PDA

View Full Version : Are unpainted armies contributing to the decline of WFB?



speedygogo
11-02-2014, 00:32
The unfortunate trend of late has been for a decline in sales and interest in Warhammer Fantasy Battle. The last statistic I saw was that WFB accounts for on 20% of GW sales. Consider that WFB used to be much more of an economic force for GW. I wonder if this is in part due to unpainted forces, which now seem more prevalent than ever. The 8th edition has been all about maximizing model count. The problem in doing that is that the sheer volume of painting is daunting for most. In my gaming community, there are few partially painted armies, baring the grizzled vets, who have been in the hobby for almost forever and possess the ultra rare fully painted armies. This is not the case with games like 40k or Warmachine, where you will frequently see fully painted forces. So this has got me wondering if the marketing idea of selling more WFB models by promoting horde lists has actually backfired on GW. Paint makes models more interesting and is often the very selling point to GW consumers. Nicely painted models inspire and often drive the passion of the wargaming hobby. It it really much of a surprise that fewer people are getting WFB, when so many armies are uninteresting, unpainted grey.

Ramius4
11-02-2014, 01:50
This is a ridiculous notion.

HurrDurr
11-02-2014, 02:02
I'm saying words.

Archon of Death
11-02-2014, 02:04
Yeah, I gotta say, the requirement to have all your minis painted is more damaging to the hobby than allowing people with WIP armies to play. By requiring them to paint all their minis or even making passive aggressive remarks one is damaging their desire to get their minis painted, and possibly even making them want to quit. The real issue is GW not really supporting low point value games (the ones that introduce people to the game, giving them something to do while painting their minis or their hordes). You need to get more customers in to help expand the community, not push them to blow 200-800 USD just to start and then tell them to go paint them before they can play.

Xerkics
11-02-2014, 02:35
Yeah, I gotta say, the requirement to have all your minis painted is more damaging to the hobby than allowing people with WIP armies to play. By requiring them to paint all their minis or even making passive aggressive remarks one is damaging their desire to get their minis painted, and possibly even making them want to quit. The real issue is GW not really supporting low point value games (the ones that introduce people to the game, giving them something to do while painting their minis or their hordes). You need to get more customers in to help expand the community, not push them to blow 200-800 USD just to start and then tell them to go paint them before they can play.
Who's being passive aggressive now? But your right GW has bloated the average army size out of proportion.

Archon of Death
11-02-2014, 03:02
XD, sorry didn't mean to come across like a jerk.

GW needs to work on releasing an introductory kit that contains a few minimal units (like the IoB minis, and around a few hundred points for about 50 USD), then they could have a larger kit like one of the Isle of Blood armies, then a core version similar to the batallion, after that have your apocalypse-esque collections, one click collections, army bundles, etc. And all of those should be deals, like compared to individual units they should have a ~10-20% decrease in cost. Oh, and a rulebook/dice/template/poke-stick pack like they have in the IoB collection, but separate. From there gouge everyone on the Army Books, the individual units, etc as much as they can just like they're already doing. Now you have a few ways of having new players get into the game, new groups starting up, etc. They used to do things like this, but it seems as though they are allowing it to go by the wayside or inflating the costs, stop inflating the costs, aim toward price ranges, decrease the figures, and have rule support for them. That way I can say "hey, guys, wanna play warhammer? For 50 bucks you can have an army and we can have little games with eachother" followed by hooking them on it like methamphetamine.

But, that's my own beef from my own experiences trying to get people into the game. They become interested in army X, they don't have an affordable means of getting into the game, and they don't want to start it up due to the high cost. I seriously started hooking people by just going with all core 150 point games and saying all they need is about a 50-70 dollar investment to have enough models to play (which is true as two 35 dollar kits are about the right points, three 25 dollar kits, or one 50-60 dollar kit is about the right points). I just feel if GW did more to get new players into the game at a relatively low price for pretty low point cost games, then all their losses of older players wouldn't be so terrible and they may have a ~50% increase in sales from WHFB

rwphillipsstl
11-02-2014, 03:10
Any historical tournament or serious game I have ever seen, at national and local conventions alike, would laugh you out of the room if you attempted to play with unpainted miniatures. We made fun of each other for using unpainted figures back in junior high school, thirty years ago. If you are going to play with unpainted armies, just go play a boardgame that uses figures.

My friends who are lifetime miniatures gamers (including one who actually runs several of the national historical tournaments) often argue that GW hurts its own hobby because all of the "eavy metal" painted-model-porn is not realistic for most gamers, and they inevitably get discouraged when they cannot paint with the speed or quality that the GW publications imply you should be able to do. In that regard, I think the OP may be correct, especially with the large model counts necessary in 8th edition. When I go back and read my White Dwarfs from 199-2005-ish, I think there was much more "come on just try, you can do it" spirit to the gaming/painting articles, which I do not see in the last few years.

No one in their right mind is going to spend thousands of dollars on miniatures if they never can, or want, to paint them. Certainly GW is never going to make a profit selling monster kits to people who will not paint them. I think GW needs to be spending a lot more effort nurturing this side of the hobby for the longer term, like they used to do but quit.

