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.

mmmh, so a possibility could be a move towards the Confrontation model with stats and cards in each unit box. Then allow people to field what they want with in an army (+allies) with reduced options. The FOC could be eliminated by using points to reduce liklihood of spamming tough units.

A move towards unit by unit alternating between places on an established workable rule set could be a lot of fun.

Deadawake1347 wrote:

The problem being that those four models are $140 each, so the four of them cost $560. Which, seeing as how the original point was the fact that getting a usable, average sized army was too expensive, doesn't really help your side. An average sized army should not require a half a grand or more investment. Which for most games is not an issue.

Anyone who isn't prepared to spend $500+ should not even consider Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer 40k. Really, these are $1,000+ games to have a competent army, and another $500 a year, minimum, to keep up. For collectors (who basically want most of the current stuff), it's 2-3 times that *per faction*.

For people who are really into the hobby, $1,000 just in hobby stuff unrelated to actual models of any company is just the tip of the iceberg.

Incidentally, if you want to play XB1 or PS4, you'll blow $400-$500 on your initial purchase, another $50 a year in subscription, and probably at least $200 a year on just 3 games, that on average provide less than 100 hours of entertainment.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Not to bring up Warmachine yet again... but there is something to be said for a system that rewards you for not taking multiple of the same model

To be fair though, this isn't exactly the case. Warmachine has Force Allocation, so you can't take multiples without some theme lists that basically restrict you to only that (Butcher2's theme force springs to mind). A lot of it also has to do with the fact most infantry are only good or better with their UA, and most of the time the UA is limited to 1, so you only take one unit.

I believe he's talking about theme forces as rewarding you for playing in theme.

I think the closest thing to it in 40k are those dataslates, and now battle-forged vs. unbound.

 Yodhrin wrote:
So much this. I'd love for GW to refocus on smaller games(if they're genuinely not capable of supporting big and small at the same time any more for Fantasy), but the only reason I've stayed invested with GW for so long despite their abysmal business decisions and awful customer relations is their IP. If they take that away - and there's no point in folk dissembling, literally ending the world then advancing the timeline a couple of centuries off-screen to come back with new factions is effectively scrapping the Warhammer setting - then the question is whether they gain enough people from A; 40K players who like the idea of Fantasy Space Marines, B; old Fantasy players who don't care about the setting at all, and C; totally new people, to offset those they'll lose as a result of removing the one thing left that was keeping them around.

I don't see why Games Workshop can't build a good set of skirmish rules that exclude flyers and models larger than dreadnought-sized, where the units are de-escalated, and the point values of the games are much smaller. Kind of like Kill Team, but with more sophisticated rules for squad combat (go back to RT days when every model had its own action, move, etc.).

The models could be existing models, so basically, you can use your space marines or orks in both skirmish games and in megapocalypse battles -- just using different rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 malfred wrote:


I believe he's talking about theme forces as rewarding you for playing in theme.

I think the closest thing to it in 40k are those dataslates, and now battle-forged vs. unbound.

Formations give you some pretty kickass bonuses, too. The practicallity of it is, if you want to play unbound, there will be few play partners for you. I can't even remember the last time I saw a truly unbound game (I'm not including games where one person says its fine when their opponent is not quite within a CAD configuration, because of lack of models, or whatever).

Talys wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I don't see why Games Workshop can't build a good set of skirmish rules that exclude flyers and models larger than dreadnought-sized, where the units are de-escalated, and the point values of the games are much smaller. Kind of like Kill Team, but with more sophisticated rules for squad combat (go back to RT days when every model had its own action, move, etc.).

A Warmachine-like game structure where you have one critically important central figure, a battlegroup of elite models, and then basically generic support surrounding that nucleus would port seamlessly into most of GW's game system.

HQ: Keep this guy alive or you lose the game. He's a combat badass so strike the balance between utilizing his awesomeness and putting him at risk.
Honor Guard/Retinue: These guys get specific special bonuses from the HQ. Maximize synergy.
Support: Generic Marine Ulysses will sacrifice for the cinematic climax!... again. He's totally not expendable, though. Totally.

I think that's what the GW force org was originally meant to do, promote a game structure. It ultimately became a balance mechanic that limited what sort of spam a player was capable of doing.

Talys wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So much this. I'd love for GW to refocus on smaller games(if they're genuinely not capable of supporting big and small at the same time any more for Fantasy)

I don't see why Games Workshop can't build a good set of skirmish rules that exclude flyers and models larger than dreadnought-sized, where the units are de-escalated, and the point values of the games are much smaller. Kind of like Kill Team, but with more sophisticated rules for squad combat (go back to RT days when every model had its own action, move, etc.).

The models could be existing models, so basically, you can use your space marines or orks in both skirmish games and in megapocalypse battles -- just using different rules.

40k is a skirmish game. You can play Kill Team games of 750, 500, 400, 250 pts just fine. You don't have to take Flyers or Knights, if you don't want to. Personally, I'm a fan of 40k games for 750 pts, minimum 2 Troops, 0-1 HQ, 0-2 other. Try it - it's fast and fun. It doesn't need more chrome added.

Talys wrote:

Deadawake1347 wrote:

The problem being that those four models are $140 each, so the four of them cost $560. Which, seeing as how the original point was the fact that getting a usable, average sized army was too expensive, doesn't really help your side. An average sized army should not require a half a grand or more investment. Which for most games is not an issue.

Anyone who isn't prepared to spend $500+ should not even consider Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer 40k. Really, these are $1,000+ games to have a competent army, and another $500 a year, minimum, to keep up. For collectors (who basically want most of the current stuff), it's 2-3 times that *per faction*.

For people who are really into the hobby, $1,000 just in hobby stuff unrelated to actual models of any company is just the tip of the iceberg.

Incidentally, if you want to play XB1 or PS4, you'll blow $400-$500 on your initial purchase, another $50 a year in subscription, and probably at least $200 a year on just 3 games, that on average provide less than 100 hours of entertainment.

I'm not really complaining about the price, hell, I just spend $500 on Forgeworld last night. However my point is that the barrier to entry to these games is fairly silly, as even the "low model count armies" don't gain you any kind of benefit in price, the way JohnHwangDD was implying as those models increase considerably in price as they increase in points. I think it would be brilliant if GW left Fantasy the way it is and used this new layout in a similar, but smaller scale game. As it stands now a ten man box of <insert core of choice here> is essentially useless. But, if they used this new setup as a skirmish game where a box of a given unit was all you needed to make that unit, it would drastically lower the barrier of entry. Then, once the person has a sizable force for the skirmish game, I'm willing to bet that they would look at the idea of getting a another few boxes to play a small game of traditional Fantasy as rather reasonable.

Just about every other miniatures game out there has a entry level of roughly $50, WM/H, X-Wing, Infinity, MERCS. ect. Every one of those, and others, you can pick up a starter force for a reasonable amount. Often for any faction you wish to play. Fantasy and 40K lack those cheap entry forces that allow players to impulse buy their way into the game, and I think that is a big part of what is hurting them lately. If a new person comes into the shop and wants to try out a game, which ones are they going to gravitate towards, the one where they have to spend $50 to learn how to play, or the one where they have to spend $500 to learn how to play?

And I think that your comparison to a game console is rather flawed. Yes, it has a high start up cost, but that cost is split between something that functions as a game console, a DvD/Blu-ray player, a device that allows you to use your streamer of choice, and a bunch of other things that I honestly have no interest in. The cost is further split for each game that you buy, as while you have to spend money to buy the game itself, the percentage that you spend to play a game is reduced with each new one. Have you ever seen someone buy a game console just to play a single game? That would actually be a more apt analogy than your current one. With Fantasy and 40K you can spend $500 to get a single playable list of average size, and often you pay more than that.

I'm sorry, but did GW discontinue Isle of Blood or whatever the last WFB starter set was? Do you really need to buy all of that stuff a la carte to start Fantasy? Or can you split a starter with a buddy for ~$50 each, and get playing fairly quickly?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sorry, but did GW discontinue Isle of Blood or whatever the last WFB starter set was? Do you really need to buy all of that stuff a la carte to start Fantasy? Or can you split a starter with a buddy for ~$50 each, and get playing fairly quickly?

Assuming you want those factions... which not everyone does.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sorry, but did GW discontinue Isle of Blood or whatever the last WFB starter set was? Do you really need to buy all of that stuff a la carte to start Fantasy? Or can you split a starter with a buddy for ~$50 each, and get playing fairly quickly?

