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.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Garage gamers, the silent majority. There exists a large group of gamers who only play with a friend or two in their basement or garage. If they buy from a store at all, they show up once every few months, buy several hundred dollars worth of kits and are rarely seen again. They don't typically frequent forums, they don't play in tournaments, they don't always even stick with the most recently updated rules. They just drink a few beers, roll some dice and shoot the breeze with their buddies. They're the reason GW has shifted away from the tournament scene and towards "Play how you want," and why GW employees refer to the forums as the loud 1%. Balance isn't an issue with these players; for them COOL is king. They're the market GW is chasing, as they're the ones keeping the lights on.

Whoa thats me.

 JamesY wrote:
$250? That's balls, a £65 battalion box will be a fully gameable army in AoS. If you can download the rules, and they continue to include the rules in boxes, fantasy is about to get a lot cheaper. Which is the point the relaunch.

I was under the impression that the Battalions are being phased out in favor of the new box sets. Some army battalions are no longer available through GW Can. The Dark Elf box is $200cdn and the Wood Elf box is $275. I agree that the old boxes are good value for as long as they last.

 keezus wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
$250? That's balls, a £65 battalion box will be a fully gameable army in AoS. If you can download the rules, and they continue to include the rules in boxes, fantasy is about to get a lot cheaper. Which is the point the relaunch.

I was under the impression that the Battalions are being phased out in favor of the new box sets. Some army battalions are no longer available through GW Can. The Dark Elf box is $200cdn and the Wood Elf box is $275. I agree that the old boxes are good value for as long as they last.

feth all that, they've abolished points, factions and army structure. In the space of an evening I've gone from quite keen to utter disinterest. (Not a small amount of incredulity at the utter ridiculousness that is the pantomime of GW either.)

Equally, this week was the second week in over three years since it was founded that my club had not one GW game being played.

The first was last week, read into that what you will.

Doing away with points? What the feth are they thinking???

WayneTheGame wrote:
Doing away with points? What the feth are they thinking???

That's... Pretty normal for historicals. Read through the Hail Caesar rules recently, and it's got all the stats for legionnaires, barbarian warbands, phalanxes etc, but no points costs.

They're generally not really part of the structure.

It's not as shocking a move as you make it out to be. I might have to look into the new fantasy rules and see what they're like.

There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and points values. There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and no points values.

Historical rulesets without army lists are rare because obviously we know more or less what historical armies consisted of, and if you play with armies that aren't similar to the originals, you aren't playing historicals any more, you are playing some kind of alternative historya or fantasy campaign. Which can be fun.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and points values. There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and no points values.

Historical rulesets without army lists are rare because obviously we know more or less what historical armies consisted of, and if you play with armies that aren't similar to the originals, you aren't playing historicals any more, you are playing some kind of alternative historya or fantasy campaign. Which can be fun.

Well, we know that tge Roman army would have had legions/cohorts/centuries of legionnaires, limited cavalry and whatever auxiliaries to hand. Thry would look odd with phalanxes - agreed. What we don't know will be the precise disposition for whatever 'army' is to hand (I can imagine with the Romans, depending on time period and location, the nature of what gets fielded will change dramatically) and whatever time period.

in my experience, historicals are a bit more 'free form' in what you take, in terms of the size of battles/armies and in how you play.

I agree with you - armies tend to be representative of historical sources, but how they get played is less 'organised play' and more 'garage gamer approach'. Hence my point about a lot of them not really using points systems - you field what is appropriate rather than to a defined 'limit'.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and points values. There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and no points values.

Historical rulesets without army lists are rare because obviously we know more or less what historical armies consisted of, and if you play with armies that aren't similar to the originals, you aren't playing historicals any more, you are playing some kind of alternative historya or fantasy campaign. Which can be fun.

I would like to replay Thermopylae. I want my opponent to bring all 30,000 Persians (or however many it actually was, but I think the historical accounts vary) so that I can see how many muh Greeks I can slaughter before I lose . Could even proxy it with sigmarites vs chaos! Just need 600 or so boxes of AoS.

Them Greeks musta had some great invulnerable save mechanic!

Thermopylae reminds me of playing 6th Ed Beasts of Chaos (with no chariots) vs 7th Ed High Elves (the ones that got ASF)...

Lets just say I added chariots to my army!

