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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


Odds of the chaplain, HBs, and ancient being on a mixed sprue? Maybe or maybe not with 5 intercessors, depending if they duplicate the 5 bodies.

The HBs, Ancient, and Chaplain do indeed share a sprue. The Intercessors are on a large/double sprue able to be broken in half with 5 on each half.

You can see the breakdown with screenshots from the stream here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1t2fuoc/armageddon_sprues_breakdown/#lightbox

Despite watching the unboxing video, I completely forgot that we’ve seen (at least from the middle distance) all the sprues.

My bad.

Greenfield wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


EDIT: This is made dramatically worse at the moment by the card game speculator bubble. Card manufacturing is basically constantly operating at peak capacity at the moment which is also why you're seeing so many games swap to tarot sized cards where there's less demand.

Have you got a source for this?

Not a direct source but you can find lots of mentions in articles regarding Pokemon shortages and supply issues with a lot of new TCGs like the Gundam and One Piece TCGs. I may be simply reading too much into it as tarot size really does work quite well for minis games, but it does feel like minis games have all shifted to it around the same time.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Tastyfish wrote:
It was pointed out on B&C, that there's a picture of the new marine starter set combat patrol.

Looks to be two captain, librarian, 5 intercessors, 5 vanguard and a land speeder.

Two captains? I just see one.

Originally wrote two paints and then deleted them, as I thought they probably weren't part of the patrol! Whoops!

Also on that same page there seems to be some new terrain, though oddly I'm not sure it fits the examples given in the missions we've seen.

 LunarSol wrote:

Greenfield wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


EDIT: This is made dramatically worse at the moment by the card game speculator bubble. Card manufacturing is basically constantly operating at peak capacity at the moment which is also why you're seeing so many games swap to tarot sized cards where there's less demand.

Have you got a source for this?

Not a direct source but you can find lots of mentions in articles regarding Pokemon shortages and supply issues with a lot of new TCGs like the Gundam and One Piece TCGs. I may be simply reading too much into it as tarot size really does work quite well for minis games, but it does feel like minis games have all shifted to it around the same time.

It might be but it could also be card firms not wanting to over-order and limiting the range. That not only feeds the FOMO card machine; but also reduces risk because there's a general feeling that the "card investment" market will do what EVERY other "hobby investment" market has always done which is randomly and very suddenly implode. So card firms might well be being over cautious because they know at some point that "investor" market is going to vanish on them and leave them back with just their original core customers of fans.

IF they've expanded hard into the investor market and are overproducing for their original core market* then firms can end up closing up very quickly as well as they end up sitting on stock selling far too slow and operating costs way too high to sustain.


*which might well reduce during an investor boom because of how it changes the nature of the product/release rate/release access and 2nd hand prices and all

 Nevelon wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Mission decks should be produced up until the next one goes on pre-order especially if they are still going to stick with that being the only source of missions.

GW has this love-hate relationship with cardstock game aids. On the one hand they love using cards all over the place.
On the other they hate doing more than one print run; which results in them being a product that's designed to work for the 3 years of the edition (minimum) but which often have a shelf life measured in weeks/month or two.

While the deck in the launch box is not labeled as such, the stand alone release explicitly says 26-27. So expect a new deck every year.

I'm fine with that. But during 10th those decks would sell out within a month (if that) and GW would never reprint them, meaning if you didn't get one you were SOL when it came to having the way to actually play the game, since there was no other missions other than Crusade and the one mission in the Core Book that was available to you. So if they want to keep these decks going they have to be readily available or else provide alternative missions (now the smart thing would be to put all those missions available online and make the deck a convenience, not a requirement, but this is GW)

They want you to buy the deck of cards out of fomo and don't want to eat the cost of potentially having some that don't sell, so they underproduce. See: literally every product they make. No they won't keep them in stock or make the contents free. Best way to navigate these crappy practices as a consumer is to just say no.

Back when maelstrom missions were a thing, there were charts in the rulebook if you wanted to play that mode without cards, but it was designed to be played with the deck they sold.

Life was significantly better with the upsold play aids, but not required.

Looks like Combat Patrol is finally it's own book. I'm actually excited for what it will contain.

Terrain footprints are cardboard? Roflmao. Neoprene mat makers are eating well this edition.

Didn't GW state that they were changing how objectives worked in order to get away from having a load of circles on the board?

Circles bad; rectangles good. More sides = more verisimilitude.

You are supposed to put actually terrain pieces on those cardboard things, you know...

Considering how they are quite essential to play 11th edition, I'm quite surprised to see so many people complaining about them not being high quality, high cost items.

