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.
Me too that was part of the draw for me for fantasy. 40k simply didn't have that amassed armies clashing on the field of battle feeling. When I played fantasy I liked feeling like it was huge amounts of troops, lined up, battle cannons ready, the fog of war on an early morning field and huge armies crashing into each other. I stopped playing warhammer around the time troops didn't seem to matter anymore and everyone was throwing around apocalyptic magic that wiped out whole armies in one turn. I didn't like buying some meaty units to have them usually make no more a difference than the standard troops. In short i just dislike the magic phase all together. Wouldn't be so bad if say 1-2 models in an army actually used magic but now everyone and their mothers use it, swords use it, guns use it, pet squigs use it. Magical overload.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/01 20:39:37
I enjoy *seeing* them. I have no desire to *paint* them and *store* them and *transport* them and be removing giant piles of models as casualties during a game.
I like regimental combat, but at 28mm scale and in the context of a game (opposed to a giant diorama) I much prefer smaller blocks of 10-20 models.
Playing larger games I prefer it if you simply increase the numbers of blocks you have rather than increasing the size of the blocks.
If playing with giant blocks I'd rather swap to a game of possibly 15mm scale where models are just based as regiments instead of individuals.
Regarding WHFB, I feel the same distaste towards "magical overload" and super spells than "huge infantry blocks everywhere".
Fantasy was originally designed as a skirmish game, and was later turned into a big skirmish/dark ages battles game. And that's as far as the system could really keep up with the changes. 6th edition at 1500 points was probably the most balanced the game ever got, with enough models on the table (but not too many), some magic (but not too much, as super-wizards were simply prohibitive at 1500p) and no herohammer. As far as my taste goes, 5th edition rulebook with some of the things 6th added or clarified (magic, fly, etc.) is probably the best WHFB you'll ever get.
Seriously, if someone asked me about a tabletop game which correctly represents massive fantasy battles, WHFB would probably be one of the last things I'd consider to mention. Because no matter how many models you pile up on a table, everything you may play won't be much more than a bloated, oversized skirmish. Instead I'd point them towards games that truly work from a "regimental" point of scale, you know where a regiment is an actual unit with its own stats, and fights as a real unit until it is rooted or destroyed. And you don't count the losses by one wound inflicted to one soldier, each at a time.
Not to mention, as I see it, 28mm scale is simply not suited for a mass battles game. The models are just too big, unless they're used to merely represent a "regiment" like it happens, afaiac, in KoW.
PS: by "dark ages battles" I mean the kind of battles that were going on in dark ages Europe, back when 80 guys with swords and axes were a reasonably sized army and the charge of the 5 heavy horsemen could actually decide a battle. That's Warhammer Fantasy in a nutshell, plus elves and magic obviously. In short, WHFB was meant to be this, not this. If you want your battles to look like the second pic, seriously there are more suitable systems to do it, and you can even use the same minis - they will just represent things on a different scale.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Seriously tho, after witnessing a huge 28mm ECW game filling an 8-foot table, I'd agree with Korinov (edit: and John) that 28mm is maybe not all that suited to 'epic' battles. (I think there's a reason GW called their old 6mm game that!) Not least 'cos you can play smaller scales over a table that you're not in danger of collapsing on by the mere act of reaching. I'll use 28mm if gamers or sellers have collections or specific ranges in that scale, and like the man says there are systems that are a bit less skewed towards '1 figure = 1 soldier' (I know a guy who laughs at the idea of Archaon invading the Empire with, like, twelve knights) but I have to say I'm quite fond of the 6mm, 10mm and 15mm minis that I have, less detailed and more monoposed as they might be. Even something about the smaller scale, with the same number of minis, seems more 'grand' and, well, epic. And I feel I have to mention that in my experience, despite common misgivings about tinier scales being more difficult to paint, they're much more forgiving of simple basecoats, layers and washes - partly because greater contrast works better on smaller minis, and partly because of the en masse effect.
