PDA

View Full Version : GW Miniatures Amount vs. Codex Unit Size



MusingWarboss
22-02-2014, 20:33
The title may well be awful but I wasn't sure how to title it, so that's what I've got!

This isn't a pricing thread, though pricing is obviously going to be an integral part of any discussion based on GW's miniatures range. What I'm hoping here is that we can look a little closer at the historical structure of GWs systems and see how they have managed to get to the peculiar state that they currently have with their boxes of figures.


So, throughout this post I'm going to be referring to armies I have some knowledge of - which means a bias towards 40k and Orks - obviously feel free to chip in with other examples or contradictions from your own armies, experience and games.


This may be long, waffly and a bit ranty but please, do read on. And comment. :)


----End Disclaimer----


So I was painting up some Gretchin the other day, fortunately I have still got quite a few of the 2nd Edition ones but a thought occurred to me. Why do GW sell them in a box of ten? Ten Grots these days are pretty rubbish, they're going to obliterated quickly. It makes far more sense to take 20-30 of them where their numbers becomes their strength.


Then I looked across at other Ork boxes I have (must get assembling sometime). This is a horde army, why do my units come in boxes of five-ten models? Possibly thirteen you can squeeze out of the boyz box. Seriously, this is rubbish.


After having a bit of a off-topic swerve on the "GW... Where did it all go wrong" thread it occurred to me that GWs current method for troop boxes and Codexes (and army books WFB fans) whilst different from the culture when I first started playing are still working on an old distribution model, one which seems at odds with the intent behind some forces in the current game.


Back in the 80s/90s you had a predominance of metal models all nicely packed up in blisterpacks you could spend hours sifting through never quite knowing what you could find - great times. However if you needed oodles of troops then you were at a disadvantage. To solve this along came the very convenient packages of plastic core troops boxes and vehicles. Often these boxes to troops would contain 30-36 miniatures and come with lots of multiposable variety and a bit of spare equipment, heavy weapons and a few character bits. Lovely, you could now bulk out your force with cheap plastics and collect lovely metals or the characters, and specialist troops.


The mid-90s with 40k 2nd bizarrely did away with the cheap plastic multiboxes instead giving you metal/plastic arms combo boxes and a few cheapish plastic mini boxes with about six models in. The blisterpacks were still there though with the usual characters and special troops.


Now comes 3rd and boxes of models come in a better size but still not in sync with the codex, plus the blisters of metals etc. This is where I bowed out originally but now I'm back I've noticed something peculiar and I'm not alone. There's less models per box, but the price is getting bigger. Nothing new to regular forum goers there but bare with me (you've come this far so you may as well).


GW are designing their boxes to the lowest value presented in the Codex for that troop unit. Except of course, you say, the boxes when they don't - like Nobz which can be 3-10 models but have 5 in the box. Ah. This is where it gets interesting. This phenomena is present on what would historically be plastic troops and the ones that deviate are former blister models, made plastic. I imagine over time they too will reduce in number per box to just the lowest value presented in the codex. But why should this be so?


I'll tell you why. Blister packs. GW are still stuck in the mentality of blister packs, even though they have moved to mass-produced plastic miniatures. Why is a Gretchin squad 10-40 (2nd), 10-30+1 Runtherd (3rd) and 10-30+1-3 Runtherds (4-6th)? Well because Gretchin models came in metal and in blisterpacks, usually 3-4 per blister. 2nd Ed. had 40 plastic monopose in the starter box, this was good but also people hated monopose so wanted the characterful metals. It'd take you time to build up your numbers, usually 3-4 blisters to make that 10 man squad. The plastics disappeared with 3rd but the metal blisters remained so it'd still take time to build up. Then the new (current) plastics appeared! Yay! Plastic, with a Runtherd thrown in... so, these were in the design phase when 4th Codex was written - which is why the contents of the box exactly now matches the requirements of the Codex. Why so many Runtherds though? They only needed one last codex and none before that, will the 7th edition one require them to be driven into battle in a Trukk, like protective parents on a school run??


