a ton of models. Going up to 2500 points IMO is a mistake and just creates this narrative that you need massive armies.
Of course 2500 points would be more of an investment than 2000. And of course being in a group that insisted on 2500 points to play would make the investment and model count required rise. Same as if you were in a group that wanted to always play 3000 point games. But thats not the game enforcing that, thats the individual playgroup wanting to play bigger and bigger games.
I think maybe it comes from your perspective in tournaments, as a casual player, when I started it was exceptionally rare to see two 2000pt armies going at it at the local store or local club. Maybe that was the standard tournament points level back then, I have no idea, but I just rarely saw those sorts of armies fielded.
Even when I finally amassed a large army, I rarely fielded it all at once.
Maybe it was just my local area, but myself and my friends tended to build a armies to 750pts, then 1000pts, then 1500pts, then start a new army
Yeah your group and area will dictate your own experience for sure.
Our casual events always matched tournament standard though - and that wasn't anything I was after it was what the community expected (and some would get VERY cranky if you deviated form that standard).
auticus wrote: Yeah your group and area will dictate your own experience for sure.
Our casual events always matched tournament standard though - and that wasn't anything I was after it was what the community expected (and some would get VERY cranky if you deviated form that standard).
Sounds like a terrible community
I find it interesting you say that given there was no standard size among my friends, I'd usually rock up with 1500pts, but have lists written up at 1000 and 750, some guys went for 1250 for some reason. So I tried to write my lists in such a way that I could get myself to those points values easily. Hell, back when Warhammer Skirmish was a thing I'd occasionally catch up with mates for sub-500pt battles.
But yeah, if people *only* play 2000+pts it would be a nightmare trying to get new players into the game.
"So, just buy a few hundred dollars of models, spend a few hundred hours painting them, then you can come back and play a game with us!"
One hope I have for NewHammer is they make the game scale well to smaller battles.
I find it interesting you say that given there was no standard size among my friends
Internal private groups will always have their own etiquette and expectations.
I think what I'm referring to where people thought the game required huge mounds of models largely comes from many of them not having those private groups that would play those smaller games and they were either public tournament style players or just public random pickup gamers in general - and in the public random pickup game or tournament crowd, those point sizes were usually fixed a lot higher than they needed to be.
I hope the game plays well at smaller points too. For that to happen, they can't have steroid heroes running amuk you can take at 1000 points that single handedly wipe your army out.
And the GW I've known for the past couple decades with the exception of ravening hordes 6th edition LOVES THEM their steroid super heroes owning armies by themselves.
A good story I had was from a club owner recounting the days of 6th Edition where he'd set up big campaign days in which sign ups would be completely filled in almost a day. This wasn't free either, you were paying $50 USD to enter this. By 8th edition, he couldn't even get 3. Now you barely even get interest for a AoS campaign let alone a tournament.
Round here theres a couple stores running AoS tournaments once or twice a month (depending on the store) and getting anywhere between 8 and 16 people showing up per event. One of them has a regular AoS game night that at times pulls in 20-30 people (more often its 6-10). Other stores on the other hand have probably only seen a handful of games of AoS played total over the past 5 years, if any games at all. I really think it just depends on what your local community is like.
You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
I have to agree with BlackoCatto on this one, its kind of a nonsensical argument. 70-90 minis isn't the problem, most 40k players do that, the problem is that you're painting 70-90 or 150 or 300 minis or whatever (depending on who you ask, your army, and the points size) and more than 80% of them are basically identical (and once ranked up can't even really be seen) and serve no purpose other than to be a wound counter. Thats why unit fillers became so popular, because it meant you didn't have to waste money buying and time painting a bunch of minis that only existed for the express purpose of being removed from the table as the unit took damage, as well as giving players an opportunity to build something which providing a cool visual break and an opportunity to flex their creative muscles.
Been there, done that. Promoted several tabletop games a few years ago for twelve months. Nobody wanted to touch a R&F game (in that case 9th Age) because those people shuddered at the thought of promo pics from 8th WHFB which displayed regiments of 40-50 models. Just the thought of a SINGLE regiment of such size turned noobs away. And the newsflash that you could play this game with smaller regiments didn't appeal to them at all due to the Total War video game.
So what games were in their favour?
Rumbleslam, Necromunda, Freebooter's Fate and Blood Bowl. All those games required less than 20 models.
A good story I had was from a club owner recounting the days of 6th Edition where he'd set up big campaign days in which sign ups would be completely filled in almost a day. This wasn't free either, you were paying $50 USD to enter this. By 8th edition, he couldn't even get 3. Now you barely even get interest for a AoS campaign let alone a tournament.
Round here theres a couple stores running AoS tournaments once or twice a month (depending on the store) and getting anywhere between 8 and 16 people showing up per event. One of them has a regular AoS game night that at times pulls in 20-30 people (more often its 6-10). Other stores on the other hand have probably only seen a handful of games of AoS played total over the past 5 years, if any games at all. I really think it just depends on what your local community is like.
You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
I have to agree with BlackoCatto on this one, its kind of a nonsensical argument. 70-90 minis isn't the problem, most 40k players do that, the problem is that you're painting 70-90 or 150 or 300 minis or whatever (depending on who you ask, your army, and the points size) and more than 80% of them are basically identical (and once ranked up can't even really be seen) and serve no purpose other than to be a wound counter. Thats why unit fillers became so popular, because it meant you didn't have to waste money buying and time painting a bunch of minis that only existed for the express purpose of being removed from the table as the unit took damage, as well as giving players an opportunity to build something which providing a cool visual break and an opportunity to flex their creative muscles.
Been there, done that. Promoted several tabletop games a few years ago for twelve months. Nobody wanted to touch a R&F game (in that case 9th Age) because those people shuddered at the thought of promo pics from 8th WHFB which displayed regiments of 40-50 models. Just the thought of a SINGLE regiment of such size turned noobs away. And the newsflash that you could play this game with smaller regiments didn't appeal to them at all due to the Total War video game.
So what games were in their favour?
Rumbleslam, Necromunda, Freebooter's Fate and Blood Bowl. All those games required less than 20 models.
Thats not a "noob" issue, thats a "preference" issue. There are some people who prefer skirmish games, there are others who prefer massed battle games, there are others who like both equally, and sometimes people change (most of my old WHFB play group now only play skirmish game exclusively - despite having previously painted hundreds of minis for WHFB they will now turn their noses up at any game which requires them to paint more than a dozen minis. It happens).
Your problem wasn't "noobs" not wanting to paint tons of models, your problem was the people you were trying to market the game to weren't interested in playing a massed battle game.
chaos0xomega wrote: Thats not a "noob" issue, thats a "preference" issue. There are some people who prefer skirmish games, there are others who prefer massed battle games, there are others who like both equally, and sometimes people change (most of my old WHFB play group now only play skirmish game exclusively - despite having previously painted hundreds of minis for WHFB they will now turn their noses up at any game which requires them to paint more than a dozen minis. It happens).
Your problem wasn't "noobs" not wanting to paint tons of models, your problem was the people you were trying to market the game to weren't interested in playing a massed battle game.
Please send me your noobs who desperately want to play R&F once Covid is over. This must be a special breed indeed. Never seen such creatures in my environment.
chaos0xomega wrote: Thats not a "noob" issue, thats a "preference" issue. There are some people who prefer skirmish games, there are others who prefer massed battle games, there are others who like both equally, and sometimes people change (most of my old WHFB play group now only play skirmish game exclusively - despite having previously painted hundreds of minis for WHFB they will now turn their noses up at any game which requires them to paint more than a dozen minis. It happens).
Your problem wasn't "noobs" not wanting to paint tons of models, your problem was the people you were trying to market the game to weren't interested in playing a massed battle game.
Please send me your noobs who desperately want to play R&F once Covid is over. This must be a special breed indeed. Never seen such creatures in my environment.
I have about 20 people who want and play R&F games and are looking forward to The Old World back in Louisville and here in Arizona there appears to be a solid R&F community as well.
The insults ranged from having older armies having to qoute "Drinking to Bugman in order to get a buff, literally praying to the lady of the lake to get much the same and if I recall... farting if you are a Nurgle player" though that last one I am not sure about. Then again, this is a game where you did have a rule about beard length deciding first turn.
To be fair It would of made for a good weekend launch party, just not for the whole life of the game. It sounds like upper-management trying to create the ultimate corporate end of year party and failing.
"Why is no-one having a good time? I specifically requested it!"
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The issue of painting ~100 rank and file models is a real one.
Maybe GW will address that by making this a 10mm game to allow for quick painting
I guess GW is going after Kings of War and make a fixed unit size without model removal, so a unit can have from 11-20 models depending how many you want to paint or how well you like the look of those
and to troll Mantic hard, the standard regiment size will be 4 wide as in 6th, so all the units bases from KoW are not compatible with TOW
The insults ranged from having older armies having to qoute "Drinking to Bugman in order to get a buff, literally praying to the lady of the lake to get much the same and if I recall... farting if you are a Nurgle player" though that last one I am not sure about. Then again, this is a game where you did have a rule about beard length deciding first turn.
To be fair It would of made for a good weekend launch party, just not for the whole life of the game. It sounds like upper-management trying to create the ultimate corporate end of year party and failing.
"Why is no-one having a good time? I specifically requested it!"
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The issue of painting ~100 rank and file models is a real one.
Maybe GW will address that by making this a 10mm game to allow for quick painting
I guess GW is going after Kings of War and make a fixed unit size without model removal, so a unit can have from 11-20 models depending how many you want to paint or how well you like the look of those
and to troll Mantic hard, the standard regiment size will be 4 wide as in 6th, so all the units bases from KoW are not compatible with TOW
Honestly I hope they do fixed unit sizes without model removal.
It would allow people to use circular bases and so have that cross pollination between games and there's also 0 reason why a game like Fantasy needs to be on an individual model to model basis anyway. It brings nothing to the game and is practically meaningless.
Like, while I enjoy the flavour of old Warhammer and will always love 6th, it's going to be rough to go back to some of the mechanics after KoW.
Honestly I hope they do fixed unit sizes without model removal.
If they did this, I'd see very little reason to not keep playing 8th ed and I think they'd be even less likely in pulling players away from KoW.
If people want to play KoW, they'll just keep playing KoW.
It would allow people to use circular bases and so have that cross pollination between games and there's also 0 reason why a game like Fantasy needs to be on an individual model to model basis anyway. It brings nothing to the game and is practically meaningless.
That's, like, your opinion, [vocative of choice]. When I played Kings of War, never removing models felt more game-y and abstracted. I didn't get a sense of the ebb and flow of battle, it was just tallies being marked. There was no physical representation of the wounded, the fleeing, or the surrendered. Just... blocks of soldiers that were blocks of soldiers until they disappeared.
You can still use circle bases in warhammer if you use movement trays that are rectangular. I have seen and played with armies like that even 20 years ago where people were using non-gw models on circles.
Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
Yeah, that's what killed Fantasy, really. If you already had an army it wasn't too bad, but good luck getting new players interested when they had to blow 100 on 5 blood knights or something like 80 on a unit of greatswords large enough to be effective with the steadfast rules.
Same reason why Sisters didn't have that many players - in addition to the outdated rules starting an army was bloody expensive as everything was metal and came in small groups.
But that hasn't stopped AOS players from buying fairly large regiments of 15-20 models.
There's mathematically not a difference from (theoretically):
Buying 3 regiments of 15-20 of something.
Buying 1 megablob stead fast unit of 45-60 models.
It costs the same. The difference is you have 3 smaller regiments vs 1 megablob steadfast.
I hope steadfast is employed in the new game only with ways to counter it (like flanking removes it) to keep people from going all in with these 60-100 model units that they were doing in 8th.
The major theme of complaint seems to be (and I agree) not on army model count but on having to buy a ton of models for a single unit to min/max the steadfast rule.
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
Really the thing about Fantasy is that people LIKE large blocks of marching infantry. That's a large part of the appeal. What matters is other avenues to get that ball rolling like support for smaller games, start collecting, etc.
auticus wrote: Not arguing the prices are stupid. They are.
But that hasn't stopped AOS players from buying fairly large regiments of 15-20 models.
There's mathematically not a difference from (theoretically):
Buying 3 regiments of 15-20 of something.
Buying 1 megablob stead fast unit of 45-60 models.
It costs the same. The difference is you have 3 smaller regiments vs 1 megablob steadfast.
I hope steadfast is employed in the new game only with ways to counter it (like flanking removes it) to keep people from going all in with these 60-100 model units that they were doing in 8th.
The major theme of complaint seems to be (and I agree) not on army model count but on having to buy a ton of models for a single unit to min/max the steadfast rule.
I agree the prices are ridiculous but is hasn't stopped AOS or 40k, just as you've pointed out. The barrier to entry is no different.
I don't understand how people can blow 100-200$ on a centerpeice/flyer/tank, either, yet here we are.
main difference between than and now is the support GW has and the "feeling" that they care for the community
this is all the difference it takes
and large R&F armies are cool, there is a reason why Napoleonics are among the most popular settings out there
large regiments of models in Rank and File, all with nice and colorful uniforms and a lot of background to dig in and make the one commander of your army something special
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
I have to admit I’m surprised just how little everyone is discussing the pricing. To me, that was always the biggest barrier to entry for new players, and one of the most influential reasons for Grognards to leave the “GW hobby”.
The prices have still been going up since the Olde World died, right?
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
Really the thing about Fantasy is that people LIKE large blocks of marching infantry. That's a large part of the appeal. What matters is other avenues to get that ball rolling like support for smaller games, start collecting, etc.
I think there's a sweet spot to unit size, though. Like this:
To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
Then the frontage requirement became 5 and you started seeing 15 as the bare minimum, 20 more common, and often 5x5 blocks of 25. Then the deathball tactics promoted units of 30 or even 40.
Gameplay aside, from a purely aesthetic/collecting/painting perspective I feel I got more value out of two units of 5x4 than one giant unit of 8x5. Less of the unit is filler stuck in the middle, and functionally I have two units instead of one.
YMMV, but I never particularly felt like I needed enormous units to get that rank-and-flank feel. A standard unit size of 4x4 would be just fine with me.
auticus wrote: Not arguing the prices are stupid. They are.
But that hasn't stopped AOS players from buying fairly large regiments of 15-20 models.
There's mathematically not a difference from (theoretically):
Buying 3 regiments of 15-20 of something.
Buying 1 megablob stead fast unit of 45-60 models.
It costs the same. The difference is you have 3 smaller regiments vs 1 megablob steadfast.
I hope steadfast is employed in the new game only with ways to counter it (like flanking removes it) to keep people from going all in with these 60-100 model units that they were doing in 8th.
The major theme of complaint seems to be (and I agree) not on army model count but on having to buy a ton of models for a single unit to min/max the steadfast rule.
I agree the prices are ridiculous but is hasn't stopped AOS or 40k, just as you've pointed out. The barrier to entry is no different.
I don't understand how people can blow 100-200$ on a centerpeice/flyer/tank, either, yet here we are.
Easy to answer. The single, large model can be painted in about two weekend sessions. However the equivalent amount of infantry takes way more time and effort to complete. It's just an intimidating task which sucks the joy out of most people.
So you go for the Baneblade instead of the cannon fodder.
I think we understand at this point there are many people in the world not interested in painting a lot of models and want them their skirmish low model count games.
And thats cool.
We dont need the world to be 100% low model count skirmish games though. There are already so many to choose from. Even AOS can be low model count, and then there is warcry.
I think there's a sweet spot to unit size, though. Like this:
To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
It will never happen under GW, but I really like ASOIAF's strict limits on unit size. You buy the box, that's your unit size (usually 12). No more, no less. Want another tray of them? Buy another box and run it as a separate unit.
I think it could happen. I also agree that the game is more fun when you have lots of smaller units. It gives you more decision making and it looks better on the table. You also feel like you accomplished something when you finish a unit. I'm currently painting a block of 30 eternal guard and I honestly find it tedious. On the other hand, doing a unit of 5 cav units feels so much better.
It's not like you are buying fewer models, you are just organizing them in a way which makes the game more interesting.
On another note, I hope that they don't make the magic system like 40k and AoS. They made mortal wounds and now they don't bother thinking of anything original for spells beyond that. The old system felt like it had a bit more variety.
Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: I think it could happen. I also agree that the game is more fun when you have lots of smaller units. It gives you more decision making and it looks better on the table. You also feel like you accomplished something when you finish a unit. I'm currently painting a block of 30 eternal guard and I honestly find it tedious. On the other hand, doing a unit of 5 cav units feels so much better.
It's not like you are buying fewer models, you are just organizing them in a way which makes the game more interesting.
On another note, I hope that they don't make the magic system like 40k and AoS. They made mortal wounds and now they don't bother thinking of anything original for spells beyond that. The old system felt like it had a bit more variety.
Definitely agreed on a larger number of smaller units being better, with perhaps a slightly larger regiment to hold the centre in armies who tactically suit it (Dwarfs, for example).
Makes for much more dynamic games with more move/countermove. A fantasy battle should be won in the movement phase, as that is the phase which is most in the control of the players.
The movement phase is exactly what I miss most about classic warhammer. Maneuver phase that mattered, not just getting to charge on turn 1 or teleport into combat without positioning.
auticus wrote: Yeah your group and area will dictate your own experience for sure.
Our casual events always matched tournament standard though - and that wasn't anything I was after it was what the community expected (and some would get VERY cranky if you deviated form that standard).
Sounds like a terrible community
I find it interesting you say that given there was no standard size among my friends, I'd usually rock up with 1500pts, but have lists written up at 1000 and 750, some guys went for 1250 for some reason. So I tried to write my lists in such a way that I could get myself to those points values easily. Hell, back when Warhammer Skirmish was a thing I'd occasionally catch up with mates for sub-500pt battles.
But yeah, if people *only* play 2000+pts it would be a nightmare trying to get new players into the game.
"So, just buy a few hundred dollars of models, spend a few hundred hours painting them, then you can come back and play a game with us!"
One hope I have for NewHammer is they make the game scale well to smaller battles.
Thats how it is here, I only ever see people playing 2000pts basically. Theres a few grogs who will always play 3000 pts because they have large old collections of minis and want to use them, but other than that I basically never see people play anything other than 2k
chaos0xomega wrote: Thats not a "noob" issue, thats a "preference" issue. There are some people who prefer skirmish games, there are others who prefer massed battle games, there are others who like both equally, and sometimes people change (most of my old WHFB play group now only play skirmish game exclusively - despite having previously painted hundreds of minis for WHFB they will now turn their noses up at any game which requires them to paint more than a dozen minis. It happens).
Your problem wasn't "noobs" not wanting to paint tons of models, your problem was the people you were trying to market the game to weren't interested in playing a massed battle game.
Please send me your noobs who desperately want to play R&F once Covid is over. This must be a special breed indeed. Never seen such creatures in my environment.
I'll let you know if I'm ever visiting Germany
But I can sympathize with you as locally Im encountering fewer and fewer people who want to play mass battle games. Skirmish scale and small battle games have become really popular as of late and thats mostly what people are interested in. That being the case we did manage to start up a good sized community for Conquest which is a massed battle rank and file game. We've also started up a small but growing microhammer community (i.e. 6th/7th ed WHFB, but using 10mm scale 3d printed and metal/resin minis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
Thats not fair, I *did* mention price being the issue previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: The movement phase is exactly what I miss most about classic warhammer. Maneuver phase that mattered, not just getting to charge on turn 1 or teleport into combat without positioning.
