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.

 Vermis wrote:
Ah, sorry, I meant your ABC list. I've seen those presented seriously too often, in the past.

Oh. No, that was sarcasm since 1+ of those are usually used as the counter to anything non-GW.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I feel sorry for veteran players who could be affected by this...

BUT

I can see where GW are coming from.

From all accounts, Fantasy is dying on its feet. Continuing a failed trend and giving us version 8.1 is unlikely to arrest this decline.

Streamlining is a sensible plan to me. Fantasy, in my view, has enough dead wood as it is. To be honest, I'd rather see 6 well supported factions, with regular updates and models, than the constant bloat of having to wait 6 years for a new wood elf book.

Also, it could be that this new version allows GW to produce a tight, well balanced set of rules.

Yeah, I think they've played just about every other card they could. They've moved most everything to plastic, created new units and giant kits, and have used the rules to encourage people to have larger armies. But they're just about tapped out on that stuff, even as they've made the barrier to entry taller and increased the number of SKUs they have to manage. Mild tweaks paired with additional bloat just isn't going to reverse the decline.

And I still think that the notion that "everything is invalidated!!!" will prove to be untrue. There will undoubtedly be some pain, but I suspect that plenty of old minis will still be hitting the tabletop.

 Swan-of-War wrote:
(copy of my post on ordofanaticus.com)

The year: 2015. From out of space comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Old World and the Morrsleib, unleashing cosmic destruction! Man's civilization is cast in ruin! Two thousand years later, the Old World is reborn. A strange new world rises from the old: a world of savagery, super science and sorcery.

But one man bursts his bonds to fight for justice! With his companions Nagash the Mok and Everqueen Alarielle, he pits his strength, his courage, and his fabulous Ghal Maraz against the forces of evil. He is Karl Franzarr, the Barbarian!

Good laugh have an exalt

 triplegrim wrote:
They dont expect people who have full armies to buy much more anyway, is my guess.

DING! DING! Someone gets a prize!

GW knows darn well how little vets really spend, and what it takes to make them open their wallets.

 lobbywatson wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
Funny how it goes.

Rumor: GW is going to release a codex with only two units in it!
Community: Total BS, can't be.
Knights are released.
Community: Oh.

Rumor: The FOC will be removed from 40k, you can put on the table pretty much whatever you like.
Community: Total BS, can't be!
7th Ed is released.
Community: Oh.

Rumor: WHFB will be changed in a fashion that allows GW to almost completely axe any upkeep cost, eliminate the used-models-market and remove the need for background, and well-defined, planned codices.
Community: Total BS, can't be!!1111!oneeleveneinseinundeinzig!
...6 months remaining...

You should add in the hundred of rumors that WEREN'T true.
7th ed
Consolidate into.combat, ignore cover changing, sidebars, percentages etc...
Sisters hardcover codex
The chaos legions book rumor
Fantasy
Brets getting a new book every other month for the last year

Also, the rumor that the FOC is gone is clearly false. You have the option to not use it, but the primary method of play still uses the FOC and none of the tournaments allow unbound.

 lobbywatson wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
Funny how it goes.

Rumor: GW is going to release a codex with only two units in it!
Community: Total BS, can't be.
Knights are released.
Community: Oh.

Rumor: The FOC will be removed from 40k, you can put on the table pretty much whatever you like.
Community: Total BS, can't be!
7th Ed is released.
Community: Oh.

Rumor: WHFB will be changed in a fashion that allows GW to almost completely axe any upkeep cost, eliminate the used-models-market and remove the need for background, and well-defined, planned codices.
Community: Total BS, can't be!!1111!oneeleveneinseinundeinzig!
...6 months remaining...

You should add in the hundred of rumors that WEREN'T true.
7th ed
Consolidate into.combat, ignore cover changing, sidebars, percentages etc...
Sisters hardcover codex
The chaos legions book rumor
Fantasy
Brets getting a new book every other month for the last year

But those are more minor rumors that end up being bunk; they generally don't have the best rumor mongers backing them up (and a lot are people just guessing at GW's path).

