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.

Players/Games did not buy, so it is their fault that the game died.

It is not like GW forbid play-testing in house, dismissed market research and avoided contact with the community as much as possible
Which leaded to a product line (models and rules) the majority did not liked and therefore did not buy.

Cost and/or amount of models was not the reason, yes Skirmish games are easier to start, but at the same time Warhammer 40k was very popular with a similar high entry barrier

So, most armies got new models but instead of shiny new stuff for the masses, it was elite/rare stuff that you only bought once or twice.

I remember the Khemri hype and how no one in my area bought anything as all were expecting new core models but did not get them.
And no one wanted to build an army around 50-100 1995 Skelettons just to bring in 2 units and 1 Monster of the good looking new stuff.

Similar to all the other old ranges that old, bad, or ugly core models that were still expensive and the good looking ones not possible to put into R&F units.

GW would have needed to put the plug after the first or secound year with declining sales and turn around.
Same as they did with 6th 40k and 1st AoS (so at least they learned from Warhammer), but instead to kept following the road and now people claiming it was all the gamers fault and not bad company strategy/marketing is ridiculous

 Elbows wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Elbows wrote:Mantic may have missed its chance. They've always been held back by terrible models.

Overread wrote:The problem Mantic has isn't just the quality of sculpt its the whole design ethos of them.

I am still surprised that the main argument against a game that makes clear that you can use whatever miniatures you like, are the bad models

I don't believe I said a single thing about "the game". I was commenting on Mantic's inability to capitalize on the demise of their primary opposition. Please read a response more thoroughly next time.

How do you know?
You have sales figures from Mantic?
Specially comapred to their SciFi range?

I just know from an interview that their Fantasy Elves are their best selling plastic models, and Deadzone is their best selling game (followed by Walking Dead).

So how do you know that Mantic did not capitalize? (and not talking about the "Game" while the only weakness GW had ever had were the bad rules for the their games and not the models).

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

I mean if you don't believe me just take a look at the shear number of Skirmish games out there

Warhammer 40k
Age of Sigmar
Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game
Warmachine/Hordes

If you're going to make that argument at least know what a skirmish game is. Those four are clearly not.

At the right point value yes they are. And if they are not skirmish then what are they? Cus I am seeing neither a rank nor a flank.

The problem is that "Skirmish" can be the size of the encounter (small = Skirmish, large = battle, eg: Gettysburg started as a skirmish but developed into a full scale battle over the first day)
or the type of the formation, skirmishing units VS ranked up units, usually meaning that Skirmish are units in lose formation or no formation at all

Skirmish games usually have a low amount of models and are more focused on the basic model types with the big stuff being off the table support
For Example Infinity, or Malifaux

Larger games are called Mass-Battle games or Command/Platoon/Division Level games.

Individual Model basing/mechanics are usually seen as a 1:1 scale (model to real soldiers) while everything with unit bases is seen as 1:X
(exceptions are with smaller models, as 15 or 6mm can be a 1:1 scale but because it is easier to move/handle the models units bases and mechanics are used)

Rank & File/Flank would be a game with fixed units in blocks/bases, and while it can have less models than a Skirmish game, it is usually scaled that 1 unit/block/base represents a higher number of real soldiers, making it always a bigger Battle instead of a smaller Encounter

(Flames of War uses a 1:1 scale in 15mm is a Mass Battle game not an R&F game, while most Napolonics in 15mm would be an R&F Battle game, is the units still have a scale of 1:20, then there are SciFi games with single based models that uses Flank/Rare mechanics for units and a 1:1 scale which then would be still a Skirmish game)

So 40k, same as AoS, WM/H or Warhammer would be something like a Mass-Skirmish, Mass-Battle or Platoon-Level games as something in between a Skirmish and a Battle with Skirmish-Game rules but small Battle size

It's pretty simple...people still aren't buying many Mantic miniatures. Go look at the "Mantic" section of this forum...there's pages and pages of armies for KoW which are not Mantic miniatures, etc. They failed to revise their sculpts/model line where they could have stolen the full miniature market from GW - instead they only cornered the market on rank-and-flank rules. That may be enough for them. Instead, Oathmark, Northstar, and Forgeworld have jumped on the "good" plastic fantasy lines instead. Mantic still can't sculpt their way out of a wet bag.