At Thermopylae the Spartans had several thousand allied hoplites as well as the Spartiates, in a fortified position with a narrow frontage and totally secure flanks. The Persians had lighter armed and armoured troops and were unable to make use of their superior numbers. If they dropped back to shoot arrows, the Greeks could hide behind their fortification and shields.

All the Greeks needed to do was to rotate their troops into and out of the front ranks to let them rest. There wasn't room and time for the Persians to tire out the Greeks in one day. The battle of course went against the Greeks when the Persians discovered a path through the hills and were able to get round behind them.

I played Persians versus Spartans as a fair, open field battle once, with WRG 6th edition rules.. I won, thanks to the amount of bow fire I was able to put down on the Spartans as they advanced, which badly disrupted their charge. But it wasn't easy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At Thermopylae the Spartans had several thousand allied hoplites as well as the Spartiates, in a fortified position with a narrow frontage and totally secure flanks. The Persians had lighter armed and armoured troops and were unable to make use of their superior numbers. If they dropped back to shoot arrows, the Greeks could hide behind their fortification and shields.

All the Greeks needed to do was to rotate their troops into and out of the front ranks to let them rest. There wasn't room and time for the Persians to tire out the Greeks in one day. The battle of course went against the Greeks when the Persians discovered a path through the hills and were able to get round behind them.

I played Persians versus Spartans as a fair, open field battle once, with WRG 6th edition rules.. I won, thanks to the amount of bow fire I was able to put down on the Spartans as they advanced, which badly disrupted their charge. But it wasn't easy.

NO!!! I've seen the movie. Just 300 Spartans! The farmers didn't count, coz Leonidas said so. And he killed 10,000 Persians all by himself. With a single spear throw!

But yea, I know that the Greeks numbered a few thousand (depending on who was counting); but the Persians numbered a lot more -- many tens to hundreds of thousands, depending on who was counting. But all I REALLY wanted to do... was see someone fill a gymnasium with miniatures of Persian soldiers

And then move them all 6"...

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At Thermopylae the Spartans had several thousand allied hoplites as well as the Spartiates, in a fortified position with a narrow frontage and totally secure flanks. The Persians had lighter armed and armoured troops and were unable to make use of their superior numbers. If they dropped back to shoot arrows, the Greeks could hide behind their fortification and shields.

All the Greeks needed to do was to rotate their troops into and out of the front ranks to let them rest. There wasn't room and time for the Persians to tire out the Greeks in one day. The battle of course went against the Greeks when the Persians discovered a path through the hills and were able to get round behind them.

I played Persians versus Spartans as a fair, open field battle once, with WRG 6th edition rules.. I won, thanks to the amount of bow fire I was able to put down on the Spartans as they advanced, which badly disrupted their charge. But it wasn't easy.

NO!!! I've seen the movie. Just 300 Spartans! The farmers didn't count, coz Leonidas said so. And he killed 10,000 Persians all by himself. With a single spear throw!

But yea, I know that the Greeks numbered a few thousand (depending on who was counting); but the Persians numbered a lot more -- many tens to hundreds of thousands, depending on who was counting. But all I REALLY wanted to do... was see someone fill a gymnasium with miniatures of Persian soldiers

And then move them all 6"...

I'd rather see King Pyrrhus and his phallanx vs the Roman Republic's legions....
sorry, way off topic.
But yes, there should be a way to balance the game out for equal strength forces and then have the imbalanced scenarios run off of those. It's easier to have a fair imbalanced game when there's already a baseline of what balanced is.

 Azreal13 wrote:
[
Equally, this week was the second week in over three years since it was founded that my club had not one GW game being played.

Interesting. Similar movement in our club and the two other ones we usually play with. Significantally less GW games, mostly 40k and a rare comped 8th WHFB, but a LOT of X-Wing. Which is good, because it's awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I expected The Hobbit to be a major boost for the LoTR line, but there is no strong evidence in the results that that happened.

Cost. LoTR was a very affordable miniatures game, especially compared to their regular systems. People who never got into contact with tabletop before could easily pick up a few Warrios of Minas Tirith for a very fair price and have them all painted (read: drybrushed) in a single afternoon. Since GW decided to increase the box price by more than 200% (!!!) the game quickly lost its appeal. It's a shame as the rules are vastly superior to any other GW ruleset. Dare I say, they're actually good.

 MWHistorian wrote:

But yes, there should be a way to balance the game out for equal strength forces and then have the imbalanced scenarios run off of those. It's easier to have a fair imbalanced game when there's already a baseline of what balanced is.