Only problems are that relevant ranges are not as apparently extensive, and some of those that exist can have some... 'rushed' look about them. But I think they're getting better. (Have you seen this indiegogo? Been waiting on it a while, but it's close to completion and I'm getting a little giddy. Oh, and, lookit that preferred game system halfway down the page...)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:27:26
Vermis wrote: I say we all switch to 6mm. Come on, brothers!
Seriously tho, after witnessing a huge 28mm ECW game filling an 8-foot table, I'd agree with Korinov (edit: and John EDIT: and AllSeeingSkink who mentioned it first!!!) that 28mm is maybe not all that suited to 'epic' battles. (I think there's a reason GW called their old 6mm game that!) Not least 'cos you can play smaller scales over a table that you're not in danger of collapsing on by the mere act of reaching. I'll use 28mm if gamers or sellers have collections or specific ranges in that scale, and like the man says there are systems that are a bit less skewed towards '1 figure = 1 soldier' (I know a guy who laughs at the idea of Archaon invading the Empire with, like, twelve knights) but I have to say I'm quite fond of the 6mm, 10mm and 15mm minis that I have, less detailed and more monoposed as they might be. Even something about the smaller scale, with the same number of minis, seems more 'grand' and, well, epic. And I feel I have to mention that in my experience, despite common misgivings about tinier scales being more difficult to paint, they're much more forgiving of simple basecoats, layers and washes - partly because greater contrast works better on smaller minis, and partly because of the en masse effect.
Only problems are that relevant ranges are not as apparently extensive, and some of those that exist can have some... 'rushed' look about them. But I think they're getting better. (Have you seen this indiegogo? Been waiting on it a while, but it's close to completion and I'm getting a little giddy. Oh, and, lookit that preferred game system halfway down the page...)
See bold and underlined :p
But yeah, I think 15mm is a sweet spot myself. The models are still big enough to paint to a high standard, but you can have hundreds of infantry on a 4x4 table and it still looks natural and really awesome. I'm working on a 15mm WW2 army at the moment and you can have a dozen tanks per side without it looking crowded or silly.
At 28mm it only really works for a Skirmish, because if you do start taking really big regiments ranked ~10 deep it doesn't look like a whole battle, it looks like a segment of a battle which looks rather unnatural to me.
But 28mm is nice, I think it USED to be a nice compromise before the armies got so huge that it became painful to deal with them. 40k suffers the same problem, if anything it's worse in 40k because not only is it a pain in the arse to paint, store and transport all those models, you have to move them all individually!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:50:26
I also have special feelings for 15mm scale. I have two DBA armies and, while DBA isn't mean to represent mass scale battles either, to see my dozen blocks deploying and moving throughout the table feels more "mass battle" than anything I've ever achieved with WHFB. Actually the few times me and my friends have actually tried to go the "mass battle" route with WHFB (4000 points battles with 2 players per side), we've ended up running out of time in the 3rd turn, with the battle yet to be decided. It took us sooo much time to go through deployment and the movement phases in the first two turns, the experience was more boring and frustrating than anything else.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Yeah, 10mm and 6mm is better suited to mass battle but I don't really like it for infantry based games because at that scale the infantry just starts to turn in to amorphous blobs. Those are good scales for vehicles though. I think 15mm is a good compromise, you can still have quite detailed infantry and you can fill a table with tanks and/or infantry and it actually looks like a right proper battle.
Vermis wrote: I say we all switch to 6mm. Come on, brothers!
Thats pretty much my intention at this point. I love the scale of such games like Flames of war but im not well versed in game systems outside of GW and some of the larger systems. So if anyone can point me in the general direction of some great smaller scale systems I would greatly appreciate it. Makes me kind of sad they stopped epic scale GW models. I'll take any setting fantasy, future so on in scales 5mm to around 15mm its surprisingly hard to find recommendations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 01:49:30
I've heard good things about Warmaster but I never really got a chance to try it (I've been around GW stuff since early 5th edition but Warmaster came out while I was taking a break from wargaming).