 Elbows wrote:
It's pretty simple...people still aren't buying many Mantic miniatures. Go look at the "Mantic" section of this forum...there's pages and pages of armies for KoW which are not Mantic miniatures, etc. They failed to revise their sculpts/model line where they could have stolen the full miniature market from GW - instead they only cornered the market on rank-and-flank rules. That may be enough for them. Instead, Oathmark, Northstar, and Forgeworld have jumped on the "good" plastic fantasy lines instead. Mantic still can't sculpt their way out of a wet bag.

because you don't see a lot of Mantic models present in a Forum, you think they don't sell well.

and how should Mantic have stolen the miniature market from GW?
By making as expensive models as GW for a GW game that is not going well (8th edition) or for game no one really know what models would be needed (AoS)?
of course, if Mantic would have known 3 years in advance, they would have possibly got better and cheaper Minis on the table, not knowing if there is even a market for them or not

Yes, the revised their line with the death of Warhammer, but surprise, without a GW Mass Battle game demanding a high number of models to play, there was nor real market to sell R&F model lines.

And using models made for R&F for a Skirmish game does not work well in the same way is using models made for Skirmish games in R&F.

PS: I have never seen Oathmark, Northstar or Forgeworld to be used for Warhammer Fantasy at all, while there were a lot of Mantic models used for Core Units.
Nowadays I see a lot of T9A armies with Mantic models as they are the only ones left with models lines supporting the R&F market.

PPS: and by saying Mantic still can't sculpt, I guess you are some years behind and/or never looked at the stuff from Mantic in the recent years.

ChargerIIC wrote:The problem with WHFB hasn't changed. WHFB players are great at making a lot of noise but almost always fail to actually put money on the table to support the hobby. They bought thier models in 1978 or got them second hand and they are done ever buying more. The fanbase is split between those who prefer house-ruling and those who insist on only using their favorite edition. There's no significant base to make a profit from. What little there was is playing Age of Sigmar.

I see a lot of people celebrating but not actually promising to spend money at anywhere near the level needed to maintain the line. In the meantime, GW promised Sisters of Battle and people both promised and then did drop a crapton of money on their doorstep. Even Necromunda fans stepped up, drawing huge numbers into the hobby. Pretty sure the WHFB players aren't going to do any of that.

Your post makes far too many false assumptions. At the start of 6th Ed. both local areas I frequented had blossoming to booming WFB involvement. You had people that were either just starting WFB as their first game OR a swathe of 40K people that had decided now was the time to double dip. We had a standing rule of 1,000 points as a starting point, a goal for the new people to hit. Sure, we had store armies, but all players were focused on getting their own thing.

During this time, regiment boxes were $20 US, with a price bump to $25 sometime during the 6th life cycle. There were also Battalion boxes that were the WFB equivalent of the Battleforce boxes at the time. I believe they started out at $75 US and ended at $90 when they were discontinued. They also had army boxes that you could buy if you wanted in all at once, They ran from $175 US to $250 for a couple 40K ones and the Mortal Chaos army at the time.

Taking the average, what did $200 get you, roughly? A playable 2,000 point army. Maybe 1,500. We could err on the side of caution with this because some of the army boxes were filled with dirt cheap infantry units, so weren't a good point sink. Still, taking the Dwarfs set as an example, a 2,000 point army for right at $200 US. You know what Dwarfs could get for $200 us all the way through 8th up until the LCTB cleared old stock? Well, 20 Hammerers and 20 Ironbreakers would wipe out that budget immediately. The Warriors box and the Thunderers/Quarrelers box both went from $25 at introduction to a lofty $35 all the way til they sold out. Last year, or this year, I can't remember the exact moment when it all sold.

One of the funnier aspects of the price hike death was the fact that in BOTH of those communities you had people who were getting multiple armies. I think the only people that didn't have at least two armies each for both systems were the high school kids who simply couldn't afford it. Everyone else was double dipped for both systems, PLUS some bank spent on the side games like BFG, Mordheim, and the like.