Only if you're willing to do so with Skaven and High Elves. Which is assuming that one person wants one and one person wants the other, and they are starting at the same time. That's kind of the issue. The idea is relatively sound, but GW goes about it in a less than practical way. Meanwhile other systems have starters for each faction, similar to the "battalion boxes" from GW, but you'll notice that those cost $100 or more, and aren't a legal, fuctional army outside of unbound. I'm not even going into the usability, as most starter sets have the issue of being... less than stellar when it comes to the synergy of the contents.

Tomorrow's White Dwarf confirms round bases for Warhammer Fantasy




Source: Tabletopwelt.de Forum

I never viewed the starter box as an entry point into the system, more of an additional means to fill out your model count should you already being playing the starter box army. Would you also no need the $46 rule book for Skaven/High elves on top of the $100 for the start box? I have not purchased a starter box does it come with rules for the models/faction rules/magic item/spell list within? if not that $100 start box is now $200 =/

Oh jesus wait what?

why my bell WHY!

Warhams-77 wrote:
Tomorrow's White Dwarf confirms round bases for Warhammer Fantasy




Source: Tabletopwelt.de Forum

This chafes my balls... why would they not release previous models with both bases if they knew they were doing this. I was literally going to go buy the VerminLord today from my lfg, wanna make a bet there is no round base in the box?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only other thing I can make from this is they will in fact still support a game based around square bases. Or they are truly just ass holes...

Thanquil and Boneripper are on a square base in this image. Might be a warmachine thing.

Oh dear god, why?! I am not re-basing my fantasy armies...Once you go there, you cant go back to play 8th edition games... really bummed to see my bell and furnace on oval bases....

The decision to show two sets of bases opens up so many more questions... Well played GW, well played..

Aside from wanting to kick a dog if I have to re-base all my models, I will look into the positive side of this and Round bases have Far more options for custom inserts. So there is that I guess. Lol

Yeah, if 9th seriously requires round bases, all of us stick to 8th.

It would be just like GW to release things now with square bases, and then later invalidate it with round ones.

I suppose you could future proof your minis by making the bases removable...but what a pain in the @$$ that would be...

 docdoom77 wrote:
Thanquil and Boneripper are on a square base in this image. Might be a warmachine thing.

Bells and Furnaces aren't Warmachines. They're unit type Unique.

I could see them getting a major rule change, Skaven have a bunch of wierd stuff. But the guy in front is definitely on a square base still.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Thanquil and Boneripper are on a square base in this image. Might be a warmachine thing.

Both of the models shown are ones that are specifically required to be placed inside a unit.

Yes, but that could possibly be a change to those model's rules. They're IIRC the only models that don't have a specific unit type, and are thus Unique.

Maybe they're getting made into a unit that is on a round base and operates singly.

Mangler squigs and fanatics are on round bases.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but that could possibly be a change to those model's rules. They're IIRC the only models that don't have a specific unit type, and are thus Unique.

Maybe they're getting made into a unit that is on a round base and operates singly.

Mangler squigs and fanatics are on round bases.

This.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but that could possibly be a change to those model's rules. They're IIRC the only models that don't have a specific unit type, and are thus Unique.

Maybe they're getting made into a unit that is on a round base and operates singly.

Mangler squigs and fanatics are on round bases.

The problem with this, Zach, is that they are just huge frames on wheels. They have no self-locomotion, and need a bunch of rats around it to push it around. Without ranking it up with a unit, how's that going to work? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I'm probably the only one, but I like the look of those warmachines on round bases. I'm actually really looking forward to seeing where this madness leads.

Feels like we're panicking for no reason here, They're big models and they're on round bases- oh noes!the world endeth!

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Feels like we're panicking for no reason here, They're big models and they're on round bases- oh noes!the world endeth!

The thing is, they need a unit to rank around them to actually push them into battle. I think they look good on round bases, I just don't get how it'll work for those particular models.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Feels like we're panicking for no reason here, They're big models and they're on round bases- oh noes!the world endeth!

Well im mostly mad because i just put mine together :/

Also I'd prefer it if it was one of the other, I don't really see the point in mixed base types, the army would look weird I reckon, not unified.