Yeah I would have thought making them cheapish and cheerfulish because they're a necessity is a good thing?

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm quite surprised to see so many people complaining about them not being high quality, high cost items.

High cost might still be an option though, it's GW we're talking about

I usually play on neoprene mats, so might look for some more inconspicuous (semi-)transparent ones instead, or just cut them myself from some plastic office folders.

That’s my Frag Drill and Plasma Things shipped.

 Olthannon wrote:
Yeah I would have thought making them cheapish and cheerfulish because they're a necessity is a good thing?

Hopefully cheapest and easy cardboard, and then maybe when they do new terrain sets they comes with an integral plastic base that is the proper dimensions

 Olthannon wrote:
Yeah I would have thought making them cheapish and cheerfulish because they're a necessity is a good thing?

The whole bloody point of moving from circles to these representative terrain templates is to make the game more visually immersive. So they should actually look good and be properly sculpted plastic like GW's terrain with which they're supposed to blend.

I doubt they'd make integral bases for their terrain. That would lock them into the same shapes.

It wouldn't surprise me if we get varied shapes. Potentially themed objectives as well.

My preference would definitely be to have a texture printed on these, rather than clear. They're supposed to rectangles of very important rubble or whatever rather than entirely arbitrary circles.

I do prefer the theme, I've always placed objectives in/on/near terrain. The more strategically important it might be the better.
So the game pushing you to do that rather than working against doing that definitely feels better to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Yeah I would have thought making them cheapish and cheerfulish because they're a necessity is a good thing?

The whole bloody point of moving from circles to these representative terrain templates is to make the game more visually immersive. So they should actually look good and be properly sculpted plastic like GW's terrain with which they're supposed to blend.

If they were sculpted terrain though GW's terrain wouldn't sit properly on them. As their terrain is flat bottomed and wouldn't fit whatever texture/sculpting they did.
Really the printed surface is best to represent rubble/whatever you then place terrain on.
Yes Neoprene would be higher quality, but GW doesn't dabble in that.
There's already dozens of third party options available, you could get them before GW even releases the 'official' ones!

 Olthannon wrote:
Yeah I would have thought making them cheapish and cheerfulish because they're a necessity is a good thing?

It's the worst implementation they could have gone with IMO. Why would I pay for cardboard? I can make cardboard trays myself.

The only reason I was excited about these things was the possibility that finally, there would be a plastic "base" for all my GW plastic terrain which will never warp like my DIY plasticard terrain bases do. Missed opportunity, missed revenue.

The "GW terrain is flat, wouldnt fit" argument misses the point. One could easily cut and file away detail from the floor piece in order to fit a terrain piece on it. Then just add rubble and environmental fx like flock etc, to make the whole terrain piece look nice and cohesive. It would require some work, but would end up looking a hundred times better than completely scratch built terrain bases. IMHO

GW could have gotten me to buy multiples of these terrain floorings, now I wont buy a single one. I can just cut cardboard/plasticard to size myself, add basing materials..

 kirotheavenger wrote:

If they were sculpted terrain though GW's terrain wouldn't sit properly on them. As their terrain is flat bottomed and wouldn't fit whatever texture/sculpting they did.

Yes it would, if the detail was debossed rather than raised. Floor sections of basically all the GW terrain already are like that in order to not interfere with model placement.



What I want is something like this in proper shapes.

What I want is something like this in the proper shapes (via Snot Goblin Gaming):

 tauist wrote:

The only reason I was excited about these things was the possibility that finally, there would be a plastic "base" for all my GW plastic terrain which will never warp like my DIY plasticard terrain bases do. Missed opportunity, missed revenue.

One could always go with acrylic bases and decorate as desired. I hear you on this. I won't be buying them and am excited that all my terrain basing skills are now becoming useful for non-narrative play.

 tauist wrote:
The "GW terrain is flat, wouldnt fit" argument misses the point. One could easily cut and file away detail from the floor piece in order to fit a terrain piece on it. Then just add rubble and environmental fx like flock etc, to make the whole terrain piece look nice and cohesive. It would require some work, but would end up looking a hundred times better than completely scratch built terrain bases. IMHO

GW wouldn't offer something that requires that much additional clipping/filing, their hobby products are intended to be beginner-friendly.
Besides, if it would require assembly to correctly fit around the building, isn't that just the same as using third-party or 3D-printed basing bits on a plasticard base?

 Crimson wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Yeah I would have thought making them cheapish and cheerfulish because they're a necessity is a good thing?

The whole bloody point of moving from circles to these representative terrain templates is to make the game more visually immersive. So they should actually look good and be properly sculpted plastic like GW's terrain with which they're supposed to blend.