Archon of Death
11-02-2014, 03:15
Which is an added benefit in my own suggestion in getting people hooked with introductory and moderate expansion options for armies. Make them get into it with less figures, lower costs, and give them ways of building up by noticeable increments, then they have smaller chunks to work on painting. You know, how you do things when you already have a 2500 point army and want to add a kit, finding that those 10 models aren't so bad to get painted as it was trying to paint your 300 minis.

Actually, going through the Regiments of Renown, the bone dwellers are only about 34 dollars with of minis (determined by fractions of the kit costs), if they had made it a unit of Dire Wolves, a unit of Ghouls and a (pretty much free) Crypt Horror then sold it for 50 bucks, people would jump on that. Or even a half unit of Ghouls, half unit of Skeles, half Unit of Dire Wolves, half unit of zombies, and a Crypt Horror/Vargheist, then sold that for 55-60 bucks, that's all the options for core, albeit not entirely legal units (which makes sense as it would be a small scale game with slight organization differences), and would let people get something on the table and playing. For a reasonable cost, that's a ~170 point (naked) force. Now you have new players playing the game, now GW has people coming in, revenue coming in, a wider community...

Kakapo42
11-02-2014, 05:14
Odd, my experience has been almost the total opposite to the OP - I have yet to see a fully painted 40k army in my local GW store, but... well, to be fair I haven't seen any Fantasy armies at it at all (besides the IOB demo ones), but I certainly haven't seen any fully painted 40k ones.

I am saddened to see the lessened emphasis on painted armies these days. I think it's one of the most important parts of the hobby, and there's just nothing else quite like looking over a vast legion of models you painted yourself and admiring your handwork. Yes, the Studio examples might be a bit daunting, but I feel they're supposed to be ideals, something to work towards rather than replicating right off the bat. Plus, that's all the more reason to showcase models sent in from hobbyists - you might not be able to paint like an 'evy metal painter, but seeing examples from other regular hobbyists might give a much more attainable target.

Besides, I tend to like models painted by hobbyists much more than the studio examples these days.

Wesser
11-02-2014, 06:54
We all know the Dice Gods favor painted armies....such restrictions are there to help:)

No but seriously, if models aren't painted you might as well use marked slottabases for all I care, because then it won't be an elven spearman, but instead a lump of plastic. I can go with people fielding replacements or unpainted miniatures to represent new units or something they wanna try out, but if you aren't gonna paint your stuff, then I don't see the point in buying it

SteveW
11-02-2014, 06:59
Well, none of this being true makes it hard to respond to but being the **** I am. I will give it a go anyway.


The unfortunate trend of late has been for a decline in sales and interest in Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Assertion that needs to be backed by something.... dismissed
The last statistic I saw was that WFB accounts for on 20% of GW sales. More assertions without support.... dismissed
Consider that WFB used to be much more of an economic force for GW. Warhammer fantasy has always been the little guy out of it and 40k, no need to cry "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!"
I wonder if this is in part due to unpainted forces, which now seem more prevalent than ever. In twenty years of playing, I'm seeing a higher standard of painting by everyone now than at any other time.
The 8th edition has been all about maximizing model count. The problem in doing that is that the sheer volume of painting is daunting for most. In my gaming community, there are few partially painted armies, baring the grizzled vets, who have been in the hobby for almost forever and possess the ultra rare fully painted armies. This is not the case with games like 40k or Warmachine, where you will frequently see fully painted forces. So this has got me wondering if the marketing idea of selling more WFB models by promoting horde lists has actually backfired on GW. Paint makes models more interesting and is often the very selling point to GW consumers. Nicely painted models inspire and often drive the passion of the wargaming hobby. It it really much of a surprise that fewer people are getting WFB, when so many armies are uninteresting, unpainted grey.

Ohhhh, it's a 8th ed hate thread.

Seriously though, at no other point in my time playing have I seen as many painted models or new players. At league nigh tonight we had 14 players with less than 10 games and only one person had an unpainted army and he bought it today.

Lord Solar Plexus
11-02-2014, 07:23
The world's indeed nearing the end times since for once I find myself 100 percent in agreeance with SteveW.

Darnok
11-02-2014, 07:34
1. WHF is not "in decline". Its popularity varies from gaming group to gaming group - as it has always been - but overall the game seems to be just fine - as it has always been.

2. Unpainted armies are a general issue of GW games, not WHF in particular. As if 40K had a higher ratio of fully painted armies (not in my experience at least). That said: I would even argue that unpainted armies being in use are a sign of higher popularity of a game, not lower. A game played with unpainted models is still a game played. And if people chose to play without getting the added pleasure of a painted army, I'd argue that says something about the appeal of the game itself.

In other news: I agree with SteveW.

SteveW
11-02-2014, 07:39
The world's indeed nearing the end times since for once I find myself 100 percent in agreeance with SteveW.
Dude? We had a thing going, don't do this to me! :P


In other news: I agree with SteveW.

I must be doing something wrong.

Wesser
11-02-2014, 10:30
Surely a search of dumpsters in the San Diego area will reveal the corpse of the real SteveW

soullessginger
11-02-2014, 11:06
When I first got back into the hobby in 1996, my local store said you had to have painted models (not to a high standard but at least some effort),then it was you have to show improvement from one visit to the next, finally it was just assembled, when I asked the manager he said people wouldn't buy new models if they could use them straight away (I remember seeing the LRC and LRR being used in a game on their day of release when C:SM was done back in 2000 odd.