I'd love to see GW release Warmaster and Epic again, or even better to release 15mm versions of their games (though 15mm is probably too close to their main lines for them to do it).
So do I, which is why I went headlong into Napoleonics! Dirt cheap too, with Perry plastics coming in around 50pish per model.
But I also love my WHFB setting. Honestly if they ever redid warmaster I'd be ll for it.
Trade rules: lower rep trades ships 1st. - I ship within 2 business days, if it will be longer I will contact you & explain. - I will NOT lie on customs forms, it's a felony, do not ask me to mark sales as "gifts". Free shipping applies to contiguous US states.
But 28mm is nice, I think it USED to be a nice compromise before the armies got so huge that it became painful to deal with them. 40k suffers the same problem, if anything it's worse in 40k because not only is it a pain in the arse to paint, store and transport all those models, you have to move them all individually!
Pfft. Even 1.5K with a few movement trays bored me.
AtomicEngineer wrote:Thats pretty much my intention at this point. I love the scale of such games like Flames of war but im not well versed in game systems outside of GW and some of the larger systems. So if anyone can point me in the general direction of some great smaller scale systems I would greatly appreciate it. Makes me kind of sad they stopped epic scale GW models. I'll take any setting fantasy, future so on in scales 5mm to around 15mm its surprisingly hard to find recommendations.
The one I keep harping about, and mentioned in that old Indiegogo page: Mayhem. The scale options (mostly boiling down to base size) include 28mm, but some of the mechanics and measurements are arguably better suited to the other two options: 10mm and 15mm. I have slowly growing Warmaster high elf, skaven and 10mm BoFA armies*, though while I don't have much against Warmaster, they're co-opted for Mayhem. (2 40x20mm WM bases = 1 Mayhem 40mm base)
Command and control is based around leader orders, and a pool of action points generated at the start of each player's turn, and the length of the turn depends on how a player doles out said points and how quick they're used up. (quicker if the player concentrates on a few units to perform several actions, and if they're given orders outside the character's range.) Stats for basic actions (movement, attack, shooting, defense) are given as polydice types, with an option to use a default 'roll'. E.g. in combat the lower-rolling unit wins. Say that ogres have a D8 combat stat, and basic humans have D12. Ogres have a better chance of rolling lower than the humans, but there's a chance they can fluff it, so they can choose to take the default of half the die's value: 4. Humans can take their default (6) too, but they might want to risk a roll to beat the ogres' default or standard roll. Dice rolls can be modified to include more dice (taking the best single result) or to change the dice type, depending on position, supporting units, unit type, weapons, armour, or USRs applied to the unit.
That's the other thing: they're universal rules. (sounds nicer than 'generic rules', donit?) No proprietary or special-ruling background attached to it: you can attach whatever standard fantasy background you like. (Heck, with the 'bound construct' rules in the Stronghold expansion, you can stick in Warcasters and their Warjacks...) There are guidelines for building units with a points cost, by choosing the basic statline, along with said unit type, weapons, armour, USRs, spells for wizards, etc.
For others, there's a list I posted elsewhere:
Kings of War Mayhem Legions of Battle Armies of Arcana Warmaster (might need some jiggling for 28mm)
Hordes of the Things (HoTT, based on the DBX series of historical wargames)
Fantasy Warriors (an old set with a couple of versions floating about. Read here. Mirliton's site isn't working for me right now but EM4 has an English download here.)
Fantasy Rules! (Ta Ken)
God of Battles (pretty interesting new set, IMO, written by Jake Thornton and sold by Wargames Foundry. Based around Foundry's own factions, but I've seen some cunning counts-as. Biggest problem is the price of the enormous full-colour book full of photos and painting articles of Foundry's dubious minis.)