Joking aside, they stuck to the lowest number possible rather than taking advantage of their plastic technology and giving you the full squad (and 1 Runtherd). This also had the added advantage that they could gouge you with a pricier small amount of troops. Seriously, 30 for 33 miniatures. 30 of which are half the size of the other three. Here comes the awkward comparison but I just brought 40 plastic Celts, it cost me 18. 30 Zombies from Mantic cost me 17.20 (20 full RRP). Ouch GW, ouch. This is ignoring other boxes like Kommandos which are Finecast (formerly Metal) and cost 25.50... for five. Five. For a unit that allows 5-15 to be fielded. So why not just give me 15 for 25.50.


I can always choose to field less GW. If I want to. I can't choose to field more unless I buy more, which I guess is the plan. :rolleyes:


So, when troops went from blister to bumper plastic box we got loads, that then decreased. We see this still, models going from former blister models (Killa Kans) to plastic boxes (three). What's the bet they get reduced in the next 5-10 years to just one in a box?


So where next for the troops? A clampack with three models in again - just in plastic this time? And costing 10-18? We're going full circle people and its not to our advantage!


Given their manufacturing set-up, the amount of models needed and given some armies work better in larger numbers (because that's the way they're designed) we should be getting bumper boxes of models for the MAXIMUM number of troops allowed in the codex. Actually, why the heck are we still buying models (in points) on an individual basis? 40k hasn't been a skirmish type game in a long while, why not just buy an Ork Mob, 30 models for 180pts, then allow upgrades on top of that? Doesn't that fit the fluff better? Want to take a 10 Ork Mob for 60pts? Well, make that a separate entry designed for a separate task not a one-fits-all (but doesn't really) unit. I can't take less than 10 anyway, so why bother telling me one models point value? So I can take 11? That'll make a big difference in game.


I know we can talk of GW Executive mismanagement, but also on a basic level it seems as though the game designers don't know what they want 40k to be either. It's gradually becoming 28mm Epic scale but the rules don't reflect that, they're still stuck in 1987, unit design wise. In a game where you can almost use a dustpan and brush to sweep your casualties from the table do we need the micromanagement of individual minature removal (this also applies to Warhammer Fantasy from what I can see). Why not adopt the old Epic standard of multibases of five, if you're going down this route. It would offer interesting modelling opportunities too. I know we're all deeply tied to our individual bases and the thought of any change like that is horrific to some (actually I like individual bases too but its probably because that's how I've always played) but bases change, times change and games change. Or they die.

A mass battle game using miniatures made from a material that allows mass production but can only be purchased as individuals or in boxes of the smallest number they can get away with is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. The two are completely out of sync. Manufacturing has responded to peoples cries for MOAR models by gearing themselves up for production, Marketing has responded by sticking with a blisterpack selling strategy and Game Design doesn't know what to do and compensates for both.

Meanwhile most of the competition sells skirmish games or war games with appropriate amounts of models for the type of game.

----End of long, long post----

Schmapdi
22-02-2014, 21:04
Actually - it seems like a lot of the new 40k releases are being moved to 5 man boxes, so not too far off from the old 3-man blisters. Though a lot of things like monstrous infantry do come 3 to a box now too.

I can't imagine they'd sell fantasy troops 5 to a box. But then, I couldn't imagine doing a lot of what GW wind up doing. So I'd imagine 5 for $35 for a box of troops that you need 30 of to form a unit is right around the corner. *sigh*

H3L!X
22-02-2014, 21:17
*cough* Eldar Dire Avengers *cough*

Andy089
22-02-2014, 21:17
I always wondered what GW was thinking when sticking 12 termagants/hormagaunts or 8 genestealers in a box.
I think they could stick a lot more models in those boxes...

While I don't think that changing the bases would be any good, I think bringing the game back to smaller units, more custom single models/leaders and making everything more resilient at the same time would make the game much better.
Having models you can customize very easily but not really utilising this is unfortunate. And if you could it would be unfortunate that model is gone after the first turn (although you probably won't be able to change that - at least have your opponent have to focus fire to do it)...

ObiWayneKenobi
22-02-2014, 21:54
Why do they sell it like that? To get you to buy more, no other reason. It's brazen and stupid but when all they care about is sales, they pull garbage like that. Look at WHFB: Nearly ever unit comes in 10 models. Outside of cavalry (which comes in 5 models lol), NOBODY would ever field an infantry unit in 10; you'd need at least 20. So you are all but FORCED to buy two boxes for a single unit, so you end up paying double.

It's just another instance of them just trying to make a quick buck. I know you didn't want to turn this into a pricing thread, but that's really all there is to it. They put enough models in the box to pretty much force you to buy multiple boxes. Same with special weapons loadouts; without Bitz you need to buy multiple boxes to field the typical loadouts (e.g. if I wanted 4x Plasma Cannons in a Devastator squad) for no other reason than some bean counter must have figured "If we only put X many in the box, people will need to buy more!"

If the game was based around the number in the box, it wouldn't be so bad but often it's not, and I'm starting to think it's not that way by design simply to force buying more boxes.

MusingWarboss
22-02-2014, 22:27
Thanks for all reading that much text!!


Actually - it seems like a lot of the new 40k releases are being moved to 5 man boxes, so not too far off from the old 3-man blisters. Though a lot of things like monstrous infantry do come 3 to a box now too.

I can't imagine they'd sell fantasy troops 5 to a box. But then, I couldn't imagine doing a lot of what GW wind up doing. So I'd imagine 5 for $35 for a box of troops that you need 30 of to form a unit is right around the corner. *sigh*

Hmm, looks like we're getting to that state then, do doubt soon we'll get a blister pack back then with a sprue in it of four plastic troops! Just to be an awkward size. ;)

WFB from what I'm led of believe has troop boxes at the moment which is woefully inadequate for how many players actually field them, which to me indicates that A: The amount of miniatures you can buy is too small and B: the troop limits in-game are also too small.


*cough* Eldar Dire Avengers *cough*

Five plastic miniatures. When I first saw them they were five metal ones in a blister. Cost a lot less, then used the plastic bodies of the 3rd Ed. Guardians with metal heads if I remember and were 8 a box? Now all plastic and just five. Is that what you meant?? I'm not up to speed on Eldar I'm afraid.


I always wondered what GW was thinking when sticking 12 termagants/hormagaunts or 8 genestealers in a box.
I think they could stick a lot more models in those boxes...

While I don't think that changing the bases would be any good, I think bringing the game back to smaller units, more custom single models/leaders and making everything more resilient at the same time would make the game much better.
Having models you can customize very easily but not really utilising this is unfortunate. And if you could it would be unfortunate that model is gone after the first turn (although you probably won't be able to change that - at least have your opponent have to focus fire to do it)...

I have no evidence to it but I suspect that Apocalypse (the game book) doesn't sell that well, which is why it's being slowly integrated into regular 40k. Shame, as if they wanted to they could have three versions of 40k, full 28mm Epic Apocalypse (which maybe used multi basing), regular 40k and a 40k Skirmish Edition which used only a handful of troops.


Why do they sell it like that? To get you to buy more, no other reason. It's brazen and stupid but when all they care about is sales, they pull garbage like that. Look at WHFB: Nearly ever unit comes in 10 models. Outside of cavalry (which comes in 5 models lol), NOBODY would ever field an infantry unit in 10; you'd need at least 20. So you are all but FORCED to buy two boxes for a single unit, so you end up paying double.

It's just another instance of them just trying to make a quick buck. I know you didn't want to turn this into a pricing thread, but that's really all there is to it. They put enough models in the box to pretty much force you to buy multiple boxes. Same with special weapons loadouts; without Bitz you need to buy multiple boxes to field the typical loadouts (e.g. if I wanted 4x Plasma Cannons in a Devastator squad) for no other reason than some bean counter must have figured "If we only put X many in the box, people will need to buy more!"

If the game was based around the number in the box, it wouldn't be so bad but often it's not, and I'm starting to think it's not that way by design simply to force buying more boxes.

Yeah, I touched on the pricing and having to buy more models stuff (though as you say, I just didn't want it to become pricing thread #3640) so I've gone on the whole codex-models synergy thing.

I suppose it can be summed up quicker as: The current rules for 40k are based on larger quantities of models, though the mechanism for building an army is still using the Skirmish level of micromanagement from early editions which is now outdated for the direction and internal attacking/wounding mechanics the game uses. It would be better to buy units of men rather than construct them from individuals, also the accompanying models could then be issued as those units, rather than at the smallest possible number GW can get away with because they've written in the rules "5-30 miniatures", which was really just a way of letting people start playing with troops when they had to buy them piecemeal as metal minis in blister packs in early editions.

The game isn't based around the number in the box currently, the number in the box is based on the fact that units often have the 'x'-'z' tag applied, which is just an old remnant of earlier versions and, as you point out in your first paragraph, completely contrary to how the game is played as units at that lower 'x' level are unusable in the modern game.

ObiWayneKenobi
22-02-2014, 22:33
Honestly I'd prefer them to go back to rigid structures; I know a lot of people didn't like that though, but I'd rather be able to buy say a Tactical Squad as 5 or 10, not in between (with better rules in general, e.g. 5 can take either a special OR a heavy weapon, 10 gets both, not this nonsense they changed it to where you need 10 to even be able to take the heavy weapon). The variable sizes really don't make a lot of sense anymore, and even if they did the rules make it so only newbies would try that.

I actually remember when they had to add in being able to buy Tactical Squads at 150 points in 2nd edition for "Lunchhammer" (i.e. Warhammer during your lunch break) because they were based around 500 points. It'd be much better overall I think if the game was built around the number that comes in the box.

Fantasy I'd like to go like Kings of War and historical games do, without casualty removal, you buy the unit in 10/20/etc. and that's how much it has.

MusingWarboss
22-02-2014, 22:42
Well, exactly. In those games you do see a fair bit of supply and demand miniatures wise. Mantic seems to have discontinued ten-man boxes as they discovered people often brought the larger boxes and either split them down to smaller sizes per game or just made use of larger units. Historicals obviously have miniatures companies responding to the rules written by others so the rule writers construct something that works in-game and the models can be cobbled together from larger sources.

The rigid structures would be better suited to how the games are currently played. (Think I touched briefly on it) For some reason casualty removal is much loved though even though GW is probably one of very few to play mass-battle games in this (often time consuming) fashion. Everyone else seems to be able to associate a unit as a unit rather than individuals and accommodate casualties accordingly. It's not that difficult (if you've played KoW you'll know its pretty easy actually).

ObiWayneKenobi
22-02-2014, 23:01
I think for 40k casualty removal makes more sense, since it was at least originally meant to be a platoon/squad-level game, so individuals matter more. For instance, Mantic's Warpath has the same all or nothing approach as KoW and it just doesn't feel right in a game like that. Of course, I think that as 40k grows larger and larger in size that it becomes closer to that "sweet spot" where casualty removal becomes silly; for WHFB it can be justified as for scale as each unit represents a few hundred soldiers, not 20, but in 40k it seems like it's the other way around - a squad of 10 is 10 guys in a smaller section of a big battle, not 100 guys in the big battle, so individual casualties made sense at least in the days when 40k was meant to be like that.

MusingWarboss
22-02-2014, 23:17
I think for 40k casualty removal makes more sense, since it was at least originally meant to be a platoon/squad-level game, so individuals matter more. For instance, Mantic's Warpath has the same all or nothing approach as KoW and it just doesn't feel right in a game like that. Of course, I think that as 40k grows larger and larger in size that it becomes closer to that "sweet spot" where casualty removal becomes silly; for WHFB it can be justified as for scale as each unit represents a few hundred soldiers, not 20, but in 40k it seems like it's the other way around - a squad of 10 is 10 guys in a smaller section of a big battle, not 100 guys in the big battle, so individual casualties made sense at least in the days when 40k was meant to be like that.

Yeah, regular 40k single basing makes sense as it is to some extent still only skirmishing but at Apocalypse level 40k-ing single-base models just become daft. They should have an oval version of the LotR multibase for 10 miniatures to sit on for Apocalypse and treat it as it is - 28mm Epic. This wouldn't then affect 40k general. From above: "I have no evidence to it but I suspect that Apocalypse (the game book) doesn't sell that well, which is why it's being slowly integrated into regular 40k. Shame, as if they wanted to they could have three versions of 40k, full 28mm Epic Apocalypse (which maybe used multi basing), regular 40k and a 40k Skirmish Edition which used only a handful of troops."

I've not played Warpath but I have noticed that they're single based models though. It's got to be one or the other really and dictated by rules. If the rules say they're all one unit then single base is kinda pointless. If they're squad-level and one guy can wander off a bit to do his own thing, single base. With WFB they're all sat in a block anyway so may as well be on one base - I'm sure early editions of WFB (1-3) were more 40k-ish as individuals could wander about providing they stuck to unit-coherency or they ranked up to form a defence wall. If anyone out there knows for certain, please comment and correct on that.

H3L!X
22-02-2014, 23:20
The box size for avengers was 10 before the 6th edition codex, what is also the max unit size. It was a good box imo and full plastic.
Now the box is 5 avengers (min. unit size) but the price went up!

ObiWayneKenobi
22-02-2014, 23:30
The box size for avengers was 10 before the 6th edition codex, what is also the max unit size. It was a good box imo and full plastic.
Now the box is 5 avengers (min. unit size) but the price went up!

I really wonder what their justification for that was (if they even had one). At least their other excuses tend to revolve around additional options in the box, but IIRC the Dire Avengers is the same kit as before the 6th edition codex, just with half the number and higher price.

H3L!X
22-02-2014, 23:38
As far as i know they just took out one sprue. There are 5 per sprue just like in the Battleforce box. So there is no other justification than money grabbing!
But it went wrong way for me, because now i won't buy a box anymore!

MusingWarboss
22-02-2014, 23:50
The box size for avengers was 10 before the 6th edition codex, what is also the max unit size. It was a good box imo and full plastic.
Now the box is 5 avengers (min. unit size) but the price went up!

Wow, they really do want you to buy them piecemeal like the 90s, just instead of being pocketmoney prices, they're now rent money prices!

Scaryscarymushroom
23-02-2014, 02:20
About the gaming aspect of it and individual miniature removal.

I came into 40K with third edition, so there's a soft spot in my heart for it. I really liked that the position of each mini mattered. That you'd only get a certain number of attacks and if only a few were in line of sight they would be the ones in danger. Even if it's a small gesture and it doesn't really matter in the long run, it makes the miniatures feel more like they matter individually. Like they're not just ablative wound counters for the guy holding the missile launcher.

That said, I would be totally fine with a system that put 5 space marines on a large oval base (as long as it adequately reflected five marines). In fact, I kinda want to try that sometime.

I can't recall precisely what the army list mins/maxes were compared to models per box back then, but I do remember that they didn't add up or even divide evenly. But I never really cared because I was in a fanatic collecting frenzy. Just like you say, you can always field less models than you bought. If I wanted a max squad of 20 battle sisters, I'd just buy two boxes and a blister pack and not use my extra sergeant or special weapon models.

In retrospect, it would have been really nice to just be able to buy everything all at once and nothing more than was needed to field a max squad. That would have been a definite improvement on the overall package. But what the heck. At the time, I didn't think about it or care. I just liked Sisters of Battle enough to buy indiscriminately with no end in sight. I think GW might approach the game/marketing aspect of it in a similar way. That is, they might think "Hey, these are cool, let's sell some. Who cares how many are in a unit, people can just buy more if they want more."

My two cents.

On a related note, there were a handful of rules for models that were never released. Good idea or bad idea? I remember wanting to buy Seraphim with Inferno Pistols because they were in my rulebook and they looked like good weapons. But when I called GW to ask about the availability, they said "we've never made those, go make your own." and I was like :wtf: :eyebrows:. And then I got out the hobby knife and chopped up some stuff and made crude inferno pistols out of extra tau grenades, kroot rifle barrels, and string. I needed those rules to open me up to the world of converting custom miniatures. But then, Chapterhouse was able to take advantage of that too. And now there are no Ymgarls and the Doom is gone?

The_Real_Chris
23-02-2014, 03:03
Well, basing them up is basically epic... GW used to run Epic using 40k models at games days years ago and a giant play areas. Oh the amusement, now they do it using the 40k rules on a 4x8 table... Epic Armageddon is probably the best effort at capturing the differences in 40k races. Your detachment of terminators can actually teleport in and wipe out a company of guardsmen with no loses, then extract by thunderhawk and next turn air assault that warengine that needs to die... of course they are about 8mm high,they may not capture your imagination! Who cares though when i can field a brace of thunderhawks? :)

I think most of the games I have played at 28mm that use sections/squads as the basic formation are WWII ones, check out some of them like crossfire?

f2k
23-02-2014, 09:54
Why do they sell it like that? To get you to buy more, no other reason. It's brazen and stupid but when all they care about is sales, they pull garbage like that. Look at WHFB: Nearly ever unit comes in 10 models. Outside of cavalry (which comes in 5 models lol), NOBODY would ever field an infantry unit in 10; you'd need at least 20. So you are all but FORCED to buy two boxes for a single unit, so you end up paying double.

It's just another instance of them just trying to make a quick buck. I know you didn't want to turn this into a pricing thread, but that's really all there is to it. They put enough models in the box to pretty much force you to buy multiple boxes. Same with special weapons loadouts; without Bitz you need to buy multiple boxes to field the typical loadouts (e.g. if I wanted 4x Plasma Cannons in a Devastator squad) for no other reason than some bean counter must have figured "If we only put X many in the box, people will need to buy more!"

If the game was based around the number in the box, it wouldn't be so bad but often it's not, and I'm starting to think it's not that way by design simply to force buying more boxes.

^ This...

There's really no other reason - it's sheer greed.


And that, to a large extend, is why the rules simply do not work anymore. A typical 40K army is much larger today than it was in the days of 2. edition 40K. In essence, we've gone from a skirmish-level game to a mass-combat game, yet we're still stuck with rules that are rooted in the skirmish-paradigm.

Senbei
23-02-2014, 12:06
A typical 40K army is much larger today than it was in the days of 2. edition 40K. In essence, we've gone from a skirmish-level game to a mass-combat game, yet we're still stuck with rules that are rooted in the skirmish-paradigm.

Anyone else remember the 6 model 1,000 point Space Marine army? That said, the 'dumbing down' of the rules that was 3rd ed made 40k a battles game, rather than a skirmish game. It's just that GW insists on adding special rules for everything. The basic rulebook nowadays is actually thicker than the 2nd ed one and contains more rules than the RT book did (possibly not including the advanced gamer section).

For mass battles you're better off with epic, though I'm more a fan of 2nd than E:40k (yuck) or E:A (meh).

ObiWayneKenobi
23-02-2014, 13:03
^ This...

There's really no other reason - it's sheer greed.


And that, to a large extend, is why the rules simply do not work anymore. A typical 40K army is much larger today than it was in the days of 2. edition 40K. In essence, we've gone from a skirmish-level game to a mass-combat game, yet we're still stuck with rules that are rooted in the skirmish-paradigm.

On the rules front I didn't mind 2nd -> 3rd (at least at first), mostly because 2nd was too randomly weird with some things. However, they should have kept the game as a skirmish game. Since 3rd they've been slowly making games larger and larger to allow for more and more things to be added, and while it's been cool that they've taken some elements from Epic and added them in (I remember always thinking why some tanks and the like from Epic weren't in 40k) they've gone too far now with flyers and superheavies and they haven't changed the rules enough to accommodate this. The day they decided to add flyers into 40k the rules should have been rewritten like it was in 3rd edition, but of course that assumes somebody at GW actually cares about balanced rules versus writing whatever sounds cool and excusing it with their "forge the narrative" line of BS and stating vehemently that the game isn't intended for competitive play, when the majority of people playing it likely don't play campaigns.