Personally I won't use an army till its painted, it doesn't look as good and I think it is insulting to you opponent if they have painted their army and you haven't painted yours.

Durloth
11-02-2014, 11:40
Most tournaments I attend have a simple all-minis-painted-in-at-least-three-colours rule. no matter the size of the force, that shouldn't be too daunting a prospect for anyone.

A couple of guys I know who really hates painting use this painting service:http://www.paintedfigs.com The price difference between Norway and Sri Lanka means that they can buy a ready painted (table top quality) army of a little less than the same army would cost, should they buy it in boxes at the local GW.

Acephale
11-02-2014, 12:52
My friends who are lifetime miniatures gamers (including one who actually runs several of the national historical tournaments) often argue that GW hurts its own hobby because all of the "eavy metal" painted-model-porn is not realistic for most gamers, and they inevitably get discouraged when they cannot paint with the speed or quality that the GW publications imply you should be able to do. In that regard, I think the OP may be correct, especially with the large model counts necessary in 8th edition. When I go back and read my White Dwarfs from 199-2005-ish, I think there was much more "come on just try, you can do it" spirit to the gaming/painting articles, which I do not see in the last few years.

No one in their right mind is going to spend thousands of dollars on miniatures if they never can, or want, to paint them. Certainly GW is never going to make a profit selling monster kits to people who will not paint them. I think GW needs to be spending a lot more effort nurturing this side of the hobby for the longer term, like they used to do but quit.

Actually there are a few paragraphs in the IoB booklet (not the rule book, the small "read this first" leaflet) along the lines of "These models were painted by the 'eavy metal team and they're the best painters in the world, but even they started somewhere so just start painting!"

On the whole though, the paint-porn is a double edged sword for sure. Gorgeous pictures of pro painted armies get a lot of people interested in the hobby and also inspire them once they've begun, but to some it might also be discouraging when they can't make their newly bought 40 Euro minis look the way they do on the box. Add the sheer amount of models you need to have a proper army, and it's no wonder people get discouraged. For a complete beginner it's hard enough just to get a couple of minis painted to an acceptable standard, and when you realize you'll have to paint hundreds of them, well...

rwphillipsstl
11-02-2014, 12:58
A couple of guys I know who really hates painting use this painting service:http://www.paintedfigs.com The price difference between Norway and Sri Lanka means that they can buy a ready painted (table top quality) army of a little less than the same army would cost, should they buy it in boxes at the local GW.

Pare your friends satisfies with this service? I have never heard of them, and I have used both Fernando Enterprises and Philgreg Painters many times in Sri Lanka; my guess is that this Painted Figs service does not really cater to historical gamers (who are notoriously cheapskates), because others like Blue Table are likewise mostly fantasy/sci-fi.

WhispersofBlood
11-02-2014, 13:18
Yeah, I gotta say, the requirement to have all your minis painted is more damaging to the hobby than allowing people with WIP armies to play. By requiring them to paint all their minis or even making passive aggressive remarks one is damaging their desire to get their minis painted, and possibly even making them want to quit. The real issue is GW not really supporting low point value games (the ones that introduce people to the game, giving them something to do while painting their minis or their hordes). You need to get more customers in to help expand the community, not push them to blow 200-800 USD just to start and then tell them to go paint them before they can play.

How has GW encourage larger games over small games now? Sigmar's blood barely gets to 2000 points. Battleforces are about 1000 points. I see this assertion come up a lot. GW hasn't done anything to encourage larger games.They have just given people to play large games, with rule sets like Storm of Magic, people just like big games. The horde rule can be used from about 700 points and up by like half the armies in the game. Mighty Empires makes for a great introductory escalation campaign, as does Blood in the Badlands. Some units thrive in the small game meta, some units that are great at 2000+ aren't so hot at 1000.

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 13:53
From my perspective:

* GW has never set game sizes as mandatory or standard. That has always belonged to the tournament community. In the 90s and early 2000s, GW had a say in it because they ran the Grand Tournament circuit and the point size used there was the defacto that everyone decided to adhere to. By the by... that was 2000 points for fantasy and 1500 points for 40k.

Now the default games are 2400 for fantasy and 1999+1 for 40k. Neither of these were set by GW in any of their books. Their campaigns as noted above get to about 2000. The forgeworld campaign scenarios are often set at 1000 - 1500 points, yet the 40k standard is 1999+1. That was set by the tournament community. 2400 is set by the tournament community for fantasy because of the 25% slots and 2400 / 4 = 600 points is easy to remember.

GW is not encouraging mega games. They aren't encouraging any point sizes. There will be people that pop up and go "well of course, because the game works best at X point range" but that is all speculation as I find the game works pretty much the same at 1000 points as it does at 2000 points. In the hands of the hyper competitive they will find to break it at either level and in the hands of people that show temperance the game plays about the same.

