So I'm a bit confused - the demo armies were around 100~ points without upgrades and standard/full army size is 200 points including upgrade cards - so we're not looking at much bigger armies than those in the Core Set for standard sized games.

That seems odd to me - it's a rank and file system, which suggests huge armies, but we will in fact have 8-12 units - which makes it feel a bit more like a skirmish.

Why not go the whole hog and up the scale a bit?

While I can't speak for FFG, I think keeping the standard size at 200 points is a good idea. While moving huge blocks of infantry and cavalry up and down the table is a lot of fun, the higher your standard game size is, the higher is your barrier of entry. With all the tabletop games out today, many people will be reluctant to invest huge amounts of money and time (while I was away from the hobby, I always thought about getting back into WHFB, but the need to invest 800$+ and roughly a hundred hours of playing time always kept me back).

The way it looks right now, we are probably looking at a 200$ investment to get right into organized play. This is small enough for many people (like me) to give the game a chance on release day, even if they don't know how well it will be received.

I think you have a bit different definition of skirmish as well. Normally a "skirmish" game in tabletop minis terms is a small number of individual models. Small is a vague term, but tends to be less than ten. Also, once you put them into units it's automatically not skirmish - that term implies single minis with a high degree of flexibility in their movement and actions. Block formations are not individual and are not highly flexible in their movement and actions.

So like Infinity is a good example of a skirmish game. Guildball. Malifaux. X-Wing could be considered one, although most people would assume skirmish to mean "ground based". I'd allow it, but call it something like "dogfighting skirmish" to make things clear.

Tabletop guys like big games, so I expect that there may be more than one "standard" size. Maybe one small standard game for tournaments and one bigger standard or unofficial standard for people that want a big game experience.

The definition of what is and isn't a "skirmish game" as opposed to a "battle game" has always been a pet peeve of mine. Most people say "skirmish" in such a way that the term literally means nothing. Do you mean a low model count game? If so, how low? 5 models? 10 models? 15 models? But Bob over there says 15 models isn't a "skirmish" anymore. Then there's companies like Gripping Beast, who release "SAGA: A Viking Age Skirmish Miniature Game", that goes as low as 25, and as high as 70-odd miniatures per side in a standard game. Other people say "skirmish" when they mean free-form movement, ie. round bases and no turning/wheeling mechanics - by that train of thought, Warhammer 40k is a skirmish game.

My favourite definition and the most elegant I've heard so far is that a "skirmish miniature game" is a miniature game in which you resolve the actions of individual figures. Actual number of models on the table is irrelevant, the fact that most skirmish games have a low model count is simply a by product of the fact you have to move and resolve their actions individually. Hence, Infinity or Deadzone are skirmish games because they have singular characters moving and shooting individually. Kings of War is not, because it treats units as inseparable pieces with a static stat line for the entire regiment. RuneWars isn't, because individual models are pretty much damage counters, you resolve movement per unit and you resolve combat per tray. Interestingly, that makes the old Warhammer Fantasy a kinda-sorta-skirmish-but-not-quite, since it resolved movement on a per-unit basis, but combat on a per-model basis. I now refer to that as a "bloated skirmish" game, and fundamentally, that accounts for at least some of the mechanics and rules elegance problems that game had - it had a lot of skirmish mechanics, but used an unfeasible model count. It quite literally couldn't decide whether it wants to be a skirmish game or a battle game.

@Don_Silvarro

This:

that makes the old Warhammer Fantasy a kinda-sorta-skirmish-but-not-quite, since it resolved movement on a per-unit basis, but combat on a per-model basis. I now refer to that as a "bloated skirmish" game, and fundamentally, that accounts for at least some of the mechanics and rules elegance problems that game had - it had a lot of skirmish mechanics, but used an unfeasible model count

is something that i have often heard.

RuneWars seems to be a hybrid to, but i like that always eveyone fights or contributes to the fight via rerolls and damage multipliers soemthing the old WHF regiments dind't always do.

And i wouldn't say that miniature wargaming guys like big games miniature wargamers are not person but a group of different individuals.

And the more points you use the longer the game takes so it is good if the game i scalable, want a quick round go for X points, want an evening long experience use Y points

In other videos they stated that it can scale up or down very easily. I think they are starting small to let people play 'full' games instead of 'starter' games. Eventually this new target audience will see that, in tabletop war games, there is no 'full' or 'starter', you just play at any agreed upon point range.

With the round, individual bases I can see the ability to run small skirmish games as well so scaling down is a very real possibility.