Impetus (Popular historical game with a fantasy expansion & lists. See the bottom of the page. 12cm unit element frontages - also useful for 10-figure boxes)
That was a list of possible alternatives for 28mm Warhammer armies, but I know a few can be used for smaller scales. Warmaster especially. HoTT and Impetus are also scale-neutral. (with some base size changes in the latter, at least) I've heard and seen other gamers playing KoW and God of Battles with 15mm minis. (Again, by halving the dimensions of a KoW regiment, horde etc. footprint - 100x80mm to 50x40mm) Not entirely sure about Armies of Arcana or Fantasy Rules... I think Legions of Battle was purpose-built for disgruntled Warhammer armies, but by that token you could try the same as smaller-scale KoW and skew the measurements and the multibases down for smaller scales.
*Pro: for all I moan at them, I think GW made some of the best 10mm minis. Quite cleanly sculpted and decently proportioned. Con: way OOP. There are enough high elves still on ebay to grab an occasional bargain or at least non-outrageous price labels, but when I look for skaven or lizardmen, nuthin'.
I dunno about other 10mm. Kallistra and Pendraken don't entirely appeal, especially with their scale creep and Asterix-faced dwarfs. (I like Asterix, but...) Ditto with Copplestone's 'big 10' 12mms sitting beside my wee BoFA plastics, and his pointy-nosed wolves and slightly odd horses. His not-fellbeast makes me want to cry. Eureka and Yann Hourau might have the best 10mm stuff these days, IMO. Microworld does some great Warhammer-world-friendly 6mm armies, but like Skink I find myself veering towards 15mm these days. It seems to have become much more popular in the last few years, not just with fantasy, though the likes of Khurasan, old Demonworld at Ral Partha Europe, and Copplestone's 15mm stand out for the genre.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 17:56:52
So do I, which is why I went headlong into Napoleonics! Dirt cheap too, with Perry plastics coming in around 50pish per model.
But I also love my WHFB setting. Honestly if they ever redid warmaster I'd be ll for it.
Pike & Shotte has a section on creating yr own units. If I get the fantasy itch, I'm gonna use that for developing the right feel for whichever WFB army is getting put on the table.
I didn't feel like reading the 10 pages of comments before writing this so I apologize if this has been said already. I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors. Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be. IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
Ppl see 4d6 casualties and think its limburger dick
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: I didn't feel like reading the 10 pages of comments before writing this so I apologize if this has been said already. I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors. Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be. IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
That's where my money is. Following the trend of what Wizards is doing with 5th ed D&D: lots of the old guard loathed the new 4th edition, even though much of what it changed were needed improvements to fix the bloated, inaccessible mess that was 3rd and previous editions. 5th edition strikes a very careful balance between the two, preserving the accessibility of 4th along with its better balance of progression and dynamism between classes, while also toning down the overemphasis on combat that 4th had and bringing back the greater focus on narrative of previous editions.
As somone who's been playing this game since 5th, I strongly believe that 8th is the best edition of fantasy released thus far. My entire gaming group is in roughly the same boat (some have been playing since much earlier, while others came in during 6th or 7th...and 90% love 8th over previous editions). However there are absolutely aspects that need changing. The super spells are obnoxious, even if they're not as game-breaking as people think. Hordes and steadfast give infantry a viable place in people's lists, but also make massive unshiftable infantry deathstars super obnoxious. Directing attacks against specific models is cool, but cav buses and character walls are super obnoxious as well.
Also the changes that made the game great at the tournament level have really made the game much less accessible to new players. The game isn't really functional or balanced until you start hitting 1.5k to 2k minimum, which is a huge investment for a new player. There either needs to be a secondary game to ease that transition, or the game needs to scale better.
If done right, I think GW has the potential to make it happen. There are changes I can imagine that could strike that necessary balance. It's just a question of whether they'll hit it.
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors.
Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be.
IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
Most of us are n00bs who didn't get in until 6E or so.
That's a good selection. When did Chaos first appear?
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors.
Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be.
IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
Most of us are n00bs who didn't get in until 6E or so.
That's a good selection. When did Chaos first appear?
I think that's good.
I don't to be honest. I was 1st exposed to WHFB when in 1st ed most game shops didn't have GW products and just had pamphlets with a sample armies and some background. I think chaos came in 3rd or 4th ed. 5thed brought brets and lizards.
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: I didn't feel like reading the 10 pages of comments before writing this so I apologize if this has been said already. I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors. Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be. IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
That's where my money is. Following the trend of what Wizards is doing with 5th ed D&D: lots of the old guard loathed the new 4th edition, even though much of what it changed were needed improvements to fix the bloated, inaccessible mess that was 3rd and previous editions. 5th edition strikes a very careful balance between the two, preserving the accessibility of 4th along with its better balance of progression and dynamism between classes, while also toning down the overemphasis on combat that 4th had and bringing back the greater focus on narrative of previous editions.
As somone who's been playing this game since 5th, I strongly believe that 8th is the best edition of fantasy released thus far. My entire gaming group is in roughly the same boat (some have been playing since much earlier, while others came in during 6th or 7th...and 90% love 8th over previous editions). However there are absolutely aspects that need changing. The super spells are obnoxious, even if they're not as game-breaking as people think. Hordes and steadfast give infantry a viable place in people's lists, but also make massive unshiftable infantry deathstars super obnoxious. Directing attacks against specific models is cool, but cav buses and character walls are super obnoxious as well.
Also the changes that made the game great at the tournament level have really made the game much less accessible to new players. The game isn't really functional or balanced until you start hitting 1.5k to 2k minimum, which is a huge investment for a new player. There either needs to be a secondary game to ease that transition, or the game needs to scale better.
If done right, I think GW has the potential to make it happen. There are changes I can imagine that could strike that necessary balance. It's just a question of whether they'll hit it.
I totally agree that 8th is the best ed. I can't comment on the d&d stuff, I haven't played that since 2nd ed. My game group is all about 8th. I also agree that 8th does have its problems. 1/3 of my game group stopped with WHFB for Mordheim. I think the biggest imbalance in the game is the broad, turn based gameplay. That's a different rant though. All I have to say is dwarven gun line and good rolls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 21:06:43
Ppl see 4d6 casualties and think its limburger dick
I totally agree that 8th is the best ed. I can't comment on the d&d stuff, I haven't played that since 2nd ed. My game group is all about 8th. I also agree that 8th does have its problems. 1/3 of my game group stopped with WHFB for Mordheim. I think the biggest imbalance in the game is the broad, turn based gameplay. That's a different rant though. All I have to say is dwarven gun line and good rolls.
Thats more a problem with dwarfs than anything, though. As an army they are terribly designed, and deserve to be rolled in with empire. Good riddance, I say...
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors.
Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be.
IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
Most of us are n00bs who didn't get in until 6E or so.
That's a good selection. When did Chaos first appear?
I think that's good.
I don't to be honest. I was 1st exposed to WHFB when in 1st ed most game shops didn't have GW products and just had pamphlets with a sample armies and some background. I think chaos came in 3rd or 4th ed. 5thed brought brets and lizards.
Huh? It's not good that they might be trying to bring older players back into the game? I find that a strange response.
BTW, thanks for noting the arrival of Chaos - interesting that it took as long as it did.
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: I'm really surprised that no one has speculated that in addition to revamping there is a degree of "getting back to basics" in the rumors.
Fantasy started off with 6 armies (skaven, o & g, undead, elves, empire, dwarves) and this whole skirmish deal people keep talking about, its what fantasy used to be.
IMO, if the rumors are true, GW is actually trying to bring back the old school people into the game as well as newbs. Also, they're prob trying to set up another boom like 5th ed. that's my 2 warp tokens
Most of us are n00bs who didn't get in until 6E or so.
That's a good selection. When did Chaos first appear?
I think that's good.