You say that, but towards the end of the games lifetime my recollection of the typical game was basically a table with two armies lined up end-to-end with maybe 2 " in between units. How much maneuvering could you really do when your only real option was to move forward or backward because other units and terrain made it impossible to do anything else?
I think there's a sweet spot to unit size, though. Like this:
To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
Then the frontage requirement became 5 and you started seeing 15 as the bare minimum, 20 more common, and often 5x5 blocks of 25. Then the deathball tactics promoted units of 30 or even 40.
Gameplay aside, from a purely aesthetic/collecting/painting perspective I feel I got more value out of two units of 5x4 than one giant unit of 8x5. Less of the unit is filler stuck in the middle, and functionally I have two units instead of one.
YMMV, but I never particularly felt like I needed enormous units to get that rank-and-flank feel. A standard unit size of 4x4 would be just fine with me.
I can't exalt your post enough. I wholeheartedly agree This is precisely why I'm trying to get my Oldhammer friends to switch from 8th to 6th.
In 6th though there weren't a lot of 12 man regiments running around. That was 5th.
6th edition the common size for infantry was 20 (5 x 4) and 24 (6 x 4). (at least thats how it was in tournaments)
There were people that ran them smaller but at least in the tournament world back then that was not common because those units needed the bodies to absorb damage and still be effective.
I'd also like them to stop the death star nonsense and stop being able to cram units full of characters. Conquest does a great job with that. You can only have one character in a unit.
Strg Alt wrote: You can't include two characters in a 4x4 regiment with full command group. Therefore I propose five models to be the optimal unit front rank length.
Sir. Who says your characters will even fit in a ranked unit?
I think there's a sweet spot to unit size, though. Like this:
To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
Then the frontage requirement became 5 and you started seeing 15 as the bare minimum, 20 more common, and often 5x5 blocks of 25. Then the deathball tactics promoted units of 30 or even 40.
Gameplay aside, from a purely aesthetic/collecting/painting perspective I feel I got more value out of two units of 5x4 than one giant unit of 8x5. Less of the unit is filler stuck in the middle, and functionally I have two units instead of one.
YMMV, but I never particularly felt like I needed enormous units to get that rank-and-flank feel. A standard unit size of 4x4 would be just fine with me.
I can't exalt your post enough. I wholeheartedly agree This is precisely why I'm trying to get my Oldhammer friends to switch from 8th to 6th.
Yep, this is one of the main reasons 8th was so atrocious and why it's baffling to me that people tried to continue playing it or adapting it's core rules for new games.
8th games looked horrible on the table and were horrible to play.
I think there's a sweet spot to unit size, though. Like this:
To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
It will never happen under GW, but I really like ASOIAF's strict limits on unit size. You buy the box, that's your unit size (usually 12). No more, no less. Want another tray of them? Buy another box and run it as a separate unit.
I like how AoS 3.0 is doing it, where a box is a unit and you can run a certain number of "reinforced" doublesized units depending on game size. If GW could balance the rules to the box contents and the box contents to the rules, it would be amazing. Not so sure they can, but it would be amazing
Strg Alt wrote: I think some people here forgot what happened when GW killed WHFB. They not only removed the setting but insulted it's loyal player base.
What kind of insults? Players of legacy armies were burdened with silly special army rules in AoS. So when you wanted to benefit from them you had to behave like a fool. In addition to that the death of the Old World was accompanied by snide articles in White Dwarf and the local GW employee tried to sell AoS to new customers by spouting the official doctrine which sounded like this:
"The Old World was on the brink of destruction for so many years that it was ludicrous to stay. So it is good for AoS to step in and bring something new to the table."
Honestly, calling those rules 'insulting' is being more than a little over-sensitive. Sure, those rules were stupid, but they were clearly intended as nothing more than a bit of light-hearted fun. Some people loved them. A lot didn't... but from discussions at the time, most people just chose to ignore them rather than taking them as a personal insult.
2. GW is incapable to write good rules. You want evidence? Check out the needless reprints of rules in all those Necromunda source books. And the most recent rules fail is the handling of weapon ranges in the new Kill Team. Instead of printing Range of X inches like it is handled in each sane games company they printed something along the lines of 2 circles, triangles, squares and other geometric shapes. Total stupid gibberish! Who gave the green light for that? LMAO!
If well-written rules were a serious requirement for a miniature game to succeed, GW wouldn't have survived the '90s.
As much as people complain about their current publications, the juggernaut just keeps chugging along. So clearly there's a reasonable sized customer base out there who just want to play a game, and don't particularly care that the rules aren't perfect.
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
They've already said it's going to be the same scale and using the same bases. They'll make money off vets the same way they always did. At the very least, they'll have new rulebooks to sell to people, and there will no doubt be hideously expensive 'collector's edition' boxes to sell out of in five minutes on release day.
If GW's rules and how they handled the introduction of AOS made WFB feel disrespected that's really GW's problem. It contributed to the botched launch in a real way. They really mishandled all that stuff back then.
auticus wrote:In 6th though there weren't a lot of 12 man regiments running around. That was 5th.
6th edition the common size for infantry was 20 (5 x 4) and 24 (6 x 4). (at least thats how it was in tournaments)
There were people that ran them smaller but at least in the tournament world back then that was not common because those units needed the bodies to absorb damage and still be effective.
I'd also like them to stop the death star nonsense and stop being able to cram units full of characters. Conquest does a great job with that. You can only have one character in a unit.
12 man Chaos Warrior units (usually back up by 20 man marauders admittedly) were fairly common where I was playing, at least among those not playing gimmicky lists like all Knight or all Chariot core, but yeah that was about it. 16-20 was much more common.
insaniak wrote:
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
They've already said it's going to be the same scale and using the same bases. They'll make money off vets the same way they always did. At the very least, they'll have new rulebooks to sell to people, and there will no doubt be hideously expensive 'collector's edition' boxes to sell out of in five minutes on release day.
Imo Necromunda is probably the template here:
Initial get you by rules to cover the old factions and get people invested again, but then steadily release new things they didn’t have before with awesome new models and a bit of power creep to get people buying more.
And then of course the style and the scale don’t match up properly so before you know it you’ve got a whole new army…
Strg Alt wrote: I
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
it seems a bit absurd to say it's "an outright lie" when a significant portion of several of AoS factions that are currently purchasable and usable are still made up of those same old WHFB miniatures even several years after the release of AoS.
Strg Alt wrote: I
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
it seems a bit absurd to say it's "an outright lie" when a significant portion of several of AoS factions that are currently purchasable and usable are still made up of those same old WHFB miniatures even several years after the release of AoS.
Strg Alt wrote: I
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
it seems a bit absurd to say it's "an outright lie" when a significant portion of several of AoS factions that are currently purchasable and usable are still made up of those same old WHFB miniatures even several years after the release of AoS.
How is my Khemri army faring in AoS?
You do realise you're just supporting his comment right?
Mentlegen never said "all" he said "significant portion". So yes there ARE armies that were lost and models that were lost. It doesn't diminish the fact that a lot of current AoS armies are still using Old World models. Heck Seraphon and Skaven are huge forces and almost entirely Old World models.
I mean a good chunk of the Tomb Kings army would be usable through Soul Blight. The only units I'm really struggling with are Ushabti, Warsphinxes, and archers.
Strg Alt wrote: I
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
it seems a bit absurd to say it's "an outright lie" when a significant portion of several of AoS factions that are currently purchasable and usable are still made up of those same old WHFB miniatures even several years after the release of AoS.
How is my Khemri army faring in AoS?
What does that have to do with either what you said or what I said? You claimed it was a "lie" and they wouldn't want people to use old models...when a significant amount of AoS is currently made up of those very same old miniatures that were part of WHFB. If you wanted to start something like a Skaven or Lizardmen army using the old WHFB miniatures in preparation for TOW you could do so right now without too much difficulty, those old miniatures are still available officially.
Obviously not the case for all of it, but the point is "using old miniatures" does not necessarily mean "GW makes no money" like you imply.
And there's also the obvious part that a lot of those same WHFB miniatures are usable in AoS, so if you had something like a Skaven army already and wanted to start AoS...it's the exact same situation you're saying here makes this for TOW a "lie".
Strg Alt wrote: You can't include two characters in a 4x4 regiment with full command group. Therefore I propose five models to be the optimal unit front rank length.
I actually like 5 across because you have a command group with a soldier on either end.
If it's 4 across it's not even.
I really don't get the desire for smaller games and units.
8th was what armies should look like. Massive battles that lasted hours. It's what I always wanted Fantasy to be.
I would often play 18000 point battles with 3 huge armies on each side. Those were the best games of my life. It's what i've always wanted out of a game.
Theres so many small skirmish games out there, I want at least 1 where i can put down just massive amounts of stuff because thats how the game was intended to function.
To me 8th was the most cinematic and eventful game out there.
I really don't get the desire for smaller games and units.
Current modern game design is about two very important factors:
* speed of game. New games have a goal of their standard being playable in 60-90 minutes. This is what the majority of the playerbase wants in a lot of marketing (putting my gamedev hat on where I have actually participated in said surveys for marketing on game projects I have been a part of)
* ease of collecting - transportation. Players want to pack their army up in a little bag and carry it to the game store easily. They also largely dont want to dedicate whole rooms in their living space to wargaming.
The smaller the better. The smaller the size of units - theoretically the faster the game and the easier it is to transport/store. Also the less there is to paint as painting is to many people a huge chore that they hate.
I personally love bigger games but since 2010 or so getting people to want to play huge games has become more difficult by the passing year.
auticus wrote: Yeah your group and area will dictate your own experience for sure.
Our casual events always matched tournament standard though - and that wasn't anything I was after it was what the community expected (and some would get VERY cranky if you deviated form that standard).
Sounds like a terrible community
I find it interesting you say that given there was no standard size among my friends, I'd usually rock up with 1500pts, but have lists written up at 1000 and 750, some guys went for 1250 for some reason. So I tried to write my lists in such a way that I could get myself to those points values easily. Hell, back when Warhammer Skirmish was a thing I'd occasionally catch up with mates for sub-500pt battles.
But yeah, if people *only* play 2000+pts it would be a nightmare trying to get new players into the game.
"So, just buy a few hundred dollars of models, spend a few hundred hours painting them, then you can come back and play a game with us!"
One hope I have for NewHammer is they make the game scale well to smaller battles.
Thats how it is here, I only ever see people playing 2000pts basically. Theres a few grogs who will always play 3000 pts because they have large old collections of minis and want to use them, but other than that I basically never see people play anything other than 2k
I'd be curious to see a survey of how prevalent it was to only play 2000+pt games. If my group was the odd one out then I think that explains why WHFB died, it was too much work to build an army big enough to find an opponent
If that was the case, GW really need to work on promoting the idea and the rules such that you don't need to always play large games, and that a battalion box is a viable starter force.
I thought Warhammer Skirmish was a great idea (that is, the rule set called "Skirmish", not playing with loose formations) because it let you play with as little as a few hundred points and meant a new player could start gaming almost immediately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brutus_Apex wrote: I really don't get the desire for smaller games and units.
8th was what armies should look like. Massive battles that lasted hours. It's what I always wanted Fantasy to be.
I would often play 18000 point battles with 3 huge armies on each side. Those were the best games of my life. It's what i've always wanted out of a game.
Theres so many small skirmish games out there, I want at least 1 where i can put down just massive amounts of stuff because thats how the game was intended to function.
To me 8th was the most cinematic and eventful game out there.
The game needs to scale well to allow new people to join, and ya know, sometimes you just want to play a quickie rather than a massive battle.
It's not like small games mean it has to be loose formations, ASOIF works with a few regiments of 12 models (though admittedly I don't love the rules, I think the army sizes work okay).
Letting veterans come back and run their old armies by buying no new miniatures is a completely valid strategy. For one they are still buying the book, and more importantly they are members of the community that new players can learn from/play with. A large playerbase is the foundation of GWs market dominance because popularity feeds on itself.
Secondly, where are these mythical players who own a full army and just stop buying miniatures? Every wargamer I have ever met continues to purchase minis even if they stick to just one army in the first place (already a rarity). It is absurd to suggest that allowing veterans to play with their old miniatures will not generate sales. Heck, just look at how well resculpts of old units do. My flgs can't even get zombies or blood knights in stock and skeletons aren't far behind.
8th was what armies should look like. Massive battles that lasted hours. It's what I always wanted Fantasy to be.
Then play Warmaster? Thats the type of rules system that allows you to have massive battles with hundreds or even thousands of miniatures on the table without all the inconveniences that come with trying to do that in 28mm. Or play minihammer or microhammer or whatever using 3d printed 10mm scale minis if you're really committed to the WHFB ruleset. You could fit between 120 and 270 minis (depending how you're basing them) at 10mm into the same footprint as you could a 30-man regiment at 28mm.
"Massive battles that last hours" is something that only a minority of players actually want. The guys that play those types of games are the guys that only play a handful of times a year at conventions, and they mostly just buy off-brand minis to play with off-brand rules. Thats not an audience or a market that GW is going to make big money with, and GW knows it.
Secondly, where are these mythical players who own a full army and just stop buying miniatures? Every wargamer I have ever met continues to purchase minis even if they stick to just one army in the first place (already a rarity). It is absurd to suggest that allowing veterans to play with their old miniatures will not generate sales. Heck, just look at how well resculpts of old units do. My flgs can't even get zombies or blood knights in stock and skeletons aren't far behind.
You apparently have not encountered some of the grogs that make up the battered remnants of the WHFB community. Putting aside those who insist they won't give GW a penny for another miniatures (whether or not they will live up to those statements remains to be seen, though obviously they have *plenty* of options for great alternative minis to use these days), theres a decently sized segment of the community that are married to oldhammer minis and oldhammer aesthetics and think GW hasn't sculpted a decent looking mini in about 20 years and have deep-rooted convictions that any mini cast in a material other than metal is a childrens toy that has no place in a tabletop wargame. Those are the guys who own full armies that they've collected over multiple decades and won't buy any more for TOW - or if they do they'll be buying second-hand minis on eBay, etc. that were cast 30+ years ago, unless GW brings back some really old sculpts on made to order (which is unlikely, a lot of the molds of the metal molds of that era had to be retired because they were heavily worn out - despite peoples insistence that GW doesn't throw out their molds thats really not true when it comes to the metal/finecast kits).
Then play Warmaster? Thats the type of rules system that allows you to have massive battles with hundreds or even thousands of miniatures on the table without all the inconveniences that come with trying to do that in 28mm. Or play minihammer or microhammer or whatever using 3d printed 10mm scale minis if you're really committed to the WHFB ruleset. You could fit between 120 and 270 minis (depending how you're basing them) at 10mm into the same footprint as you could a 30-man regiment at 28mm.
"Massive battles that last hours" is something that only a minority of players actually want. The guys that play those types of games are the guys that only play a handful of times a year at conventions, and they mostly just buy off-brand minis to play with off-brand rules. Thats not an audience or a market that GW is going to make big money with, and GW knows it.
I've been in the hobby for over 20 years and i've never seen or heard of anyone who plays Warmaster. Also, I don't like the scale and I already own 10 WHF armies over 3000 points each that fully painted, so I don't see why I would need to anyway.
It doesn't matter if the majority of people want quicker battles. Thats not what this is about. We already have countless games out there for people who want quick battles, theres no point in trying to compete with that market. What we should be doing is focusing on a game that is on a massive scale that appeals to people who go all in on something and demand a complex and rich game.
I'm not into WHF because its an easy way to throw dice around on a weeknight. This game is demanding of my time and effort, its a commitment. And I find it so much more rewarding because of that aspect. I get out of it, what I put into it and I wish more people had this mindset about their hobbies.
It doesn't matter if the majority of people want quicker battles. Thats not what this is about. We already have countless games out there for people who want quick battles, theres no point in trying to compete with that market. What we should be doing is focusing on a game that is on a massive scale that appeals to people who go all in on something and demand a complex and rich game.
I'm trying not to be condescending here, but your perspective on this is incredibly naive.
GW only cares about one thing: making money. What you want isn't going to make GW any money, they axed the game because that game concept failed 8+ years ago.
GW doesn't have to compete for any market, GW is a 10,000 lb gorilla in a room surrounded by 5 ounce sugar gliders, GW automatically dominates whatever market in the miniatures wargaming industry it chooses to step into automatically.
And the problem with what you think GW should be focusing on is that the number of people who are willing to go "all in" on what you propose isn't large enough to cover the costs and expenditures involved with design, development, production, and continuing support of that product line.
f that was the case, GW really need to work on promoting the idea and the rules such that you don't need to always play large games, and that a battalion box is a viable starter force.
This was exactly a common topic on dakka and warseer back in the 8th edition days. This constantly came up (why do I HAVE to play 2000+ points its too many models to have to paint arghhh!)
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
Really the thing about Fantasy is that people LIKE large blocks of marching infantry. That's a large part of the appeal. What matters is other avenues to get that ball rolling like support for smaller games, start collecting, etc.
I think there's a sweet spot to unit size, though. Like this:
To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
Then the frontage requirement became 5 and you started seeing 15 as the bare minimum, 20 more common, and often 5x5 blocks of 25. Then the deathball tactics promoted units of 30 or even 40.
Gameplay aside, from a purely aesthetic/collecting/painting perspective I feel I got more value out of two units of 5x4 than one giant unit of 8x5. Less of the unit is filler stuck in the middle, and functionally I have two units instead of one.
YMMV, but I never particularly felt like I needed enormous units to get that rank-and-flank feel. A standard unit size of 4x4 would be just fine with me.
People took this image and ran with it, but the thing is that unit represents some of the most dead hard mfers ( those are my boys ) in the whole game. It stands to reason other lesser units would be larger.
auticus wrote: Yeah your group and area will dictate your own experience for sure.
Our casual events always matched tournament standard though - and that wasn't anything I was after it was what the community expected (and some would get VERY cranky if you deviated form that standard).
Sounds like a terrible community
I find it interesting you say that given there was no standard size among my friends, I'd usually rock up with 1500pts, but have lists written up at 1000 and 750, some guys went for 1250 for some reason. So I tried to write my lists in such a way that I could get myself to those points values easily. Hell, back when Warhammer Skirmish was a thing I'd occasionally catch up with mates for sub-500pt battles.
But yeah, if people *only* play 2000+pts it would be a nightmare trying to get new players into the game.
"So, just buy a few hundred dollars of models, spend a few hundred hours painting them, then you can come back and play a game with us!"
One hope I have for NewHammer is they make the game scale well to smaller battles.
Thats how it is here, I only ever see people playing 2000pts basically. Theres a few grogs who will always play 3000 pts because they have large old collections of minis and want to use them, but other than that I basically never see people play anything other than 2k
I'd be curious to see a survey of how prevalent it was to only play 2000+pt games. If my group was the odd one out then I think that explains why WHFB died, it was too much work to build an army big enough to find an opponent
If that was the case, GW really need to work on promoting the idea and the rules such that you don't need to always play large games, and that a battalion box is a viable starter force.
They did. Over and over and over again. Chaos warbands, Path to Glory, various iterations of 'Warhammer Skirmish.' They tried promoting that idea a lot.
It went splat pretty much every time.
2000 was a player thing. GW rarely promoted it- internally and in battle reports were 1500 points as much or even more often than 2000. Tournaments pushed towards 2000 or 2250 because players wanted it, not because GW pushed it.
Particularly people who wanted their greater daemons and pants-on-head crazy special characters in every game; and those didn't fit in smaller points values.
8th edition armies looked terrible, one big block of 40-60 instead of three of 20 doesn't look like an army, it looks like a gimmick. If they take that from 8th it will be DOA, almost nobody liked it then and there certainly isn't the market for it now.
I might be taking crazy pills but I don't see the typical AoS/40k builds of today being far cheaper than WHFB armies. Outliers like 7th Skaven points not withstanding.
Plenty of "Skirmish" AoS builds require tons of minis and the centrepiece minis are pricey as hell.
Eldarain wrote: I might be taking crazy pills but I don't see the typical AoS/40k builds of today being far cheaper than WHFB armies. Outliers like 7th Skaven points not withstanding.
Plenty of "Skirmish" AoS builds require tons of minis and the centrepiece minis are pricey as hell.
Oh you noticed that too huh? It's like they've tricked everyone into paying more for less, under the guise of "It's a skirmish game" and "you don't have to paint so many models"
70 dollars for a box of 5 Lumineth swordsmen. Excellent Capitalism skill.
I'm trying not to be condescending here, but your perspective on this is incredibly naive.
GW only cares about one thing: making money. What you want isn't going to make GW any money, they axed the game because that game concept failed 8+ years ago.
GW doesn't have to compete for any market, GW is a 10,000 lb gorilla in a room surrounded by 5 ounce sugar gliders, GW automatically dominates whatever market in the miniatures wargaming industry it chooses to step into automatically.
And the problem with what you think GW should be focusing on is that the number of people who are willing to go "all in" on what you propose isn't large enough to cover the costs and expenditures involved with design, development, production, and continuing support of that product line.
I'm not naive about it. I understand what you are saying.
Obviously a game should try to be fun at every scale. But WHF was at its best when it was big, and the 8th ed. rules catered to that which is why I like them the best.
I'm offering up an alternative perspective. I don't have numbers on this obviously, but what I am saying is that there is a market for large scale games, and the smaller scale "quick" games like AoS are already there. Why not go in a different direction and try to get in on another market of people like me who want this sort of thing? We don't know how at all how well it will sell or how many people will be interested. They axed it for a reason for sure, but then they brought out one of the worst games ever designed (AoS) so i'm not inclined to trust GW on their decision making process, especially in that period. There were many reasons that GW axed Warhammer fantasy and its purely speculation that the main contributing one was being a large scale game.
8th edition armies looked terrible, one big block of 40-60 instead of three of 20 doesn't look like an army, it looks like a gimmick. If they take that from 8th it will be DOA, almost nobody liked it then and there certainly isn't the market for it now.
As someone who played in many very large WHF tournaments throughout 8th ed. In my hundreds of games I can tell you that this is rarely what armies looked like because those armies always lost. People like to bring it up because they think thats what 8th was, but it isn't and it shows how little people understood 8th ed. and how to play it properly.
Daedalus81 wrote: People took this image and ran with it, but the thing is that unit represents some of the most dead hard mfers ( those are my boys ) in the whole game. It stands to reason other lesser units would be larger.
Absolutely- but I'm not saying 12 models should be the standard unit size, either. They've got a footprint of 100mm x 75mm, so a unit of 20 Clanrats or State Troops has a footprint of 100mm x 80mm, roughly comparable.
But by 8th I wasn't commonly seeing units of 20 State Troops. It was units of 25 (5x5), or 30 (6x5), or 40 (8x5). To me, that's where it's getting to be too much.
I'd also prefer, generally, for horde armies to have more units rather than larger units. It gives them more of a horde feeling when they have more units to work with, rather than the same number of units but more wounds in them.
In my experience, there were two kinds of hordes in 8th edition WHFB:
The good kind -- 50+ cheap troops, like basic Skaven or Empire troopers. The horde (providing an extra ranks' worth of attacks) and steadfast (providing Stubborn) rules made these troops viable and allowed them to stand up to more elite foes. They were cheap enough that there were plenty of points left over for more units (like another horde!).
The bad kind -- 40+ elite troops, with a couple of characters and maybe a war engine like a Cauldron of Blood. These would obliterate anything they engaged in a fair fight, but left very few points for the rest of the army. You could defeat them with proper tactics so they were hardly all-powerful, but they made games less fun.
Obviously, I'd like to keep the good hordes and get rid of the bad hordes. Hopefully the new rules limit the potential to stack buffs and keep elite regiments small in size.
In a rank-and-flank game, beating more elite units should come from maneuvering to flank them and leveraging support assets, not just throwing bodies at the front until you hit critical mass and get Stubborn. It was a brainless rule with no inherent counterplay.
Voss wrote: They did. Over and over and over again. Chaos warbands, Path to Glory, various iterations of 'Warhammer Skirmish.' They tried promoting that idea a lot.
It went splat pretty much every time.
2000 was a player thing. GW rarely promoted it- internally and in battle reports were 1500 points as much or even more often than 2000. Tournaments pushed towards 2000 or 2250 because players wanted it, not because GW pushed it.
Particularly people who wanted their greater daemons and pants-on-head crazy special characters in every game; and those didn't fit in smaller points values.
I don't recall there being various iterations of Warhammer Skirmish? Maybe my memory is too foggy, but I think path to glory / chaos warbands was just a brief short lived offshoot of Warhammer Skirmish written specifically around chaos and which came out pretty close to when Skirmish came out, and Skirmish itself was only a short lived expansion. At least within my group Warhammer Skirmish came at a time when people were generally playing smaller games anyway (at the start of 6th, when many people were still using the smaller armies they had built during 5th).
But they needed something like Warhammer Skirmish that wasn't just an offshoot. The idea of gradually building up a force and having viable gameplay options prior to hitting 2000pts needed to written into the core rules. Warhammer Skirmish wasn't a game in its own right, so they were only marketing it to the existing playerbase.
catbarf wrote: I don't think the 'good hordes' were good either.
In a rank-and-flank game, beating more elite units should come from maneuvering to flank them and leveraging support assets, not just throwing bodies at the front until you hit critical mass and get Stubborn. It was a brainless rule with no inherent counterplay.
With some armies that was the main way to play, particularly Skaven or O&Gs. Actually to be fair with Skaven it was slave tarpits combined with magic, weapons and flanks, and with Greenies it was soften up with tons of chaff (artillery, mangler squigs, chariots and pump wagons) then tarpits of (usually) night goblins, support with magic then hit with hard combat blocks (shrunken head savage orc big uns, black orcs, trolls).
Also did you forget those instant death spells existed? Just chuck 6 dice, hope for 6s and get off a purple sun vortex, or pit of shades, or a dwellers below etc...
Soon makes short work of those elite deathstars and stubborn chaff blocks.
It was it's own problem of course, so much so that they had to FAQ the power scroll from making any double an irresistible cast to just adding extra power dice.
Plus some armies had no way of getting hold of those spells, my main army was greenskins so my only option was getting lucky with a wizard hat (although foot of gork is a solid spell).
However despite this I only ever had fun with 8th. Definitely wasn't perfect, but I do miss the symmetry of a ranked up army.
The changes GW made to make infantry more viable were good, but they made too many of those changes at the same time and amped infantry up too much.
It was too easy to get Stubborn on your units, and super wide units were unwieldy on the battlefield.
But it went along with other rules as you mention the magic rules, that turned the game into a bit of a farce in my view. The huge vortex spells ripping down a battle line were anticlimactic to me because I meant "oh, you've spent all this time painting and setting up this army, but these units aren't gonna get to do anything because they're all dead now, soz."
The game just got unwieldy and bloated in my opinion.
In 6e cavalry were a bit too strong, but 8e went too far the other way.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I really don't get the desire for smaller games and units.
8th was what armies should look like. Massive battles that lasted hours. It's what I always wanted Fantasy to be.
I would often play 18000 point battles with 3 huge armies on each side. Those were the best games of my life. It's what i've always wanted out of a game.
Theres so many small skirmish games out there, I want at least 1 where i can put down just massive amounts of stuff because thats how the game was intended to function.
To me 8th was the most cinematic and eventful game out there.
But is that how you started, with a 6000pts army? If you had seen that was a requirement, would you have started at all? Do you imagine many others would?
Nobody is asking for the game to only be playable with smaller units, just that it is also playable that way.
In terms of visuals, 2 blocks of 50 models look as little like an army to me as 5 blocks of 20 do, but at least the latter make for a more interesting game. More interesting to paint too, and easier to add new units to an existing army. If, after growing a collection over several years, it then becomes possible to put your full army with 10 blocks of 50 on the table: great! But that shouldn't be a minimum requirement of a game.
When I started out, me and my friend used the "Warbands" rules I think they were, probably old WD articles downloadable from the GW website at the time. Games totalling just a few hundred points either side. Minimum unit sizes of 3 for infantry, 2 for cavalry and 1 for trolls and larger, though I think you only got the option to include command models when reaching the regular minimum size. It meant you could get a taste for the game with just 2 boxes of troops and a character blister, but of course you had no intention of stopping there - bigger games looked better and allowed you to use many more fun and interesting units. It was an excellent stepping stone to a "standard" 1500-2000pts game though, which in turn can be the start of a much larger collection, from which variable 2000pts armies, or indeed a single large 6000pts army could be selected. Without those rules, however, I would have had to spend and paint thrice as much just to have enough for a basic game, if I had remained interested at all.
Strg Alt wrote: Funnily one important aspect has so far been neglected in this discussion: Price.
How expensive are ten Witch Elves again? Oh, only 40 Euros?! That's quite a bargain when you consider that you need a lot of them to fill up your regiments. However lets really milk our customers this time. That will mean we are charging 60 Euros for five Witch Elves. As compensation we provide bigger tactical stones from which these damsels are jumping from. The message between the lines is that you need cojones the size of rocks to enter this new game...
I have to admit I’m surprised just how little everyone is discussing the pricing. To me, that was always the biggest barrier to entry for new players, and one of the most influential reasons for Grognards to leave the “GW hobby”.
The prices have still been going up since the Olde World died, right?
It wasn't just the box costs that were the killer, it was how many of those boxes you needed for effective units that killed the game. Like $50 dollar 10 man boxes you need 4 of for a relatively cheap unit, was just too much. Or similar costed 5 man dual kit boxes most people just wouldn't pay such a game is the issue.I don't think anyone has argued that but if they are accurate in you can use your old models, might not be that cost heavy at first. I would say though most wouldn't mind getting new stuff here and there if the game is good. Also, most armies really languished with nothing new for a long long time which was also an issue for a lot of people buying in.
However unit sizes didn't need to always be so large to make such units so punitive in their cost. Which is something we can also hope for.
a funny thing is that those people who always wanted Warhammer to be bigger and wanted to play those 2500-3000 points games, would really like AoS (they just won't look at it for reasons)
at least those here, as the main reason for those larger games was always that they could not get all the big monsters and heroes into the army list with a smaller game
"I cannot play those 3 big heroes at once of we play only 2000 or 2200 points on a tournament, we need more point so all those cool centerpiece models are there"
and this are those people that still like 8th more than all others and making up parts of T9A community that argues for a more single model heavy game
there was no real problem in playing/starting 1000 points in 6th and upscale to 2k, were in 8th most people did not want to get any smaller than 2500 points at any time because of the centerpiece models
similar reason for AoS now (and 40k) with everything were you cannot play that one big expensive models is a no-go
Voss wrote: They did. Over and over and over again. Chaos warbands, Path to Glory, various iterations of 'Warhammer Skirmish.' They tried promoting that idea a lot.
It went splat pretty much every time.
2000 was a player thing. GW rarely promoted it- internally and in battle reports were 1500 points as much or even more often than 2000. Tournaments pushed towards 2000 or 2250 because players wanted it, not because GW pushed it.
Particularly people who wanted their greater daemons and pants-on-head crazy special characters in every game; and those didn't fit in smaller points values.
I don't recall there being various iterations of Warhammer Skirmish?
because GW marketing, was advertising it the same way as the old Kill Team, no not that game that is now refereed to as KT1 with KT2 now being released but the 3 version prior that no one really remember or have ever played
NinthMusketeer wrote: Letting veterans come back and run their old armies by buying no new miniatures is a completely valid strategy. For one they are still buying the book, and more importantly they are members of the community that new players can learn from/play with. A large playerbase is the foundation of GWs market dominance because popularity feeds on itself.
Secondly, where are these mythical players who own a full army and just stop buying miniatures? Every wargamer I have ever met continues to purchase minis even if they stick to just one army in the first place (already a rarity). It is absurd to suggest that allowing veterans to play with their old miniatures will not generate sales. Heck, just look at how well resculpts of old units do. My flgs can't even get zombies or blood knights in stock and skeletons aren't far behind.
I agree with you and the news for the old world stuff almost makes me want to get some plastic blood knights to set them up for the game and I have a couple large old world armies already. So selling to a vet already, which is exactly what they'd do by treating the vets right. They will buy in to support a system they feel is worth supporting.
One argument people keep saying is that GW killed WFB because it was not doing well... but who are we to say, if GW released the same level / quantity of minis that they release today for AoS but for WFB instead, that it would be even more popular than AoS?
Heck we have full armies being fleshed out in one go... back then it was sluggish pace in comparison.
The community was there already and would only grow IMO. Games usually 2000pts and too many minis? Well I had chaos and O&G one was pure elite and few models and the other a mix of horde regiments... Armies in AoS are not that small either the big difference is that the minis are not rank and file, besides the unit sizes is something easy to address on a new edition theres no need to just freaking destroy everything.
WFB was fun but not perfect and issues could have just been amended.
catbarf wrote: I don't think the 'good hordes' were good either.
In a rank-and-flank game, beating more elite units should come from maneuvering to flank them and leveraging support assets, not just throwing bodies at the front until you hit critical mass and get Stubborn. It was a brainless rule with no inherent counterplay.
With some armies that was the main way to play, particularly Skaven or O&Gs. Actually to be fair with Skaven it was slave tarpits combined with magic, weapons and flanks, and with Greenies it was soften up with tons of chaff (artillery, mangler squigs, chariots and pump wagons) then tarpits of (usually) night goblins, support with magic then hit with hard combat blocks (shrunken head savage orc big uns, black orcs, trolls).
Skaven should break and run. They are characterised by their cowardice. A skaven, especially the lower ranked skaven like slaves and clanrats, doesn't care whether they have 30 other skaven behind them. If anything that makes them even more nervous as it increases the likelihood that a rival is behind them to shank them in the back.
They should break, flee better and then be easy to regroup and return to the fight with the correct motivation from the general or other hero (auto rally and reform if within range of character or other suitable unit).
NinthMusketeer wrote: Letting veterans come back and run their old armies by buying no new miniatures is a completely valid strategy. For one they are still buying the book, and more importantly they are members of the community that new players can learn from/play with. A large playerbase is the foundation of GWs market dominance because popularity feeds on itself.
Secondly, where are these mythical players who own a full army and just stop buying miniatures? Every wargamer I have ever met continues to purchase minis even if they stick to just one army in the first place (already a rarity). It is absurd to suggest that allowing veterans to play with their old miniatures will not generate sales. Heck, just look at how well resculpts of old units do. My flgs can't even get zombies or blood knights in stock and skeletons aren't far behind.
100% agree. Making it backwards compatible with previous warhammer miniatures gives them an instant community which is going to make the game more attractive to new players. Even people who have existing armies are going to end up adding to them or buying more armies when the game gets popular, because that is what wargamers do. At the end of the day anyone who is just going to use their old army and avoid buying new models would also have never bought into the game if they'd been made to start from scratch. At least this way you sell them some books and add to the game's playerbase. I guess it is kind of like the concept of free to play - get them in the door and expand the games playerbase to attract even more players, then sell them things once they are hooked.
I really don't get the desire for smaller games and units.
Current modern game design is about two very important factors:
* speed of game. New games have a goal of their standard being playable in 60-90 minutes. This is what the majority of the playerbase wants in a lot of marketing (putting my gamedev hat on where I have actually participated in said surveys for marketing on game projects I have been a part of)
* ease of collecting - transportation. Players want to pack their army up in a little bag and carry it to the game store easily. They also largely dont want to dedicate whole rooms in their living space to wargaming.
The smaller the better. The smaller the size of units - theoretically the faster the game and the easier it is to transport/store. Also the less there is to paint as painting is to many people a huge chore that they hate.
I personally love bigger games but since 2010 or so getting people to want to play huge games has become more difficult by the passing year.
Correct. That's why finding noobs for R&F is so difficult. And GW tries now to resurrect WHFB with their new game. Good luck with that. Lol!
Strg Alt wrote: I
4. It's an outright marketing lie to claim that vets can play TOW with their old armies. If that was the case then GW would not make any money. No, they intend to screw the player base in some way or another. How do I know? Well, take a look how GW changed "Space Marine" (early Epic) when Epic arrived. It wasn't just an edition change but a vastly different game.
it seems a bit absurd to say it's "an outright lie" when a significant portion of several of AoS factions that are currently purchasable and usable are still made up of those same old WHFB miniatures even several years after the release of AoS.
How is my Khemri army faring in AoS?
You do realise you're just supporting his comment right?
Mentlegen never said "all" he said "significant portion". So yes there ARE armies that were lost and models that were lost. It doesn't diminish the fact that a lot of current AoS armies are still using Old World models. Heck Seraphon and Skaven are huge forces and almost entirely Old World models.
My Khemri army has been squatted and replaced with a silly Undead Construct faction which exists only by the power of IP protection. When TOW will rear it's ugly head some factions will again be treated like this.
NAVARRO wrote: One argument people keep saying is that GW killed WFB because it was not doing well... but who are we to say, if GW released the same level / quantity of minis that they release today for AoS but for WFB instead, that it would be even more popular than AoS?
WHFB could have done a lot better with current release schedule and quality of models but I doubt that it would have done better than AoS is currently doing. The game itself didn't appeal to everyone and amount of releases wouldn't have made any difference to them. Where it could have done better is among the players who already had WHFB armies. Lack of new releases and refusal to update awful looking core troops certainly prevented me from starting new armies and being a poor student played its part too.
Pricing was certainly an issue and to some extent it was worse than nowadays, even if the average price of models have gone up and total cost armies aren't any cheaper either. In 8th edition you didn't have any reasonable way to start a new army (or the hobby) with a relatively small investment unless you played High Elves or Skaven. Battallion boxes had been discontinued and rules favoured units that required multiple purchases. 40 euros for 10 models is not an issue if that 10 models is an usable unit on its own but it is absolutely horrible if you need two or three boxes to build a core unit that isn't laughed off the table. If we speak of the hobby as a whole, there are better options to start with a small investment than there were back then. 40 euros is a complete playable force in Warhammer Underworlds, Warcry, BloodBowl and Necromunda. Sooner than you realize, you are already planning to purchase another warband or eight.
One of the reasons AoS is doing fine in sales is because 100+ dollar centerpiece models sell like hotcakes and have an insane profit margin. 2015 audience was not ready for such models and they would have looked somewhat out of place in the WHFB setting too.