So what changed? Affordability was one stepping stone BEFORE they made the rules bloat, which only added to the issue. If we're still making it a $1,000 buy in to get a 2,000 point army or so, you won't see people lining up to join in. In 40K it's a lot easier to fleece players with high prices as the items are very aesthetically unique. Dwarfs? You aren't necessarily held hostage by GW on this. Ideally, if they are bring back Rank and Flank, they'd do well in making something along the lines of the last three WFB starter sets with two small armies inside, and some Battalions to back them up. I wish I was confident in them doing exactly that, but I'm not.

GW what have you done.... Now people will be arguing over some scemantic defition of skirmish and battle for 3 years.

Seriously, Mantic may of had poor sculpts back when they first started. Now however? The Nightstalker range is easily on par or better with anything GW is doing and that new Northern Alliance army is Tiiiight.

Warhammer Fantasy players were just not buying miniatures, that's it. The only ones that did sell were models that there was never an earlier edition equivalent for. Arachnaroks, Demigryphs, Terrorgeists, yeah well buy those. Oh there are new Core troops for Dark elves? How much for a box of 10??!? Yeah, I'll just stick to the old 6th edition plastics and buy used ones off ebay. Or do a local swap at my FLGS.

I mean I'm not going to put this trouble all on the gamers. There were a bunch of factors that all collided at once in the late 2000's. The price of metal skyrocketing so pewter was no longer an option. The loss of revenue from LOTR as that bubble popped and the unwillingness of GW to actually errata their damn game during 7th edition. Despite that however the simple fact was that GW could release a new box of Space Marines that were just slightly different and people would gobble them up. WHFB? boxes sat on the shelves not moving.

I mean people lament that Bretonnians and Tomb Kings are gone and how much they liked them and thought they were awesome! Ask them if they actually bought anything and it's all "We'll, maybe someday I'll get around to making an army and buying stuff, but not now." and that alone explains why they are gone.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Seriously, Mantic may of had poor sculpts back when they first started. Now however? The Nightstalker range is easily on par or better with anything GW is doing and that new Northern Alliance army is Tiiiight.

Warhammer Fantasy players were just not buying miniatures, that's it. The only ones that did sell were models that there was never an earlier edition equivalent for. Arachnaroks, Demigryphs, Terrorgeists, yeah well buy those. Oh there are new Core troops for Dark elves? How much for a box of 10??!? Yeah, I'll just stick to the old 6th edition plastics and buy used ones off ebay. Or do a local swap at my FLGS.

I mean I'm not going to put this trouble all on the gamers. There were a bunch of factors that all collided at once in the late 2000's. The price of metal skyrocketing so pewter was no longer an option. The loss of revenue from LOTR as that bubble popped and the unwillingness of GW to actually errata their damn game during 7th edition. Despite that however the simple fact was that GW could release a new box of Space Marines that were just slightly different and people would gobble them up. WHFB? boxes sat on the shelves not moving.

I mean people lament that Bretonnians and Tomb Kings are gone and how much they liked them and thought they were awesome! Ask them if they actually bought anything and it's all "We'll, maybe someday I'll get around to making an army and buying stuff, but not now." and that alone explains why they are gone.

It's so weird you keep saying things I agree with but then coming to totally different conclusions... ;-)

First off - yeah Mantic new stuff is sweet esp. the Northern Alliance.

I had to Google the new Dark Elf core troops and I was about to call you a liar because they didn't change at all - till I googled the 6th ed troops and I see Oh wow, yes they actually are new and slightly *slightly* different - which no one will see in a block of 20-30 guys (Ok so yeah there is a functional issue directly related to nature of Rank and Flank). So there's the problem right there. They updated an old but arguably nice looking kit with a slightly nicer kit, doubled the price and ignored all kinds of ugly ancient models. Case in-point - Tomb Kings as Kodos talks about above. The living statues were jaw-dropping when they came out but you had to buy hundreds of fugly old skeletons in order to use them.