I don't to be honest. I was 1st exposed to WHFB when in 1st ed most game shops didn't have GW products and just had pamphlets with a sample armies and some background. I think chaos came in 3rd or 4th ed. 5thed brought brets and lizards.
Huh? It's not good that they might be trying to bring older players back into the game? I find that a strange response.
BTW, thanks for noting the arrival of Chaos - interesting that it took as long as it did.
When we talk about bringing "older" players back we're normally talking 5 to 20 years ago, which was 4th through 7th edition. That's when the game was best loved and had a wide audience. Trying to capture people from 1st edition... I'm guessing there aren't many around because the game wasn't hugely popular back then and given it came out in the early 80's I think most of those people would be in their 50's now
GW are massively overshooting the mark if they're trying to bring back original WHFB players
Also Brets and Lizardmen (in the form of the Slann) were around before 5th. They were left out of 4th though and heavily reworked back in to 5th. I think the Slann were a 1st ed army. Not sure about Bretonnia though, they go back to 3rd (late 80's) as far as I know, but maybe earlier as well. Chaos were around in 2nd, but I don't know in what form and when exactly they were released (2nd edition I believe was an expansion to 1st that came out only a year or so after 1st).
The predecessor to 1st edition was Reaper, I don't know anything about that though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 23:50:57
piraterobot- for the most part. O&G can build some nasty artillery lists too. Elves depending on the build. IDK if its just the caliber of players ive been around but I see a lot of 1st turn=win. IMO, I just think the way GW does turn based is hoaky and unrealistic in a game that emphasizes relative realism.
Hwang- Sorry. I thought that was pretty clear. I believe its a good thing.
Skink-my GW timeline must be a little off. I thought WHFB came about in the late, not early 80's. When I first found those GW pamphlets, It was early 90's with only the 6 armies I mentioned earlier. That doesn't mean that other armies weren't out. Im just saying there were only those 6. I agree though 4th-7th ed is prob considerd the heyday of WHFB.
Let me clarify. I don't mean they're trying to appeal solely to the old 1st ed players. They're trying to appeal to the people that have dropped off because of how much GW has changed the game over the years. They want to bring on another boom the way 4th ed and 5th ed did. I meet a ton of people who used to play and dropped of bcuz of GW problems. IMO, if GW had half those people come back, it would make fantasy about even with 40k. Since my start in 5th ed, I've seen well over half my group leave the game. I partly think its because of the players themselves though. In general I see 3 types of players people who really do just want to have fun, people who take the game way to seriously, and people who take having fun way too seriously. With the exception of myself and a few others, most of the people in my group take having fun way too seriously and it drives people away just as much as the people who take the game too seriously
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: Skink-my GW timeline must be a little off. I thought WHFB came about in the late, not early 80's. When I first found those GW pamphlets, It was early 90's with only the 6 armies I mentioned earlier. That doesn't mean that other armies weren't out. Im just saying there were only those 6. I agree though 4th-7th ed is prob considerd the heyday of WHFB.
3rd edition was the one that came out in the late 80's (1987), 1st and 2nd were early 80's (1983 and 84). But yeah, perhaps the pamphlets were limited in what they covered, because I can't think of a time when there only would have been those 6. Chaos definitely were around in the late 80's because 1988 is when "Slaves to Darkness" came out, don't know of their presence prior to that. Slann were around before 3rd, so they came out some time between 1983 and 1987.