Now, I don't think you have to take this stuff as gospel, but I think dismissing it as lamentation of jaded fans is a bit silly. These rumors make a lot of sense. Like John and gorgon have said, what other options does GW have?

 gorgon wrote:
And I still think that the notion that "everything is invalidated!!!" will prove to be untrue. There will undoubtedly be some pain, but I suspect that plenty of old minis will still be hitting the tabletop.

I think the rumors are very clear:
1. massive changes to fluff and setting
2. minimal changes to the rules engine
3. all existing Army Books remain valid for play

If you have an Old World army, you can play as you always have, Dark Elves against Chaos Dorfs; Lizardmen in Kislev; Egyptian undead in the Norse tundra; and so on. Except the rules will be somewhat cleaner than what we have today.

At some point, Grimdark Army Books will release that players can evolve their armies to follow, or buy appropriately Grimdark models for.

Old World armies can and will play against Grimdark armies under the new edition, much like how Warmachine battles Hordes.

9th Edition isn't the issue. 10th Edition is where we should see GW Squat the Old World; however, as 10th will still be an evolution of 9th, which would have been a tweak of 8th, Old World armies should still be playable. Probably only need a $50 Ravening Hordes-like dataslate to carry on if you're not buying the appropriate Grimdark Army Book.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
And I still think that the notion that "everything is invalidated!!!" will prove to be untrue. There will undoubtedly be some pain, but I suspect that plenty of old minis will still be hitting the tabletop.

I think the rumors are very clear:
1. massive changes to fluff and setting
2. minimal changes to the rules engine
3. all existing Army Books remain valid for play

If you have an Old World army, you can play as you always have, Dark Elves against Chaos Dorfs; Lizardmen in Kislev; Egyptian undead in the Norse tundra; and so on. Except the rules will be somewhat cleaner than what we have today.

At some point, Grimdark Army Books will release that players can evolve their armies to follow, or buy appropriately Grimdark models for.

Old World armies can and will play against Grimdark armies under the new edition, much like how Warmachine battles Hordes.

9th Edition isn't the issue. 10th Edition is where we should see GW Squat the Old World; however, as 10th will still be an evolution of 9th, which would have been a tweak of 8th, Old World armies should still be playable. Probably only need a $50 Ravening Hordes-like dataslate to carry on if you're not buying the appropriate Grimdark Army Book.

The Words.
Right out of my mouth.

Several posters keep mentioning how armies and swathes of models will be canned and squatted. None of the more reliable rumormongers have said any such thing. It's just the chaff that's trying to build up clicks to their blogs and websites that are spewing that bull.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
And I still think that the notion that "everything is invalidated!!!" will prove to be untrue. There will undoubtedly be some pain, but I suspect that plenty of old minis will still be hitting the tabletop.

I think the rumors are very clear:
1. massive changes to fluff and setting
2. minimal changes to the rules engine
3. all existing Army Books remain valid for play

If you have an Old World army, you can play as you always have, Dark Elves against Chaos Dorfs; Lizardmen in Kislev; Egyptian undead in the Norse tundra; and so on. Except the rules will be somewhat cleaner than what we have today.

At some point, Grimdark Army Books will release that players can evolve their armies to follow, or buy appropriately Grimdark models for.

Old World armies can and will play against Grimdark armies under the new edition, much like how Warmachine battles Hordes.

9th Edition isn't the issue. 10th Edition is where we should see GW Squat the Old World; however, as 10th will still be an evolution of 9th, which would have been a tweak of 8th, Old World armies should still be playable. Probably only need a $50 Ravening Hordes-like dataslate to carry on if you're not buying the appropriate Grimdark Army Book.

The Words.
Right out of my mouth.

Several posters keep mentioning how armies and swathes of models will be canned and squatted. None of the more reliable rumormongers have said any such thing. It's just the chaff that's trying to build up clicks to their blogs and websites that are spewing that bull.