I think the scaling up/down comment had to do with the figure tray concept. With how that's set up, you can play, say a 200pt game, eight four-tray units, in quite literally the exact same amount of time and with the same exact amount of decision points as a 100pt game with eight two-tray units. You could further multiply the number of points and number of trays (hence, the number of models and the "size of the battle") either up or down, but you still end up with roughly the same amount of unit activations and roughly the same game lenght since both damage output and unit resilience scale proportionally to the number of trays.

Compare with my skirmish game point above. You could take a game like Infinity. Say that's usually played with 100pts per side, and that roughly equates to 8 models per side. There's nothing in the rules framework to stop you from playing a 500pt game with 40 models per side. But you'd most probably bore yourself to tears playing that since it's a skirmish game and you move each guy individually, one at a time. That ruleset does not scale the way the RuneWars ruleset does.

Yeah, I can get with "individual actions" being the determiner. Then number of models just happens to be small pretty naturally because otherwise the game would take forever

Infinity plays at 300 points not 100 in competition. 100 is for learning and maybe casual play to fit in more games. I would call infinity, at any point size, a skirmish game. As above, for me a skirmish is individual models ( infinity, mordhime, guildball, frogs grave, etc) this, WFB, Kings of War are rank and file games. The new sifi Mantic game warpath was designed to do both, play skirmish in deadzone or rank and file in Warpath. Same Miniatures, similar stat lines but different game play. New feel and format, same tools.

I'm not a miniatures player other than X-wing. So, I don't have a lot of experience with these style of games.

The actual "maneuvering" of the blocks seemed very weak. You don't really do a lot of interesting or tactical maneuvers. Granted, it's hard to get big blocks to navigate a crowded landscape but it feels very frustrating.

I would allow some units to pivot and then move, potentially as a special icon on the modifier dial. Otherwise, the whole tray is mostly stuck pointing in it's original position.

The rounds were short and brutal. How is a block supposed to manuever around to a flank if it takes several turns to get them situated? I don't follow. Perhaps, flying units or incorporeal units or a "skirmish" keyword might allow for more options. But as is, it kind of looks like bashing into each other.

Infinity plays at 300 points not 100 in competition. 100 is for learning and maybe casual play to fit in more games. I would call infinity, at any point size, a skirmish game. As above, for me a skirmish is individual models ( infinity, mordhime, guildball, frogs grave, etc) this, WFB, Kings of War are rank and file games. The new sifi Mantic game warpath was designed to do both, play skirmish in deadzone or rank and file in Warpath. Same Miniatures, similar stat lines but different game play. New feel and format, same tools.

Okay, I don't play Infinity beyond the one demo I got a while ago so I wouldn't know. Then again, that was a theoretical example, if you want, take my point, switch out 100pts for 300pts and 500pts for 1500pts and the argument stands.

I'm not a miniatures player other than X-wing. So, I don't have a lot of experience with these style of games.

The actual "maneuvering" of the blocks seemed very weak. You don't really do a lot of interesting or tactical maneuvers. Granted, it's hard to get big blocks to navigate a crowded landscape but it feels very frustrating.

I would allow some units to pivot and then move, potentially as a special icon on the modifier dial. Otherwise, the whole tray is mostly stuck pointing in it's original position.

The rounds were short and brutal. How is a block supposed to manuever around to a flank if it takes several turns to get them situated? I don't follow. Perhaps, flying units or incorporeal units or a "skirmish" keyword might allow for more options. But as is, it kind of looks like bashing into each other.

The way regiment-based wargames go, there will presumably be much more maneuvering once you play on the regulation board (6x3') and have scenarios and mission objectives to interact with terrain or points on the battlefield. Then again, I'm still unsure how that will play out with how destructive and brutal combat is. Will I really have to worry about all the fuss of setting up flank and rear attacks when a headlong charge straight up deletes units? Will mission scoring really be compelling enough to make me not just default to tabling the opponent as a faster and easier win condition? Will I even have to worry about combat in the first place if ranged units seem to have a comparable punch from what we've seen so far?

It is refreshing to see a FFG demo team member who knows the rules inside and out, and is quite articulate and enthused. Makes for a great video -- cheers to him.

Thank you sir. I was actually a bit nervous to be on video and of the three times I was taped that day, TC was the most well known group so I'll admit it was a little intimidating. I just hope I got some good information in past all of the "uh"s and "um"s.

You did great, and I say that as someone who has also done miniature game demoes at conventions myself :-)

Agreed. As someone who does demos I was very impressed with your knowledge and presentation. Very not-nervous sounding and your explanation took me from plenty of questions about the game based on the release announcement to someone who feels well informed about what's coming. Actually pushed me over the edge from curious to rabidly awaiting release.