But I started late 4th to early 5th myself (just when the 5th boxed set came out), what I know of previous editions is just what I've read, what people have told me and what ancient 2nd hand books and models my FLGS had from earlier editions
Let me clarify. I don't mean they're trying to appeal solely to the old 1st ed players. They're trying to appeal to the people that have dropped off because of how much GW has changed the game over the years. They want to bring on another boom the way 4th ed and 5th ed did. I meet a ton of people who used to play and dropped of bcuz of GW problems. IMO, if GW had half those people come back, it would make fantasy about even with 40k. Since my start in 5th ed, I've seen well over half my group leave the game. I partly think its because of the players themselves though. In general I see 3 types of players people who really do just want to have fun, people who take the game way to seriously, and people who take having fun way too seriously. With the exception of myself and a few others, most of the people in my group take having fun way too seriously and it drives people away just as much as the people who take the game too seriously
I'd say if you still have around half your players from 5th you are probably doing better than most. I'm the only person who is still actively interested in WHFB from my group that started in 5th, and I haven't really played since 8th came out (only a few games) One other guy still has his models and still talks about playing but he doesn't keep up to date unless I tell him what's going on and hasn't played a game in many years.
But yeah, of course, GW are hoping to create an influx in both new customers and old customers buying more stuff by making a major change. But a change in the game is not enough to bring back the people disenchanted by GW themselves and I think the level of GW shooting themselves in the foot with annoying old customers will outweigh the influx of new players if they change the face of the game.
Yeah GW is good at shooting themselves in the foot. At the same time though I hear people who haven't been in the game for a while say "...I'll check it out. I might start back up." Ppl def get frustrated with GW but some people act like GW has to appeal directly to them, like anything short of their expectation is failure of GW. There's also the problem of not ever being able to make everybody happy. If the rumors are true and people stick with 8th I think eventually someone will produce a fan based 9th and prob many fan based "9th eds" will come about. The rumors suck and I believe are at least partially true but the new rules set may actually be good and can be applied at large scale. If it turns out to be skirmish level, I think it could actually turn out nice. It would seem GW has been testing this for a while starting with Mordheim.
The influx potential is going to vary. I thing there are just as many people that stopped because life came to a point that didn't allow much time for it. My group are all adults now. When I started over half where teenagers. I think somewhere WHFB lost appeal to the younger demographic and gave it to 40k. Did you see the same thing, being a 5th editioner too?
Ppl see 4d6 casualties and think its limburger dick
Matt Ratsinburger wrote: At the same time though I hear people who haven't been in the game for a while say "...I'll check it out. I might start back up."
Hate to burst your bubble but this happens literally every edition and most often the end result is "looks kinda cool, I'll maybe give it a try" and they never do. Now imagine if they needed new / rebased models as well?
Trade rules: lower rep trades ships 1st. - I ship within 2 business days, if it will be longer I will contact you & explain. - I will NOT lie on customs forms, it's a felony, do not ask me to mark sales as "gifts". Free shipping applies to contiguous US states.
It's actually surprised me how little interest there's been in WHFB given there's a new edition around the corner. I haven't really heard much chatter about it which I sort of expected.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's actually surprised me how little interest there's been in WHFB given there's a new edition around the corner. I haven't really heard much chatter about it which I sort of expected.
That's because there is NO reliable information on what it is going to be, and the forums have gone full Doom & Gloom on it. People are just holding their breath until some actual information 'leaks.'
Pirate: What happens if ninth is released and most of the rumours turn out to be true? Will your head explode like that guy in Scanners, or will you just melt while wailing "Oh, what a world, what a world!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/09 20:16:27
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
I'll use 28mm if gamers or sellers have collections or specific ranges in that scale, and like the man says there are systems that are a bit less skewed towards '1 figure = 1 soldier' (I know a guy who laughs at the idea of Archaon invading the Empire with, like, twelve knights) but I have to say I'm quite fond of the 6mm, 10mm and 15mm minis that I have, less detailed and more monoposed as they might be. Even something about the smaller scale, with the same number of minis, seems more 'grand' and, well, epic. And I feel I have to mention that in my experience, despite common misgivings about tinier scales being more difficult to paint, they're much more forgiving of simple basecoats, layers and washes - partly because greater contrast works better on smaller minis, and partly because of the en masse effect.
HoTT and Impetus are also scale-neutral. (with some base size changes in the latter, at least) I've heard and seen other gamers playing 