I hope that Old World does well and we can enjoy from new miniatures for years to come. I guess it depends on how it does in US and how much it will eat into AoS sales. GW doesn't want Old World to bite into sales of other games, they want it to be in addition to whatever they are already spending. The whales are going to have hard time, even they may have limits when deciding how much to spend between 40k, AoS and Specialist Games with constant new releases.
those are still growing and you find new people starting wargming with that, even in Germany (but what I go from you from the past is that your Region is different anyway as all non-GW games have worse rules anyway)
the point is that the destruction of Warhammer was a big deal for a lot of people that fell for GW marketing and they had chosen that game for the main reason that it will always be there
no matter how long it takes to make an army and no matter how much it will cost, it will be there forever and 2 years of work with a 1000€ investment is nothing for 30 years of hobby time
and than it was gone and had a big impact, specially for those that did not left with end of 7th but kept playing, re-worked their armies and paid the higher prices for less models to get there
the amount of models needed to play or the time and money was never the problem
this did not change with AoS and 40k, the important part was that the game that was supposed the last forever was gone and everything but a Skirmish game is not worth doing it any more (because less time and money wasted if it is gone)
if GW can make up the goodwill and get people to think that they have learned from the past and TOW will be there "forever", it will skyrocket in central Europe
if the make mistakes now, with changes to Horus Heresy and AoS and people get the impression that the new game will also be gone sooner than later, it will crash hard
and if the conclusion is "because of R&F" and not because GW is stupid and does not understand why their games sell at all, well.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jullevi wrote: WHFB could have done a lot better with current release schedule and quality of models but I doubt that it would have done better than AoS is currently doing. The game itself didn't appeal to everyone and amount of releases wouldn't have made any difference to them. Where it could have done better is among the players who already had WHFB armies. Lack of new releases and refusal to update awful looking core troops certainly prevented me from starting new armies and being a poor student played its part too.
the change must have happened much earlier
if we would have seen a FAQ 2 weeks after the release of 7th Daemon Armybook, as well as a point change each year to address issues, instead of the official "we don't make mistakes" statement after people asking GW for answering questions on rules or balance, it would have looked already much different, even without new release
problem was that the attitude for Warhammer from GW was "we don't care about the community at all" after the release of 7th and the work of the community kept everything together (and the leading persons there left the game after 8th was released as they saw no change from GW and that it only goes downhill without them)
with Warhammer Fantasy, at the beginning of 7th, getting the support from GW like AoS got with 2nd Edition, not only on model releases, but regular FAQ/Errata, point adjustments etc. it could have grown as well as AoS did
(although on a different market, AoS is doing well in the US were Warhammer never sold at all for different reasons as the background of the old world was very focused on Europe and all the small references were not recognizable for others)
NinthMusketeer wrote: Letting veterans come back and run their old armies by buying no new miniatures is a completely valid strategy. For one they are still buying the book, and more importantly they are members of the community that new players can learn from/play with. A large playerbase is the foundation of GWs market dominance because popularity feeds on itself.
Secondly, where are these mythical players who own a full army and just stop buying miniatures? Every wargamer I have ever met continues to purchase minis even if they stick to just one army in the first place (already a rarity). It is absurd to suggest that allowing veterans to play with their old miniatures will not generate sales. Heck, just look at how well resculpts of old units do. My flgs can't even get zombies or blood knights in stock and skeletons aren't far behind.
I am one of those "mythical" players. The last army I have collected were the Dark Eldar. This was around 5th edition. Since then I have purchased very few minis per annum. Those included "nostalgic" minis like the new Sly Marbo, Slambo (WHFB) and the WDSoB cover girl.
I own three WHFB armies which are battle ready (Chaos/Nurgle, Night Goblins and VC/Lahmia). The last unit purchased for those armies was a box of Dire Wolves bought about maybe five years ago.
While you could always argue to expand an army with new minis I have decided to put a stop to this because on the one hand the armies above have enough models (e. g. VC 224 models) and are fully painted. On the other hand I simply need time to paint minis for other projects such as Freebooter's Fate, Rumbleslam and Necromunda.
problem was that the attitude for Warhammer from GW was "we don't care about the community at all"
I agree, this was the biggest individual issue. It was the time when social media started rising but GW decided to dig deeper into its dungeon instead and avoided community interaction altogether. White Dwarf weekly was among the worst examples of how faceless GW had become under Kirby leadership. During its short lifespan it never credited its contributors nor showed any humans playing Warhammer.
It wasn't until new leadership and strategy towards community that turned the ship. Unfortunately for WHFB, it was too late.
kodos wrote: this has nothing to do with R&F games
I would say it has a little to do with that. What's easier to sell to a kid/teen? A game where you can get going with 1 HQ and 2 Troops where most if not all of those Troops work at base box sizes, or a game where you need to have groups of 20-30 to make an effective troop unit?
those are still growing and you find new people starting wargming with that, even in Germany (but what I go from you from the past is that your Region is different anyway as all non-GW games have worse rules anyway)
It's the difference in the target market that is important. GW games are aimed at kids who are 10+ years old and that game is much easier to sell to both the kid and the parents if all they need to do is buy one box containing 20 models and can immediately start playing. As an adult dropping £95 on a Starter Army from something like Black Powder that has 100 odd models and never needing to realistically buy anything again is great because cost of living but for a kid that's daunting.
the point is that the destruction of Warhammer was a big deal for a lot of people that fell for GW marketing and they had chosen that game for the main reason that it will always be there
In the nicest way possible, that's on you. I don't see in GW's marketing that all the games they ever make will be supported forever. I could understand that you would expect a main product to hang around for the long haul but at the same time, there is value in recognising the decline of a product. It's all well and good if there are 30 WHFB players in your group but if it's the same 30 players that started 5 years ago, then that isn't a good sign.
no matter how long it takes to make an army and no matter how much it will cost, it will be there forever and 2 years of work with a 1000€ investment is nothing for 30 years of hobby time
That seems to imply that you got into Warhammer back when it first began, made a WHFB army over 2 years then never updated or added to it for the remaining 28. I find that very hard to believe.
the amount of models needed to play or the time and money was never the problem
This really isn't true. An AoS Start Collecting box might be more expensive than a WHFB Battalion (regarding the number of models in the box) but buying one gets you in the game immediately.
this did not change with AoS and 40k, the important part was that the game that was supposed the last forever was gone and everything but a Skirmish game is not worth doing it any more (because less time and money wasted if it is gone)
I get wanting the game you like to stay the same forever is a thing, I really do but you can't seriously expect a company to keep supporting a system that wasn't making them money and bringing in new customers.
if GW can make up the goodwill and get people to think that they have learned from the past and TOW will be there "forever", it will skyrocket in central Europe
I think it might just be you that's under the impression that GW will support everything they make forever.
if the make mistakes now, with changes to Horus Heresy and AoS and people get the impression that the new game will also be gone sooner than later, it will crash hard
Not sure what the point about 30k and AoS is supposed to mean but yes if TOW looks like it will have minimal support then it won't get popular.
and if the conclusion is "because of R&F" and not because GW is stupid and does not understand why their games sell at all, well.....
kodos wrote: this has nothing to do with R&F games
I would say it has a little to do with that. What's easier to sell to a kid/teen? A game where you can get going with 1 HQ and 2 Troops where most if not all of those Troops work at base box sizes, or a game where you need to have groups of 20-30 to make an effective troop unit?
and were is the difference between R&F and Skirmish?
the unit size needed and the amount of models in the box has nothing to do with that
this is a problem that the box size does not meet the requirements in game, hence what GW has done by keeping the 16 model boxes of 6th and changed to requirement to 20 models per unit in 7th
easy, make the minimum units size for the game that work equal the amount of models per box and you 1 HQ + 2 Troops will work, no matter if those models are ranked up or in lose formation
Not sure what the point about 30k and AoS is supposed to mean but yes if TOW looks like it will have minimal support then it won't get popular.
HH was announced to move from FW to the 40k Studio and get new rules, were AoS now sees its first real Edition change, depending on how GW handle that, they will build or destroy the goodwill of the community (and if they destroy it, TOW has less chance to succeed)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: That seems to imply that you got into Warhammer back when it first began, made a WHFB army over 2 years then never updated or added to it for the remaining 28. I find that very hard to believe.
well, my Empire Army was started at the beginning of 5th, updated with 6th and more or less remained that way until now and sees play in Kings of War.
for a lot of people the point to play a GW game instead of anything other, was that the game will be there for years and their army will still be playable in the time to come
hence why it is considered a cheap hobby because once you build it up it will be there forever
but with GW killing it, they also removed the infrastructure for a lot of people to play their game, with the conclusion that even a GW game can be gone and you payed the higher price for nothing
hence why Skirmish games became much more popular and also smaller companies got their chance, less investment of time and money so no big problem if those are gone and you even can switch the game each year and nothing is lost
NAVARRO wrote: One argument people keep saying is that GW killed WFB because it was not doing well... but who are we to say, if GW released the same level / quantity of minis that they release today for AoS but for WFB instead, that it would be even more popular than AoS?
WHFB could have done a lot better with current release schedule and quality of models but I doubt that it would have done better than AoS is currently doing. The game itself didn't appeal to everyone and amount of releases wouldn't have made any difference to them. Where it could have done better is among the players who already had WHFB armies.(snip)
One of the reasons AoS is doing fine in sales is because 100+ dollar centerpiece models sell like hotcakes and have an insane profit margin. 2015 audience was not ready for such models and they would have looked somewhat out of place in the WHFB setting too.
I hope that Old World does well and we can enjoy from new miniatures for years to come. (snip)
Im not sure I can say WFB would not do better than AoS because WFB always tapped into a old breed of historical gamers that AoS just doesn't. I mean assuming they would not go the 4 page rule on hypothetical WFB new editions...
I think the more GW support something the better it sells (I know sounds like really basic) you can see Spacemarines VS xenos.
There was nothing stopping AoS to live alongside like Kill team and other 40k twists do if they wanted to gain the "modern gamers"...
As for centrepieces, they have always been there on WFB that was actually part of the fun fantasy factor of the game, some editions were even called hero hammer. The big kits were always being released in WFB and they continued that trend on a skirmish game (which makes less sense to have one ).
I hope the old world does well and people enjoy it too. I just dont and will not trust GW with a longtime project or commitment. Doing a Big armies game is very different than doing some skirmish box sets that you can drop and pick... Its a marathon and that takes stability which GW has proven doesn't care about.
kodos wrote: and were is the difference between R&F and Skirmish?
the unit size needed and the amount of models in the box has nothing to do with that
If we look at the skirmish size games GW has made (Necromunda, Shadow War, Warcry) those games are very much a case of "buy one box and that's you sorted for whatever faction you're playing unless you specifically play larger games". AoS is not a skirmish game and it isn't marketed as one.
this is a problem that the box size does not meet the requirements in game, hence what GW has done by keeping the 16 model boxes of 6th and changed to requirement to 20 models per unit in 7th
easy, make the minimum units size for the game that work equal the amount of models per box and you 1 HQ + 2 Troops will work, no matter if those models are ranked up or in lose formation
HH was announced to move from FW to the 40k Studio and get new rules, were AoS now sees its first real Edition change, depending on how GW handle that, they will build or destroy the goodwill of the community (and if they destroy it, TOW has less chance to succeed)
30k isn't part of the 40k team. It is rumoured to be getting moved to GW instead of FW with a bigger team than previously, nothing is confirmed.
Have you actually played AoS? AoS 1 and AoS 2.0 might have had the same simple rules but they did not play the exact same way. Implying AoS 3 is the only new edition of the game is like saying 4th and 5th Edition 40k were the same thing. You seem hellbent on this idea that GW will eventually mess up and ruin everything but seeing as AoS has done really well, especially recently, I really don't see what your point is.
Community goodwill is meaningless and changes all the time. The Warhammer community rages at GW then 12 hours later go back to painting their models, playing the games and buying more stuff.
well, my Empire Army was started at the beginning of 5th, updated with 6th and more or less remained that way until now and sees play in Kings of War.
for a lot of people the point to play a GW game instead of anything other, was that the game will be there for years and their army will still be playable in the time to come
hence why it is considered a cheap hobby because once you build it up it will be there forever
Wut. Since when was Warhammer ever described as a "cheap" hobby? Like a solid 25% of all forum posts ever are about how expensive GW is compared to other companies. And just to point out again, it very much seems that you have convinced yourself that WHFB would always be around despite GW having replaced and discarded numerous games over the years. Hell, 40k started of with Space Marine which got axed in favour of Rogue Trader then 40k proper.
but with GW killing it, they also removed the infrastructure for a lot of people to play their game, with the conclusion that even a GW game can be gone and you payed the higher price for nothing
You seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit. Either WHFB was a waste of money because you bought into it in 1996 and then in 2015 the game was retired due to poor sales and player intake, or it was a cheap investment that you played for years. Which is it?
hence why Skirmish games became much more popular and also smaller companies got their chance, less investment of time and money so no big problem if those are gone and you even can switch the game each year and nothing is lost
These companies got their chance and still lost out to GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NAVARRO wrote: There was nothing stopping AoS to live alongside like Kill team and other 40k twists do if they wanted to gain the "modern gamers"...
I would say there was no chance of AoS and WHFB co-existing especially if WHFB was kept as the main product. 40k spinoff's like Kill Team or Necromunda work because they are all still in the exact same setting as regular 40k. AoS is a continuation of the timeline started in WHFB, making the Old World setting history compared to the modern setting of AoS. If anything WHFB would have to be treated like Kill Team as TOW is being treated now.
As for centrepieces, they have always been there on WFB that was actually part of the fun fantasy factor of the game, some editions were even called hero hammer. The big kits were always being released in WFB and they continued that trend on a skirmish game (which makes less sense to have one ).
Just because AoS isn't R&F doesn't make it a skirmish game.
30k isn't part of the 40k team. It is rumoured to be getting moved to GW instead of FW with a bigger team than previously, nothing is confirmed.
Have you actually played AoS? AoS 1 and AoS 2.0 might have had the same simple rules but they did not play the exact same way. Implying AoS 3 is the only new edition of the game is like saying 4th and 5th Edition 40k were the same thing.
yes, AoS 3 is the first real Edition change the AoS Community is going thru
4th and 5th was no real Edtion change either, 5th and 6th was, (2nd and 3rd as well as 7th and 8th 40k as another example) were real Edition changes for GW
AoS 2 was more or less just the previous community rules written into official books, most new rules there were already used as house rules to get AoS1 going, there was no real shift in the rules and how armies worked
just because it did not played the exact same way does not mean that there was a typical GW Edition change going on
and for now we don't now how big the changes will be until the first battledomes come around
Gert wrote: Wut. Since when was Warhammer ever described as a "cheap" hobby?
since you compare it to other adult hobbies and the expensive part and the complains come from the point that a ongoing high investment is needed to play that game because of expensive books and everchanging armies
if you have to pay once 500€ and keep playing with a 30€ book every 4 years it is a cheap hobby compared to going fishing or get a bike
doing what GW is doing now, by having to spend 500€ every 3 years to keep playing is were people start complaining
30k isn't part of the 40k team. It is rumoured to be getting moved to GW instead of FW with a bigger team than previously, nothing is confirmed.
GW is changing their studios now and this is more or less confirmed. "moved to GW" makes no sense as it is already with GW but handled by the SG Studio
and a bigger Team means its going from a one man show to be added to the 40k studio that will now handle those things, same as the AoS studio will do for all the things in the setting
nothing is official of course, but it never was as we had no real information which studio handled what, only which designer was working on things
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Just because AoS isn't R&F doesn't make it a skirmish game.
well it is
call it Mass-Skirmish if you want but Skirmish as in "low model count" is different to Skirmish "individual model mechanics" and R&F in "units in fixed Rank&File formation"
model count is usually referred as Team/Warband, Platoon, Brigade, Division level games
so a Warband level Skirmish game has less models than a Brigade level Skirmish game, but both are still Skirmish games
were a Division level R&F game can have less models than a Brigade level Skirmish game
and at the moment GW is making only Skirmish games, but at different levels
[quote=kodos 782431 11181365 89b88b4ea8935521de96e77c9cd4f3b7.jpg
yes, AoS 3 is the first real Edition change the AoS Community is going thru
4th and 5th was no real Edtion change either, 5th and 6th was, (2nd and 3rd as well as 7th and 8th 40k as another example) were real Edition changes for GW
AoS 2 was more or less just the previous community rules written into official books, most new rules there were already used as house rules to get AoS1 going, there was no real shift in the rules and how armies worked
just because it did not played the exact same way does not mean that there was a typical GW Edition change going on
and for now we don't now how big the changes will be until the first battledomes come around
I mean GW put out like 50 articles explaining how AoS 3 is going to work so there's a pretty good idea of how things are going.
Spoiler:
since you compare it to other adult hobbies and the expensive part and the complains come from the point that a ongoing high investment is needed to play that game because of expensive books and everchanging armies
if you have to pay once 500€ and keep playing with a 30€ book every 4 years it is a cheap hobby compared to going fishing or get a bike
doing what GW is doing now, by having to spend 500€ every 3 years to keep playing is were people start complaining
I didn't compare it to any other hobbies but I can if you like.
The Xbox Series S costs £250 and you can purchase a subscription to Game Pass for £11/month including Xbox Live Gold and EA Play subscriptions. Alternatively, a good range PC will probably cost about £750 (at least mine was and it's pretty good) and again you can purchase Game Pass or use stores like Steam and Epic. Consoles and PCs have sales on games or even just free games all over the place so depending on your choices you could just never pay for a game ever. Video Games also have the bonus of not requiring anyone but yourself to enjoy them so there aren't particular time restraints on their use, unlike TTWG which needs at least one other person (I am aware single player is an option but honestly why bother).
Alternatively, a 2k point Warhammer army is going to be considerably more expensive for most of the armies in both AoS and 40k.
Spoiler:
GW is changing their studios now and this is more or less confirmed. "moved to GW" makes no sense as it is already with GW but handled by the SG Studio
and a bigger Team means its going from a one man show to be added to the 40k studio that will now handle those things, same as the AoS studio will do for all the things in the setting
nothing is official of course, but it never was as we had no real information which studio handled what, only which designer was working on things
30k was never part of the Specialist Studio, it was its own team with FW. It was Alan Bligh until he passed away then it was two new guys, one of whom left the company last year. As far as anyone knows the 30k is back down to a single person. Will the 30k team be moved from FW to GW oversight and expanded to a proper team? Probably considering GW counts it as a "main game" but until the next 30k release we don't know.
As for "more or less confirmed", nothing is confirmed at all. Staff management happens all the time and putting departments in the same office that really should have been together in the first place is just practical.
The AoS team handles AoS, the 40k team handles 40k, the 30k team (single person) handles 30k, the Specialist Studio handles LotR, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, and other games like that.
Spoiler:
well it is
call it Mass-Skirmish if you want but Skirmish as in "low model count" is different to Skirmish "individual model mechanics" and R&F in "units in fixed Rank&File formation"
model count is usually referred as Team/Warband, Platoon, Brigade, Division level games
so a Warband level Skirmish game has less models than a Brigade level Skirmish game, but both are still Skirmish games
were a Division level R&F game can have less models than a Brigade level Skirmish game
and at the moment GW is making only Skirmish games, but at different levels
A skirmish TTWG is defined by a small number of units, often focussing on individual character models. A military skirmish is a small-scale battle usually conducted by outlying or scouting units.
So a 500pt game of AoS where both sides have roughly 3-5 units each would be a skirmish size game by the military definition as would a 500pt WHFB game.
A game of Necromunda with 2 players with roughly 10 models each would be a skirmish game by the TTWG definition.
You cannot reasonably call a 10k point game of AoS a skirmish game just because it isn't R&F.
NAVARRO wrote: There was nothing stopping AoS to live alongside like Kill team and other 40k twists do if they wanted to gain the "modern gamers"...