Honestly, it's starting to sound like a parallel skirmish game using WHFB models to try and edge into the skirmish-based market. But once people have enough models they can stick them in movement trays and push them around in a mass-battle game.

The current game doesn't work well at a smaller scale, because units are designed and balanced for larger games where people have the variety of tools to deal with them. Bring 3 ethereal units or a demon prince to a 1,000 point game and see how well your opponents can deal with them, for instance.

But build a skirmish game that can be run using WHFB models and you're off to the races. It helps people get into the game, and increases the value of your IP. And if you keep your mass-battle game running alongside it then it encourages people to buy more for their armies to play this larger scale game. More importantly, you can compete with both mass battle games and Warmahordes-style skirmish games without cannibalizing your own sales, because the models port over between the two.

What I *DO NOT* see is GW negating people's entire armies. That won't happen. They want us to buy new stuff, but they don't want to abandon the investment that ties many to the game.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:


What I *DO NOT* see is GW negating people's entire armies. That won't happen. They want us to buy new stuff, but they don't want to abandon the investment that ties many to the game.

Yeah they will, I was around for 3rd ed 40k when they nuked Squats, and Genestealer cults, and AM from codex imperialis, as well as Harlies.

As well as the corresponding warhammer fantasy where we had Raving hordes until a new book was made.

I half expected it every other edition. We've been too complacent.

I can't see them scaling to both with how things are currently priced and boxed. What would the idea be, that you buy a box of 10 guys and can use 10 in a skirmish, but need 20-30 for the mass game?

You'd still need to buy several different boxes of troops, unless GW's idea of skirmish is vastly different than everyone else's (which isn't outside the realm of possibility), so you're still paying a lot just you don't necessarily have to buy multiples of the same box to make one unit. It'd basically go closer to 40k without the vehicles.

The more I think about this, the more I think I see some flawed logic implicit in this change. Even if it doesn't turn out to be true (and I sincerely hope for all of the fans and existing players of WHFB that it is not), the fact is that the proposition is believable when faced with the track record of modern GW.

1. Someone mentioned in another thread about the second hand market damaging GW's sales. In one fell stroke, you eliminate any possibility of anyone selling their old miniatures and that impacting the sales of your new lines, and all of your veteran players must discard their existing miniatures to collect the new if they want to play.

2. Sub-ins for GW games are becoming increasingly popular, fantasy 'dwarves' and 'orcs' are ten-a-penny, easy to get from elsewhere and easy to use in place of GW minis. Historical minis sub in easily for the human lines. Mantic have made a game that is faster to play, smarter, more tactical than WFB and costs a fraction of the price. Merrett and co. must absolutely despise these freeloaders on GW's own ideas.

This leads to..
3. Creating new 'fantasy' creatures that are defendable as their own creations, away from standard fantasy tropes. Everyone loves SM right? So make a human faction resemble them. IP is easier to defend, rather than treating the Chapterhouse case as a wake-up call, a slap to the face and wallet which might make them actually realise their product lines and their place within the industry, they will turn instead back to the 'fortress wall and moat' of building separation between the 'GW hobby' and everything else.

This, if it comes to pass, will show more than anything else what respect GW has for its fan base.

The only thing that throws me is the notion of round bases. That makes no sense based on the history of Fantasy.

However, the idea of a "skirmish" whereby you only need one box for a unit is a smart one. The idea of building lots and lots of very expensive wound counters needs to go away.

1,000 pt games with a higher minimum unit count would help here, as would removal of outnumbering, ranks and horde bonuses. If WFB no longer rewards huge units, then players will adapt accordingly. And really, that would be a simplification of the game, so that would also help speed gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
1. Someone mentioned in another thread about the second hand market damaging GW's sales.

