|
Post by johngg on Feb 10, 2023 13:33:26 GMT
I have to disagree, GW never forced anyone to play at higher levels. The min requirement for a game is 3 units. Warhammer: Skirmish; Warhammer: Raids etc etc.. were some of the many ways GW introduced smaller ways to play games, but the meta pushed the 2400 tournement threshold which became the de facto way to play.
|
|
|
Post by Luigino on Feb 10, 2023 14:41:25 GMT
I have to disagree, GW never forced anyone to play at higher levels. The min requirement for a game is 3 units. Warhammer: Skirmish; Warhammer: Raids etc etc.. were some of the many ways GW introduced smaller ways to play games, but the meta pushed the 2400 tournement threshold which became the de facto way to play. No one forced anything of course. But the way rules were set up and games portrayed (in books, white dwarf, and their own website) heavily implied that the minimum was, in fact, north of 2000 points.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 10, 2023 15:08:26 GMT
WFB was an expensive game for sure. But so is 40K. And we all know 40K sells like hotcakes. People complain for sure. But they do buy $85 Land Raiders and $35 Primaris Lieutenants.
Price is always the first thing people blame for the downfall of WFB. I'm not saying price had nothing to do with it. But it isn't as simple as: if "high price" then "failed game".
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 10, 2023 15:14:41 GMT
T9A is trash? Looked at WAP a bit but AFAIK, no one plays it around here so did not bother.. Ah.. GW needs to pick out the best from 3rd Ed to 8th Ed.. And i can tell them what that is.. I should head over there with a choppa to convince them. Maybe not 'trash' but certainly not the 'NextHammer' many of us hoped it would be. There's a reason we're here on the EEFL forum instead of the T9A forum.
|
|
|
Post by Luigino on Feb 10, 2023 15:30:15 GMT
Price is always the first thing people blame for the downfall of WFB. I'm not saying price had nothing to do with it. But it isn't as simple as: if "high price" then "failed game". I agree. While price is a huge factor (it's been the main reason why GW has not seen a dime from me apart a couple of army books and the 7th edition starter set), it does remain only that, a single factor. The problem is that the the investment required to start was huge. And not only in terms of money. In terms of time and models needed. You need soooo many models to play a game. And that cannot really ce changed; it's the nature of the game. It's a game of ranked battles, it's meant to have so many models. The "problem" is that such a game is then targeted to probably the wrong audience. Historical often use even more models and they are ALWAYS painted. it's just that the audience for that game is different that the kids/teenagers/young adults GW targets. There's also the fact that 28mm scale is probably the worst scale for the type of game WH wants or pretends to be, with 15 or even 10mm being much more suited to it, but here I digress
|
|
|
Post by Grimfang Gogulk on Feb 10, 2023 18:04:21 GMT
I have to disagree, GW never forced anyone to play at higher levels. The min requirement for a game is 3 units. Warhammer: Skirmish; Warhammer: Raids etc etc.. were some of the many ways GW introduced smaller ways to play games, but the meta pushed the 2400 tournement threshold which became the de facto way to play. No one forced anything of course. But the way rules were set up and games portrayed (in books, white dwarf, and their own website) heavily implied that the minimum was, in fact, north of 2000 points.
This.
I recently tried locally to with some dudes, they said they played anything, 500p and upwards. Ah great I though, I can start playing a bit of an Escalation League as I paint. Well, it was just empty talk. they were not interested until i had a "tournament list about 2500p". So yeah..
I don´t minda all kinds of games, but it seems like I am in a minority. Most seems to love their hordes and lords and their big monsters and monstrous infantry big blocks..
The meta is not just driven by players. GW has alot of input via those mediums..
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Feb 10, 2023 18:34:58 GMT
WFB was an expensive game for sure. But so is 40K. And we all know 40K sells like hotcakes. People complain for sure. But they do buy $85 Land Raiders and $35 Primaris Lieutenants. Price is always the first thing people blame for the downfall of WFB. I'm not saying price had nothing to do with it. But it isn't as simple as: if "high price" then "failed game". I fully agree
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Feb 10, 2023 18:37:51 GMT
I recently tried locally to with some dudes, they said they played anything, 500p and upwards. Ah great I though, I can start playing a bit of an Escalation League as I paint. Well, it was just empty talk. they were not interested until i had a "tournament list about 2500p". So yeah..