I would say there was no chance of AoS and WHFB co-existing especially if WHFB was kept as the main product. 40k spinoff's like Kill Team or Necromunda work because they are all still in the exact same setting as regular 40k. AoS is a continuation of the timeline started in WHFB, making the Old World setting history compared to the modern setting of AoS. If anything WHFB would have to be treated like Kill Team as TOW is being treated now.
Dont understand your counter point, sorry. To clarify are you saying that AoS could not coexist with WFB but that TOW can coexist with AoS?
Furthermore if its a fluff issue you do know that blowing a setting and spread it by reality bubbles is not a natural evolution of any sort but rather a sorry excuse to back the AoS creation. Which was to be simplistic game with little to no rules, small level skirmish etc etc.
Surelly its easier to have a skirmish game even on a different timeline as an extra than to have a massive R&F army game on the side
Dont understand your counter point, sorry. To clarify are you saying that AoS could not coexist with WFB but that TOW can coexist with AoS?
AoS was not a game designed to play like Kill Team or Necromunda, the skirmish games of the 40k setting. AoS was designed with the ability to be played at small-scale games with few units, to massive battles. AoS and WHFB are games of the exact same scale. AoS not being R&F like WHFB doesn't make it a Skirmish game, it just makes it not R&F.
A skirmish TTWG is defined by a small number of units, often focussing on individual character models. A military skirmish is a small-scale battle usually conducted by outlying or scouting units.
So a 500pt game of AoS where both sides have roughly 3-5 units each would be a skirmish size game by the military definition, as would a 500pt WHFB game.
A game of Necromunda with 2 players with roughly 10 models each would be a skirmish game by the TTWG definition.
You cannot reasonably call a 10k point game of AoS a skirmish game just because it isn't R&F.
The biggest problem in your analogy is that to keep WHFB as a "main game" AoS would need to be completely different to what it actually is. TOW is not being sold as a "main system" unlike AoS.
Furthermore if its a fluff issue you do know that blowing a setting and spread it by reality bubbles is not a natural evolution of any sort but rather a sorry excuse to back the AoS creation. Which was to be simplistic game with little to no rules, small level skirmish etc etc.
That's literally how DC changed its timeline with Flashpoint and Rebirth, Star Trek did it with the Kelvin Timeline, and I'm sure Marvel has done it as well. 40k suffers because whenever the story is advanced, nothing actually changes, the Imperium is still there and Chaos hasn't won. The End Times gave Chaos a proper victory and also allowed GW to create a whole new setting that was not limited by the scope of a single world.
Again, AoS is not a Skirmish game, it's just not R&F.
Dont understand your counter point, sorry. To clarify are you saying that AoS could not coexist with WFB but that TOW can coexist with AoS?
The biggest problem in your analogy is that to keep WHFB as a "main game" AoS would need to be completely different to what it actually is. TOW is not being sold as a "main system" unlike AoS.
So your saying both games are the same so they cannot coexist? if thats it then makes even less sense to nuke WFB.
AoS started as a simple skirmish pick up game as opposed to mass battle complex game ( that was the whole argument), and could have been just that a NON main game, a starting point etc... but to accept that its fine to kill a several decade game 5 years ago to replace with a simplistic new Main game to later on relegate WFB to a side game as ok and in the process finding incompatible do the other way around doesn't stick.
I mean WFB fluff could have evolved and armies and new monsters been added to it like AoS now. Like I said with the right support and amends WFB could have evolved to something even better and AoS could have been the bait to new people.
So your saying both games are the same so they cannot coexist? if thats it then makes even less sense to nuke WFB.
The setting of AoS is the same timeline as WHFB where the Old World was destroyed during the End Times. How could WHFB continue with new content and releases when the world it was on was destroyed?
AoS started as a simple skirmish pick up game as opposed to mass battle complex game ( that was the whole argument), and could have been just that a NON main game, a starting point etc... but to accept that its fine to kill a several decade game 5 years ago to replace with a simplistic new Main game to later on relegate WFB to a side game as ok and in the process finding incompatible do the other way around doesn't stick.
Show me anywhere in the marketing for AoS that it was sold as a skirmish game intended to be played at a small scale. Were the rules simple? Yes but that doesn't make it a skirmish game.
The biggest thing people seem to very much miss about all of this is that WHFB wouldn't have been axed if it was a well-perfoming product. Having loads of models on the table didn't make WHFB a superior game to AoS, it meant the buy-in price was stupidly high for a beginner hobbyist. Sure, Warriors of Chaos or High Elves might have small model counts but what about Skaven or the Empire? £17.50 for 10 human-scale models when 40 were needed to form a useful unit isn't good. The game was not conducive to new starts and therefore didn't make money. Who supports a system that doesn't make a good profit?
I mean WFB fluff could have evolved and armies and new monsters been added to it like AoS now. Like I said with the right support and amends WFB could have evolved to something even better and AoS could have been the bait to new people.
How could WHFB have been expanded when it was restricted to a single world that by 8th Edition was explored almost to its limits. Where would the Idoneth fit in? Or Kharadron? The Old World might have been great for 30 years but there comes a point where nothing else can be added.
As for TOW, it's specifically not WHFB. It's taking a very specific point in history (like 30k does) and is building a new game around it. You can use your old WHFB armies but it isn't WHFB, it's different. How different? Nobody knows for sure.
Skimming over the last ten pages or so, I haven't seen any mention of Oathmark in relation to R&F games or noobs. Guess it's not making as much of an impact despite star power of its author from previous skirmish games or the value of model boxes to make different types of infantry.
There again is that statement that WHFB had a huge buy in because you had to have a ton of models.
You had the same number of models in WHFB as you do today in AOS.
My model counts for all my armies at 2000 pts were roughly the same as they were for my AOS armies. I had to buy between 60-80 models and paint them for a full 2000 point army on average for both my whfb armies and my aos armies.
What killed WHFB was the little to no attention the game got from 2010-2015.
We had 30+ players playing whfb every campaign season. Our tournaments for AOS today dont ever crack 18.
The playerbase was fine largely with either.
WHFB had a huge 2nd hand market as well as an IP that could be duplicated fairly easily and models obtained much cheaper.
Almost none of our whfb players bought anything retail. They still played a ton, but GW never saw a dime.
GW never saw a dime
That was the problem with WHFB. Not no one playing it. It was that it was way too easy to get models elsewhere for cheaper, the 2nd hand market was stuffed full of inventory at 1/3 or less of retail price, and the game never got any real attention from GW hardly at all.
AOS and WHFB can coexist side by side. Because they largely cater to two entirely different sets of people who want two entirely different things out of their game (and yes there will be people that play both)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ancient Otter wrote: Skimming over the last ten pages or so, I haven't seen any mention of Oathmark in relation to R&F games or noobs. Guess it's not making as much of an impact despite star power of its author from previous skirmish games or the value of model boxes to make different types of infantry.
Oathmark is a for fun campaign style game. You won't see much about games like that in the general public. THere are no tournaments or public leagues or anything with Oathmark. Its for the casual narrative for fun crew playing in their house.
@ Gert Sorry but the destruction of the old world into bubbles was only necessary to try to justify the birth of AoS and delete WFB. Like I said the fluff is not created for no other reason than to support their business plan... not the other way around.
No need to erase a main game.
I find it funny that you seem to think that new races and monsters could never been possible in WFB but are plausible now... I mean really? Are we so blind to think that fantasy is not possible on WFANTASYB just because GW said no? If you were doing historical yeah sure, cannot create elves with cow gods...
Bottom-line is simple to me all could have been amended with some thought into it rather than rage quitting the core game & dumping everyone. But that is my opinion which means nothing.
Why support a game that is underperforming? I could say why support anything else besides space marines then? Maybe thats why.
Today AoS has seen some unprecedented level of support that even 40k fans get grumpy about Imagine doing that for WFB. I dont think it would be underperforming and my original question was more in that sense.
auticus wrote: There again is that statement that WHFB had a huge buy in because you had to have a ton of models.
You had the same number of models in WHFB as you do today in AOS.
That's not what buy-in cost is. It doesn't matter if a 2k point army uses the same amount of models on average because nobody starts at 2k points. I can buy into AoS with one box and immediately start playing games. Are they smaller scale? Yes, but if I want to scale up (as most hobbyists do) then it's my choice to do so. Each Start Collecting box for AoS sits at roughly 500pts according to the Warscroll Builder on Warcom and each box contains roughly a Hero, a Battleline, up to 2 other Units, and a Warscroll Battalion that lets you use the contents of the box without needing to buy anything else. The SC boxes are designed from the ground up to be usable at purchase without any need for a Battletome or additional Hero to make them legal. The same cannot be said for WHFB or indeed 40k during 5th/6th Edition.
My model counts for all my armies at 2000 pts were roughly the same as they were for my AOS armies. I had to buy between 60-80 models and paint them for a full 2000 point army on average for both my whfb armies and my aos armies.
If you have to buy 60-80 models just to play WHFB then that's a flawed system that doesn't encourage new players.
What killed WHFB was the little to no attention the game got from 2010-2015.
We had 30+ players playing whfb every campaign season. Our tournaments for AOS today dont ever crack 18.
Were those 30+ players the same 30+ players every single time or were there constant influxes of new players?
WHFB had a huge 2nd hand market as well as an IP that could be duplicated fairly easily and models obtained much cheaper.
Almost none of our whfb players bought anything retail. They still played a ton, but GW never saw a dime.
GW never saw a dime
That was the problem with WHFB. Not no one playing it. It was that it was way too easy to get models elsewhere for cheaper, the 2nd hand market was stuffed full of inventory at 1/3 or less of retail price, and the game never got any real attention from GW hardly at all.
So you didn't buy from the company who made the game and models and are now complaining that it was axed?
So your saying both games are the same so they cannot coexist? if thats it then makes even less sense to nuke WFB.
The setting of AoS is the same timeline as WHFB where the Old World was destroyed during the End Times. How could WHFB continue with new content and releases when the world it was on was destroyed?
AoS started as a simple skirmish pick up game as opposed to mass battle complex game ( that was the whole argument), and could have been just that a NON main game, a starting point etc... but to accept that its fine to kill a several decade game 5 years ago to replace with a simplistic new Main game to later on relegate WFB to a side game as ok and in the process finding incompatible do the other way around doesn't stick.
Show me anywhere in the marketing for AoS that it was sold as a skirmish game intended to be played at a small scale. Were the rules simple? Yes but that doesn't make it a skirmish game.
The biggest thing people seem to very much miss about all of this is that WHFB wouldn't have been axed if it was a well-perfoming product. Having loads of models on the table didn't make WHFB a superior game to AoS, it meant the buy-in price was stupidly high for a beginner hobbyist. Sure, Warriors of Chaos or High Elves might have small model counts but what about Skaven or the Empire? £17.50 for 10 human-scale models when 40 were needed to form a useful unit isn't good. The game was not conducive to new starts and therefore didn't make money. Who supports a system that doesn't make a good profit?
I mean WFB fluff could have evolved and armies and new monsters been added to it like AoS now. Like I said with the right support and amends WFB could have evolved to something even better and AoS could have been the bait to new people.
How could WHFB have been expanded when it was restricted to a single world that by 8th Edition was explored almost to its limits. Where would the Idoneth fit in? Or Kharadron? The Old World might have been great for 30 years but there comes a point where nothing else can be added.
As for TOW, it's specifically not WHFB. It's taking a very specific point in history (like 30k does) and is building a new game around it. You can use your old WHFB armies but it isn't WHFB, it's different. How different? Nobody knows for sure.
Old World already has three elf factions. This means no fish elves. Besides elves sitting on sharks FLYING THROUGH THE AIR is borderline stupid. Reminds me of the High Elf sky chariot.
Steampunk would have fit the Chaos Dwarfs but no one liked them in Nottingham so they never got a proper army book but just a WD army list. Lol!
My Khemri army has been squatted and replaced with a silly Undead Construct faction which exists only by the power of IP protection. When TOW will rear it's ugly head some factions will again be treated like this.
I wish people would stop saying this, because it is just utter nonsense. That's not how IP protection works, nothing about the new style or designs was done to "protect" them any more so than the previous stuff. The only more protectable thing is the trademarked name..
NAVARRO wrote: @ Gert Sorry but the destruction of the old world into bubbles was only necessary to try to justify the birth of AoS and delete WFB. Like I said the fluff is not created for no other reason than to support their business plan... not the other way around.
No need to erase a main game.
If the main game is underperforming despite fairly consistent model/rules releases then yes that game needs to be axed.
I find it funny that you seem to think that new races and monsters could never been possible in WFB but are plausible now... I mean really? Are we so blind to think that fantasy is not possible on WFANTASYB just because GW said no? If you were doing historical yeah sure, cannot create elves with cow gods...
Never possible? No, because "never" is rarely something that applies to reality. Extremely unlikely given the restrictions on the setting? Yes. It's not a bad thing that WHFB was restricted to a single place but there is a limit to what you can put in that place when it is clearly defined. AoS is left intentionally vague and nothing is particularly set in stone.
Bottom-line is simple to me all could have been amended with some thought into it rather than rage quitting the core game & dumping everyone.
Nobody was dumped, all of your WHFB armies were valid for some time in AoS.
Why support a game that is underperforming? I could say why support anything else besides space marines then? Maybe thats why.
Because the Space Marines need something to fight you muppet. What a stupid point to make.
Today AoS has seen some unprecedented level of support that even 40k fans get grumpy about Imagine doing that for WFB. I dont think it would be underperforming and my original question was more in that sense.
WHFB got plenty of releases before it was axed. If the game isn't bringing in new players because of it's design choices, FAQ's and Army Books aren't going to fix that.
It is exactly as easy, in most communities, to play AoS with just a Start Collecting box as it was to play WHFB 8th with just a battalion box.
edit: Except you'd either have to convert a model to represent a hero/lord or buy one, which were usually about 15-20$ at the time iirc.
The Battalion boxes didn't include ready-baked rules though, did they? You'd still need to also get the Army Book. AoS doesn't require that, it's better if you do but it's not required.
And if you have to point out that the box didn't come with a Hero to make the army legal, then that just proves my point.
auticus wrote: There again is that statement that WHFB had a huge buy in because you had to have a ton of models.
You had the same number of models in WHFB as you do today in AOS.
That's not what buy-in cost is. It doesn't matter if a 2k point army uses the same amount of models on average because nobody starts at 2k points. I can buy into AoS with one box and immediately start playing games. Are they smaller scale? Yes, but if I want to scale up (as most hobbyists do) then it's my choice to do so. Each Start Collecting box for AoS sits at roughly 500pts according to the Warscroll Builder on Warcom and each box contains roughly a Hero, a Battleline, up to 2 other Units, and a Warscroll Battalion that lets you use the contents of the box without needing to buy anything else. The SC boxes are designed from the ground up to be usable at purchase without any need for a Battletome or additional Hero to make them legal. The same cannot be said for WHFB or indeed 40k during 5th/6th Edition.
That was an 8th Ed problem tbh, which encouraged a few massive units rather than a lot of smaller ones.
In 6th and even 7th Ed you could get decent games in at 1000-1500 pts and even 500pts was ok for starter games - GW initially promoted this as well with an additional set of rules for 500pts games which restricted some of the more unbalanced options and gave the elite armies a bit more flexibility on things like characters and unit numbers to allow them to fit.
They also had battalion boxes for £50 which were usually pretty good for a starter force, other than usually having to add a metal character (very few armies had plastic characters, only Empire and Orcs in 6th IIRC, though more started getting them in 7th).
Ancient Otter wrote: Skimming over the last ten pages or so, I haven't seen any mention of Oathmark in relation to R&F games or noobs. Guess it's not making as much of an impact despite star power of its author from previous skirmish games or the value of model boxes to make different types of infantry.
I've bought Oathmark, and am hoping to be able to get to play it at some point - but then The Plague came. So I've not had an opportunity.
@Gert why resort to muppet or stupid kind of remarks? See I lost interest in debating since you are showing some unhealthy stress levels. Relax. Your points become meaningless when you display this level of immaturity.
NAVARRO wrote: @Gert why resort to muppet or stupid kind of remarks? See I lost interest in debating since you are showing some unhealthy stress levels. Relax. Your points become meaningless when you display this level of immaturity.
Chief, you made a blatantly stupid and aggravating remark, and then when I called you out on, I'm the bad guy?
To analyse your remark in more context, 40k factions like Orks or Tyranids don't underperform, Space Marines just occupy 50% of the product line so it's literally impossible for any other army to perform better than Space Marines. It's like shooting someone in the leg then asking them why they can't run faster.
When WHFB got axed, GW had 40k, WHFB, and a revamped Hobbit/LotR license. I think it's fair to say that 40k was beating WHFB and had been for some time in the sales department but WHFB would still have to meet certain sales targets overall. End Times wasn't some last-second decision, it will have been made when it became clear WHFB was not performing well enough to warrant any new Editions, possibly back in 2011 when a lot of the range had planned model updates.
So your saying both games are the same so they cannot coexist? if thats it then makes even less sense to nuke WFB.
I mean WFB fluff could have evolved and armies and new monsters been added to it like AoS now. Like I said with the right support and amends WFB could have evolved to something even better and AoS could have been the bait to new people.
How could WHFB have been expanded when it was restricted to a single world that by 8th Edition was explored almost to its limits. Where would the Idoneth fit in? Or Kharadron? The Old World might have been great for 30 years but there comes a point where nothing else can be added.
.
Why are you making it out that every single aspect of the WHFB World had been seen or shown and that it was impossible for them to come up with a way to add anything new? That sounds like a very, very limiting view of the setting, because there are all sorts of ways new things could have been added. There's even 2 very recent examples that go against you saying it was full to the point of no more expansion, with Total War Warhammer 3 getting a new fully defined unseen faction of Cathay (pretty much a completely new addition as Cathay only had brief mentions before) and entirely new Kislev units have been added both there and for TOW.
Why are you making it out that every single aspect of the WHFB World had been seen or shown and that it was impossible for them to come up with a way to add anything new? That sounds like a very, very limiting view of the setting, because there are all sorts of ways new things could have been added. There's even 2 very recent examples that go against you saying it was full to the point of no more expansion, with Total War Warhammer 3 getting a new fully defined unseen faction of Cathay (pretty much a completely new addition as Cathay only had brief mentions before) and entirely new Kislev units have been added both there and for TOW.
Cathay and Kislev are both human factions though, aren't they? The only factions that weren't "explored" in WHFB as far as I can tell were Kislev, Cathay, Ind, and possibly the Jade Kingdoms if they're still around. All of these factions are humans. Not very fantasy is it?
Compare that to AoS where we've seen things like the Idoneth, Stormcast, or Ossiarch, as well as the creation of factions that were just a couple of units in WHFB like Daughters of Khaine, Fyreslayers, or Gloomspite. Where would these factions have come from?
Why are you making it out that every single aspect of the WHFB World had been seen or shown and that it was impossible for them to come up with a way to add anything new? That sounds like a very, very limiting view of the setting, because there are all sorts of ways new things could have been added. There's even 2 very recent examples that go against you saying it was full to the point of no more expansion, with Total War Warhammer 3 getting a new fully defined unseen faction of Cathay (pretty much a completely new addition as Cathay only had brief mentions before) and entirely new Kislev units have been added both there and for TOW.
Cathay and Kislev are both human factions though, aren't they? The only factions that weren't "explored" in WHFB as far as I can tell were Kislev, Cathay, Ind, and possibly the Jade Kingdoms if they're still around. All of these factions are humans. Not very fantasy is it?