2. Sub-ins for GW games are becoming increasingly popular,

3. Creating new 'fantasy' creatures that are defendable as their own creations, away from standard fantasy tropes.

treating the Chapterhouse case as a wake-up call, a slap to the face and wallet which might make them actually realise their product lines and their place within the industry

This, if it comes to pass, will show more than anything else what respect GW has for its fan base.

1. I hadn't thought about this impacting secondary sales, but it's a good point, and a strong reason to start fresh.

2. This was obvious, and getting out of hand. GW made a mistake with leveraging Tolkien, and they are paying for it now.

3. This is what GW should have been doing all along. It's smarter and protected.

Chapterhouse was a wake-up, no doubt. Everything we're seeing is a result of GW losing hard.

What I don't understand is how GW is "bad" for doing what Privateer has done. Why aren't we excpriating Privateer as "bad" for pushing proprietary IP for laughably ridiculous models at unconscionably high per-model price points?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The only thing that throws me is the notion of round bases. That makes no sense based on the history of Fantasy.

However, the idea of a "skirmish" whereby you only need one box for a unit is a smart one. The idea of building lots and lots of very expensive wound counters needs to go away.

1,000 pt games with a higher minimum unit count would help here, as would removal of outnumbering, ranks and horde bonuses. If WFB no longer rewards huge units, then players will adapt accordingly. And really, that would be a simplification of the game, so that would also help speed gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
1. Someone mentioned in another thread about the second hand market damaging GW's sales.

2. Sub-ins for GW games are becoming increasingly popular,

3. Creating new 'fantasy' creatures that are defendable as their own creations, away from standard fantasy tropes.

treating the Chapterhouse case as a wake-up call, a slap to the face and wallet which might make them actually realise their product lines and their place within the industry

This, if it comes to pass, will show more than anything else what respect GW has for its fan base.

1. I hadn't thought about this impacting secondary sales, but it's a good point, and a strong reason to start fresh.

2. This was obvious, and getting out of hand. GW made a mistake with leveraging Tolkien, and they are paying for it now.

3. This is what GW should have been doing all along. It's smarter and protected.

Chapterhouse was a wake-up, no doubt. Everything we're seeing is a result of GW losing hard.

What I don't understand is how GW is "bad" for doing what Privateer has done. Why aren't we excpriating Privateer as "bad" for pushing proprietary IP for laughably ridiculous models at unconscionably high per-model price points?

If you don't understand the difference, there is likely nothing that will explain it to you. It's been shown many, many times that overall the price of PP's game is cheaper generally speaking than 40k, with it only balancing out with extreme examples or when you get into 2-3 list formats. It's easier to get into by leaps and bounds; in fact I priced out recently a basic 35 point force that came (with retail discounts) to $142.00; that amount would barely get you the minimum for 40k.

I understand that GW requires more models, but don't claim that PP models aren't more expensive than GW models for the same number of bases on the tabletop.

And the minimum for 40k? About 500 points. Splitting a 40k starter set for $50 each gets you a lot more points than that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I understand that GW requires more models, but don't claim that PP models aren't more expensive than GW models for the same number of bases on the tabletop.

And the minimum for 40k? About 500 points. Splitting a 40k starter set for $50 each gets you a lot more points than that.

And how many people play 500 points of 40k? 35 points is a regular sized game of Warmachine, not the "minimum". Besides, this thread is about WHFB. 500 is certainly not the minimum for Fantasy.

In any event this is off topic, and we aren't even talking about 40k. The fact remains this has been explained many, many times why GW is more expensive.

Why is GW considered more expensive?

Because the standard size 2500 Points Warhammer army cost double or triple the price from a standard size 50 point Warmachine army, 2000 points Bolt Action or Napoleonic army

Why is GW considered bad?
Communication with the community
GW just don't care while others give information and reason why they are doing something.

Also the old "we make no mistakes, our rules are perfect" statement pushed them into a hole they never escaped.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The only thing that throws me is the notion of round bases. That makes no sense based on the history of Fantasy.

Makes a bit of sense based on the history of other fantasy games, though.