Nothing's stopping you from making 1000 points your club norm. We have a group in my city that plays around 1000 points all the time and there was grumbling when they started playing with our campaign group because we play at 2000-2500 points for fantasy and some of the players in that group hated that idea. The point being that that group had a 1000 point or thereabouts standard.

Second - painted armies and unpainted armies I don't feel are contributing to anything. The number of unpainted armies today seems to me to be roughly the same as the number of unpainted armies in 1999. Some people like to paint. Others hate it. Others will pay someone to paint their stuff for them.

Granted yes if you come from a historical background, you will rarely if ever see an unpainted mini. I know I started in historicals and to this day 25 years later I have never once seen an unpainted historical model on the table. However, historical guys are into the hobby for more than the game. I speak in generalities but in my experience those generalities are by and far the norm for that group of people. That is why I also don't field unpainted minis, because I just can't do it, but I don't expect others to adhere to that same level.

Our events DO give bonuses to painted units but no one restricts unpainted armies from participating.

enyoss
11-02-2014, 14:12
My friends who are lifetime miniatures gamers (including one who actually runs several of the national historical tournaments) often argue that GW hurts its own hobby because all of the "eavy metal" painted-model-porn is not realistic for most gamers, and they inevitably get discouraged when they cannot paint with the speed or quality that the GW publications imply you should be able to do.

Without realizing this is how I've felt all these years, well, this is how I've felt! Thanks for articulating it for me :D.

I just recently made my umpteenth resolution to paint my army, and am trying to use paint schemes in the Army Book for my inspiration, while channelling "real-life" armies from 1990s White Dwarf (e.g. Nigel Stillman's Bretonnians, some guy's Chaos Warband, etc.) for my end result expectations. Not being mean to those guys, but looking back at it those paint jobs weren't so great. And you know what?... they loved their armies anyway, and we also thought they were cool.

I'm finding it's really helping me to get started, and I'm actually enjoying it a bit this time around.

Spiney Norman
11-02-2014, 16:01
From my perspective:

* GW has never set game sizes as mandatory or standard. That has always belonged to the tournament community. In the 90s and early 2000s, GW had a say in it because they ran the Grand Tournament circuit and the point size used there was the defacto that everyone decided to adhere to. By the by... that was 2000 points for fantasy and 1500 points for 40k.

With respect rules can, and have been used to encourage larger games, the horde rule is a good example of this, and so is the percentage construction system. There was a time when I could field my wood elf dragon lord in 2000pts, now I can't because 560pts doesn't fit in my lord allowance, so if I want to use that model I need to play larger games.

I do think that rules like horde which make fielding infantry into a 'go-big-or-go-home' affair probably haven't helped the game. Back in 6th edition it wasn't uncommon to field units of 16 combat infantry in 4x4 (which is incidentally the reason why older infantry like Saurus and skeleton warriors are packaged in sets of 16) while 20 or more was considered huge, that was adequate for what the units did back then, now a unit of 16 saurus could potentially be wiped out before they got chance to strike and the smallest viable combat unit is generally regarded as 30 with weaker units like skeletons, state troops and goblins being fielded in 50s. The standard sizecrept up to 20 as standard when the number of models required per rank to gain a rank bonus was raised from 4 to 5 with 7th edition, but the horde rule has just taken the whole thing to a new level as you have to be ten wide and realistically no less than 4 ranks deep to take advantage of it.

Sure this isn't really a problem for people like me, during 7th edition I was using 3 units of 25-30 night goblins, so I just re-organised them into 2 units of 50. I did have to invest in a few more skeletons, but combining two units of 20 and buying another box to add to make up the number to 50 isn't as daunting as contemplating a unit of 50 from the outset (which is the reason why my Empire halberdier horde still remains unpainted, thinking about doing 50 of those ugly things is just giving me nightmares).

Looking back I think letting all units attack in two ranks a a standard was a colossal mistake, it doubled the damage output of most units and demanded larger units to keep pace with it.

Now it is fair to say that smaller games are possible, but I find them to be much less fun, a 1000pt game for example usually has no more than 3-4 units per side, which means that vast swathes of their army list never get used, even in my goblin army, which typically has quite a low point troops, but the time I have allocated 300pts for a night goblin horde and 270pts for a squig horde, and got myself a Warboss and a wizard I don't have room for very much else, there is just too much fun stuff I simply cannot take at 1000pts, either because the percentage restrictions forbid it (Arachnarok) or because the rules force absurdly high 'minimum' unit sizes which means my 1000pt army resolves itself down to only one or two units and a few cheap supporting elements.

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 16:07
Rules that encourage larger games don't force larger games though. There is no Games Workshop mandate that you must play 2000 points, which is what people like to claim (that GW pushes you to play these mega sized games) when there is no point mandate at all that I can see.

I've played for four years now with this basic rule in my army composition:
elite infantry like chaos warriors i field in units of 20-25
common infantry like my corsairs, my witch elves, my black guard, etc... I field in units of 30
cheaper infantry like skeletons, halberds, etc... I field in units of 40.
Trash infantry like goblins 50-60.

I've done very well. I win as much as I lose. My armies look like armies. Back in 6th/7th I was running my infantry in units of 25-30 as it was so this wasn't a drastic change to how I played. What happens is that it gets maxed on and you start seeing chaos warriors and white lions floating around in units of 50 or whatever and then people say you have to play huge games.