Compare that to AoS where we've seen things like the Idoneth, Stormcast, or Ossiarch, as well as the creation of factions that were just a couple of units in WHFB like Daughters of Khaine, Fyreslayers, or Gloomspite. Where would these factions have come from?
That's a stupid thing to say that a normal human isn't fantasy
Also looking over my 6e 2000pt Bret list, it only clocks in at 118 models, and really skimped out on putting down some magic items. It's only twenty models more than my 1850pt Cities of Sigmar list.
With a minimum imagination you can fit almost everything AoS into the Old World with a few tweaks.
Kharadron can easily be Dwarves that got kicked out their halls (whatever goblin/skaven invasion) and through the use of evolved tech build flying ships (Malakai Makaison already had a zeppelin...).
Ossiarch can be sort of elite troops of the Tomb Kings led by Settra (found deep in a piramid with new rituals or whatever random lazy explanation... ancient technology like primaris lol). Or if introducing Nagash again, some new creation with improved necromancy (how? MAGIC, just like they always do).
The center area of Ulthuan was sunken, right? From the old vortex of magic or whatever. Millenia later, out of nowhere, some new underwater elves emerge as they survived the cataclysmic event. How? *magic*. There you go: Idoneth in the Old World. Or if we integrate some event like in the End Times where Ulthuan or part of it sinks, makes it even more obvious.
Stormcast can be automatons created by Gelt and imbued by the power of Sigmar (if I recall, this was the initial version intended, before blowing up the world).
A few examples on how to integrate whatever you want into the Old World. Use the one trick pony of "magic" that gw so much loves and no problem.
Exactly right VBS. Something tells me given the overhaul of AoS and this return to WHFB that this regime would have preferred a post apoc advancement over the previous "throw it away and sell many small boutique lines without a functioning game" approach.
Eldarain wrote: Exactly right VBS. Something tells me given the overhaul of AoS and this return to WHFB that this regime would have preferred a post apoc advancement over the previous "throw it away and sell many small boutique lines without a functioning game" approach.
Or Total War: Warhammer has proven popular and GW thinks they can cash in on the TW players.
I'll get to the other posts later when I have a bit more time.
Why are you making it out that every single aspect of the WHFB World had been seen or shown and that it was impossible for them to come up with a way to add anything new? That sounds like a very, very limiting view of the setting, because there are all sorts of ways new things could have been added. There's even 2 very recent examples that go against you saying it was full to the point of no more expansion, with Total War Warhammer 3 getting a new fully defined unseen faction of Cathay (pretty much a completely new addition as Cathay only had brief mentions before) and entirely new Kislev units have been added both there and for TOW.
Cathay and Kislev are both human factions though, aren't they? The only factions that weren't "explored" in WHFB as far as I can tell were Kislev, Cathay, Ind, and possibly the Jade Kingdoms if they're still around. All of these factions are humans. Not very fantasy is it?
Compare that to AoS where we've seen things like the Idoneth, Stormcast, or Ossiarch, as well as the creation of factions that were just a couple of units in WHFB like Daughters of Khaine, Fyreslayers, or Gloomspite. Where would these factions have come from?
The faction with magic ice bears and giant snow cats and witches isn't very fantasy? The faction with crow-men, lightning unicorns, magic warrior monks and giant living stone dogs isn't very fantasy?
It really is baffling that you think new stuff had absolutely nowhere to come from. We did not see every single location, unit, character, city, island etc within the setting. They can just have them come from somewhere we either know little about or someone we know little about - there are all sorts of possibilities with just a bit of imagination.
There's also Araby, Albion, Vampire Coast, Amazons, Tilea, Estalia, Border Princes, Chaos Dwarfs (they actually HAD a release up until 6th ed I think?), Nippon, Halflings and Norsca. There's a lot of the warhammer world that's been barely touched upon, at least in detail. And of course, there's nothing stopping them from adding Fantasy Korea, Fantasy Greece or not-Atlanteans (or are High Elves meant to be those? Not-Ry'leh then?). With how screwy magic and the fallen gates were who knows what else could pop up too. Also, what's wrong with human factions? There's nothing wrong with different human factions as long as they can be differentiated. For example, Drop-Zone Commander has 3 (arguably 4 if you count the Scourge's use of human hosts as being a "human" faction) out of 5 factions that are human, and they are all distinct.
There are plenty of ways to split off AOS as a timeline so that the Old World can live on in parallel, from time travel shenanigans to multiverse theory to the Warp works in mysterious ways. There was a tremendous amount of IP value wrapped up in that setting, and still is if GW was willing to resuscitate it correctly.
Ancient Otter wrote: Skimming over the last ten pages or so, I haven't seen any mention of Oathmark in relation to R&F games or noobs. Guess it's not making as much of an impact despite star power of its author from previous skirmish games or the value of model boxes to make different types of infantry.
Every mention of Oathmark I’ve seen on this site has been about the minis, and how to use them in other games or for conversions with other minis. I personally still think of Oathmark as “Frostgrave (but not)”. Something similar is happening with the Stargrave minis, to a lesser extent.
I find it funny that you seem to think that new races and monsters could never been possible in WFB but are plausible now... I mean really? Are we so blind to think that fantasy is not possible on WFANTASYB just because GW said no? If you were doing historical yeah sure, cannot create elves with cow gods...
This.
I mean, even in Total War Warhammer they successfully added a new faction in which didn't exist on tabletop, the Vampire Pirates. GW could have done that at any time, it would have been the exact kind of range they'd love as the potential for big monster pieces is great (giant crabs with or without zombies riding shotgun, enormous crabs, and a walking construct made out of a wrecked pirate ship with cannons attached to its arm), and those are supported by undead infantry. Those infantry are also perfect for shelf space as one single kit could build 6 different loadouts as the base zombie is the same (sword/pistol, sword/bomb, handgun, handcannon, polearm, deck gun+ammo, these would only require arm swaps), then you have one other kit for the elite melee infantry (2 hand weapons or polearms), one kit for the flying infantry (pistol, handgun, bombs), dual kit for mortar/cannon, a couple of special characters (one of which is riding one of the other monsters, so that kit can double for getting that monster), some generic HQs and you're done!
Couple that with some campaign rules for a pirate campaign, with new lists and restrictions for other races to represent pirates of said faction, and you might even manage to shift some of those Dreadfleet boxes so players can use the ships to represent their captain's ship on the campaign map.
Were those 30+ players the same 30+ players every single time or were there constant influxes of new players?
We had 3-5 new players every season. You assume a lot.
I also bought heavily into WHFB. I had 18 armies when it was all said and done and I couldnj't stomach AOS anymore. I bought most of my stuff from stores at retail. There weren't very many people that did that though. And having some involvement with GW retail I know that many of their stores struggled to move product but had a large player base, and AOS coming about on top of the IP rules that came about were all direct results of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There's also ways that the Old World could be replicated in AoS, surely?
AOS reskinned would be quite horrible for those of us what want to play whfb or a game like that again. We dont need two AOS type rulesets running about. There's no real point in that.
Seems like an awful lot of energy being expended to try and /prove/ warhammer shouldn't ever come back and everything should be designed like AOS. We have confirmation now - it is coming back.
streetsamurai wrote: The argument that it would be impossible to add the new aos armies in whfb is so beyond nonsensical it burns my eyes.
Indeed, hell there's hints of something very Deepkin like in one of the later Dark Elf books. Even though I find Deepkin stupid, it could have been done.
There's no reason for Lumineth to exist in the same world as High Elves. Same for OBR/Tomb Kings. Steampunk Balloon Dwarves would at best be a new unit for Dwarves. Most AoS armies would not have been well received in WHFB.
That doesn't mean there aren't infinite ways to expand, but AoS armies don't fit in the same world. I'd like to see horrors from the depths that aren't Aquaman fish elves. Just leave the WHFB players alone.
I find it funny that you seem to think that new races and monsters could never been possible in WFB but are plausible now... I mean really? Are we so blind to think that fantasy is not possible on WFANTASYB just because GW said no? If you were doing historical yeah sure, cannot create elves with cow gods...
This.
I mean, even in Total War Warhammer they successfully added a new faction in which didn't exist on tabletop, the Vampire Pirates. GW could have done that at any time, it would have been the exact kind of range they'd love as the potential for big monster pieces is great (giant crabs with or without zombies riding shotgun, enormous crabs, and a walking construct made out of a wrecked pirate ship with cannons attached to its arm), and those are supported by undead infantry. Those infantry are also perfect for shelf space as one single kit could build 6 different loadouts as the base zombie is the same (sword/pistol, sword/bomb, handgun, handcannon, polearm, deck gun+ammo, these would only require arm swaps), then you have one other kit for the elite melee infantry (2 hand weapons or polearms), one kit for the flying infantry (pistol, handgun, bombs), dual kit for mortar/cannon, a couple of special characters (one of which is riding one of the other monsters, so that kit can double for getting that monster), some generic HQs and you're done!
Couple that with some campaign rules for a pirate campaign, with new lists and restrictions for other races to represent pirates of said faction, and you might even manage to shift some of those Dreadfleet boxes so players can use the ships to represent their captain's ship on the campaign map.
The Vampire Coast did exist on tabletop, although their rules were only in WD/compendiums and the models were entirely DIY- check this out if you're curious. You'll notice that almost all the infantry for Vampire Coast in TWWH2 were taken from this army list; CA took hints like a single line about Prometheans of the Lustrian coastline and turned them into new units and a visually cohesive faction, along with more of the big centerpiece units like the animated shipwrecks to fill in gaps in the roster. It's a great example of how GW could revisit the WHFB factions now; it just loops back to the discussion of whether those really fantastic elements and big centerpiece models are appropriate for WHFB.
Goose LeChance wrote: There's no reason for Lumineth to exist in the same world as High Elves. Same for OBR/Tomb Kings. Steampunk Balloon Dwarves would at best be a new unit for Dwarves. Most AoS armies would not have been well received in WHFB.
That doesn't mean there aren't infinite ways to expand, but AoS armies don't fit in the same world. I'd like to see horrors from the depths that aren't Aquaman fish elves. Just leave the WHFB players alone.
Nothing new or interesting was well received by the WHFB community. (Nothing except metal units redone in plastic, and even then …goldswords.)
Demi-gryph knights? Tomb knights? High Elf sky chariots? Forget it. And if you suggested expanding to Araby or Cathay since no one wants new units for existing factions, oh boy was that not well received.
Goose LeChance wrote: There's no reason for Lumineth to exist in the same world as High Elves. Same for OBR/Tomb Kings. Steampunk Balloon Dwarves would at best be a new unit for Dwarves. Most AoS armies would not have been well received in WHFB.
That doesn't mean there aren't infinite ways to expand, but AoS armies don't fit in the same world. I'd like to see horrors from the depths that aren't Aquaman fish elves. Just leave the WHFB players alone.
Nothing new or interesting was well received by the WHFB community. (Nothing except metal units redone in plastic, and even then …goldswords.)
Demi-gryph knights? Tomb knights? High Elf sky chariots? Forget it. And if you suggested expanding to Araby or Cathay since no one wants new units for existing factions, oh boy was that not well received.
I mean, the example of High Elf Sky Chariots is just that the concept itself is not good. And it would again be badly received when GW did the same thing with Logan Grimnar in 40K, so it isn't unique to WHFB players. Floating/flying sleighs/chariots just always look goofy.
RazorEdge wrote: Could we please stop this "AoS-Factions portation to the Warhammer World" nonsense?
This will never happen and is annoying.
I don't think anyone was suggesting it as something that will happen, it just sprang from the discussion around how The Old World could have been developed instead of blowing it up.
Having said that, I would agree that it's somewhat off-topic for a new thread about the new game, so would be best taken to the Warhammer Fantasy section.
I find it funny that you seem to think that new races and monsters could never been possible in WFB but are plausible now... I mean really? Are we so blind to think that fantasy is not possible on WFANTASYB just because GW said no? If you were doing historical yeah sure, cannot create elves with cow gods...
This.
I mean, even in Total War Warhammer they successfully added a new faction in which didn't exist on tabletop, the Vampire Pirates. GW could have done that at any time, it would have been the exact kind of range they'd love as the potential for big monster pieces is great (giant crabs with or without zombies riding shotgun, enormous crabs, and a walking construct made out of a wrecked pirate ship with cannons attached to its arm), and those are supported by undead infantry. Those infantry are also perfect for shelf space as one single kit could build 6 different loadouts as the base zombie is the same (sword/pistol, sword/bomb, handgun, handcannon, polearm, deck gun+ammo, these would only require arm swaps), then you have one other kit for the elite melee infantry (2 hand weapons or polearms), one kit for the flying infantry (pistol, handgun, bombs), dual kit for mortar/cannon, a couple of special characters (one of which is riding one of the other monsters, so that kit can double for getting that monster), some generic HQs and you're done!
Couple that with some campaign rules for a pirate campaign, with new lists and restrictions for other races to represent pirates of said faction, and you might even manage to shift some of those Dreadfleet boxes so players can use the ships to represent their captain's ship on the campaign map.
The Vampire Coast did exist on tabletop, although their rules were only in WD/compendiums and the models were entirely DIY- check this out if you're curious. You'll notice that almost all the infantry for Vampire Coast in TWWH2 were taken from this army list; CA took hints like a single line about Prometheans of the Lustrian coastline and turned them into new units and a visually cohesive faction, along with more of the big centerpiece units like the animated shipwrecks to fill in gaps in the roster. It's a great example of how GW could revisit the WHFB factions now; it just loops back to the discussion of whether those really fantastic elements and big centerpiece models are appropriate for WHFB.
But is that how you started, with a 6000pts army? If you had seen that was a requirement, would you have started at all? Do you imagine many others would?
I mean, yes?
My very first army was Black Legion for 40k and within a year I had ~10,000 points of Black Legion and would try to do 1 vs. 3 games against my friends.
I'm pretty picky when it comes to adopting things, but when I do I go all in. HARD.
Unfortunately, I think that I am an exception to the rule.
I understand WHF had a fairly large barrier to entry, but to be honest not more so than any 2000 point game of AoS or 40K. This is definitely something that would need to be addressed. Scaling the game properly so that its a fun game at all levels is important.
One of the few things that I do like about AoS is that they have lots of different missions. It's not just battle line, thats something that I would like to see introduced to Fantasy.
But is that how you started, with a 6000pts army? If you had seen that was a requirement, would you have started at all? Do you imagine many others would?
I mean, yes?
My very first army was Black Legion for 40k and within a year I had ~10,000 points of Black Legion and would try to do 1 vs. 3 games against my friends.
I'm pretty picky when it comes to adopting things, but when I do I go all in. HARD.
Unfortunately, I think that I am an exception to the rule.
I understand WHF had a fairly large barrier to entry, but to be honest not more so than any 2000 point game of AoS or 40K. This is definitely something that would need to be addressed. Scaling the game properly so that its a fun game at all levels is important.
One of the few things that I do like about AoS is that they have lots of different missions. It's not just battle line, thats something that I would like to see introduced to Fantasy.
I think you are the exception in one direction, and reading this thread I think I (and my group) are the exception in the opposite direction.
Back in 5th / early 6th it took me literally years to build a 2000pt army, many of my group never even reached 2000pts, and then we’d frequently play smaller games which let me try out different armies. I have 1k of Wood Elves, 1k of Bretonnians, 1k of Vampires, 1k Orcs (that eventually grew to 2k only after many, many years). The format for me was a couple of characters, a monster, and fill out the rest with mostly core units.
For me, it was only into 7th and 8th where I struggled to find opponents to play smaller games and that’s also when the influx of new players really died out and eventually the community stagnated.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Demi-gryph knights? Tomb knights? High Elf sky chariots? Forget it. And if you suggested expanding to Araby or Cathay since no one wants new units for existing factions, oh boy was that not well received.
the problem here was a very simple one and is still the same as it is in 40k
people wanted that GW finally updated the old core troops were looking out of place and in bad quality but instead got new elite units that were not needed
all that Tomb Kings player wanted was proper core troops, but they got new elite were you neded to buy the crap models first to make an army
similar how Eldar players now go bonkers each time a new Primaris Heroe is released or all they get is a new heroe model instead of starting to update the 20 year old core troops
you would have had the same problems if Lumineth get everything new but the only battleline unit is the High Elf Spearmen box from 20 years ago
Does anyone ever play AoS with a start collecting box? I often see it trotted out but AoS around me was always 2,000 point matched play or nothing, so this idea of playing straight away with a SC box is no more or less realistic than playing WHFB with a similar amount of models; you technically can, but never will.
Luke82 wrote: Does anyone ever play AoS with a start collecting box? I often see it trotted out but AoS around me was always 2,000 point matched play or nothing, so this idea of playing straight away with a SC box is no more or less realistic than playing WHFB with a similar amount of models; you technically can, but never will.
Local tryhards are all like that too, but I game with a couple of friends who prefer 1.000 pts. (we also just recently switched to One Page Rules...)
I was kinda bummed about the lack of fishmen with needle fanged teeth that GW was hinting at in the 8th ed warhammer fantasy rulebook. Very small description in notable battles but nothing ever came of it. Ofc since this is 300 years before archaeon (in other words right around the time of the chaos leader asavar kul I think) that kinda might mess with things unless this faction is more secret than skaven somehow but how would that even work? I suppose this idea was put on the chopping block before it even was halfway through production. That must be a record for GW.
There are still some faction options like chaos dwarfs or other mystical creatures I think. I think fimir, skin wolves and hobgoblins were a thing. Ofc a lot of this might be rolled up into chaos dwarfs and greenskins.
Other funny thing I noticed about warhammer is that it's never done best by GW or at least not for a long time. I've seen more love, care and respect come from total war warhammer, vermintide and dawn of war than GW most of the time. Well at least we're getting whfb back I guess.
Luke82 wrote: Does anyone ever play AoS with a start collecting box? I often see it trotted out but AoS around me was always 2,000 point matched play or nothing, so this idea of playing straight away with a SC box is no more or less realistic than playing WHFB with a similar amount of models; you technically can, but never will.
yeah, Flesheater Courts, 2 times the start collection box made one of the better tournament ready armies and one box was 80€ back than
it was the cheapest way to get into AoS and smash faces at the same time
for the Warhammer Box I am not sure but which one but there were some got you a good 2k army ready to go if you bought 2 (like the old Beast of Chaos)
Luke82 wrote: Does anyone ever play AoS with a start collecting box? I often see it trotted out but AoS around me was always 2,000 point matched play or nothing, so this idea of playing straight away with a SC box is no more or less realistic than playing WHFB with a similar amount of models; you technically can, but never will.
yeah, Flesheater Courts, 2 times the start collection box made one of the better tournament ready armies and one box was 80€ back than
it was the cheapest way to get into AoS and smash faces at the same time
for the Warhammer Box I am not sure but which one but there were some got you a good 2k army ready to go if you bought 2 (like the old Beast of Chaos)
Well yeah if you buy multiple start collectings thats army buidling, so its a different beast to ‘you can play straight away with a start collecting box!’
What i was getting at i guess is that i dont really see the huge difference between buying a start collecting flesh eater courts and having it be a small AoS army or a small WHFB army… nothing in either game’s base mechanics stop you playing them, and in both instances you’re going to find out pretty quick that the game doesnt really work like that.
I tried playing the old AoS path to glory against a guy with armies very close to start collecting boxes. If memory serves, i had a greenskin boss on boar, 5 boarboys, and 2 lots of ten orcs, against a ghoul king on terrorgheist and one or maybe two units of ghouls. It was in no way shape or form a playable game, with the terrogheist demolishing everything and the poor orcs losing every single game of the campaign in horrific faction. I was moving models, and rolling dice, but in no way was it a playable game, so i am always dubious when people say AoS scales amazingly compared to WHFB.
Luke82 wrote: so i am always dubious when people say AoS scales amazingly compared to WHFB.
it does not, AoS does not scale any better than WHFB did or 40k is doing
some armies are better at the low level than they are on the high point level, but it is no were nere the fact that each one buys one box and have a great time
just the fact that among all factions there is 1 were 2 times the start collection box is a valid way to get an army says a lot and it was not different in the old times
GW never really cared if the boxes made legal armies at all or if the point value of the box was similar
kind of different to the Mantic Army Boxes, which make a 1500 point armies (with a little variation depending if you go for minimum of full models count on units) if you buy the smaller and the bigger one with either of those being a good starting point and there are rules for 750point game to work with them
never seen something like this from GW
NAVARRO wrote: One argument people keep saying is that GW killed WFB because it was not doing well... but who are we to say, if GW released the same level / quantity of minis that they release today for AoS but for WFB instead, that it would be even more popular than AoS?
GW did that through the End Times, the kits didn't sell. Even before that as part of their regular updates to the WHFB range they were releasing pretty high quality plastic kits for the various factions. I think if the sales of the content being produced through the first four books of the End Times series had sold better, you'd probably have seen book 5 end in a different manner and a new edition of WHFB launched (lots of insider rumors say that Stormcast Eternals were originally intended to go on square bases and be released as a WHFB faction).
Lets not even get started by the silliness of the WHFB when it comes to sculpt quality and concepts. Then, and now, a large segment of the WHFB community complains incessantly about the "WOWification" of WHFB or how silly and stupid the new sculpts look every time something gets released. Hell, in this very thread we have pages and pages of commentary dedicated basically to trashing the upcoming Kislev minis based on concept art and Total Warhammer previews.
Heck we have full armies being fleshed out in one go... back then it was sluggish pace in comparison.
It was the same pace that 40k had - and yet 40k apparently didn't have the same dismal sales
My impression was the End Times stuff did show an uptake in sales over what they'd been before. But you can't just turn a game around in 5 seconds. IT takes sustained effort, except GW did the End Times. That alone tells you that at that point ending things and bringing AoS in was already on the cards; it was well on the cards by then. Thing is instead of making End Times a firm "this is the end" GW Teased it out only with story and they didn't give a clear "This is over something else comes after". Heck back then they didn't even do any pre-launch marketing for AoS.
It was a mess of foolish mistakes after mistakes I think mostly pushed by the fact that upper management weren't doing consumer feedback and were purely looking at sales data. Thing is that didn't give them proper context for the sales; heck even if it showed it mostly sold to "whale collectors" that didn't tell them that most, even if they never played, still wanted and aspired to play and such.
So we got the AoS launch which, in GW theory, shouldn't have hurt sales because the customers didn't want a game because that's what they thought of hteir customers. Rather than knowing
And that's a huge part of the Old World failings. It wasn't just one big thing, it was lots of little things often prompted by the fact that GW didn't really have a good grasp of their customerbases desires and wants at the top of the company.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Demi-gryph knights? Tomb knights? High Elf sky chariots? Forget it. And if you suggested expanding to Araby or Cathay since no one wants new units for existing factions, oh boy was that not well received.
the problem here was a very simple one and is still the same as it is in 40k
people wanted that GW finally updated the old core troops were looking out of place and in bad quality but instead got new elite units that were not needed
all that Tomb Kings player wanted was proper core troops, but they got new elite were you neded to buy the crap models first to make an army
similar how Eldar players now go bonkers each time a new Primaris Heroe is released or all they get is a new heroe model instead of starting to update the 20 year old core troops
you would have had the same problems if Lumineth get everything new but the only battleline unit is the High Elf Spearmen box from 20 years ago
Yeah, that tk release was such a disaster. Get a couple of new units (and redone tomb guard) that.looked great, yet the core of the Army was still made up of these old atrocious skeletons and chariots
It’s not like people were happy when Empire State Troops were redone, either. And having new core units didn’t make empire players any happier to see new things in their army.
If Tomb Kings core units were redone how many Tomb Kings players would have (still) bought cheaper used models instead?
The second Gotrek audiodrama for AoS literally has a Realmgate that leads back to the Old World.
Wait, what?
But what if someone from AOS goes to the Old World through the portal and prevents the End Times? Paradox!
But this actually reminds me of my idea of how AOS could have been done without blowing up the Old World. Instead of destroying the world, the warpgates open and in is revealed that the Old World is just one realm in the AOS multiverse. Sure, it would have seriously altered the tone of the Old World, but less than completely blowing the bloody thing up!
A Town Called Malus wrote: I mean, we already knew that the Old World wasn't the only place in the universe. The Old Ones came from and then went somewhere else, after all.
Right. And it was assumed that it was the space, but it could have easily been the AOS realms. There really was no need to blow up the Old World.
Graphite wrote: I'm bewildered that some people in this thread seem to actively want TOW to fail
Not really seeing anyone who does.
Do you happen to have Cronch on ignore, by any chance?
kodos wrote: very nice chart, @chaos0xomega, yet one thing that might help here is that during those times prior GHB, 40k and WHFB shared the same costumer base, so overall sales stayed the same with the loyal fans switching systems while those left being replaced with new and the overall numbers stayed the same
Minor point, kodos:
- Costumer: one who creates costumes
- Customer: one who buys things from someone
Gert wrote: They could have kept playing the game that they still had all the rules and models for or moved to AoS where most of the Old World armies still exist and there is no actual requirement for round bases.
Instead many chose to spend the last 6 years being prats and trolls. I have 0 sympathy for a WHFB hobbyist who thinks it's OK to be a prat to an AoS hobbyist just because a company changed the game.
When you want a rank & file, massed battle game, why would you move to a "glorified" skirmish system? Especially when some fethwit blew up your game world to create it? Not to mention that until the first GHB came out, AOS was a joke, not a functional wargame.
auticus wrote: But you are likely going to be playing with yourself.
And doing so will get you thrown out of most LGS...
Gert wrote: My counterpoint would be that if WHFB was so great and superior to AoS, why did people not keep it going in a meaningful way?
Always entertaining when the high and mighty don't know WTF they're talking about.
They did. What did you think the "9" in "The 9th Age" stood for?
Goose LeChance wrote: GW ripped most of the armies to pieces, you can't build a proper WHFB army even if you wanted to.
Yet I literally just bought and built a square based 6000+ point Orc army for 8th Ed in the past year. And the only eBay stuff were some of Ruglud's Armored Orcs, a discounted 'Ard Boyz box, and a job lot of the 6th ed starter Orcs. The rest were sourced from cheap lots on Facebook, clearance tables from local stores, and other collectors. It's very possible to still build a proper WHFB army with patience and knowing where to look.
From what he's said, I'm going to assume Goose means "from GW" when he says that. Second-hand is likely to still be an option, sure.
Goose LeChance wrote: It'll be interesting to see how well new units rank up, WHFB had a lot of problems with scale creep, base sizes and ranking up. CAD design should help, but can the sculptors resist making every model breakdance or do a backflip? Can they resist increasing weapon sizes, hands and arms with every new kit?!?
Only time will tell.
Aye, model designs will be interesting to see. If they're designing new models for a ranked game, you'd hope they'd show some restraint with the troops, let alone the characters.
Strg Alt wrote: If TOW ends up to be a R&F game then it will become a train wreck from the start. Meanwhile I will be standing at the sidelines and taking pictures.
Can I ask why, Strg?
Strg Alt wrote: You tell a noob to paint 70-90 models and he will give you the finger. That's a given.
That might be your opinion, but there are multiple armies in 40k where that number isn't unreasonable, and they still attract new players. One of those is getting a bunch of new releases now and in the near future.
Blastaar wrote: Hey, Mannfred's sword getting better at night or on overcast days was funny! Same for a player using Settra losing if they kneel lol.
You'd think Mannfred's weapon would get better if it was attacking an opponent from behind - oh, wait...
catbarf wrote: To me that's a perfectly fine formation and reads as a 'regiment', but it's only 12 models on 25mm bases. In the days of 4-models-per-rank you'd commonly see units of 12-20 depending on their eliteness.
Then the frontage requirement became 5 and you started seeing 15 as the bare minimum, 20 more common, and often 5x5 blocks of 25. Then the deathball tactics promoted units of 30 or even 40.
I'm not particularly fussed if it is 4 for a rank or 5, as long as 4 ranks is the most you need in an infantry unit for the full bonus.
Getting rid of the rules incentives that drove people to 30, 40, 50 model units would be appreciated.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But they needed something like Warhammer Skirmish that wasn't just an offshoot. The idea of gradually building up a force and having viable gameplay options prior to hitting 2000pts needed to written into the core rules. Warhammer Skirmish wasn't a game in its own right, so they were only marketing it to the existing playerbase.
A WHFB equivalent of Crusade, perhaps?
Strg Alt wrote: Correct. That's why finding noobs for R&F is so difficult. And GW tries now to resurrect WHFB with their new game. Good luck with that. Lol!
Any danger of you offering something constructive in here, rather than continually gakking on the concept?
chaos0xomega wrote: It was the same pace that 40k had - and yet 40k apparently didn't have the same dismal sales
Repeat after me... "40k had Space Marines, Fantasy didn't. 40k had Space Marines, Fantasy didn't."
Is anyone else wondering if they're going to go with shapes over distances for this one? Or proprietary dice, or cards? GW ain't one to sell you one book and let you just play.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It’s not like people were happy when Empire State Troops were redone, either. And having new core units didn’t make empire players any happier to see new things in their army.
If Tomb Kings core units were redone how many Tomb Kings players would have (still) bought cheaper used models instead?
Considering how much money people are willing to pay for those old crappy core models to this day - quite a few.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It’s not like people were happy when Empire State Troops were redone, either. And having new core units didn’t make empire players any happier to see new things in their army.
If Tomb Kings core units were redone how many Tomb Kings players would have (still) bought cheaper used models instead?
Considering how much money people are willing to pay for those old crappy core models to this day - quite a few.
So, let me get this straight.
“WHFB players hated new minis and new ideas because they wanted the core units redone. They didn’t want to buy bad core sculpts.”
“WHFB players are paying through the nose for bad core sculpts now that they know there won’t ever be better core units.”
Maybe. I dont remember the hype as super broken. I remember that when Nagash came out he was sold out pretty immediately. I do remember Khaine book selling out immediately as well and scalpers making a sweet mint off of jacking the prices for it on ebay. It could have been because people thought it was broken and they were tuning up for their next season tournament lists with them. Its just been like six years or so since that happened and I dont recall.
Ultimately howerver there was a huge demand for the product considering most of 8th edition warhammer didn't get much of anything at all and people were genuinely excited that there was new product and a new era coming (of course we didn't realize that that new era was the removal of rank and file game and replaced with ... what it was replaced with - the total opposite of what anyone that enjoyed whfb wanted to play). It was by far NOT something that just sat around not moving in general. I'm sure there were places in the world where whfb was not a thing at all and stores carrying it would struggle to move it however.
GW did that through the End Times, the kits didn't sell
Granted no one of us has access to any sales data, in my region the stores all sold out of most of the end times books and kits.
They were pretty hot.
And then there was a lot of rage when suddenly that was it, and AOS showed up.
They were "pretty hot" because people kept hyping them up as suuuuuper broken and GW seemed to underestimate the demand for the books at least.
End Times: Khaine, for example, sold out in 2 minutes on the US website.
So, just like every 40k release then.
Perhaps if GW did market research (the CEO bragged that they did none in a letter to investors) it wouldn't have been caught by surprise that when you make something that people want, it sells.
I mean 9th Age exists. Warhammer Classic, a bi yearly magazine and community that plays older editions. I believe there is another as well. Plenty seem to continue the old community.
As well older models from Fantasy are expensive on Ebay. Men At Arms being a high priced item along with any 6th Edition Knights, though increasingly 5th Edition Knights are going up in price. Tomb Kings are outrageously expensive.
As well, even if it is a dead game that has been killed more that 5+ years ago now, l there is a growing market of resin model makers such as Highland Miniatures among others that are making models inspired by WHFB. It wasn't too long ago that searching Tomb Kings on Ebay gave the first three options as 3rd party model makers making an updated twist. Hell I bought for 20 bucks a cool looking Liche priest on a mummy camal, and it was decent quality too.
GW did that through the End Times, the kits didn't sell
Granted no one of us has access to any sales data, in my region the stores all sold out of most of the end times books and kits.
They were pretty hot.
And then there was a lot of rage when suddenly that was it, and AOS showed up.
They were "pretty hot" because people kept hyping them up as suuuuuper broken and GW seemed to underestimate the demand for the books at least.
End Times: Khaine, for example, sold out in 2 minutes on the US website.
"End Times stuff only sold out because it was broken!" Love how those goal posts keep getting shifted. No matter *why* it sold out, it still sold out lightning fast. That kind of kills the "b-b-but none bought new WHFB releases!" I'm sure it's just a coincidence that after the End Times GW began pushing a much more aggressive release cycle for both 40k and into AoS.
GW did that through the End Times, the kits didn't sell
Granted no one of us has access to any sales data, in my region the stores all sold out of most of the end times books and kits.
They were pretty hot.
And then there was a lot of rage when suddenly that was it, and AOS showed up.
They were "pretty hot" because people kept hyping them up as suuuuuper broken and GW seemed to underestimate the demand for the books at least.
End Times: Khaine, for example, sold out in 2 minutes on the US website.
Yeah, don't confuse "it sold out because demand was super high" for "it sold out because they didn't make enough of them".
Kit wise, most of the stores in the area seemed to still have the same kits they brought in during The End Times release months into the launch of AoS, I think for the most part things only really started moving off the shelves once the GHB came out. Personally, I can also remember how much bitching and whinging there was over the Nagash sculpt too.
As for the books, yeah they dramatically underproduced on them, my primary local was only able to get 1-2 copies of each, those definitely sold out fast on the first print run - but the second print run of each book (released before it became clear they nuked the game) mostly sat on shelves.
Ultimately howerver there was a huge demand for the product considering most of 8th edition warhammer didn't get much of anything at all and people were genuinely excited that there was new product and a new era coming
Stop it.
Plenty came out in 8th, heres an incomplete list:
Island of Blood
Orcs & Goblins (new Savage Orc boys, Boar Riders, Arachnarok Spider, River Trolls, ~3 characters/heroes)
Tomb Kings (Tomb Guard, Sphinxes, Necropolis Knights/Sepulcharal Stalkers, ~3 characters/heroes)
Ogre Kingdoms (Mournfang Cav, Ironblaster/Scraplauncher, Stonehorn/Thundertusk, ~3 characters/heroes)
Vampire Counts (Coven Throne/Mortis Engine/Bloodseeker Palanquin, Vargheists/Crypt Horrors/Crypt Flayers, Black Knights/Hexwraiths, ~3 characters/heroes)
The Empire (Celestial Hurricanum/Luminark of Hyish/Volkmar the Grim on War Altar, Karl Franz on Griffon/Empire hero on Griffon, Demigryph Knights, Greatswords, ~6 other characters/heroes)
Warriors of Chaos (Throgg, Dragon Ogres, Mutalith/Slaughterbrute, Chariots, Skullcrushers, Hellstriders, Forsaken, ~6 new characters/heroes)
Daemons of Chaos (Plague Drones, Blood Throne/Skull Cannon, Burning Chariot, plastic Heralds - plastic infantry and other updated daemons kits were released as part of the 40k daemons update previously)
High Elves (Lothern Skycutter, Flamespyre/Frostheart Phoenix, Shadow Warriors/Sisters of Avelorn, ~3 characters/heroes)
Lizardmen (Saurus on Carnosaur/Troglodon, Bastiladon, Terradon Riders/Ripperdactlys, Razordon, Salamander, characters)
Dark Elves (Dark Riders/Doomfire Warlocks, Scourgerunner Chariot/Cold-One Chariot, Executioners/Black Guard, Darkshards/Dreadspears/Bleakswords, Corsairs, Cold One Knights, Hydra/Kharibdyss, Black Dragon, ~3 characters)
There were also the below but Im not interested in continuing to dig up data on what was redone and released new for them:
Dwarfs
Wood Elves
Storm of Magic
Tamurkhan: Throne of Chaos (Nurgled Daemons, Legion Azgorh/Chaos Dwarves)
Blood in the Badlands
Monstrous Arcanum
Triumph & Treachery
Sigmars Blood
There were a number of digital supplements and such released as well. Again, this was comparable level of support to what 40k received in that same timeframe. This whole "GW released nothing for 5 years leading into the End Times" is an absolute myth unsubstantiated by actual events.
Interestingly, while compiling this list, I found a very large amount of complaints about virtually *all* of the new minis and complaints from the community about how it was "jumping the shark" or being "WOWified". Very little positivity. The WHFB community got what it deserved.
Wood Elves got four new kits, all told.
Eternal Guard/Wildwood Rangers double kit
Araloth
Wild Riders/Sisters of the Thorn double kit
Treelord/Durthu/Treelord Ancient triple kit
My frustration came from both ends. WHFB players hated everything new or interesting and sabotaged any attempt to introduce new life into the game/setting. At the same time, each release had at least one mini I would have loved to buy if only the price were a bit closer to reasonable.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It’s not like people were happy when Empire State Troops were redone, either. And having new core units didn’t make empire players any happier to see new things in their army.
If Tomb Kings core units were redone how many Tomb Kings players would have (still) bought cheaper used models instead?
Tons would buy the new sculps. People are not afraid of spending money on models. Take a look at what a box of tomb king skeletons, chariots and horsemen go for now. Do you think that nobody would buy those if GW released them tomorrow?
I don't know where this whole fantasy players are cheap thing comes from, because it's not accurate. Again, take a look at what people are paying, right now, for fantasy models and tell me that there's no market for new stuff. There's a reason that there are so many fantasy Kickstarters right now.
Shocking news folks, wargamers keep buying models and armies, despite the fact that they don't need them, or probably have time to paint them all.
I played 6th and 8th Ed WFB (Solid game) but I prefer Kings of War over the others. So much freedom in KOW to base and use what miniatures you have. All of the AOS minis could be used in KOW easily. Keep your dudes on round or square it doesn't matter. Just my opinion is all.
Island of Blood
Orcs & Goblins (new Savage Orc boys, Boar Riders, Arachnarok Spider, River Trolls, ~3 characters/heroes)
Tomb Kings (Tomb Guard, Sphinxes, Necropolis Knights/Sepulcharal Stalkers, ~3 characters/heroes)
Ogre Kingdoms (Mournfang Cav, Ironblaster/Scraplauncher, Stonehorn/Thundertusk, ~3 characters/heroes)
Vampire Counts (Coven Throne/Mortis Engine/Bloodseeker Palanquin, Vargheists/Crypt Horrors/Crypt Flayers, Black Knights/Hexwraiths, ~3 characters/heroes)
The Empire (Celestial Hurricanum/Luminark of Hyish/Volkmar the Grim on War Altar, Karl Franz on Griffon/Empire hero on Griffon, Demigryph Knights, Greatswords, ~6 other characters/heroes)
Warriors of Chaos (Throgg, Dragon Ogres, Mutalith/Slaughterbrute, Chariots, Skullcrushers, Hellstriders, Forsaken, ~6 new characters/heroes)
Daemons of Chaos (Plague Drones, Blood Throne/Skull Cannon, Burning Chariot, plastic Heralds - plastic infantry and other updated daemons kits were released as part of the 40k daemons update previously)
High Elves (Lothern Skycutter, Flamespyre/Frostheart Phoenix, Shadow Warriors/Sisters of Avelorn, ~3 characters/heroes)
Lizardmen (Saurus on Carnosaur/Troglodon, Bastiladon, Terradon Riders/Ripperdactlys, Razordon, Salamander, characters)
Dark Elves (Dark Riders/Doomfire Warlocks, Scourgerunner Chariot/Cold-One Chariot, Executioners/Black Guard, Darkshards/Dreadspears/Bleakswords, Corsairs, Cold One Knights, Hydra/Kharibdyss, Black Dragon, ~3 characters)
yeah, so Dark Elves, Vampires and Daemons were the only ones that got a new core, everyone else did not
confirming what we said above, the need to buy outdated models to fill the core that was needed to play the shiny new stuff
and why did this not affect 40k?
because half of the releases there are different Space Marine factions models, and it was nor problem to use them for all Marines
Dark Angels got new Bikes, of course everyone bought the new DA Bikes to use them instead of the faction specific outdated plastic with metal parts, and White Scars had no problem filling their core with new models
New Tactical Box for Ultras? Space Wolves, Blood Angles, Dark Angels bought them as well to fill up the core
Meanwhile Eldar, which got a lot of new stuff so must sell really well by your logic, yet they still need the 20 year old models to fill the core to play the shiny new stuff
all but 3 armies were treated like Eldar in 40k now and my unkown reason all of them sold as well as Eldar are now
I guess this must be because no one likes Eldar, so best GW should remove them from the game they won't be missed as no one plays them anyway
You’re talking about a few dozen Oldhammer/nostalgia purchases of a dwindling scarcity, which is quite different from people supporting a current product range. By your logic, AT-43 should come back, and with the same prepaints, because prices skyrocketed after Miniature Market cleared out their warehouse.
You can go through all the old threads and count how many players refused to support any new items until the core troops were updated, as well as how many people refused to buy updated EST and Dwarf Warriors because they were different/bad.
Edit: I forgot how many people also refused to buy new daemonettes, Bloodletters (at first) and Tzeentchy guys. And the new dark elves core monopose miniatures. Super successful strategy though because it worked for Vampire Counts.
kodos wrote: the new Dwarf Elite units had 2 problems, their design did not fit well with the old Warrior models you needed to fill the core
and they did not fit 20mm bases at all so were nearly impossible to rank up
which somes up the whole problem of 8th, but during that time GW already worked on Sigmarines anyway
Before the dwarf elites, people hated the dwarf warriors that came out last, with the torso front/face combo bits. Because they weren’t the previous plastics.
You’re talking about a few dozen Oldhammer/nostalgia purchases of a dwindling scarcity, which is quite different from people supporting a current product range. By your logic, AT-43 should come back, and with the same prepaints, because prices skyrocketed after Miniature Market cleared out their warehouse.
You can go through all the old threads and count how many players refused to support any new items until the core troops were updated, as well as how many people refused to buy updated EST and Dwarf Warriors because they were different/bad.
We'll see. I think anyone who is still buying stuff, and willing to pay that kind of money, will buy the new things when they come out. I'm sure you are right and there were a bunch of people who didn't like the new stuff, but there are also going to be plenty of people who want new models.
We were mostly discussing the demise of WHFB. For the new game, I suppose it depends on how much new blood they can get and how much the old fan base approves of the new sculpts, two areas the old world has historically struggled.
I’m sure the first year or two will be very successful, if only because GW has really hot its marketing down now. Whether the game will last once it requires community commitment…I have doubts, depending on how GW handle the situation.
If nothing else, they'll make a lot of money in the short term and release some nice sculpts. I'll take that regardless. They need to release a fun game that's easy to get into, but if they do there might be space for both it and AoS.
kodos wrote: the new Dwarf Elite units had 2 problems, their design did not fit well with the old Warrior models you needed to fill the core
and they did not fit 20mm bases at all so were nearly impossible to rank up
which somes up the whole problem of 8th, but during that time GW already worked on Sigmarines anyway
Before the dwarf elites, people hated the dwarf warriors that came out last, with the torso front/face combo bits. Because they weren’t the previous plastics.
the main complain about those was that the 2 boxes, warriors and gunners were not compatible with each other
while similar made with front-beard and back-body the front parts of the one box did not fit the back of the other
and in addition this were the boxes were dwarfs lost their knees
BobtheInquisitor wrote: My frustration came from both ends. WHFB players hated everything new or interesting and sabotaged any attempt to introduce new life into the game/setting. At the same time, each release had at least one mini I would have loved to buy if only the price were a bit closer to reasonable.
Depends. If the new stuff is garbage then it is prudent to say "NO!" in order to protect the setting. Units like High Elf sky chariots were just trash.
lol. Just lol. Especially compared to what 40k was getting. Tying into:
lol. Just lol. One of us actually has facts on their side in the form of a real release schedule and proof of support. The other just has hurt feelings and a false perspective of reality.
Maybe if we're lucky they'll take your AOS away. Then we can gauge the response to that?
Won't happen, people actually buy Age of Sigmar minis and don't overwhelmingly gak on everything released for it.
See the WFB from where I came from was open to change and much more dynamic and large than the 40k one soooooo my vast know how will let me conclude WFB was doing better than the 40k grumpy bunch... right? sarcasm.
How about you guys stop saying things you know jack about? Voices in your local tournaments or even worse voices online are just a that... dont represent anything.
Got what they deserved? No one knows the "they" not even GW. So yeah pointless argument.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: My frustration came from both ends. WHFB players hated everything new or interesting and sabotaged any attempt to introduce new life into the game/setting. At the same time, each release had at least one mini I would have loved to buy if only the price were a bit closer to reasonable.
Depends. If the new stuff is garbage then it is prudent to say "NO!" in order to protect the setting. Units like High Elf sky chariots were just trash.
The sky chariot fit just fine in a setting with floating sea-mountains, steam tanks, chaos everything (you see the art of their huge cannon-castle on wheels?), Skaven everything, tomb kings constructs, flying castles (Man o’War had a lot of similar crazy stuff). The High Elves, using magic the most and living near the vortex, would naturally field something to counter all the other flying units once dragons became scarce and hard to rouse.
The sky chariot wasn’t stupid because magic flying things are stupid, it was stupid because an eagle is a light weight agile creature and so strapping a chariot to its back, it just looks silly.
Also people have some concept of inertia, so kinda understand that sitting in something rigidly joined to a flying animal would be pretty unpleasant and not exactly a great platform to fight from.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: My frustration came from both ends. WHFB players hated everything new or interesting and sabotaged any attempt to introduce new life into the game/setting. At the same time, each release had at least one mini I would have loved to buy if only the price were a bit closer to reasonable.
Depends. If the new stuff is garbage then it is prudent to say "NO!" in order to protect the setting. Units like High Elf sky chariots were just trash.
The sky chariot fit just fine in a setting with floating sea-mountains, steam tanks, chaos everything (you see the art of their huge cannon-castle on wheels?), Skaven everything, tomb kings constructs, flying castles (Man o’War had a lot of similar crazy stuff). The High Elves, using magic the most and living near the vortex, would naturally field something to counter all the other flying units once dragons became scarce and hard to rouse.
They already had that, they had Eagles. Adding a boat behind the eagles is just plain dumb as if the eagles get killed your flying boat is totally useless. It either stops and floats if it is magic which keeps it in the air, or it plummets and crashes if it is meant to be the pull of the eagles which keeps it in the air. Said Eagles pulling your boat will also be completely unable to perform their usual manoeuvres to evade projectiles or other flying creatures as they are lugging a boat behind them, making them easier to hit and kill. If they do try and perform their usual evasion manoeuvres, because they are animals, then your boat is now flying completely out of control. Any small and fast flying creature, such as a harpy, could fly rings around your boat and then murder the crew. Any large monster, such as a dragon or manticore, could just smash straight through.
They also had Bolt Throwers and magical bows which would work just fine for attacking air targets.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The sky chariot wasn’t stupid because magic flying things are stupid, it was stupid because an eagle is a light weight agile creature and so strapping a chariot to its back, it just looks silly.
Also people have some concept of inertia, so kinda understand that sitting in something rigidly joined to a flying animal would be pretty unpleasant and not exactly a great platform to fight from.
Yeah I would agree with that - lots of stuff looks cool - this, for me at least looked silly - actual flying boats and ships would have been cooler - flashbacks to the ones in Slaine and the one onthe recent Balders gate intro video !
The amount of negativity being directed at WHFB and TOW is staggering... I dont think anyone wishes ill on anyone or anyone's game.
There is no reason why some people cant like AOS and others like WHFB and TOW... And some people might even like both. TOW isn't even out yet and people are taking a steamer on it lol..
I havent really bought anything 40k in ages.. The only reason I ever bought an AOS kit was conversion; vanari dawn rider for converting shining spears and endless spells for future ideas to use in my Eldar army because GW just doesn't want to make anything eldar for me to buy.
I'd rather pay for some top notch Mierce/3rd party resin to go on my pile of shame or some wacky OOP vintage stuff than GW failcast or anything they produced in recent memory (although I wouldn't be mad if somebody gave me some blood knights)
TOW will be getting some of my money for sure if they make cool hussars
A Town Called Malus wrote: Adding a boat behind the eagles is just plain dumb as if the eagles get killed your flying boat is totally useless. Said Eagles pulling your boat will also be completely unable to perform their usual manoeuvres to evade projectiles or other flying creatures as they are lugging a boat behind them, making them easier to hit and kill. If they do try and perform their usual evasion manoeuvres, because they are animals, then your boat is now flying completely out of control. Any small and fast flying creature, such as a harpy, could fly rings around your boat and then murder the crew. Any large monster, such as a dragon or manticore, could just smash straight through.
By that logic, normal chariots are equally dumb, as all of the same issues apply... As is just riding a horse.
The problem isn't one of logic, particularly when you're talking about the one of the most magically-oriented factions in the game. It's ultimately just down to whether or not it looks silly, and that's a personal thing. Personally, while acknowledging that it's a bit of an odd concept, I think they look cool, particularly as an option for said super-magical race in a high fantasy setting.
But that was exactly a part of the problem - WHFB fans could never seem to agree whether the setting was supposed to be high fantasy, low fantasy, (or even what those terms mean, exactly) or somewhere in the middle. The impression I got from the fiction was that it was always supposed to be high fantasy, but it was only towards the end that they really leaned into that with the models.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The sky chariot wasn’t stupid because magic flying things are stupid, it was stupid because an eagle is a light weight agile creature and so strapping a chariot to its back, it just looks silly.
Also people have some concept of inertia, so kinda understand that sitting in something rigidly joined to a flying animal would be pretty unpleasant and not exactly a great platform to fight from.
Yeah I would agree with that - lots of stuff looks cool - this, for me at least looked silly - actual flying boats and ships would have been cooler - flashbacks to the ones in Slaine and the one onthe recent Balders gate intro video !
My plan was to use the boat separately from the eagle as flying boats work on their own as far as I’m concerned. But, hey, free eagle! It’s a shame they were gone before I could find one at a decent price.
Horses pulling a chariot are operating in two dimensions of movement. Stuff flying in the air is operating in three. A horse can't suddenly burrow into the ground or fly straight up into the air (Skyrim excluded), an eagle flying in the air can suddenly dive straight down or climb straight up and then what happens to the people on the boat being pulled behind it?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The sky chariot wasn’t stupid because magic flying things are stupid, it was stupid because an eagle is a light weight agile creature and so strapping a chariot to its back, it just looks silly.
Also people have some concept of inertia, so kinda understand that sitting in something rigidly joined to a flying animal would be pretty unpleasant and not exactly a great platform to fight from.
Yeah I would agree with that - lots of stuff looks cool - this, for me at least looked silly - actual flying boats and ships would have been cooler - flashbacks to the ones in Slaine and the one onthe recent Balders gate intro video !
My plan was to use the boat separately from the eagle as flying boats work on their own as far as I’m concerned. But, hey, free eagle! It’s a shame they were gone before I could find one at a decent price.
I briefly saw 3 x come up on evay being sold at £30 each.
I literly thought about it 1 minute too long and they were all gone.
See thes eon occasion Re-listed at 3-4 x the price And dont even get me started on the Dragon lord / Lore master
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Horses pulling a chariot are operating in two dimensions of movement. Stuff flying in the air is operating in three. A horse can't suddenly burrow into the ground, an eagle flying in the air can suddenly dive straight down and then what happens to the people on the boat being pulled behind it?
How do elf princelings dont fall of the giant eagles they ride?
At least a chariot you can hold on or use some sort of a rope maybe..
A Town Called Malus wrote: Horses pulling a chariot are operating in two dimensions of movement. Stuff flying in the air is operating in three. A horse can't suddenly burrow into the ground or fly straight up into the air (Skyrim excluded), an eagle flying in the air can suddenly dive straight down or climb straight up and then what happens to the people on the boat being pulled behind it?
You tell me - what does happen to the magical humanoids standing in the magically-flying chariot when it maneuvers? I must have slept through that part in high school physics.
And that's ignoring the fact that the eagle would presumably have been trained (or be under direct control) to not maneouvre in a way that would be a problem for the passengers, in exactly the same way as horses are trained to pull a chariot.
To pull this somewhat back on topic, though, I would expect to see more of that sort of stuff when the game returns. As others have pointed out, while it may well be playable with existing model collections as they've promised, given the sort of models they have been churning out for AoS it would be surprising if they don't lean hard into the fantasy elements for TOW.
This reminds why I dislike the Deepkin Leviadon. The howdah on the turtle's back looks too silly for something that lives in the normal, non-magic ocean. Same goes for harpoon launchers mounted on the back of a shark. maybe if they'd been done like 80's/90's cartoons.. y'know, He-Man style or something....
The sky cutter boat looks silly. It's far too open for something in the air, imo. Being pulled by a bird is fine- I don't think the execution is great.
I figure that the dragon, eagle, and phoenix riders lash themselves tot here mounts (even if it isn't modeled), but I should think chariot crew need to mover around a bit more.
"It's magic" is not always a strong defense of choices made for a fantasy world. Some grounding is what makes the setting believable. WHFB had/has a logic to it. Sigmar is mostly "hee, hee, it's magical!!!!"
I do hope GW doesn't screw TOW up....... I don't want to play "soul blight grave lords," "flesh eater courts," or "cities of sigmar." I want Vampire Counts and High Elves.
Over the years the only sculpt choice I find I dislike with fantasy that GW keeps doing is putting high backed arm chairs as seats for dragons/larger mounts. They always look just - -- wrong to me. So ungainly and like a huge sail they lack the sleek appeal that winged flight animals and beasts should have; if not for aerodynamics then for the basics of combat.
Sky chariots and such I'm totally fine with but highbacked armchairs- nope!
Blastaar wrote: This reminds why I dislike the Deepkin Leviadon. The howdah on the turtle's back looks too silly for something that lives in the normal, non-magic ocean. Same goes for harpoon launchers mounted on the back of a shark. maybe if they'd been done like 80's/90's cartoons.. y'know, He-Man style or something....
The sky cutter boat looks silly. It's far too open for something in the air, imo. Being pulled by a bird is fine- I don't think the execution is great.
I figure that the dragon, eagle, and phoenix riders lash themselves tot here mounts (even if it isn't modeled), but I should think chariot crew need to mover around a bit more.
"It's magic" is not always a strong defense of choices made for a fantasy world. Some grounding is what makes the setting believable. WHFB had/has a logic to it. Sigmar is mostly "hee, hee, it's magical!!!!"
I do hope GW doesn't screw TOW up....... I don't want to play "soul blight grave lords," "flesh eater courts," or "cities of sigmar." I want Vampire Counts and High Elves.
You will get Orcs rather than orruks we know that much The rest though? Who knows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Over the years the only sculpt choice I find I dislike with fantasy that GW keeps doing is putting high backed arm chairs as seats for dragons/larger mounts. They always look just - -- wrong to me. So ungainly and like a huge sail they lack the sleek appeal that winged flight animals and beasts should have; if not for aerodynamics then for the basics of combat.
Sky chariots and such I'm totally fine with but highbacked armchairs- nope!
I mean... you need a comfy good front row seat to feel like a boss as you watch as your dragon turns the tide of enemies in front into a melting pile of goo right ??
A Town Called Malus wrote: Horses pulling a chariot are operating in two dimensions of movement. Stuff flying in the air is operating in three. A horse can't suddenly burrow into the ground or fly straight up into the air (Skyrim excluded), an eagle flying in the air can suddenly dive straight down or climb straight up and then what happens to the people on the boat being pulled behind it?
Chariots were a very...transient concept in Earth history, because everything a chariot does, a horseman with a proper saddle can do better and cheaper. If you apply real life physics to anything in Old World, it falls apart. Like wood elf hawk riders, a bird of this size would not be able to fly with a human sized object on its back.
Also hitting a flying moving target, even relatively slow like a bird, is a lot harder than hitting a slow moving thing like a chariot, especially if the weapon is not designed to aim up like a typical ballista would.
"It's magic" is not always a strong defense of choices made for a fantasy world. Some grounding is what makes the setting believable. WHFB had/has a logic to it. Sigmar is mostly "hee, hee, it's magical!!!!"
When you already have dragons and giant eagles existing and being capable of flight without their skeletons collapsing under their own body weight, a flying chariot working 'because magic' really isn't that big a leap.
Goose LeChance wrote: Can't believe we're defending magic chariots pulled by birds now, all the riders would look like Evel Knievel 10 seconds after takeoff.
"A giant bird pulling a flying chariot is silly and stupid and breaks my suspension of disbelief in a world where people ride dragons, eagles, pegasi, griffons, pteradactyls, animated stone sphinxes, giant skeletal bats, giant sea monsters, and palanquins carried by ghosts because reasons xyz" isn't the rational justification for your opinion that some of you think it is.
I can understand not finding certain concepts appealing or intriguing or whatever, but the outright vehemency with which some of you insist that something is too fictional for an already extremely fictional world is ridiculous. Honestly, my local group used to tell me that I was unnecessarily negative and overly critical and opinionated about things in GWs games, but compared to some of you guys I'm fething delightful.
Goose LeChance wrote: Can't believe we're defending magic chariots pulled by birds now, all the riders would look like Evel Knievel 10 seconds after takeoff.
What about skeleton horses pulling a chariot?
Is it on the ground and has at least 2 wheels? Sounds metal asf bro. Where can I get one?
Elves already have several giant birds, and they already have chariots, ignoring the fact that a flying chariot looks stupid, why is it even needed in the army?
Because it's not specific "to the army" as a whole? You do get that they had signature units for the different provinces of Ulthuan, right?
It's a Lothern Skycutter. Lore was that it was specific to the Sea Guard and Lothern. The Skycutters accompanied the Hawkships when they went out on patrols. The "boat" was resting upon a cushion of magic, the Roc provided the forward momentum and steering.
, but I do have at least 3 occasional opponents, who will be much more frequent when TOW actually releases.
To clarify are you saying that 
Imagine doing that for WFB. I dont think it would be underperforming and my original question was more in that sense.