 Pacific wrote:

2. Sub-ins for GW games are becoming increasingly popular,

3. Creating new 'fantasy' creatures that are defendable as their own creations, away from standard fantasy tropes.

2. This was obvious, and getting out of hand. GW made a mistake with leveraging Tolkien, and they are paying for it now.

3. This is what GW should have been doing all along. It's smarter and protected.

I dunno... I can see the point that generic elves 'n' dwarfs fantasy is a bit of a free-for-all, but I think if GW hadn't gone and done so much stuff that makes people sick and tired of them (i.e. raising prices, writing crappy rules, invalidating stuff [seems to be the word of the week], and suing everyone in eyeshot) then they could hang onto their spot as top of the heap in generic elves 'n' dwarfs fantasy minis.
While the aesthetics of some of their range can be iffy, they've got a lot of experience designing and chopping things up for plastic production, and I think it's gotten a lot better in recent years, probably with digital help. (I still marvel at the IoB stuff and the wee plastic liche king.) They could drastically undercut competing metal and resin minis, especially for army building, and their closest rival for generic fantasy plastics... well, I've thought for a while that it's a tragic choice between GW's pretty good quality and toe-curling prices, and Mantic's pretty good prices and (often) toe-curling quality. (though I think that's more down to the drawing board than the manufacturing process) Does it really have to be either/or?

Why aren't we excpriating Privateer as "bad" for pushing proprietary IP for laughably ridiculous models at unconscionably high per-model price points?

I could make a start, if you like.

You were the one talking about minimum for 40k, not me. In my experience, 500 points is around the minimum for a viable 40k force. I prefer to play 40k at the 750 point level, because it's a great size to play.

GW is only more expensive if you choose to make it expensive.

A huge fleet of Chevys will cost more than a handful of Lincolns. That doesn't make a Lincoln less expensive than a Chevy. No matter how many of you PP apologists and white knights appear, it will not change the fact that PP models are more expensive than GW models.

If expectorating PP makes that much spittle fly, I think I'll pass.

Only, yeah, you're not just buying one Lincoln or Chevy. Y'see? That'd make a pretty short and boring game of, um, cars.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
They want us to buy new stuff, but they don't want to abandon the investment that ties many to the game.

They just want us to buy stuff, they don't care about anything you've already bought. In fact, to them it seems that they'd see great benefit in people having to go out and buy new minis for the game by invalidating all of the old stuff.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The only thing that throws me is the notion of round bases. That makes no sense based on the history of Fantasy.

But they've already done it with LOTR, and movement trays that take round bases have been around for years, so it's not a particularly big leap to see things on round bases. It's not as if GW has ever encouraged multi-basing or anything that would prevent it.

In some ways it's better - if it allows units it skirmish formation you could have some more interesting game play, if GW is already planning on squatting half of the Warhammer world, why not change the bases at the same time to make it really inconvenient to bring forward your old stuff?

I'm just glad I never got round to assembling my dwarf horde, so putting them on round bases will be trivial.

 Vermis wrote:

..... I dunno... I can see the point that generic elves 'n' dwarfs fantasy is a bit of a free-for-all, but I think if GW hadn't gone and done so much stuff that makes people sick and tired of them (i.e. raising prices, writing crappy rules, invalidating stuff [seems to be the word of the week], and suing everyone in eyeshot) then they could hang onto their spot as top of the heap in generic elves 'n' dwarfs fantasy minis. .....

This. This is the problem with games workshop. They can reboot the rules and invalidate models as much as they want, but unless they fix the problems then the problems will remain. Nowhere in the rumours have i seen "better rules", "better prices", "better balance" or even "skirmish" like i keep hearing about. It's just the same old same old, only now there will be many more people going to be hit. Bowling! Get your bowling here! <fires shotgun in the air>

Rather than trying to make everything in their Fantasy range distinctively Warhammer, GW could simply produce good models at a reasonable cost, selling them to people who wanted to play their game, and people who wanted to play other things.