I *do* think there should be unit caps though. Most every other game I play in this vein such as Hail Caesar, Kings of War, and LOTR have unit caps and they do that for a reason.

Spiney Norman
11-02-2014, 16:16
Rules that encourage larger games don't force larger games though. There is no Games Workshop mandate that you must play 2000 points, which is what people like to claim (that GW pushes you to play these mega sized games) when there is no point mandate at all that I can see.

I've played for four years now with this basic rule in my army composition:
elite infantry like chaos warriors i field in units of 20-25
common infantry like my corsairs, my witch elves, my black guard, etc... I field in units of 30
cheaper infantry like skeletons, halberds, etc... I field in units of 40.
Trash infantry like goblins 50-60.

I've done very well. I win as much as I lose. My armies look like armies. Back in 6th/7th I was running my infantry in units of 25-30 as it was so this wasn't a drastic change to how I played. What happens is that it gets maxed on and you start seeing chaos warriors and white lions floating around in units of 50 or whatever and then people say you have to play huge games.

I *do* think there should be unit caps though. Most every other game I play in this vein such as Hail Caesar, Kings of War, and LOTR have unit caps and they do that for a reason.

Of course there is no formal mandate to play large games, but 1000pts games are really dull because they severely limit your options, 8th edition didn't even attempt to disguise the fact that it was trying to push the average game size (and unit model count) up like never before.

I don't think we will ever see unit caps come back, its pretty clear that GW's primary aim with 8th was to increase the number of models you needed to realistically play the game and unit caps would go completely against that aim.

I'd love to see them go back to the style of games we played in 6th where 16-20 infantry was enough whatever army you were playing and 8 cavalry was a scary unit. I don't want to indulge the rose-tinted spectacles too much, there was plenty wrong with the game back then, but at least it was more affordable and easier to get into/start a new army in that era, and I miss playing 2K games when you had upwards of 10 units, instead of the more normal 3 blocks plus chaff that pass for an army in 8th. At least in 6th when you bought a box of Empire knights or Saurus or skeletons you had a self contained unit ready to go. Unlike today where you typically need to buy three boxes of infantry to get a single functioning unit.

underscore
11-02-2014, 16:18
There is no Games Workshop mandate that you must play 2000 points, which is what people like to claim (that GW pushes you to play these mega sized games) when there is no point mandate at all that I can see.
Well, the mandate is there when you have to fit your really cool model/unit into it's points %.

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 16:22
Well, the mandate is there when you have to fit your really cool model/unit into it's points %.

I play warriors of chaos primarily. Even at 1000 points I can get a lot of stuff in. If you want to field gigantic dragon riding chaos lords, then yes you need to move your game up a bit but the number of really cool models that cannot be fielded at smaller points is small.

Malagor
11-02-2014, 16:23
I would say no, infact the opposite here.
If there was requirements where I play to have painted models, no one would play fantasy, that's a fact and few 40k players too and those numbers would not increase.
But instead there is a increase in fantasy and 40k players since as stated before, some people hate painting, some people are busy in real life so they don't have time to paint etc. They should not be excluded to play.
New players should not be put off by such requirements either.
We have tournaments here and same, there are no painting requirements nor are there bonuses if you do have a painted army since it's unfair to give them an advantage.
This creates a relaxing enviroment where everyone is welcome and that's good for the hobby.

Spiney Norman
11-02-2014, 16:23
Well, the mandate is there when you have to fit your really cool model/unit into it's points %.

This is the downside of the percentage system, if you want to use the monster-mounted lords etc then you have to play massive games. If there had been some system of 'borrowing' points from the rare selection to pay for the dragon then it would have really helped.

Archon of Death
11-02-2014, 16:25
I wasn't saying GW is FORCING people to play larger games. Simply that there is less rule support for smaller games. The game begins for many armies now at around 400 points as then you can take 100 points of characters. The minimum core requirements of one unit run around 100 points for High Elves, 90 for OK, 50-100 for VC, 60-140 for Warriors... You never really want to run just one unit, then you have little tactical choices, so you're looking at a few hundred points, plus heroes... Yeah at around 400 points the game begins.

And you try getting your friends into a game where you say "Hey, we can get into this game, to get started just go spend 120 bucks on a battle force"... Yeah, that's a water bill, two videogames, a new DS, clothes, a book for a 101 class in college... That's pretty steep to get in. Which leaves the Isle of Blood option, where two people can get good sized armies for cheap, but that requires two people to want to pitch toward it, oh and they only have 2 army choices when meanwhile Empire, OK, VC etc are all more interesting to them... Yeaaaah.


Hence intro packs for ~50 bucks, probably built the same way as GW's IoB set but for 1 army, then people are in the game, they're playing, they find it interesting, they can get a second kit, and then start expanding in Special or Rare...

Just, get rules for lower point costs like the old Warbands rules (which went up to like 500 points), and then they have something to do while building their force.

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 16:32
This is the downside of the percentage system, if you want to use the monster-mounted lords etc then you have to play massive games. If there had been some system of 'borrowing' points from the rare selection to pay for the dragon then it would have really helped.

This is also what keeps warhammer from being a skirmish level game where the game is about the lord character and his private entourage.

