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
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Brutus_Apex wrote:


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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


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).

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 ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






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.

Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Brutus_Apex wrote:



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.

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





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!)
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 02:18:19


   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




AllSeeingSkink wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 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.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Canada

 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.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






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.

Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





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.

Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.

   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 06:54:48


 
   
Made in gb
Sister Oh-So Repentia




United Kingdom

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 07:28:58


   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

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.

   
Made in fi
Charging Wild Rider





 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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 08:19:05


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

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

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.
   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 08:43:23


   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Wunzlez wrote:
 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).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 09:40:58


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Deadly Dire Avenger





 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.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 auticus wrote:
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!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Overread wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 10:03:26


 
   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 10:15:40


That place is the harsh dark future far left with only war left. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

this has nothing to do with R&F games

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)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 10:23:44


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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 WD SoB 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.


   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran





 kodos wrote:

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.

That place is the harsh dark future far left with only war left. 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






 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.....

The games sell because of the models.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Gert wrote:
 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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 11:48:48


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: