PDA

View Full Version : 8th edition and model count creep



cbelm
22-12-2010, 08:52
Hi all,

Something that's been on my mind recently is the spiralling number of models in the "average" army as time goes by. Looking through my old white dwarfs even the "huge" 3,000 point battle reports from 4th-5th edition have <100 models per army. A "very large" unit was generally 16 men strong.

The model count was boosted with the general point reductions at the start of 6th edition, but this seems to have taken a massive leap forward again with 8th now that huge core blocks of troops are (generally) better than combat heroes.

It seems GW have quite subtly shifted the rules so that we are playing with the same number of units we were 10-15 years ago but the unit sizes have more than doubled. My skaven army now has 200+ models at 2k. Obviously GW are the ones profiting, and the time commitment to paint an army has grown significantly.

Thoughts?

Botjer
22-12-2010, 09:45
I love it!

The bearded one
22-12-2010, 09:47
Yes, it's true.

Yes, GW is earning more money 'cause you have to buy more models.

It also means there's more stuff to kill ;)

RanaldLoec
22-12-2010, 09:50
It's a company and the more you buy the more profit they make.

Which I don't mind as long as a keep getting new pretty miniatures.

Plus huge games with friends are loads of fun.

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 09:54
The only problems with this are the one's we create for ourselves.

Avian
22-12-2010, 10:04
I'm fielding less models than before, because I'm fielding more elite infantry who previously weren't much good for anything.

Prokrustes
22-12-2010, 10:37
Hmm..I guess Im gonna use unit fillers. Not that motivated to paint up tons of stuff just to remove it all again in the first turn. But, I find the model increase slightly annoying, because it makes every army a horde army ;-) And the repackaging down to boxes of 10 which cost more than your old boxes of 15/20.
*hugs his old unopened beastmen warherd boxes*

Lorcryst
22-12-2010, 11:42
Meh.

My Night Goblin army in 6th and 7th eds was around 220 models ... now in 8th, the model count has gone down to 170ish, because I take more elite infantry too ...

So, not really, at least from my point of view.

Eta
22-12-2010, 11:49
My standard 2,000 points lists have about 10-15 models more than before because I have dropped two units of marauder horsemen in favour of 15 more marauders and some more Chaos Warriors. Not much of a change.

Rikkjourd
22-12-2010, 12:23
The biggest reason the number of models has gone up lately in our games is that we have shifted towards using 2500pts+ instead of 2000-2250.

Many of our armies look about the same as before regarding size, though many smaller units (mostly cav) have disappeared. I started a Skaven army shortly before 8th was released. I had a unit of 34 clanrats + screaming bell that had a footprint of 7x7 models. Everyone thought it was huuuge and unbeatable and so on. In my most recent game I fielded a unit of 116 clanrats + 4 chars!

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
22-12-2010, 12:29
In 6ed I had 266 models in 2000pts, during 7ed my army from 2000pts had 123 models and my 2000pts list in 8th had 219 models. But I change my list quitte a lot but you have to take in account that the 6ed list was with 2pt goblins;), but indeed my army is bigger since the new edition.

Cheers,
G

Scythe
22-12-2010, 12:50
Armies around here might have gotten slightly larger, but generally I don't mind that much. Large units look better on the battlefield, and over the years, most of us have collected large collections of models anyway.

I am feeling it for my in progress new Empire army though. All those state troops are a big investment.

logan054
22-12-2010, 13:47
I'm fielding less models than before, because I'm fielding more elite infantry who previously weren't much good for anything.

Same here, I am actually taking more knights than I used to but I use fewer but larger units that I used to, saying that I never used to use marauder horsemen but now I find I am using a unit of 10 :D When I first saw 8th ed I thought I wouldn't change my amy much at all, how wrong I was, I actually believe how much I have changed my army for 8th.

Morkash
22-12-2010, 13:53
My 3000 points WoC army field 97 models... the greenskin usually alot more...someting like 180-200.

But one question out of curiosity: When did GW join the Stock exchange? (Is this the word? The place where all the big companies hang around and slowly leech our souls)

jthdotcom
22-12-2010, 13:59
My 8th ed. WoC army has 45 models in it, my 7th ed. WoC army had about 75, the 8th ed. army works better

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 14:04
But one question out of curiosity: When did GW join the Stock exchange? (Is this the word? The place where all the big companies hang around and slowly leech our souls) It floated in 1994.

AFnord
22-12-2010, 14:24
Something that's been on my mind recently is the spiralling number of models in the "average" army as time goes by. Looking through my old white dwarfs even the "huge" 3,000 point battle reports from 4th-5th edition have <100 models per army. A "very large" unit was generally 16 men strong.
I don't have many WDs from that time, but people around here often fielded blocks of around 20 models for most basic infantry in 5th edition. There were fewer blocks though, as people also fielded super expensive characters.

loveless
22-12-2010, 14:48
I think my count on my Warriors of Chaos list has actually gone down a bit - I'm more prone to taking things like Chosen and Trolls and less reliant on Marauders (though it could have easily gone the other way).

Skaven...well...even my "elite" Skaven lists have ridiculous sums of miniatures in them.

EbonyPhoenix
22-12-2010, 14:55
The main difference between 7th and 8th for me is the trade of my 10 strong Cold One Knight unit for a unit of 29 Warriors (Dark Elf Spearelves for those unfamiliar with the terms).

So my model count went up, simply for me to turn around and change my spellcasting equipment to start killing my own guys off in the magic phase to supercharge my spells. :evilgrin:

Ramius4
22-12-2010, 15:08
I don't feel that my model counts have gone up significantly with most armies. What has gone up is unit size. But that's more just buying a unit of 40 instead of two units of 20. The point values of the troops haven't changed, and I've never brought tons of characters, so the shift in focus to more infantry being a better choice never affected me much.

The one army I know I bring more models with is Bretonnians, because having 2 or 3 units of 50 Men at Arms is useful now.

Lord Inquisitor
22-12-2010, 15:24
My model counts have gone up a little. For daemons, 25% core mandates more infantry, VC have become more infantry focussed and even ogres have had me getting some more ironguts. A big part of thus is the bump up in points to 2500ish. However I don't know this is at all a cunning GW marketing plan. Indeed when 8th first came out, Jervis wrote an
article intriguingly making an appeal for tournament games to be played at 2000 and to resist the temptation to play larger games - which was entirely ignored as far as I can see. So it seems the players are to blame for the higher points values not GW.

Lord Squidar
22-12-2010, 15:27
is it just me or did a vast majority of gamers out there, who complain about increases in army size, go to the Lenin School of Communism, where in between meal gruel, dressed in the dull grey overalls of equal industry and comradeship, lectures in the 10 evils of capitalism are drolled out...

GW are a business, they make good stuff. if they want us to buy more, its all good. we get pay rises every year, but the prices dont go up as often as that. Personally, i find massed ranks of models on the gaming board give me a warm feeling in the cockles of my heart, if someone makes it more so, I say good show!

Torpedo Vegas
22-12-2010, 19:51
This has been going on for a while, its not just 8th edition, and its not just Fantasy, 40k gets it to, just look at armies form 1st or 2nd ed 40k. I, personally, don't mind it, I like having giant battles with tons of models, and that makes me focus on just one army, because I can't afford the models for more than one army at a time.

Lord Inquisitor
22-12-2010, 20:00
There was a big change 2nd->3rd 40K (and Fantasy has had some similar boosts) driven by GW's desire to change what was initially a skirmish game to a fully-fledged battle game.

I didn't see any such drive with 8th beyond pushing infantry over other unit types. As noted above, Jervis has gone on record in white dwarf telling us to play smaller games!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
22-12-2010, 20:01
Well, those who prefer lower model counts, can just start playing at lower point values. Haven't found any spots in the BRB that suggests some rigged number, quite the contrary - J.J. recommended 2K in some random WD article, but who cares about that rag.

But yes, model count has gone up in my gaming group. More infantry, less cavalry, better looking armies. I see it as a result that core troops finally got a role to play - beyond cheap fast cav.

Seville
22-12-2010, 20:04
Yeah, GW definitely tweaks rules and point values to get us to use more models. There is no doubt about it. The "horde" rule was a very clever way of doing this.

Do I mind? Yes and no. The underpricing of Imperial Guard bugged me... just to play at the same point sizes as before, I was looking at having to spend $500 or so. Wasn't worth it to me.

For Fantasy, though, I only needed to spend $100 or so to get everything I wanted. It's the time commitment of painting, more than anything that is the problem. But that's ok. I love the way hordes look on the battlefield. It's ultimately rewarding.

My WoC model count for 2250 went from about 80 to 130. So, yeah, a pretty big jump.

slayer8045
22-12-2010, 20:06
I'm ok with it. Yes they get more money which is good, that means they stay in business and I get to buy new cool models. Plus it is more fun having more models.

herohammer
22-12-2010, 20:36
over the years, most of us have collected large collections of models anyway.
This is the problem with increased model counts in my opinion. Requiring more models and therefore a greater investment of time and money for a new army discourages players from starting new armies, potentially making them get bored and drift away from the game from playing the same old forces year after year. It also makes the barrier for entry for new players, particularly younger players who can't throw large amounts of money into hobbies and who lack the patience to invest large amounts of time in assembling and painting their armies, much greater.

Sure getting to actually use the additional troops you inevitably will buy as an established player in reasonably sized games is great but it is an issue for someone just getting into the game to reach a point value where they can get a game. Sure in theory people could just play tiny games as they build their forces but they still have to find opponents at those point values.

All of that being said, there are still some extremely points efficient and quality plastic regiment kits making filling out the big blocks of your army pretty reasonable for most forces (poor beastmen). The big money sink for most armies is the elite regiments that are still metals and artillery and monsters.

Unless you are playing over 9,000 skaven slaves to take advantage of the silly way in which efficient super low cost low LD units interact with the steadfast and strength of number rules I think that most armies will have mainly increased in numbers from 7th to 8th because most small fast cav units and heavy cavalry units are no longer efficient. 15-20 guys on foot though to replace 5-8 knights though pretty much costs the same in both points and $ so it is more of a shift in army comp than an increase in size.

TMATK
22-12-2010, 20:37
There is a limit, and I think they have pretty much reached it; for me at least. It's not so much about the money and painting, although that is a factor, but more about transportation. I carry my army case on the train a lot of time, and I'm pretty much maxed out with my 3000 point O&G army.

The day I can no longer physically carry an effective army in 2 hands, I'll probably look to another game.

herohammer
22-12-2010, 20:40
The day I can no longer physically carry an effective army in 2 hands, I'll probably look to another game.
That is a good point that I didn't even think of. Not only is transporting a large force hard though, it can also get expensive as specialty cases are very pricey and magnetizing a huge horde's bases would take a large amount of time and as the Goblins of WoW say, "Time is money".

bert n ernie
22-12-2010, 20:50
I've gotten a bit tired of the number of models I have to field to be effective. It's not terrible, but it is frustrating, as I'm the kind of person who likes to know when they've finished an army.
It's taken me since 6th ed to almost finish my skaven army, and now 8th ed is out. So I've decided to switch armies as I know I'll finish a much smaller(Brett) eventually. I've noticed that for someone who has a busy life and paints slowly warhammer stuff is updated just quickly enough so that if you want to have a fully complete army(well, per system) you won't have time to start other games. I've pretty much dropped 40k now for similar reasons. There's too many good games out there to distract you. I no longer am satisfied being distracted by only two of em ;).


EDIT:
Post above is really what I'm talking about. It's such a big time investment, along with magnetising and effort to transport (nevermind setting up for tourneys) and some armies suddenly become a lot less fun to play, never mind the cost.

2theDeath
22-12-2010, 21:39
To be honest I like it,
mind you I'm fortunate to be able to play at my local club & they don't give a monkeys where you got your army from, as long as it looks roughly what it's supposed to be...game on! The added bonus of this is that it's allowed me to be more creative with my Dwarves, for instance Mantic Ironclads make cracking Hammerers with very little work needed to convert them & much cheaper to.

It's your choice, you don't have to have rank apon rank of miniatures, I've played against people who have used rank fillers or just black plastic bases as counters, it didn't detract from the fun we had & we all know how expensive it can all be.

Relax & enjoy, if your opponent is moaning 'cause you haven't enough mini's to field & your using a suitable alternative then I'd be thinking "do I really want to play this miserable git?"

Merry Xmas:)

Amnar
22-12-2010, 21:51
Yeah, it bugs me to be honest. I'm not a quick painter, I like to paint my minis to a high standard, and this keeps me from playing as much as I did.

There are only so many miniatures you can put on a 6x4 board... I find that games become too cluttered these days, especially with 40k...

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 21:59
Yeah, it bugs me to be honest. I'm not a quick painter, I like to paint my minis to a high standard, and this keeps me from playing as much as I did.
There are only so many miniatures you can put on a 6x4 board... I find that games become too cluttered these days, especially with 40k... There is no reasin why you should change things.

sorberec
22-12-2010, 22:03
I'm fielding less models than before, because I'm fielding more elite infantry who previously weren't much good for anything.

I'm fielding more models than before because I now have to take more of my not very good core which weren't much good for anything in 7th and still aren't in 8th. I'm still taking the same number of core units but type and sizes have changed. (I play High Elves in case you haven't guessed).

Main issue this has caused for me is that I'm now further away from ever having a finished unit painting wise.

wizbix
22-12-2010, 22:04
My Orc big boss says that the OP deserves 'a chppa in iz fat gut' as more models means more Orc lads to 'elp wid da bashin'.

Astafas
22-12-2010, 22:26
My model count hasnt gone up... but then I played vampires in 7th and had a heavy reliance on infantry.

I can see how model count has gone up for other armies though - the empire army I am presently working on will have infantry in it in decent sized units and that wouldnt have been the case in last ed because they would have just died.

More models I say...

8th ed. Warhammer Fantasy Battles. 7th ed. Warhammer Fantasy SKIRMISH.

Gotrek
22-12-2010, 22:34
i play this game to move armies arround so i'm sorta pleased with more models than fewer. if i wanted to play skirmish games there are a lot of options available already.

Voss
22-12-2010, 22:44
Something that's been on my mind recently is the spiralling number of models in the "average" army as time goes by. Looking through my old white dwarfs even the "huge" 3,000 point battle reports from 4th-5th edition have <100 models per army. A "very large" unit was generally 16 men strong.


I don't remember this at all. A decent sized unit has always been 25-30 models (with the possible exception of 7th, which was bad and I didn't play much). Very large was 40+. That was my experience from 3rd to 6th.

Kevlar
23-12-2010, 01:22
Steadfast was a genius stroke for fantasy. What a way to sell models. Combined with the generous points decrease most troops got from their old books it means most people are forced to buy more troops. Lets not forget the points creep in basic army lists either. 5th edition battles were regularly 1500 points. 6th-2000, 7th-2250, and now 8th looks to be popular at 2500.

Voss
23-12-2010, 01:24
The 'points creep' is entirely up to the players. I started at 3K with 3rd, then moved down to 2K and stayed there.

Seville
23-12-2010, 03:44
Steadfast was a genius stroke for fantasy. What a way to sell models. Combined with the generous points decrease most troops got from their old books it means most people are forced to buy more troops. Lets not forget the points creep in basic army lists either. 5th edition battles were regularly 1500 points. 6th-2000, 7th-2250, and now 8th looks to be popular at 2500.

I agree. Steadfast, needing 2 ranks to disrupt, and the horde rule were all really, really blatant rules tweaks designed to sell more models.

Oh, and how about all the terrain you need to play now? And, oh, what a surprise! GW is making more terrain kits now. What a coincidence.

I am not holding it against them at all, but, they're being pretty bold about it lately. :p

Bergen Beerbelly
23-12-2010, 06:27
Personally I like it. I've never really liked playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles less than 3k points in any version of the game from 5th on. To me, if I played less it didn't really seem like a battles game. I've already got TONS of miniatures for this game, it's about time I get to use a lot more of them.

Scythe
23-12-2010, 07:14
Lets not forget the points creep in basic army lists either. 5th edition battles were regularly 1500 points. 6th-2000, 7th-2250, and now 8th looks to be popular at 2500.

Not around here. 3000 pts 5th edition battles were quite an usual occurance, and pts actually went down in 8th. We usually played 2500 pts in 7th, while in 8th, most battles I play tend to be 2000 or 2400 pts. I would prefer them to be 3000 pts to be honest, but time constrains usually force us to play smaller games.

RanaldLoec
23-12-2010, 07:39
Personally I like it. I've never really liked playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles less than 3k points in any version of the game from 5th on. To me, if I played less it didn't really seem like a battles game. I've already got TONS of miniatures for this game, it's about time I get to use a lot more of them.

This I don't own 8 medium sized armys i own 3 medium sized and 2 with so many models and points I forget what I actually own.

When 8th came out and unit sizes tripled over night I was nearly as excited as the first time I (can't post this comment it breaches Warseer forum posting rules). But it was exciting and funny.

yabbadabba
23-12-2010, 07:51
5th edition battles were regularly 1500 points. 6th-2000, 7th-2250, and now 8th looks to be popular at 2500. Nah, 2k has been standard round my way since 4e minimum. We used to play a lot of 6k at 4e as well.


I am not holding it against them at all, but, they're being pretty bold about it lately. :p Sorry mate, but anything to do with "merchandise" takes the biscuit for me. GW are just pushing their business. "Merchandise" is all about taking something already have, or don't need, printing a name on it and then charging 4/5 times the price! Thats bold for you.

arthurfallz
23-12-2010, 14:19
is it just me or did a vast majority of gamers out there, who complain about increases in army size, go to the Lenin School of Communism, where in between meal gruel, dressed in the dull grey overalls of equal industry and comradeship, lectures in the 10 evils of capitalism are drolled out...

GW are a business, they make good stuff. if they want us to buy more, its all good. we get pay rises every year, but the prices dont go up as often as that. Personally, i find massed ranks of models on the gaming board give me a warm feeling in the cockles of my heart, if someone makes it more so, I say good show!

Pay raise every year? Don't know what stats you're reading but aside from the Public Sector Unions inflation has been outstripping pay increases for some time now. How this relates to GW is that as model prices increase and army sizes increase, it makes the hobby more expensive to follow, making barriers for more players to enter, especially younger players.

On the upside, more plastic models are helping defer those costs and make armies easier to follow. But criticizing people for complaining about the rising price of goods is a lot more communist than capitalist comrade; it's supposed to be market pressure that equalizes price, not faith in Mother Workshop.

Avian
23-12-2010, 15:00
Oh, and how about all the terrain you need to play now? And, oh, what a surprise! GW is making more terrain kits now. What a coincidence.
And with more models fighting, you need more dice. And GW sell dice! ;)



I haven't bought any GW terrain, myself, though. Or bought any GW dice.

Lorcryst
23-12-2010, 15:03
Hmmm ... I'll probably be hated for this, but here goes :

Warhammer Battle and 40K have always been expensive hobbies, that's nothing new ... and even if I started when I was 14, do we really want younger players ? Both games are more mature now, with complex rules and interactions, and when I see the hordes of snotlings in my local GW shop screeching like banshees over a rule they all get wrong, I long for older players ...

Maybe it's my age creeping up on me, but I don't think this hobby is suited for the younger crowd.

Torpedo Vegas
23-12-2010, 16:02
And with more models fighting, you need more dice. And GW sells dice!

I don't know about everybody else, but I've bought like 2 GW Dice cubes in the past couple months, I love those things.

Lars Porsenna
23-12-2010, 16:12
Personally, one of the aspects I didn't like from 4e-5e era was the small armies. I like the idea of larger armies and figure counts. Makes it feel like I'm playing a wargame rather than a skirmish game...

Damon.

PS: an army is never really done, merely resting in between unit projects.

Geep
23-12-2010, 16:36
PS: an army is never really done, merely resting in between unit projects.
Agreed.

I've actually found myself playing with smaller numbers, although the general trend has been to play larger point games. I now tend to run many more characters than I used to (or at least more expensive characters due to the need to take Lords or run out of Hero points), and steer clear of the cheap units I used to use with MSU tactics.
My armies (particularly my Wood elf army) tend to look a bit bulkier now, but that's only due to more ranked units vs all my old skirmishers.