A 1000 point game where a lord on dragon is running around would cost about 600-700 points out of the 1000. That would leave about 300-400 points of other things. That would be a game very similar to warmachine/hordes.

Snake1311
11-02-2014, 16:34
South Coast GT in the UK sold out all 200 spaces within less than a minute of the tickets getting released.

What decline? :D

underscore
11-02-2014, 16:34
If you want to field gigantic dragon riding chaos lords, then yes you need to move your game up a bit but the number of really cool models that cannot be fielded at smaller points is small.
It's not that big, no, but it's certainly not insignificant. But pretty much every army has very tasty options that start getting 'unlocked' at 2000-2500 points, so there's a very clear expectation of progression in the costing going on.

Not that I dislike the % system in terms of game balance, but T&T has shown me how liberating it is a hobbyist to be able to put something on the table 'just because'.

Ero-Senin
11-02-2014, 16:37
I don't think you should have to have painted armies to play but it does make the game more attractive. People argue that painting puts people off and this can be true but seeing two armies that are just lumps of grey on a table compared to two splendid colourful armies (even if painting standard is low when the whole army is assembled it still looks great) can put people off just as much.

Having only painted armies at tournies is good IMO because it encourages committed gamers to paint. There is nothing worse than putting down an army you have spent half a year painting to be confronted by someone who has put in very little effort themselves. It is just manners in a way or at least consideration for others.

I used to field blocks of grey myself and the satisfaction when using self painted minis is its own reward. As long as people make some sort of effort I don't mind but grey plastic blobs year after year (especially when that person has lots of armies and claims to be a veteran gamer) is really really annoying to everyone else.

(gets off soap box)

Ero-Senin
11-02-2014, 16:38
South Coast GT in the UK sold out all 200 spaces within less than a minute of the tickets getting released.

What decline? :D

Tell me about it. Me and my mates can never get tickets! It's really frustrating!

Archon of Death
11-02-2014, 16:39
I'd kill for some grey plastic blobs ~_~ It would mean the game isn't dead in my area, it would mean I'd have more ways of getting people into the game. Pittsburgh is a ghost town for Warhammer Fantasy.

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 16:41
It's not that big, no, but it's certainly not insignificant. But pretty much every army has very tasty options that start getting 'unlocked' at 2000-2500 points, so there's a very clear expectation of progression in the costing going on.

Sure I agree that there is a progression that they would like you to follow. But that progression that they'd like you to follow is not a mandated points cost that you must have to participate :D those are two separate things.

I will say that if warhammer ever goes back to where you can field an "army" of 10 models like 5th edition was, or taking huge monsters that are over 75% of your total force, that I will likely be sitting that edition out lol

I'm very fortunate with my area. We have over 100 active players of both 40k and fantasy. Games are everywhere, but so too are events and campaigns that motivate people.

liddan
11-02-2014, 16:42
And you try getting your friends into a game where you say "Hey, we can get into this game, to get started just go spend 120 bucks on a battle force"... Yeah, that's a water bill, two videogames, a new DS, clothes, a book for a 101 class in college... That's pretty steep to get in. Which leaves the Isle of Blood option, where two people can get good sized armies for cheap, but that requires two people to want to pitch toward it, oh and they only have 2 army choices when meanwhile Empire, OK, VC etc are all more interesting to them... Yeaaaah.

"Borrow my army and I'll help you make a list so you can try a game, buddy". Then if they like it, they can start building towards their own 500 pt army and start playing it in more friendly intro games. That's the way we do it around my gaming group.

It is expensive to start playing but there are a few ways to get around that, buying used armies/models for example. You can also play a cheaper army but I would only recommend that as a last resort.

Archon of Death
11-02-2014, 16:47
I will say that if warhammer ever goes back to where you can field an "army" of 10 models like 5th edition was, or taking huge monsters that are over 75% of your total force, that I will likely be sitting that edition out lol

Oh I agree whole heartedly on that, but more introductory low price tag level gaming would... you know... remove some of the barriers from people who want to get into the game. And let me tell you about people wanting to get into Fantasy/40k, they're all over the place, yet they don't seem to want to spend ridiculous amounts of money to get into the hobby, they don't seem interested in the idea of painting 150 minis to get on the table. That is why 40k is currently winning out in my area, you can get 2 squads and an HQ and be playing the game with 21 models. In fantasy, you can't play a legal force without buckets of plastic. That's where the numbers game was better in previous editions.

SteveW
11-02-2014, 16:50
Surely a search of dumpsters in the San Diego area will reveal the corpse of the real SteveW

ROFL! That made my side hurt.

underscore
11-02-2014, 16:51
Sure I agree that there is a progression that they would like you to follow. But that progression that they'd like you to follow is not a mandated points cost that you must have to participate :D those are two separate things.
But, again, it is if you want to be able to play the models you want to buy. It's not even a 'nudge theory' kind of enticement, it's the stuff they put front and centre in their shop displays.


I will say that if warhammer ever goes back to where you can field an "army" of 10 models like 5th edition was, or taking huge monsters that are over 75% of your total force, that I will likely be sitting that edition out lol

But just because that's the way they want you to play doesn't mean you'd have to. ;)

Durloth
11-02-2014, 18:19
Pare your friends satisfies with this service? I have never heard of them, and I have used both Fernando Enterprises and Philgreg Painters many times in Sri Lanka; my guess is that this Painted Figs service does not really cater to historical gamers (who are notoriously cheapskates), because others like Blue Table are likewise mostly fantasy/sci-fi.

TBH I'm not actually sure they have used this painting service. I didn't know there were more than one Sri Lankan painting service, so I just linked to the hit I got after googling "Sri Lanka miniature painting service". I do know that they have been very pleased with whatever Sri Lankan company it is they have used. It was quick, incredibly cheap and have allowed them to change armies and configurations between tournaments, without having to touch a paint brush themselves.

NemoSD
11-02-2014, 18:29
In 40k, I love my Imperial Guard. (My Eldar side gets giggles from people over reacting to my horrible meta list, but really fun fluffy list, and I run my dark angels when I feel lazy and don't want to deal with my Guard, or to lesser degree Eldar, model counts. 55 model army at 2500 points is a lot easier to put away then my 200 model count guard, and 110 eldar.)

I love my guard because my favorite thing is the Leman Russ, and the Chickens. (Plus I like the idea of a bunch of unmodified, regular joes having the brass balls to go toe to toe with super human opponents, technological behemoths, or modified up the wazoo super soldiers, some of which are fueled by unholy magical fuel.)

I can field a Russ and or a unit of Chickens at 500 points. I can do a squad, a commander, and a russ at 500 points, and it will feel like a fun game. (As long as I warn my opponent first, allowing him or her to prepare for the russ.) Those games feel like an ambush in the fringes of a larger fight.

Fantasy, at least with High Elves, I don't feel this way at all. I could not field a fun army at all for my elves at 500 points. I am not even sure if I could hit the minimum force requirements... one moment, let me check... ok it is doable, just it has zero bells and whistles. Sure I could frame the 26 model count force as an Elf Lord moving from one area to the other, and getting ambushed, but then the blocks and movement make it feel less like oh god oh god oh god, I am being ambushed, to we are two really pathetic gang bosses playing high lord.

Now 750 Fantasy I've had a lot of fun with.

The problem I think is not painting, or model quality, but that the difference between warhammer/40k and other similar games is the fantastic over the top elements, and it is very difficult to bring those to the table at low point costs, which does push the points up a bit.

I would love to field my High Elf Prince on Dragon. It is not cannons alone that stop me from doing it. It is that I need to play in a 3000+ sized force in order to have the allotment and points needed, and then the dragon rarely gets to do anything because he is just sub par enough that he wont survive very long at all. Also no one in my local area plays more then 2000 points. So my award winning center piece model collects dust when I really really want to play it on the table.

KUMA
11-02-2014, 22:49
I actually laughed out loud at this comment:

"any historical tournament or serious game I have ever seen, at national and local conventions alike, would laugh you out of the room if you attempted to play with unpainted miniatures. We made fun of each other for using unpainted figures back in junior high school, thirty years ago. If you are going to play with unpainted armies, just go play a boardgame that uses figures."

SERIOUS BUSINESS! I better play/hobby to your expectations!

Voss
11-02-2014, 23:00
Who's being passive aggressive now? But your right GW has bloated the average army size out of proportion.

Nope. Players have. No one is forcing people to by half-a-dozen boxes for a single unit and field 3000 point armies (up where the game barely functions anyway). Play down around 1500 and the bloat (and a lot of abusive nonsense) mysteriously vanishes.

DeathGlam
11-02-2014, 23:03
My local gaming group mostly uses forces of about 1000pts to 1500pts, nobody at GW is forcing us to use bigger armies.

yabbadabba
11-02-2014, 23:04
Short answer, no.

Abaraxas
12-02-2014, 01:30
"Tinboys" have been around since day one, I also doubt the game is in decline.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
12-02-2014, 02:46
While certainly nobody is *forcing* anybody to play larger games, it's pretty well-established among players that the game is best balanced at the 2,000-3,000 level, with 2,500 being the most common level. That's the level you can start fielding a balanced army with the majority of tools and toys you want to play with. That's the level into which you can squeeze a combat lord and caster into most armies. It's the level where your hammers are able to really stretch their legs in terms of effectiveness.

Of course the game CAN be played at lower levels, but it's a very different sort of game, and many armies REALLY struggle. The game needs an introductory system that functions well with 10-man units. Something that's fun and tactical and works on its own, to get people hooked on the plastic crack. Once the hooks are in it's not hard to get them to drop a little more for a functional WHFB army.

Archon of Death
12-02-2014, 03:07
While certainly nobody is *forcing* anybody to play larger games, it's pretty well-established among players that the game is best balanced at the 2,000-3,000 level, with 2,500 being the most common level. That's the level you can start fielding a balanced army with the majority of tools and toys you want to play with. That's the level into which you can squeeze a combat lord and caster into most armies. It's the level where your hammers are able to really stretch their legs in terms of effectiveness.

Of course the game CAN be played at lower levels, but it's a very different sort of game, and many armies REALLY struggle. The game needs an introductory system that functions well with 10-man units. Something that's fun and tactical and works on its own, to get people hooked on the plastic crack. Once the hooks are in it's not hard to get them to drop a little more for a functional WHFB army.