It's like the Dark Eldar in 40k - for years they sat with out-dated models (or missing models for all kinds of options) and when people called for updates the argument was - why should GW update them when they don't sell - they can release more space marines instead and make $ . When they finally did an overhaul of the range It was insanely well received and Dark Eldar sold like wildfire.

There's also cases where the new sculpts just totally miss the mark for some people. E.g. Off the top of my head - the daemonettes or the High Elf Phoenix Guard. The Phoenix Guard are some of the best metal models for the High Elf range (IMO) - when I saw the plastics I madly scrambled to buy as many of the old metals as I could. Why should I buy a worse model and the same or higher price with no functional in-game difference?

You're right a bunch of factors all colliding at once and we're only talking about a few of them - they may all be correct & important but with no way to gauge their impact.
Re. the Space Marines - I think it's important to emphasize the "slightly" different part. As time goes on GW gets better at making those kits each have something unique and valuable that helps them sell - even if it's just details from the lore from some old chapters or some rare piece of equipment. I think current GW would handle Fantasy release much differently - with campaign books and short-run releases like Tooth and Claw and Forgebane to help get new models and breathe new life into the game.

Random note, the 'new' Dark Eldar from 2009 or 9, are now just as old as the 'old' Dark Eldar were when they were replaced.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Random note, the 'new' Dark Eldar from 2009 or 9, are now just as old as the 'old' Dark Eldar were when they were replaced.

Why you make these observations? First the Rhino and now this.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Random note, the 'new' Dark Eldar from 2009 or 9, are now just as old as the 'old' Dark Eldar were when they were replaced.

Reported and blocked for hate speech.

 kodos wrote:
points you may add:

2000-2006, 6th Edition Warhammer is released with a re-worked rules set and army list booklet to have all armies on the same level, going from a more RPG/Hero focused game to a troop focused one.
It becomes the dominant TableTop tournament game in a lot of countries (replacing Battletech in some, which already struggled in the late 90ies because of unliked changes to the game)

2006-2010, during early 7th Edition GW declines/refuses to give official FAQ/Errata with a "we don't make mistakes" statement, leading to different community comps.

"Lore of Akito" is the dominant Community Comp in German Speaking countries and compensating most flaws of Warhammer by that time (including FAQ/Errata for armies not updated by GW).
It is replaced by SCS after ETC uses it in 8th.

2009, a disappointed Alessio Cavatore starts creating Kings of War after the statement "that he can write a much better game on 20 pages total if GW would give him some freedom in development" was heard by Ronni Renton from Mantic Games in a pub.

2009, GW released War of the Rings, a R&F Ruleset to be used with their LotR models, considered by some people the better Fantasy game by that time and attracts Warhammer players who stayed away from the Skirmish game before

2015, LotR is hit by GW's "double the price half the box" strategy to maximize profits (literally, former 24 model boxes were replaced by 12 model boxes for double the price of the old box) but unlike the Warhammer Community, LotR gamers did not stayed loyal to GW and the game was basically dead over night.

2016, after Kirby resigned (and AoS fails) AoS gets a major update making a community comp official and changes the game from the ground up

2018, 2nd Edition AoS is released

2019, 3rd Edition Kings of War was released, again with a main book and a dupplement compatible with former Warhammer Armies

>Kirby resigning.
>In 2016.

Lol, he retired in january of 2015.

insaniak wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:

Agree with many others that WHFB's demise was helped along its way by players who had existing armies and who never planned on buying anything retail.
That's a legitimate position to take but a silly one if you want to hope that a game stays in print/supported.

I'm perplexed as to how that's the player's problem. A company can't expect customers to keep buying for the sole purpose of keeping them in business. It's up to the company to give their customers a reason to keep buying. They tried to do that by pushing for larger armies, larger and more powerful models, and larger unit sizes... if customers didn't buy more as a result, that's not a failing of the customer, it's a failing of that business model.

This becomes a circular argument when you take on the viewpoint of responsibility. It isn't the companies responsibility to support a game that doesn't generate the revenue to support their employees. I'm not saying that there's some kind of moral responibility to purchase models. I'm saying its a cold, hard fact that if you don't buy models as an audience you won't get a game with active rules suport. It's just like the argument about buying models at the FLGS you play at. No one can force you to buy models to support your FLGS but you can't complain when it goes out of business because everyone thought someone else would keep them in business.

