Switch Theme:

Warhammer The Old World : Cathay trailer, page 128  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/23 09:47:07


 
   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







Hate is a strong word XD

I'm of the mind set of people should enjoy their hobbies. Theres no need to be that grumpy guy and piss on everyone pool.

But I 100% moved on... it would be A LOT easier to everyone to move on if GW didn't keep bringing it back, its all I'm saying!

I dont live the present totally ignoring the past either, I mean I learn from my mistakes hopefully. Changing my things to AoS was my mistake.

Sucks but again im moving on... So I dont intend to play anything.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 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.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 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.
   
Made in gb
Battlefield Tourist





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

 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.

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page
 
   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 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.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Strg Alt wrote:

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.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






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)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 12:45:31


lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Not GW's fault you can't grow a beard worthy of the Dawi. Honestly, it's just a bit of fun, isn't that the whole point of a hobby?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/23 12:37:33


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






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.


Anyway, no need to dig up the past

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 12:44:57


lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Just Tony wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/23 13:22:17


This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





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.
   
Made in gb
Enginseer with a Wrench





Northumberland

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.

One and a half feet in the hobby


My Adeptus Mechanicus Painting Log:
# The Explorator Fleet of Labrunnia IX #

 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

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.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 14:08:00


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Strg Alt wrote:


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....

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 14:13:07


 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

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.

   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 14:26:02


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 14:28:20


 
   
Made in ch
Regular Dakkanaut




AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 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
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight






 Pacific wrote:
 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.

"Don't Feed the Troll"

ETC is the forum equivalent of a short bus. 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 auticus wrote:
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.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight






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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Strg Alt wrote:
 auticus wrote:
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/23 15:06:29


"Don't Feed the Troll"

ETC is the forum equivalent of a short bus. 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 BlackoCatto wrote:

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.

 Strg Alt wrote:


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.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




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.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





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.


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Imperial Recruit in Training





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.

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Rihgu wrote:
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.


Well that is a good step.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 Strg Alt wrote:
 auticus wrote:
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.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: