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.

Da Boss wrote:Kings of War is successful for Mantic despite being a mass battle fantasy game.

Or even 'because'.

jorny wrote:Well, this at least makes thedecision wheter or not I should start playing Kings of War easier for me. Have to do something of my WHFB armies.

Don't forget there's Mayhem and Legions of Battle too.

Paradigm wrote:For the same reason the rest of the GW range sells; the rules are perfectly servicable, and the greater availability means you're far more likely to get a game.

Like the man said, less and less true.

Sheck2 wrote:Because Mordheim does not scale. I think 9th will be based on their most popular and commercially successful ruleset that scales from 6 vs. 6 to 1000 vs. 1000. LotR + WotR.

To me, this is like saying 'Warhammer (Mordheim + Warmaster)' scales to any size. The game that scales perfectly from anything to small skirmishes to huge battles is a bit of a myth, especially if expected from GW.*

On that note, it seems to me that GW have almost done to Warhammer what they did with 40K: dumped the purpose-built large battle game (Epic, Warmaster) and tried to inflate the mid-size game to create the same kind of spectacle. (Apocalypse, hordes etc.) Well, really to claw even more money, but ostensibly to create the same kind of spectacle. Problem is they forgot or ignored the fact that there was much more than spectacle to those old SGs.
They already had great interlinked systems to represent battles at different scales in the same universes with the same armies. Crying shame that they didn't really care.

(Cue complaints that Epic and WM had the effrontery to be different miniature scales, that you didn't dare divert some of the roaring stream of cash that went into your 40K/FB armies to start them, or that nobody in your gaming group had the cojones to look at something a mite different...)

9th is not for previous or current WFB (mass-battle) players or for those who play KoW. It's for all of the people who stopped playing LotR... The ex-LotR players are probably triple the WFB players

But how many of those LotR players jumped on LotR because the rules were great as opposed to jumping on LotR because it was movie merchandise? How many stuck around after? (I believe there's a saying about bubbles that gets trotted out at these points) How many who wanted to play games of toy soldiers with Strider and Frodo vs. orcs and ringwraiths in Middle-Earth will come flocking back to post-apoc Warppunkhammer?

Sheck2 wrote:LotR doubled the size of the company in roughly 4 years.

Again, cinema hype might've helped.

Henry wrote:Current thinking seems to suggest that the absolutely ridiculous amount of miniatures you need for a mass battle is what has all but bought the uptake of WF to a standstill.

Not the absolutely ridiculous amount of miniatures, but as you touched upon, the absolutely ridiculous amount of money you need for the absolutely ridiculous amount of miniatures.

Some mass battle rules are much more fit for purpose than Warhammer but also get by with fewer minis at a playable size. Probably because figure scale is more apparent, and not held back by that ol' casualty removal malarkey. I.e. Archaon isn't really razing the northern provinces of the Empire with just 10-12 Chaos knights at his back. It's a representation of a (much) larger group, regiment, battalion, what have you. When other mass battle games focus on standards of frontage, unit footprints, or stands, the required number of minis per unit often veers away from 'X number of wound markers' (AKA 'this is how many men/orcs/ratmen are actually in the battle', and where X is always increasing) and more towards 'what'll fit on the stand' or 'as many as looks good to you'.

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW has indeed moved to a premium, limited edition model. Gamers have clearly demonstrated a willingness to pay premium prices for a fancier hardcover and slipcover. or a special bonus mini. Same at Forgeworld. These things sell out quickly - just look at the End Times limited editions for Fantasy. And the huge expensive kits? Bought like they're going out of style.

While the Internet says they want lower prices, their wallet demonstrates a nearly unlimited thirst for exclusive, expensive items. As Knight Titans and End Times shows, this trend is accelerating. And it is unquestionably driven by veterans adding a centerpiece to their armies.

As long as customers support the super-premium model, GW will continue to push it.

Some gamers. Some customers. Enough gamers and customers? I'm not qualified to say, but I'll be interested to see the reports in a few days.

Herzlos wrote:The proxies won't be irrelevant, but they'll be the only way to get the minis later. It's no longer stolen sales though if gw has moved on.

Yarp!

 daemonish wrote:
Firstly on the sales side of things as far as I can tell the end times stuff has sold out/sold well for the most part so surely this indicates there is a robust community that suffers from a lack of releases rather than no community at all.

Said it before: GW's business has warped their gaming culture over the years, to the point that gamers are convinced 'support' means 'change for change's sake' and 'new stuff to buy'. (Alan Merrett was right!) Not to say improvements to old models are a bad thing (I'm eternally grateful to Seb Perbett), or that no other company brings out a newer or better mini or editions with rules fixes, but GW seemed to have honed and transformed the concept into a fine moneyspinner, and honed their audience to expect it. Even rely on it.

TheSilo wrote:The whole point of selling the rules in the box with the models is specifically to box out 3rd party competitors.

Ah, well. It's a good thing that 'rules' and 'minis' are not the same thing, then. I can imagine there would be some road bumps if I tried to bring out some overmuscled cyborg rat monsters, but knowing the specific Warhammer rules for Stormfiends ain't one.

*Edit:

 TheSilo wrote:

Back in 3rd edition of 40k, there was always the allure of a large scale battle, and it was fun once in a while. But like in books and movies and tabletop, those make for grand spectacles but they're rarely fun or balanced or very interesting after multiple tries. They've been pushing for bigger and badder releases and battles in 40k and fantasy, much to my chagrin. But while this seems to be attractive to 40k players, WFB seems to have topped out.

Yes, that.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I know you think that GW is clueless about how in fact that would be a boost in sales for those base manufacturers, they would adjust faster than GW and would actually supply full decorated base sets, unlike GW. I hope they are a bit less clueless than that though?

Of course base manufacturers would adjust their sizes, but for GW it's a "first to market" thing. It's the same reason we've seen asinine name changes for things like the Guard or Storm Troopers.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

2 - fantasy (and presumably 40k) are targeted at pre-teens

That's nonsense. They're clearly targeted at a dwindling number of vets. If there were targeted at pre-teens, GW wouldn't be releasing new, often limited edition, product every month and dredging up concepts from the 90s that only nostalgic grognards can appreciate.

And what preteen has the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to spend on this game?

Well their parents have a few to get them started, until they lose interest, and then GW has to snag a few more wide-eyed youths before they hit puberty.

You might also say that - compared to an impression of some kind of Santa-Claus-like generosity and camaraderie - the constant new releases are a TSR-like sign of desperation, and that old '90's concepts are a sign they don't really have anything new and are, well, still desperate. What's the best alternative to revisited knights - Centurions? Shoebox aircraft?

I told myself I wasn't going to say anything, vets, but GW doesn't love you. He's just using you.

That's it. Let it out.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Scrub wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
GW haven't written a good set of rules for years I don't trust them to do it now and even if they do pull it off I don't think Fantasy Skirmish is going to do well enough to be a main game and with the dropping of The Hobbit GW will be relegated only 1 game being their source of income, they can rename themselves "Game Workshop".

Games Workshop re-hired one of the fellas who worked on rules for Mantic a few months (a year?) ago so this might well be what he was hired (poached?) for. Though I'm yet to try them myself, everyone seems to sing the praises of Dread Ball and Kings of War which he was one of the leading writers for iirc.

I can't recall his name but he appeared on Beasts of War a lot as a Mantic spokes person.

James Hewitt... and he actually wasn't a Mantic rules/design guy. He was my editor on the Deadzone fluff (for most of its development), and was a Community Manager.

Aye that's the fella. His Linkedin profile declares that he helped with rules writing at Mantic and is a current rules writer for Games Workshop.

chiefbigredman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

2 - fantasy (and presumably 40k) are targeted at pre-teens

That's nonsense. They're clearly targeted at a dwindling number of vets. If there were targeted at pre-teens, GW wouldn't be releasing new, often limited edition, product every month and dredging up concepts from the 90s that only nostalgic grognards can appreciate.

And what preteen has the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to spend on this game?

Very few, which is why they're having problems. Traditionally though, adults tend to have more disposable income than children, and the current system tends towards people who are willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money on the game. If they wanted to cater to the vets, they could have made the existing units workable and competitive instead of playing 2nd fiddle (or 3rd string) to the 'new hotness'. GW targeting children over adults seems to be a contentious issue to talk about, which i've always found strange since kirby himself is on record about it. But the part in autumn leaves' post that i took note of, specifically mentioned:

Autumn Leaves wrote:Can GW fix WFB under it's current format after years of decline in sales?
Possibly but the single biggest problem they have is to get profitability up they have to make it more appealing to the kids at the entrant level.
That would mean changing the format to bring it into line with the other two systems. Especially 40k.
Making it affordable.

Which on a similar note (pricing) says to me that they're expecting people to spend the same amount as normal during their churn & burn, but now will have a workable 'game' at that pricing. Assuming that the game can only be played in skirmish mode and not bigger-style, otherwise it'll end up where we're at now. But people say that warmahordes prices are more stomachable because they represent a greater proportion of an army. Now the same will (theoretically) hold true with games workshop. All without lowering any prices.

Vermis wrote:Well their parents have a few to get them started, until they lose interest, and then GW has to snag a few more wide-eyed youths before they hit puberty.

And now when timmy gets mom to buy him some warhammer, his dollars spent will get him a 'whole' army instead of just part of one. More units from a line (like elves) will be sold proportionately when sales happen. Lower the bar, and you'll succeed more often. Still doesn't fix any of the basic problems with the game, but the (dwindling) numbers will at least look better when presented in the right light.

Vermis wrote:You might also say that - compared to an impression of some kind of Santa-Claus-like generosity and camaraderie - the constant new releases are a TSR-like sign of desperation, and that old '90's concepts are a sign they don't really have anything new and are, well, still desperate. What's the best alternative to revisited knights - Centurions? Shoebox aircraft?

The irony is that the game is what, 30 years old? If they'd been spending their time trying to improve the game instead of reboot it constantly, they might not be in this situation. Why is there even a need to reboot the rules constantly when you expect your average customer to only collect for a short period of time?

Vermis wrote:I told myself I wasn't going to say anything, vets, but GW doesn't love you. He's just using you.

That's it. Let it out.

No way man, gw told me the game would change. You're lying! You've got to be!

 Vermis wrote:
Well their parents have a few to get them started, until they lose interest, and then GW has to snag a few more wide-eyed youths before they hit puberty.

I doubt I will ever lose intrest, but I rode it through to puberty, others havent been so loyal. The guy who got me intrested in the first place now doesn't play because he has to little time, and it's apparently too expensive.
(Even though he already has 2000 points of marines, and he could just sell his 3rd edition starter set for a butload of cash)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I know you think that GW is clueless about how in fact that would be a boost in sales for those base manufacturers, they would adjust faster than GW and would actually supply full decorated base sets, unlike GW. I hope they are a bit less clueless than that though?

Of course base manufacturers would adjust their sizes, but for GW it's a "first to market" thing. It's the same reason we've seen asinine name changes for things like the Guard or Storm Troopers.

But bases are pretty much the easiest thing to reshape/resize and retool, especially in resin. The resin manufacturers can likely get their existing base sets out in any new shape/size GW pre-releases, before the launch date.

Plastics might take a little bit longer to tool, but changing the CAD files is the work of minutes.

If they want to provide unique stuff for manufacturing supremacy, bases are the worst thing to muck with. If they want to change the base sizes to prevent people using the Citadel minis interchangably with other game systems, then changing base sizes is the easist approach (until, y'know, the MDF manufacturers launch shaped movement trays and adapters)

 Torga_DW wrote:

chiefbigredman wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

2 - fantasy (and presumably 40k) are targeted at pre-teens

That's nonsense. They're clearly targeted at a dwindling number of vets. If there were targeted at pre-teens, GW wouldn't be releasing new, often limited edition, product every month and dredging up concepts from the 90s that only nostalgic grognards can appreciate.

And what preteen has the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to spend on this game?

Very few, which is why they're having problems. Traditionally though, adults tend to have more disposable income than children, and the current system tends towards people who are willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money on the game. If they wanted to cater to the vets, they could have made the existing units workable and competitive instead of playing 2nd fiddle (or 3rd string) to the 'new hotness'. GW targeting children over adults seems to be a contentious issue to talk about, which i've always found strange since kirby himself is on record about it.

A lot of the problems are simply because of the way larger games are encouraged these days. It would only take some minor variations to make small games playable with 5-15 models per regiment and 3-5 regiments per side with 1 or 2 heroes.

When I started WHFB (when I was ~10 years old) me and my mates mostly played 30 to 50 models per side (I had one of the largest armies that had a lot of Skinks from the boxed set at the time). I had games as low as 20 models I think. When the small scale rules came around (can't remember the name, Warbands? Skirmish?) we played even smaller games. It was fun and it worked. These days people are running around with 30 to 50 models in a single fething regiment and it simply seems like the done thing in your typical game now

Herzlos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I know you think that GW is clueless about how in fact that would be a boost in sales for those base manufacturers, they would adjust faster than GW and would actually supply full decorated base sets, unlike GW. I hope they are a bit less clueless than that though?

Of course base manufacturers would adjust their sizes, but for GW it's a "first to market" thing. It's the same reason we've seen asinine name changes for things like the Guard or Storm Troopers.

But bases are pretty much the easiest thing to reshape/resize and retool, especially in resin. The resin manufacturers can likely get their existing base sets out in any new shape/size GW pre-releases, before the launch date.

Plastics might take a little bit longer to tool, but changing the CAD files is the work of minutes.

If they want to provide unique stuff for manufacturing supremacy, bases are the worst thing to muck with. If they want to change the base sizes to prevent people using the Citadel minis interchangably with other game systems, then changing base sizes is the easist approach (until, y'know, the MDF manufacturers launch shaped movement trays and adapters)

Is H.B.M.C. suggesting that GW will try to protect the usage of certain sized discs as base for their miniatures? That would be interesting to see

NAVARRO wrote:

Is H.B.M.C. suggesting that GW will try to protect the usage of certain sized discs as base for their miniatures? That would be interesting to see

I doubt it.

As many people pointed out

- 32mm is the exact same size, GW's small flying bases have been for a long time.
- 32mm is a close approximation of the exact middle between 25mm and 40mm
- 32mm is a close approximation of the exact half diameter of GW's 65mm bases.

It seems a logical size, if you want to add something at that rough range.

Also, none of the .. um Top 20 or 30 miniature games uses 30mm bevelled edge bases. If you're not fussed about using round-lipped "Warmachine-style-bases" in 40K, surely you wouldn't be too fussed about a single millimeter difference on either side of the miniature either, no?

I really don't get all that conspiracy stuff. Did anyone accuse Corvus Belli of trying to "trademark" base-sizes when they did 55mm bases instead of sticking to "established sizes"?

Surely, if manufacturers of resin bases find it profitable to do resin bases for 55mm bases, which are a rare base size in a still-much-smaller-than-40K miniatures game, they surely must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of selling Space Marine-fans everywhere new 32mm bases at a 50% to 100% higher prize than 25mm bases?

If GW would've wanted to cut-out third party manufacturers, they probably would've gone the "Mantic Game way" with bases fixed to the miniatures from the start (funny, again, how nobody claimed Mantic Games making it deliberately difficult for resin-base makers, when they went with this approach to bases).

32 mm is also 1 and 1/4 inches (or close enough to it), so it's not a completely random size.

Wonderwolf wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

Is H.B.M.C. suggesting that GW will try to protect the usage of certain sized discs as base for their miniatures? That would be interesting to see

I doubt it.

As many people pointed out

- 32mm is the exact same size, GW's small flying bases have been for a long time.
- 32mm is a close approximation of the exact middle between 25mm and 40mm
- 32mm is a close approximation of the exact half diameter of GW's 65mm bases.

It seems a logical size, if you want to add something at that rough range.

Also, none of the .. um Top 20 or 30 miniature games uses 30mm bevelled edge bases. If you're not fussed about using round-lipped "Warmachine-style-bases" in 40K, surely you wouldn't be too fussed about a single millimeter difference on either side of the miniature either, no?

I really don't get all that conspiracy stuff. Did anyone accuse Corvus Belli of trying to "trademark" base-sizes when they did 55mm bases instead of sticking to "established sizes"?

Surely, if manufacturers of resin bases find it profitable to do resin bases for 55mm bases, which are a rare base size in a still-much-smaller-than-40K miniatures game, they surely must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of selling Space Marine-fans everywhere new 32mm bases at a 50% to 100% higher prize than 25mm bases?

If GW would've wanted to cut-out third party manufacturers, they probably would've gone the "Mantic Game way" with bases fixed to the miniatures from the start (funny, again, how nobody claimed Mantic Games making it deliberately difficult for resin-base makers, when they went with this approach to bases).

GW's head of IP, Allen Merett, stated, in court, that GW "Really should have trademarked the whole 28mm scale when we had the chance"*.

If they think that that was possible, or that it would have been a good idea then this is less unbelievable than some people seem to think.

(*I probably didn't get the quote entirely accurate, I couldn't be bothered going and finding the exact wording.)

Can that even be trademarked? I wouldn't put it past GW to try it.

 jonolikespie wrote:

GW's head of IP, Allen Merett, stated, in court, that GW "Really should have trademarked the whole 28mm scale when we had the chance"*.

If they think that that was possible, or that it would have been a good idea then this is less unbelievable than some people seem to think.

(*I probably didn't get the quote entirely accurate, I couldn't be bothered going and finding the exact wording.)

Maybe? But if so, why

- did they say in that customer service letter that people don't need to rebase or use the new bases?
- why did they remove the "bases they are supplied with" and replaced it with a more forgiving "any base size used for roughly equivalent other models in the range" in 7th Edition (which would even allow you to base PA Marines on 40mm since Krom, if you really want to, as well as 25mm)?

Odd moves for a company allegedly trying to push out third-party base-makers.

 agnosto wrote:



The problem here is "what have you done for me lately?"; by all accounts LotR is only currently supported at all due to licensing requirements.

Quite right. My statement was in context to the popularity of that type of skirmish game. The lore drew them. but the mechanics and system kept them playing. That market segment is not like WFB or 40k and treating them the same way resulted in the sudden LotR crash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I really don't get all that conspiracy stuff.

No conspiracy. It's good business practice. GW did not have historically good practice and mitigated that with aggressive cease and desist orders. That strategy seems to have failed as of late, so they are adopting better practices. Making everything unique is one of them.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Can that even be trademarked? I wouldn't put it past GW to try it.

Trademark a scale? Yeah, just about as trademarkable as the use of the number 3 or the sinus function....

Ugh... so very glad that I play Kings of War now.

I have a weird feeling that part of the reason for these changes (if true) is to do some damage to third party and competing companies - and will instead end up killing Fantasy off entirely.

'People are using Mantic Undead in Warhammer Fantasy! We must stop them! Quick! Change the bases!'

'People are using miniatures by those traitorous Perry brothers for their Empire armies! Quick! Destroy the Empire!'

So very glad that I play Kings of War now....

The Auld Grump

I've made a couple of updates to the OP.

It appears that the round bases seen on the plague furnace and screaming bell are confirmed with the WDW- I've kept the images in first post but I returned the thread title to the original name just in case the base change seen in the White Dwarf is some sort of aesthetic thing for the Skaven models (ala the 32mm bases in 40k).

I've also added chochky and Warhams-77's posts from additional rumor compilations on Warseer. Hopefully that should get everything up-to-date but if anyone sees any issues, let me know.

It's worth noting that the Screaming Bell isn't actually on a "round base" but rather it's on the flyer/large monster oval base.

I added that little detail to the OP. However, I believe this is still the first use of a 40k-style base in WHFB- at least, to my knowledge there isn't a precedent for this in the past, correct?

 Accolade wrote:
I added that little detail to the OP. However, I believe this is still the first use of a 40k-style base in WHFB- at least, to my knowledge there isn't a precedent for this in the past, correct?

It's the first "re-based" miniature, I think, i.e. one that used to be on a square base and is now on a roundish one.

There've always been a few rare units that always were on round bases (e.g. Nightgoblin Fanatics, Mangler Squids, etc...).

Ahh, that's a good point Wonderwolf. I think with this in mind it was worth modifying the title to not include that bit, but I'll leave it in the OP as it could still be indicative of future happenings in WHFB. Regardless, we should know in about 2-3 months.

To be fair, though, those models were round-based because they could never be ranked up etc. I wish, though, that they had square bases, would make hitting stuff with Fanatics easier

Wasn't the Soulgrinder packaged with a large round base in its' repackage for warhammer fantasy? What about the giant spiders thing a while back? I'm fairly certain this isn't the first round base we've seen in fantasy.

No. The Soulgrinder was given the Stonehorn's base. Which is 100x150mm.

And the giant spider is on the same base. As far as I know, the only round bases before now were Fanatics and the Mangler Squig. I can't think of any others (probably missed something though).

I think round bases on anything other than Night Goblin units (including the Mangler squigs) is a new precedent. I don't know if it's indicative or anything related to the rumors of the changes to 9th, but it is at least consistent with what others had been saying about round bases appearing in Fantasy.

TBH, the whole base topic with GW has gotten really strange lately. GW's response to the different bases seems to be down to aesthetics, but I feel like this is pushing forth the idea that GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines (since they can't be bothered with consistency).

Time will tell in a few months, but I personally think that round bases will be the direction they go with this purported reboot of Fantasy. It pushes square-based models somewhat more into redundancy, while GW can continue to say "base your models on whatever you feel like" to act like they aren't forcing players to change.

To prevent the next problem, the pic is cropped in the printed White Dwarf. The source of this image is the digital issue of White Dwarf Weekly.
Imo this picture is a teaser like the Warhammer 40k buildings shown in White Dwarf before their actual announcement and preorder

 Accolade wrote:
GW isn't really interested in the gaming aspect of their model lines

GW has repeately stated that they consider their games to be primarily for collecting, not playing.