The argument here is whether there is an active, purchasing segment to support WHFB that wasn't there before. If you intend to freeload off that audience segment, that's fine; but if that segment isn't there this will just be a flash in the pan like AOS's legends rules.

Grimtuff wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

I mean if you don't believe me just take a look at the shear number of Skirmish games out there

Warhammer 40k
Age of Sigmar
Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game
Warmachine/Hordes

If you're going to make that argument at least know what a skirmish game is. Those four are clearly not.

Warmachine/Hordes is clealry a skirmish game. Most games only have 10-12 models per side and the design clearly intends for no more than a couple infantry squads per side. AOS was also designed as one, although it scales better. This doesn't count Mantic's fantasy skirmish level game (vanguard I think its called), mantic warpath, squad commander, kill team, XWing, Star Wras Legion etc.

There are definitely more skirmish games coming out than company level and the market for company level has shrinked a little over the past decade.

Lord Kragan wrote:

>Kirby resigning.
>In 2016.

Lol, he retired in january of 2015.

after Kirby resigned, in 2016 came the AoS revamp
of course he left earlier, otherwise there won't have been new live to AoS in 2016

 ChargerIIC wrote:

This becomes a circular argument when you take on the viewpoint of responsibility. It isn't the companies responsibility to support a game that doesn't generate the revenue to support their employees. I'm not saying that there's some kind of moral responibility to purchase models. I'm saying its a cold, hard fact that if you don't buy models as an audience you won't get a game with active rules suport.

And I would say to make a bad product that does not sell, and then arguing that it is not the company fault of making it bad in the first place, but for the target group which did not like it makes no sense

Same as Disney is making a bad movie, than the fans are the reason that no one watching it because also bad movies have to be a Blockbuster if Disney is making it.

If GW makes a bad game and/or a game the people don't like, than they should stop and make it better, and not wait years, do nothing and than kill the whole IP (would be fun if Disney now would blow off the whole Star Wars Universe if the third movie does not sell and remove if completely from the market and the fans would be guilty for not paying enough money to a bad product)

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Warmachine/Hordes is clealry a skirmish game.

LMAO you ever played WMH, mate?

Average 75pt armies for WMH (barring Jack heavy or Cryx Mechanithrall spam lists) will run about 30 or so models. Roughly the same as some 2nd ed 40k armies. Both of which are squad level games. They are not skirmish games. In a skirmish game such as Mordheim, Necromunda, Infinity, Malifaux the individual matters, things are not run in squads etc. Are you trying to say WMH/40k/AOS are the same type of game as Malifaux/Infinity et al as they are clearly not.

If anything, the news of the upcoming "Fantasy" retread shows GW's weakness, rather then their strengths.

As is said, Warmahordes has picked up the GW Overpriced/ Over tabled" bug in the last three years. They are honestly a skirmish oriented game, and the shoehorn fits all doesn't work for them. The Kirby Days was when we saw the initiation of AOS, and we see it getting tanked as it continues to try new things with the concept. Yes, They are not as popular as the Fantasy used to be, but they have a edge in that GW threw in all their egg into this basket, and clearly found that it was not working. With their Chapterhouse lawsuit, GW was taken down a peg, and had to clearly make up lost revenue, so they jumped in head first with the skirmish games, Rogue Trader, Kill Team, Necromunda, etc... So exactly, THIS is where fantasy would come to the table at, and then grow from there....

Mantic is more nitch, and playing off of GW's detractions, rather then building on their own. If it came right down to it, Mantic would lose their shorts if it weren't for Kickstarter, and being able to singlehandedly sell direct to players, THIS is one area where GW is too kool for school.

All of this begs the question- WHY DID IT TAKE THEM SO LONG TO COME FULL CIRCLE?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Warmachine/Hordes is clealry a skirmish game.

LMAO you ever played WMH, mate?

Average 75pt armies for WMH (barring Jack heavy or Cryx Mechanithrall spam lists) will run about 30 or so models. Roughly the same as some 2nd ed 40k armies. Both of which are squad level games. They are not skirmish games. In a skirmish game such as Mordheim, Necromunda, Infinity, Malifaux the individual matters, things are not run in squads etc. Are you trying to say WMH/40k/AOS are the same type of game as Malifaux/Infinity et al as they are clearly not.

Number of models is irrelevant, they move around in skirmish formation. It is a Skirmish game. You can rules lawyer and split hairs but those boys are all still on round bases. Even then you can play at smaller point values as well instead of larger games and the point still stands.

As for the resurrection of Warhammer Fantasy, GW was never going to let their IP lapse entirely. WHFB was always going to come back it was just a matter of when that was going to happen. By wiping out all the old legacy stuff (I mean they still sold Snotlings from...what? 30 years ago up until earlier this year) they can now sell models in that game again. Just do not expect the game to anything like it was before...which I guess is for the best as clearly GW had written themselves into a dead end when it came to expanding the game.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Warmachine/Hordes is clealry a skirmish game.

LMAO you ever played WMH, mate?

Average 75pt armies for WMH (barring Jack heavy or Cryx Mechanithrall spam lists) will run about 30 or so models. Roughly the same as some 2nd ed 40k armies. Both of which are squad level games. They are not skirmish games. In a skirmish game such as Mordheim, Necromunda, Infinity, Malifaux the individual matters, things are not run in squads etc. Are you trying to say WMH/40k/AOS are the same type of game as Malifaux/Infinity et al as they are clearly not.

Number of models is irrelevant, they move around in skirmish formation. It is a Skirmish game.

I have no idea how you can go through life being so utterly wrong.

TIL my Green Tide Ork army with numbers in the triple figures is a "skirmish" force and is equivalent to my dozen or so models Arcanist Malifaux crew. Pull the other one you dafty.

Using your logic why would games like Kill Team/Company of Iron need to exist when their parent games are already "skirmish" games and already scratch that itch? Answer- they are different games with different scales and mechanics.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I wonder how kicked-in-the-nuts Mantic feels. They just announce their coming 3rd edition of Kings of War, and now GW throws this into the air. Probably will hurt their sales

I dunno. I've been keeping my ears to my local scene and no one wants this there. They've stated that they're either going to just stay with Sigmar or ignore this completely. I think for some people, there is just too much bad blood on this.

One guy said "Do they expect me to buy my army again, and given the shoddy mess that their 40k Rules are, why should I have any faith in this? No thanks."

I think there's a core of people who are no longer GW customers who will remain no longer GW customers. That's a given and part of it IS GW's fault for how they handled the whole transition from Old World to AoS.

However I also think that 3 years is a long time; time enough for some to cool off and forget; for others to get inspired again and heck if GW starts throwing out a new fun system and new designs on models then many might "buy their army again" because now its moved on 10-20 years in design and technology in terms of miniature production.

 kodos wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
It's pretty simple...people still aren't buying many Mantic miniatures. Go look at the "Mantic" section of this forum...there's pages and pages of armies for KoW which are not Mantic miniatures, etc. They failed to revise their sculpts/model line where they could have stolen the full miniature market from GW - instead they only cornered the market on rank-and-flank rules. That may be enough for them. Instead, Oathmark, Northstar, and Forgeworld have jumped on the "good" plastic fantasy lines instead. Mantic still can't sculpt their way out of a wet bag.

because you don't see a lot of Mantic models present in a Forum, you think they don't sell well.

and how should Mantic have stolen the miniature market from GW?
By making as expensive models as GW for a GW game that is not going well (8th edition) or for game no one really know what models would be needed (AoS)?
of course, if Mantic would have known 3 years in advance, they would have possibly got better and cheaper Minis on the table, not knowing if there is even a market for them or not

Yes, the revised their line with the death of Warhammer, but surprise, without a GW Mass Battle game demanding a high number of models to play, there was nor real market to sell R&F model lines.

And using models made for R&F for a Skirmish game does not work well in the same way is using models made for Skirmish games in R&F.