They have a huge team of talented sculptors. They have their own plastic injection molding equipment. They have the experience and the distribution network. Why are they trying to reinvent the wheel?


A new version of the rules which provided good support for smaller army composition would be great. It doesn't need to rule out large battles, but surely there's some way to handle force selection which will support small scale games as well as mass battles.

Fewer army books could be great, and shouldn't need to eliminate units at all, given how large GW books are. You could easily have a "The Empire and her Allies" book which included the Empire, Bretonnia, and the Dwarves. A "Forces of the Elves" book could cover all the elven factions and give appropriate detail on all of them. "Hordes of Chaos" is rather obvious, and a "Undead" book could easily handle all types of undead. I don't know what you would call it ("Inhuman Enemies, maybe), but the Orcs, Goblins, Ogres, Skaven, and Lizardmen could all fit in one tome. I'm not talking about combined armies and eliminating units. It would be pretty easy to cover the rules for each as a full army in one book. GW's books are full of pictures and fluff right now.

I just don't see the need for GW to reinvent their fantasy business. Sure, it might be smaller than 40K, but I would expect business to drop off with all of the competition out there. I don't see how any of the rumored moves do anything other than alienate players and make new players wary of the system. I mean, the game's not perfect AT ALL, but you've had decades of success with the WFB world and the setting, so why change it so fundamentally? It's worked for YEARS.

The rules and army composition have caused almost all of GW's problems, but they seem determined to fix what isn't broken. Before anyone says anything about 'advancing the storyline', I just want to draw a distinction between "and then, something happened" and "Now, everything changes".

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The only thing that throws me is the notion of round bases. That makes no sense based on the history of Fantasy.

However, the idea of a "skirmish" whereby you only need one box for a unit is a smart one. The idea of building lots and lots of very expensive wound counters needs to go away.

1,000 pt games with a higher minimum unit count would help here, as would removal of outnumbering, ranks and horde bonuses. If WFB no longer rewards huge units, then players will adapt accordingly. And really, that would be a simplification of the game, so that would also help speed gameplay.

When I am in an optimistic mood I interpret the WHFB rumors thusly:

GW will unveil a new skirmish game for WHFB. The skirmish game will be a parallel game to WHFB but different, not just a new ruleset for scaled down games of WHFB. The skirmish game, being a separate system, will get new model releases which will be the new models rumored, ie the human faction fantasy space marines. The skirmish game releases will be separate from WHFB releases and come with round bases. Why round bases? I imagine for the same reason every other skirmish game that comes to mind, from 40K to Warmahordes to Darklands, etc. uses round bases. If you want create large units of skirmish game models into games of WHFB you will be able to do so and GW will happily sell you movement trays designed to fit with round bases. Not all WHFB models will be supported by the skirmish game. There will be models and units from WHFB that won't be supported in the skirmish game because they are too big/powerful to balance in a skirmish game and therefore don't belong in one. That is my optimistic explanation for the rumor that armies will be invalidated and unsupported going forward.

WHFB 9th edition will be a mildly different version of 8th that still supports the existing armies and models. I think GW will consolidate army books along the lines already shown in the End Times books, ie one combined Elf book instead of 3. I think even more WHFB stock will be available only through the direct order website instead of FLGS or GW stores and availability will have more limitations. The official WHFB fluff will be the End Times fluff and however that ends will be the new normal for WHFB, whether that's bubble realities or whatever. I think players will still be able to field 8th edition armies since they will still be made up of units included in the new 9thEd/ET army books, playing a combined Elf army with just HE models will be possible and have rules support but all of the HE units may not be available for purchase all the time or have a more generalized/bland unit description.

That is what I hope will happen but I wouldn't be shocked if GW did it differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:
If expectorating PP makes that much spittle fly, I think I'll pass.

Only, yeah, you're not just buying one Lincoln or Chevy. Y'see? That'd make a pretty short and boring game of, um, cars.