I don´t minda all kinds of games, but it seems like I am in a minority. Most seems to love their hordes and lords and their big monsters and monstrous infantry big blocks..
This is EXACTLY my point [I've left out the bit where you contradict yourself though]
|
|
|
Post by Luigino on Feb 10, 2023 18:51:23 GMT
I recently tried locally to with some dudes, they said they played anything, 500p and upwards. Ah great I though, I can start playing a bit of an Escalation League as I paint. Well, it was just empty talk. they were not interested until i had a "tournament list about 2500p". So yeah..
I don´t minda all kinds of games, but it seems like I am in a minority. Most seems to love their hordes and lords and their big monsters and monstrous infantry big blocks..
This is EXACTLY my point [I've left out the bit where you contradict yourself though] But the thig is, the meta is not independent of what GW does or say. And it start at the most basic level, the rules, all the way to how the game is marketed and presented constantly. Why have rules that ranks are minimum 5 models and no longer 4? Why reduce the point costs of most models? Hell in all BRBs I could find it sates that a typical game is 2000 or more points. why having minimum unit size of 10 models? not to speak of the vast majority of articles in WD, sample lists in army books, blogs article that almost always portray a large game as being the standard. And sure, one could propose small games, but given the set up it'll always feel like not actually playing the game as it was intended. Because it was not intended to be played like that.
|
|
|
Post by Grimfang Gogulk on Feb 10, 2023 23:06:27 GMT
Yes, totally agree and mentioned that BS about the ranks going from 4 to 5 recently..
I have fun playing smaller games but feel exactly the same, it is a clipped and cropped version - because of the rules benefit those bigger armies, that cost more..
But I can "contradict" myself again, those players I met here, they are pretty weak, unimaginative and don´t dare to challenge GW of how it should be played - they go along with it and buy that picture Luigino mentioned. Most players are, most players are just following.. But they don´t drive it either, that comes from GW.
|
|
|
Post by Darnok on Feb 11, 2023 5:33:58 GMT
Time and again I am amazed by peoples ability to know the intention of others, especially when it comes to companies.
This last statement might be sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by Grimfang Gogulk on Feb 11, 2023 12:31:59 GMT
It is not that hard. Not is it impressive dropping platitudes, again, it just shows you have nothing to add. So don´t.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Feb 11, 2023 16:06:19 GMT
I personally think Warhammer 8th works pretty well at small points levels (1000 or 1200 for example) so long as both players are hoping to have a fun game with fun lists and not playing waac. Generally nothing over 250 points as a rule of thumb at that level. That said, most if my games are 2k or above but smaller points work well for quicker games and trying new things. Imo 5 wide is better than 4 wide as I like the idea and look of 3 command dudes in the centre and a regular dude either side. I personally like the horde rule as it gives an in game benefit to making a big, unweildy unit which looks cool. Visually I think a nicely painted unit of say 50 Beastmen gor or 50 night Goblins 10 wide looks amazing on the tabletop. It tickles my hobby pickle. 5 wide, 10 wide...don't care....give me more! Eefl
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 11, 2023 16:06:24 GMT
Time and again I am amazed by peoples ability to know the intention of others, especially when it comes to companies. This last statement might be sarcasm. In general, if GW does something that increases both the number of models you need to play and thereby the amount of revenue and profit they earn from you playing, you can safely assume they intended that result.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 11, 2023 17:15:01 GMT
Yes, totally agree and mentioned that BS about the ranks going from 4 to 5 recently.. I have fun playing smaller games but feel exactly the same, it is a clipped and cropped version - because of the rules benefit those bigger armies, that cost more.. But I can "contradict" myself again, those players I met here, they are pretty weak, unimaginative and don´t dare to challenge GW of how it should be played - they go along with it and buy that picture Luigino mentioned. Most players are, most players are just following.. But they don´t drive it either, that comes from GW. -----------Why do you come here and try to insult people? What is the point? Can you please try to make statements without attacking people? Keep the toxic stuff for social media, not here.
|
|