ColShaw
23-12-2010, 16:54
I don't mind big armies. In fact, I deliberately try to fit as many troops into my armies as I can (Night Goblin infantry, Bretonnian peasants, 40K Imperial Guard groundpounders, etc.) As far as increasing points value of games, that is entirely a player (and tournament organizer) choice.

tideofchaos
23-12-2010, 17:04
This should come as no surprise that GW tweaks the rules to encourage increased model count (and therefore increased sales). :P

Urgat
23-12-2010, 17:33
Let's see. I play gobs. In 5th ed they costed 2.5pts. They went to 2pts. Ward pulled them to 3pts. According to you, has my army gotten larger recently? :p Where I used to have 60 gobs, I now have 40. For the exact same price.
As for my opinion on the subject: Warhammer is about armies, not warbands :p

Svorlrik
23-12-2010, 19:08
Hmmm ... I'll probably be hated for this, but here goes :

Warhammer Battle and 40K have always been expensive hobbies, that's nothing new ... and even if I started when I was 14, do we really want younger players ? Both games are more mature now, with complex rules and interactions, and when I see the hordes of snotlings in my local GW shop screeching like banshees over a rule they all get wrong, I long for older players ...

Maybe it's my age creeping up on me, but I don't think this hobby is suited for the younger crowd.


I also used to think like this. But out of the screeching masses comes a few decent players, who are usually the ones who stick to, or come back to the hobby as they get older.

I recently played a 14 year old's skaven army and really enjoyed the game (he beat me btw). He was a far more enjoyable opponent than some of the elitist "veterans" who use the same deathstar lists week in, week out.

Warhammer does seem like the most costly game system now, especially when charging 25 for 10 men when you're likely to field 30 of them. For us older established players, this is less of a problem, but it could well destroy the future of the hobby.

decker_cky
23-12-2010, 19:21
I find that in a given sized game, unless you previously went cav heavy or a dragon army, armies have decreased. Now most armies take 2 lords and a BSB, all with decent kit which is more points. Having always taken a solid amount of infantry, 8th didn't really increase my armies at all.

daladzor
29-12-2010, 18:44
In my local meta not much has changed,
Most have stayed roughly the same size( high elves, dwarves, WoC, DoC ). The exception being my skaven which has increased to even more.

rodmillard
29-12-2010, 19:00
Locally, points values have only shifted a little (up from 2250 to 2400, because it makes percentages easier). I think whether model count has changed depends on what army you play - my dwarves have actually gone down (fewer core now that I only have to meet a 600 point target, rather than slots, with most of my combat infantry from special since it no longer has to compete for slots with the war machines). I can't speak for my other armies, since my HE are back in the box until I can get enough core models together, and my VC were a new project for 8th. Is 120 models at 2400 points (not including the 30+ zombies I'm painting for summoned troops) a lot compared to 7th?

The bearded one
29-12-2010, 19:07
My dwarf army has hardly increased in size at all. Maybe 5-10 models more but most changes were changes in equipment and runes.

tr1pod
29-12-2010, 20:15
I'm gonna need a bigger boat (carrying case)

Lord Inquisitor
29-12-2010, 20:20
What I found for most of my armies was that the total model count didn't change too much but the unit count changed dramatically - the models have been lumped into fewer, larger units. Ogres are an extreme example, where large numbers of units of 3 have been replaced with few units of 9 or 12.

Malorian
29-12-2010, 20:53
Around here model count certainly went up, but then again the average game size went up too.

We generally played 2250 in 7th, now it's 3000 in 8th, and all those extra points are pretty much going straight into infantry.


For my orcs and goblins it even worse because now goblins are top dog so I have 170 in my standard 3000 list while back in 7th I only had 27-30 in my 2250 list.

Tarliyn
29-12-2010, 22:49
So in my gaming group we jumped from 2250 points a game to 3k with the new edition and with that my two primary armies did jump in model count:

My lizards gained about 40 models and my ogres about 10. That would have happened in 7th ed though if we had jumped from 2250 to 3k.

In short no I haven't noticed a significant model creep. Once I stopped playing around with proxied huge units just for the novelity of it I went back to my normal unit size + just a little.

For example I went from having a unit of 18 saurus to a unit of 24.

Like I said though we jumped points. 2250 to 3k and our model count increased the same amount as it would have in 7th if we had made the same jump.