Yes, this is a good game design philosophy.

I'm not sure how good a gauge the club scene is of GW trends. Most players are not in formal clubs or on forums. They just play or paint a little read a few books. They can afford more expensive kits because they don't need or crave vast quantities of the stuff they just buy what they want...

No, I'm sure you couldn't use the club scen to definitively measure the health of GW.

The interest comes by the comparison of what was with what is though, it isn't saying "nobody plays at our club, therefore 40K is dying" it's "everybody used to play at our club, and now hardly anyone does."

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm sure you couldn't use the club scen to definitively measure the health of GW.

The interest comes by the comparison of what was with what is though, it isn't saying "nobody plays at our club, therefore 40K is dying" it's "everybody used to play at our club, and now hardly anyone does."

Things change, like the seasons. A new game might come and grab everyones attention; a blood bowl league might do the same. Sometimes people go back to the games they always played (like background noise) and sometimes they don't. It also depends on the gaming circles that you are a part of. And who you know. What gets played needs to be looked at over a 5 year basis I think before you can talk trends.

I don't see 40k disappearing. What I do see is fewer people in some clubs playing 40k, and the same amount elsewhere. It's true for other games too. I was playing a game of warnachine in Edinburgh a few months back; guy pops in sees us playing and pops over to look and chat. Apparently he'd never seen anyone playing warmachine in Edinburgh. Never mind the fact there are a lot of players playing for a long time; if you'd asked him - he'd say 'wmh doesn't exist in Scotland'... Ask us and we'd point out that yes it exists and where to go to go to get involved.

Like I said, things change like the seasons. Wmh went underground for a while here, but a few of us are kicking off things again and getting casual 'gaming days' organised and everyone seems to be coming out of the woodwork for it.

I'm not saying it's gone never to return, but specifically using our club as an example, 3 years ago it was de facto GW exclusive, it wasn't a rule, it was just that was all anyone chose to play, and 40K was definitely king.

Fast forward 3 years and there's been two successive weeks where no GW product has been used.

The very definition of anecdotal, but, to my mind, telling nonetheless.

What I find interesting is that I would put myself in the "Hobbyist" market segment as none of my friends have an interest in miniature games and the closest store is 45 minutes away. I feel like GW is gunning for my segment, but I can't get behind these models. Barring the fact they destroyed the old lore (which is a deal breaker for me anyway) I don't see anything that really makes me want this. Other companies create just as detailed miniatures. I'm confused as to who this is targeted at I suppose.

 Coldhatred wrote:
What I find interesting is that I would put myself in the "Hobbyist" market segment as none of my friends have an interest in miniature games and the closest store is 45 minutes away. I feel like GW is gunning for my segment, but I can't get behind these models. Barring the fact they destroyed the old lore (which is a deal breaker for me anyway) I don't see anything that really makes me want this. Other companies create just as detailed miniatures. I'm confused as to who this is targeted at I suppose.

It's just in the model aesthetic, I guess. I will buy the starter box set because I think the models are pretty spectacular, the aesthetic is exactly what I enjoy (though I would prefer guns ), and the price, considering that there are some large models in there too, is awesome. I don't really care that if the game is great or crappy, because likely, I won't have anyone to play it with anyways (my whole gang is 40k). But in the same way, I paint Infinity models and PP models, even though I almost never play those games.

Putting aesthetic aside, I don't think a lot of companies produce as good miniatures as the Sigmarites -- most resin character model manufacturers don't do multipart, or they're minimally multipart, so you end up with a lot of undercuts (which I despise), and some poses/positions are just impossible to cast without multipart models. And, personally, I much prefer plastic as a material to work with and for a finished product than resin (besides, I like vehicles, and plastic is WAY better for vehicle models).

Comparatively, in cost, you have to admit that from a model perspective only, those models are really cheap. Of course, if you don't like the aesthetic, it's totally worthless.

Going entirely to aesthetics... if they made 40k Sigmarites... I would go crazy I mean, it would be my next 10,000 point project. Yes, they are space-marine-inspired, but I actually like the Sigmarite aesthetic better -- the way the shoulder pads are sculpted, the knee pads, the gauntlets, are just *better* (just preference I'm talking about here). But they just need Grav cannons, lightning claws, bolters, chainswords, plasma guns and meltaguns. Hmmmmmm.... conversion? A new chapter!