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.

 kodos wrote:
same unit in general, not same unit per slot

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies

Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.

F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Bago wrote:
As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).

Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.

Way easier to find people who want to play TOW than the other systems though.

And if there were nice dwarf miniatures from GW, I wouldn't bother with third party. But a) GW dwarves are currently not available. b) They don't look as nice in my opinion. I am explicitly thinking of TOW because of the range of highland miniatures they have for dwarves. Without that, I would not be interested at all.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.

F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.

this is true for all their model ranges
you get a full TOW army for half the price from others, with the same quality (personal taste on design is a different story)
but than the only reason to go with GW are the models

(as the game being popular and easier to find people to play with is countered by the argument that it only is "fun" if you find like minded people to play anyway)

 kodos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.

F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.

this is true for all their model ranges
you get a full TOW army for half the price from others, with the same quality (personal taste on design is a different story)
but than the only reason to go with GW are the models

(as the game being popular and easier to find people to play with is countered by the argument that it only is "fun" if you find like minded people to play anyway)

In order to find if it is even "fun", there must be players. So GW games it is.

I am tired of trying to show/promote other games/scales for nothing.

So for me there is no paradox. Only games with players available in my small (-ish) city are GW's, so it is like there are NO other rules.

So, GW's rules with any models.

I suppose that's the brutal difference between having a friend group with a shared hobby, and having a hobby for which you have to find people to do it with.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events

(rule of three on everything, including core)

That isn't too shocking since its a feature of their other games.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events

(rule of three on everything, including core)

That isn't too shocking since its a feature of their other games.

Yeah they should have put it in the main rules - helps restrict stupid lists

Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

Dude, this came out within days of the release - people building to the "army comp rules" literally haven't had them long enough to be screwed yet. This is to prevent spamming units - something we see in their other games already. It goes beyond gyrobombers, obviously. This will help keep the game healthier for longer, imo.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

This event is 1500 pts, but it will be pretty funny if wording stays as is and in 2000k points you can have 6 of a 0-3 per 1000 special, but only 3 of an "unlimited" core

Don't you know black, statetroops op! We must limit them! And so too goblin archers!!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

This event is 1500 pts, but it will be pretty funny if wording stays as is and in 2000k points you can have 6 of a 0-3 per 1000 special, but only 3 of an "unlimited" core

Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

What problems does this cause unless you are trying to game the game in which case who cares or you are runing a scenario - in which case you are exempt as its a scenario.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

No, that's not what it says.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

No, that's not what it says.

How is that not what it says? I have re-read it a few times and that seems to be the case. Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit. The caps that exist are often already more restrictive than the 0-3 limit.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit.

These aren't the same thing. The second one is correct. Any cap, not lower cap. Means a 0-6 cap unit (ie. cannons in 2000 points) would stay 0-6 and not be subject to the rule of three.

Can still bring 5 Terrorgheist in 2k!

 kodos wrote:
same unit in general, not same unit per slot

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies

It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

No, that's not what it says.

How is that not what it says? I have re-read it a few times and that seems to be the case. Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit. The caps that exist are often already more restrictive than the 0-3 limit.

'Often' is not the same as 'always'.

I'm honestly just waiting to see if Tournaments/Standard play ends up being 2k, 1999 or less.

Bago wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Bago wrote:
As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).

Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.

Way easier to find people who want to play TOW than the other systems though.

And if there were nice dwarf miniatures from GW, I wouldn't bother with third party. But a) GW dwarves are currently not available. b) They don't look as nice in my opinion. I am explicitly thinking of TOW because of the range of highland miniatures they have for dwarves. Without that, I would not be interested at all.

Oh good point btw, I am really holding my breath here for what old world is going to do with how dwarves (and chaos dwarves!) look like, if they will be modeled after AOS dwarves I am going to die in pain..

I think dwarves should be 90% beard, 5% feet and 5% arms.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.

the rules are not good and the miniatures too expensive
so people just play it because others play but everyone is grumpy because the don't play it because they like hence the toxic community

"because someone else is doing it" was never a good reason for anything

 kodos wrote:
the rules are not good

That is relative. Compared with LI the rules of TOW are a masterpiece of gameplay.

The rules are a GOOD effort, a nice combination of the best of 6th, 7th & 8th ed.

 kodos wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.

the rules are not good and the miniatures too expensive
so people just play it because others play but everyone is grumpy because the don't play it because they like hence the toxic community

"because someone else is doing it" was never a good reason for anything

But "because no one else is playing it' is a very good reason to not get into a game. Unless you are supremely confident your community is willing to all try the same new thing together.