And then you would be complaining because the set costs its usual $30/sprue for a total of $120 per box and still not buy it.
And there would be shortage because they would literally compete with new releases in the factory.
These are things you have to have when playing a game. They need to be cheap, not premium quality.

You simply aren't the target audience for this. GW disclosed the exact measurements of these pieces weeks ago, you can buy whatever premium product you want from other suppliers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s my Frag Drill and Plasma Things shipped.

I'd forgotten but, thankfully, the email about my Generatorum Hub arrived. That's a weekend trip to town on the cards.

Just in time for me to finally be weak and succumb to a Vostroyan Platoon MTO.

 Crimson wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

If they were sculpted terrain though GW's terrain wouldn't sit properly on them. As their terrain is flat bottomed and wouldn't fit whatever texture/sculpting they did.

Yes it would, if the detail was debossed rather than raised. Floor sections of basically all the GW terrain already are like that in order to not interfere with model placement.

Spoiler:

What I want is something like this in proper shapes.

Not a big fan of having everything on raised flooring like that.
I guess rubble-style bases could work if they had a slightly raised L-shaped stone/concrete foundation around the edge to provide a flat surface for the building.

 goffnob deffsmakka wrote:

I guess rubble-style bases could work if they had a slightly raised L-shaped stone/concrete foundation around the edge to provide a flat surface for the building.

That could only be used by a specific piece of terrain though.
Certainly GW could provide a terrain base with any terrain they sold. But bases are incredibly sprue-inefficient so GW would have to push their margins very thin and the price would still be too high for consumers.

GW has been specifically talking about your ability to use whatever terrain you want on these bases.
Although I suspect this is less a benevolent "create awesome gaming tables with your 3rd party terrain sets" and more trying to make the myriad of GW terrain kits more functional. It's much more "please actually buy and use our Sector Mechanicus sets, stop using 3rd party MDF rectangles, it looks terrible and someone else is getting money"

It seems a little incongruous to sell premium miniatures and premium terrain, and then set it all up with cardboard terrain templates.

If I were fine with a cardboard table, then I'd just use cardboard terrain to begin with. But I like having good-quality stuff on the table, so I guess I'll just cut up a neoprene mat as a DIY fix.

 catbarf wrote:
It seems a little incongruous to sell premium miniatures and premium terrain, and then set it all up with cardboard terrain templates.

If I were fine with a cardboard table, then I'd just use cardboard terrain to begin with. But I like having good-quality stuff on the table, so I guess I'll just cut up a neoprene mat as a DIY fix.

What’s the smallest mat you would need to cut up to get all your templates?

This kind of pattern optimization has being going on since seamstresses didn’t want to waste expensive cloth to make clothing. But at least the shapes we need are nice and geometric.

People still have their scraps from when they cut their 4x6 mats to the new standard?

 Nevelon wrote:
What’s the smallest mat you would need to cut up to get all your templates?

The total area is a bit over 24" square. So a bit much to use offcuts from shrinking a prior mat, but some quick graph paper sketching suggests it can be comfortably made from a 22x30" with minimal leftovers.

Incidentally, I notice that this is just barely shy of the old standard of 25% terrain coverage. Kinda funny to see that finally made a mandatory part of the rules.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 goffnob deffsmakka wrote:

I guess rubble-style bases could work if they had a slightly raised L-shaped stone/concrete foundation around the edge to provide a flat surface for the building.

That could only be used by a specific piece of terrain though.
Certainly GW could provide a terrain base with any terrain they sold. But bases are incredibly sprue-inefficient so GW would have to push their margins very thin and the price would still be too high for consumers.

GW has been specifically talking about your ability to use whatever terrain you want on these bases.
Although I suspect this is less a benevolent "create awesome gaming tables with your 3rd party terrain sets" and more trying to make the myriad of GW terrain kits more functional. It's much more "please actually buy and use our Sector Mechanicus sets, stop using 3rd party MDF rectangles, it looks terrible and someone else is getting money"

Sculpted bases I imagine are coming with sculpted terrain to fit them that match the items on the GW terrain layouts. Which yes, is once again to reiterate, an attempt to shepherd comp terrain deployment methods onto casual players and use for all games regardless of what they say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
What’s the smallest mat you would need to cut up to get all your templates?

The total area is a bit over 24" square. So a bit much to use offcuts from shrinking a prior mat, but some quick graph paper sketching suggests it can be comfortably made from a 22x30" with minimal leftovers.

Incidentally, I notice that this is just barely shy of the old standard of 25% terrain coverage. Kinda funny to see that finally made a mandatory part of the rules.

It's not mandatory (apparently) according to GW.