PS: I have never seen Oathmark, Northstar or Forgeworld to be used for Warhammer Fantasy at all, while there were a lot of Mantic models used for Core Units.
Nowadays I see a lot of T9A armies with Mantic models as they are the only ones left with models lines supporting the R&F market.

PPS: and by saying Mantic still can't sculpt, I guess you are some years behind and/or never looked at the stuff from Mantic in the recent years.

You can continue to believe what you want to believe - but you've no better information or evidence that you think Mantic is doing well, than I have evidence they are not. I see zero Mantic presence in the local gaming community, none in the other city I frequent either. Not a single gaming friend I know owns or likes Mantic miniatures. And they're not all GW players either. I see little to no positive Mantic presence on the variety of gaming forums or facebook groups I attend. If you firmly believe Mantic is moving and shaking and killing the market...that's fine?

I have followed Mantic plenty lately and I still am yet to be wowed by any of their sculpts. Their general aesthetic is still pretty poor and the quality of the Mantic products I've been hands-on with have been garbage. I suppose this is the internet though so you can attempt to tell me that my opinion is wrong or some such. Carry on with your enthusiasm for Mantic - no one is stopping you.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Random note, the 'new' Dark Eldar from 2009 or 9, are now just as old as the 'old' Dark Eldar were when they were replaced.

Reported and blocked for hate speech.

Did you know there's less than 2 months left in the 2010s?

 Grimtuff wrote:

Using your logic why would games like Kill Team/Company of Iron need to exist when their parent games are already "skirmish" games and already scratch that itch? Answer- they are different games with different scales and mechanics.

Those games exist as an easy, cheap, entry point for players. With Kill Team GW realized that you must have things players will want to buy at every price point. No matter the amount of money you have to spend on the hobby you should be able to walk into a Warhammer store and be able to buy something. I can go out a buy a box of Marines and have a Kill team to play with in that game. Once you have that...hey maybe a month or two down the line I have a little more disposable income and I buy a box of terminators. Now I've slowly begun the addiction to plastic crack.

By providing games that can be played at all price points you can get players to slowly join the hobby and slowly build more and more until, before you know it, you're sitting on a whole company of Space Marines getting ready for a weekend Apocalypse game.

And yes triple figure Orks is still skirmish. They move around in skirmish and fight in skirmish. It is skirmish. You may not interpret it as such but it's not a matter of the numbers it's the method by which the game is played. Now if I were to make this claim about, lets say, Epic Armageddon I would be wrong. In this instance I am indeed correct.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
.

And yes triple figure Orks is still skirmish. They move around in skirmish and fight in skirmish. It is skirmish. You may not interpret it as such but it's not a matter of the numbers it's the method by which the game is played.

Incidentally this is why I think AoS at tournament-points level is a mess.

It's a perfectly good simple game at 1000-ish points but IMHO it's downhill from there.

Tidy square bases in their trays escalate much better.

KoW is a good game, but yeah the models are hit or miss. Often not bad (a few notwithstanding) but definitely an odd aesthetic if you're used to the GW style.

I don't think this WHFB will be the WHFB we remember. Let's not forget a big reason it wasn't selling was the usual GW issues: Crazy imbalance and they upped the unit sizes to where you wanted 40, and then sold boxes of 10 for $40 (goldswords anyone?).

To put in perspective when I played in 5th edition, 20 was the usual size for non-Goblin/Skaven units (but mostly metal blister packs of 2 then). Chaos Warriors were often 10 but had the best stats in the game at the time and were stupid expensive in points. Cavalry was typically 5 or 10 if you really wanted a hard-hitting unit.

Commodus is technically correct, since the use of "skirmish" in wargmaing tends to just be shorthand for "one figure equals one man" on the tabletop.

From there you can distinguish by "squad" level skirmish for games like Kill Team or Company of Iron or "platoon" level for games like 40k, Age of Sigmar or Bolt action (although technically those are more "reinforced platoon" games).

Once you hit company level games, where the basic operating unit is a platoon and you move to stands of infantry that represent fireteams instead of individuals, I think you've moved beyond the realm of "skirmish" games.