Yes, the Official GW Warhammer Minis (TM) are too expensive. That's why many Warhammer players use other company's minis, unless they are competing in Official GW Warhammer Tournaments (TM).

so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell

and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company

 kodos wrote:
so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell

and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company

To be frank, my local community is so fractured you have a hard time finding three people playing the same fantasy wargame. I've given up trying to get a game of anything in.

 kodos wrote:
so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell

and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company

One thing many people that criticize people for playing GW systems overlook is the longevity of Games Workshop. People might be more willing to invest in a Games Workshop game, because in 5 years, the game still exists. I play SW: Legion and was hit with an existential dread after Shatterpoint because I thought Legion is going to die. Yes, there are better game systems. Yes, there are cheaper miniatures. But go into a random LGS (after you move house maybe) 5 years down the road and you are more than likely to find a player who plays a GW system, than Kings of War for example.

and yet by now GW is the only company that killed one of their games to replace it a different one and in addition games were phased out like any other company has done as well

there was no reason to fear Star Wars Legion is removed when AMG added an Skirmish Game in the same setting

Yet there is no reason to think GW won't kill Warhammer Fantasy again, or removing Kill Team again to replace it with a similar but new game is they have done before

 kodos wrote:
and yet by now GW is the only company that killed one of their games to replace it a different one and in addition games were phased out like any other company has done as well

there was no reason to fear Star Wars Legion is removed when AMG added an Skirmish Game in the same setting

Yet there is no reason to think GW won't kill Warhammer Fantasy again, or removing Kill Team again to replace it with a similar but new game is they have done before

So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?

Granted, I only play non-GW-Systems that are quite young, but Imperial Assault is a good example of a dead system replaced by another? There are a lot of dead systems out there. It kind of reminds me of all the "WoW-Killers" that came out over the last 20 years like Hellgate London or Age of Conan, but WoW is still around and these are not.

40k: 1987 - YTD
WHFB: 1983 - 2015, 2023 - YTD
AoS: 2015 - YTD
Blood Bowl: 1986 - YTD
Necromunda: 1995 - YTD
MESBG: 2001 - YTD
Kill Team 2005 - YTD

A lot of fair criticism for GW, but they have a good record of long lasting games I think.

I am kind of tempted to do a goblin army.

Yes a bog standard goblin army.
Rock lobbas, spider and wolf riders, normal gobbos.

Nothing serious, at most 1000 pts because obviously goblins. but yeah.

But i'd first need to get my hands on the rule books.

Bago wrote:

40k: 1987 - YTD
WHFB: 1983 - 2015, 2023 - YTD
AoS: 2015 - YTD
Blood Bowl: 1986 - YTD
Necromunda: 1995 - YTD
MESBG: 2001 - YTD
Kill Team 2005 - YTD

intresting that you are listing the "pause" only for WHFB but not for Necromunda, Kill Team and Blood Bowl and Kill Team (as the first version was released with 3rd Edi 40k)
Warmaster is still dead, Inquisitor is still dead, Mortheim is still dead, Battlefleet Gothic is still dead, Epic is dead but replaced with a different game

Yeah, I totally see how going with GW guarantees that the game is still there and supported years after release which is outside of 40k not there at all

And Blood Bowl is also good example that "official support" has nothing to do with the game being dead or not but with the quality of the game and the community rather than having a company behind it

play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
there is no longevity to overlook, as it is only there for 40k and by the same argument you can play Battletech as well as this is around for the same time, everything else comes and goes

Bago wrote:

So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?

yeah, because this highly depends on the region
finding someone who plays any game is always easy, finding someone that is playing the same game you want to play something very different and outside metropolitan areas difficult for any game
if you want to be sure to find someone to play with, Chess, Magic the Gathering and Pokemon are your best options, no matter where you are
and everything else depends

 kodos wrote:

Bago wrote:

40k: 1987 - YTD
WHFB: 1983 - 2015, 2023 - YTD
AoS: 2015 - YTD
Blood Bowl: 1986 - YTD
Necromunda: 1995 - YTD
MESBG: 2001 - YTD
Kill Team 2005 - YTD

intresting that you are listing the "pause" only for WHFB but not for Necromunda, Kill Team and Blood Bowl and Kill Team (as the first version was released with 3rd Edi 40k)
Warmaster is still dead, Inquisitor is still dead, Mortheim is still dead, Battlefleet Gothic is still dead, Epic is dead but replaced with a different game

Yeah, I totally see how going with GW guarantees that the game is still there and supported years after release which is outside of 40k not there at all

And Blood Bowl is also good example that "official support" has nothing to do with the game being dead or not but with the quality of the game and the community rather than having a company behind it

play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
there is no longevity to overlook, as it is only there for 40k and by the same argument you can play Battletech as well as this is around for the same time, everything else comes and goes

Bago wrote:

So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?

yeah, because this highly depends on the region
finding someone who plays any game is always easy, finding someone that is playing the same game you want to play something very different and outside metropolitan areas difficult for any game
if you want to be sure to find someone to play with, Chess, Magic the Gathering and Pokemon are your best options, no matter where you are
and everything else depends

I only listed the pause for WHFB, because I didn't know the support for the other games ceased to exist at some point. I just pulled the publication dates of the first editions. And of course, there are specialist games that are deader than dead. There's always a chance. I also don't want to defeat you in an argument or defend GW. I play more non-GW games than GW systems. I just say that it's quick to say "just play "Random Game XYZ instead of GW system". The consistency of Games Workshop is a factor one should include when talking about starting a system.

"play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it"

I don't really think that is totally true either. MESBG has been without much support for longer times as well for example and has always had a community that stuck to it. WHFB was also kept alive by the community for the last years, wasn't it? But as I said. I don't want to defend GW or have any horse in this race.