Great, now I want to go dig ThunderRoad out of the attic and play it some more.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You were the one talking about minimum for 40k, not me. In my experience, 500 points is around the minimum for a viable 40k force. I prefer to play 40k at the 750 point level, because it's a great size to play.

GW is only more expensive if you choose to make it expensive.

A huge fleet of Chevys will cost more than a handful of Lincolns. That doesn't make a Lincoln less expensive than a Chevy. No matter how many of you PP apologists and white knights appear, it will not change the fact that PP models are more expensive than GW models.

Is 40k designed to be played at 500pts or 750pts though? I think even though a game can be played at any points level (and if we're taking it to extremes, you could play it as the tutorial from 2nd edition and have two orks against a space marine! ) there is still a 'golden zone' at which all of the play testing, points weighting, moving/firing mechanics and everything else were designed to work at best.

The fact is that any kid opening a WD, looking at a game going on in a store, or on a video on youtbue, for the most part isn't going to see 500pts playing. They are going to see 1500/2000pts plus. And, probably a whole lot more once you get the larger plastic kits involved and 'armageddon' everything.

I think that is the fair way to determine a cost of a game - the amount that it costs, in standard format, to play a game as the creators of that game intended it, and reinforced by the standards of the community. And by this measure, since the departure of their skirmish and smaller scale games, GW pretty much blow everyone else out of the water.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I think you need to fetch yourself a few buckets to catch all the drips of condescension coming off that post.

Doesn't make him wrong. The "They're not taking your books away! You can still play last edition!" only holds water in situations where groups of friends agree to keep playing the previous edition. For events and pick-up games in stores the expectation will be the latest edition with the latest rules, so people have every right to be pissed off about this because not everyone has a group of friends they play with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I think you need to fetch yourself a few buckets to catch all the drips of condescension coming off that post.

Doesn't make him wrong. The "They're not taking your books away! You can still play last edition!" only holds water in situations where groups of friends agree to keep playing the previous edition. For events and pick-up games in stores the expectation will be the latest edition with the latest rules, so people have every right to be pissed off about this because not everyone has a group of friends they play with.

Errrm, I'm pretty sure Vermis was agreeing with Gubbinz, ie making exactly the opposite of the argument you're stating. That's why I was having a pop, I'm getting tired of the whole "ermahgerd just play old editions/other companies' games/write your own rules, you lazy GW-sheeple!" shtick that gets thrown around every time someone objects to the decisions GW have been making recently.

Based on how well the game plays at 750, I'd say so. Seriously, go try a game in which movement and range actually matters.

I did a lot of 500-pt in-store games, because they pretty much always finished quickly and easily. And they were a good match for the armies the people were starting.

Define "community". Surely, you can't be referring to the tournament scene, as that is known to be the far extreme of the player base, and minimally relevant to anybody who isn't actively playing tournaments. If you want to look at who actually buys and plays 40k or WFB, they are the garage & basement gamer crowd who play beer & pretzels, just like the designers of the game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you want to look at who actually buys and plays 40k or WFB, they are the garage & basement gamer crowd who play beer & pretzels, just like the designers of the game.

The only people I see buying 40k are vets who are still in love with their armies and keep up with new releases although they never play anymore, and the 6 guys who play in international tournaments. I don't ever see anyone buying WHFB.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Based on how well the game plays at 750, I'd say so. Seriously, go try a game in which movement and range actually matters.

I did a lot of 500-pt in-store games, because they pretty much always finished quickly and easily. And they were a good match for the armies the people were starting.

Define "community". Surely, you can't be referring to the tournament scene, as that is known to be the far extreme of the player base, and minimally relevant to anybody who isn't actively playing tournaments. If you want to look at who actually buys and plays 40k or WFB, they are the garage & basement gamer crowd who play beer & pretzels, just like the designers of the game.

So you're saying the Designers designed the game for 750 point games? I know you like to be obtuse, but we all know the game is designed for 1,500 - 2,000. I also like smaller point games, but let's be reasonable about what size the game is designed for.