I honestly think they need to revise not only the rules but how units are purchased and packages as well; having 5 or 10 guys in a box was fine when you needed a handful of boxes for an army, like in 2nd edition where you could have a good sized army with a couple of tactical boxes and some extras. Now though it's just pure money grab, and some things like the Dire Avengers are so blatant they might as well have come right out and said it; in that case I get that the other Aspects are 5 or 6 (not sure why they aren't standardized) so it would have made sense for DAs to be the same, but not at the price they are when the plastics are cheaper. And don't get me started with Fantasy.

The truth of the matter though is they don't seem to care, as it's not like this hasn't been said time and time again. All we can hope is either their stock keeps dropping and they fix the mistake, or they go under and somebody with a clue buys them.

Verm1s
23-02-2014, 13:34
That said, I would be totally fine with a system that put 5 space marines on a large oval base (as long as it adequately reflected five marines). In fact, I kinda want to try that sometime.


I think most of the games I have played at 28mm that use sections/squads as the basic formation are WWII ones, check out some of them like crossfire?

Not to sound like a broken, off-topic record, but Future (http://www.adpublishing.de/html/future_combat_vide.html) Combat (http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=61023.0). Based on WWII rules, individually based (though maybe not as discrete as third ed), small squads/fire teams, but with adaptations for multibased ~5-man 'teams' a la Epic. (Author was a playtester for Epic: Armageddon, I just found out) Even just reading it makes me eager to dig out 40K minis again.

Anyways. Just a thought. ;) I can't stop shaking my head at some of the recent posters who throw the baby out with the bathwater (minis with rules) to latch onto an entirely different minis+rules package, enjoyable as those might be.


Your detachment of terminators can actually teleport in and wipe out a company of guardsmen with no loses, then extract by thunderhawk and next turn air assault that warengine that needs to die... of course they are about 8mm high,they may not capture your imagination! Who cares though when i can field a brace of thunderhawks? :)

This is why I'm happy to stick with E:A for any large battles. :D When it comes to actually playing the game, that kind of tactics and manoeuvre captures my imagination more than a box full of skullz and purity seals. And, to be somewhat on-topic, halves of minis that you can't use. That kind of waste is something that makes the value of some GW boxes plummet even further, in my eyes.

On another slightly on-topic note, I'm going off 28mm minis for large battles, be they sci-fi, fantasy or historical. Fine using a box of ten for smallish platoon-sized games; but for anything much bigger the scale itself seems like an increasing faff, and not just because of price and GW's packaging shenanigans. (though they're not negligible concerns, even with some of GW's cheaper competitors)

Muad'Dib
23-02-2014, 14:04
187889
...and also reduce point costs (plus rules tweaks - like horde formation in WFB) so that you need more models.
They do it because they do get away with it.


game designers don't know what they want 40k to be either.
A game that appeals to a teenager/young adult demographic? A cash cow? Plastic crack-cocaine? These seem to be directives that the designers operate under.
And I don't mean "plastic crack-cocaine" as a joke; it's actually kind of unsettling to me how slavishly so many people follow the GW format of new army books and editions and regular imbalances that are combined with increasing costs for models and rules.

MusingWarboss
24-02-2014, 16:35
Yeah. I'm thinking of sticking with 6th for the foreseeable future having only just really brought it (feels like that) I don't feel like shelling out for another edition! Though sadly if they release a new box set with Orks in I'd be tempted. Guess it is plastic-crack. :(

Actually I like the idea of 2nd and 6th combos as (with Necromunda which uses 2nd rules) I have:


Skirmish: Necromunda.
Small-Medium: 2nd Edition.
Medium-Large: 6th Edition.

If I need to go Large-Ridiculous then there's always Apocalypse! :p