Wayniac wrote:
To put in perspective when I played in 5th edition, 20 was the usual size for non-Goblin/Skaven units (but mostly metal blister packs of 2 then). Chaos Warriors were often 10 but had the best stats in the game at the time and were stupid expensive in points. Cavalry was typically 5 or 10 if you really wanted a hard-hitting unit.

Best thing GW could do for the WHFB revival is go back to 1 box = 1 unit, apart from maybe 1-2 armies that rely on larger blocks of infantry. Once every army needed a core of 2-3 30-40 miniatures blocks to survive, it's not wonder that WHFB collapsed, especially with GW prices. On a side note, it's actually when I started playing WHFB, and my Dwarves featured two blocks of 30 dwarf warriors with Great Weapons.

 infinite_array wrote:
Commodus is technically correct

The best kind of correct

Also yes, AoS beyond 1000pts is no where near as balanced and fun as playing at 1000pts. So much so that I honestly wish that was the standard game size.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
And yes triple figure Orks is still skirmish. They move around in skirmish and fight in skirmish. It is skirmish. You may not interpret it as such but it's not a matter of the numbers it's the method by which the game is played. Now if I were to make this claim about, lets say, Epic Armageddon I would be wrong. In this instance I am indeed correct.

Maybe what broke up the community was not operationalizing terms and then arguing about who is using them "right" and "wrong."

If you want to define "skirmish" in terms of the scope, then numbers do matter. If "skirmish" refers to the movement mechanic, then scope doesn't matter.

No one is right or wrong here, there is just no operationalization of terms.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Commodus is technically correct

The best kind of correct

Also yes, AoS beyond 1000pts is no where near as balanced and fun as playing at 1000pts. So much so that I honestly wish that was the standard game size.

I'd go a bit further to say like no more than 1500 but yeah. I long think that 1000-1500 is the "sweet" spot of Warhammer, 1250 in particular on say a 4x4 table with lots of terrain. Enough to include what you want, low enough to get rid of some of the BS. Sadly most people I know refuse to do anything below 2k because that's "tournament standard" and the game is presumably balanced around that.

 H wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
And yes triple figure Orks is still skirmish. They move around in skirmish and fight in skirmish. It is skirmish. You may not interpret it as such but it's not a matter of the numbers it's the method by which the game is played. Now if I were to make this claim about, lets say, Epic Armageddon I would be wrong. In this instance I am indeed correct.

Maybe what broke up the community was not operationalizing terms and then arguing about who is using them "right" and "wrong."

If you want to define "skirmish" in terms of the scope, then numbers do matter. If "skirmish" refers to the movement mechanic, then scope doesn't matter.

No one is right or wrong here, there is just no operationalization of terms.

It depends entirely on how you look at it. In a military sense? I will agree that the troop numbers in a standard game of 40k would not qualify as a skirmish. However we are not talking about actual battles that actually are happening. It's a game and the way wargames are categorized as based on how they play, not the numbers of models on the board. In that sense 40k is a Skirmish game.

So yes If I am being a bit harsh in my criticism then I apologize. However through all my years of playing wargames I have never heard of 40k being called anything other then a skirmish game. And it has always been called a skirmish game based on how it played not the number of models on the field.

I imagine that is ultimately where the disconnect in terminology comes from.

 Elbows wrote:

You can continue to believe what you want to believe - but you've no better information or evidence that you think Mantic is doing well, than I have evidence they are not. I see zero Mantic presence in the local gaming community, none in the other city I frequent either. Not a single gaming friend I know owns or likes Mantic miniatures. And they're not all GW players either. I see little to no positive Mantic presence on the variety of gaming forums or facebook groups I attend. If you firmly believe Mantic is moving and shaking and killing the market...that's fine?

So I guess Age of Sigmar is dead too?
Never seen any positive comment on the rules, non here around play that game or buy the models and the forums or social media groups I attend just avoid that game and everything that comes with it.

It seems to be a US-only thing that people are even talking about it, if Dakka is considered a US forum.

Same for Kill Team and Blood Bowl, I mean I have seen more local Battletech than Blood Bowl games, so following that Battletech is the more popular game?