This is my entire shpeel, a little taste of fantasy, either through warbands or regiments of renown, or in general some method by which people can get into the game at a lower pocket cost. True, as said before, you can let them use one of your armies, but at the same time that many rules can be a daunting thing to try and understand so quickly (even at 1000 points you're rocking 250 for rare and 500 for special which can be a half dozen special rules to keep track of, it's complicated further with "cool" armies like daemons and VC)

Lord Solar Plexus
12-02-2014, 07:15
While certainly nobody is *forcing* anybody to play larger games, it's pretty well-established among players that the game is best balanced at the 2,000-3,000 level, with 2,500 being the most common level.


I actually think that is a bit of a myth. You do get more toys but so does the other side, and the more points you have, the more you can spam one thing.



Of course the game CAN be played at lower levels, but it's a very different sort of game, and many armies REALLY struggle.


Huh. Many armies struggle at 3 or 5k. I don't know which army would suddenly have a harder time at 1k. I can get so much stuff into that with WoC or Empire, two completely different armies, it's a bit shocking. We play 1k almost every week and while of course it is more limiting than 2k (doh!!), it's hardly a completely different game.

Spiney Norman
12-02-2014, 08:40
Of course the game CAN be played at lower levels, but it's a very different sort of game, and many armies REALLY struggle. The game needs an introductory system that functions well with 10-man units. Something that's fun and tactical and works on its own, to get people hooked on the plastic crack. Once the hooks are in it's not hard to get them to drop a little more for a functional WHFB army.

Ok, I totally disagree that most armies struggle at smaller points sizes, if anything the reverse is true, many of the most powerful crazy unbalancing combos simply aren't available at 1k points or below and IMHO the game is far more balanced at that size, I just find it extremely boring to have 3-4 units facing off against each other each led by a single character.

The fact is that most armies look near enough the same at 1k and below, but that does at least promote balance of sorts.

EddieJA
13-02-2014, 16:23
The way I see it, when I play a game with you, I haven't painted my army for myself, I've painted it for you, the opponent. You're the one looking at it, I'm the guy looking across the board at your grayish blob of nothing. Meanwhile, I've put in hours of effort to make sure the army you are looking at looks like an army, and adds to your enjoyment of the game.

Because of this, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to not put forth the effort to paint your models. I understand people are going to put unpainted models/units on the table, but when I've played with the same people for years, who make no effort to paint models, that's lessening my enjoyment of the hobby. I'm not saying that unpainted armies are contributing to the death of anything, I'm just saying that if you make no effort to paint the models you play with, you're hurting the people you play with.

soullessginger
14-02-2014, 09:06
The way I see it, when I play a game with you, I haven't painted my army for myself, I've painted it for you, the opponent. You're the one looking at it, I'm the guy looking across the board at your grayish blob of nothing. Meanwhile, I've put in hours of effort to make sure the army you are looking at looks like an army, and adds to your enjoyment of the game.

Because of this, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to not put forth the effort to paint your models. I understand people are going to put unpainted models/units on the table, but when I've played with the same people for years, who make no effort to paint models, that's lessening my enjoyment of the hobby. I'm not saying that unpainted armies are contributing to the death of anything, I'm just saying that if you make no effort to paint the models you play with, you're hurting the people you play with.

Exactly this, I think it is disrespectful to your opponent if you don't even try to improve the look of your army from one game to the next.

Karak Norn Clansman
14-02-2014, 09:07
What decline?

Spiney Norman
14-02-2014, 11:17
The way I see it, when I play a game with you, I haven't painted my army for myself, I've painted it for you, the opponent. You're the one looking at it, I'm the guy looking across the board at your grayish blob of nothing. Meanwhile, I've put in hours of effort to make sure the army you are looking at looks like an army, and adds to your enjoyment of the game.

Because of this, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to not put forth the effort to paint your models. I understand people are going to put unpainted models/units on the table, but when I've played with the same people for years, who make no effort to paint models, that's lessening my enjoyment of the hobby. I'm not saying that unpainted armies are contributing to the death of anything, I'm just saying that if you make no effort to paint the models you play with, you're hurting the people you play with.

I think maybe that is taking things a little far, I've fought players who demand painted armies to play against, I've even seen someone criticise the quality of their opponents paint job, they were not nice people to play against.

While I take the point that painting is part of the hobby different players enjoy different parts of the hobby more than others, for some people their models are something to take pride in and lavish their attention on, for others they are nothing more than fancy counters to play a game with.

Being part of the 'take pride in your army' camp and remembering how many painting hours I have put into my current armies (I'm the kind of person that can spend an hour or more painting a night goblin) it doesn't surprise me at all that some folks use unpainted or part-painted armies. If I'm honest, any army I am currently working on is going to have some partially painted bits to it because it can take me months to completely paint a unit, especially if it is a big one.

T10
14-02-2014, 13:07
Are unpainted armies contributing to the decline of WFB?

Even if WFB is in "decline" (I don't see it), are you perhaps confusing cause with correlation?

Still, congrats with successful gloom-baiting.

-T10