PDA

View Full Version : Time to Embrace the Horror



Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 12:45 AM
So, I've seen the new rumors regarding the end of codexes and the possibility of 40K becoming AoS-ized. Not so long ago, I would have scoffed. But not anymore. I've seen the future, and I don't like it.

Let me backtrack a bit. I've played 40k since the beginning, when my brother and I learned with Rogue Trader back in 1988. We dabbled in other GW games -- Fantasy, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, etc. -- but we really only stayed loyal to 40k. For my brother, it's always been Orks. For me, Chaos. Oh, we've both played other armies, him more than me, and we both have several armies, but our true loves stayed the same. To this day, we talk each week, mostly about gaming, and in particular about 40k. So seeing AoS burst onto the scene was a mild surprise. I don't think either of us really believed GW would go this far... And now this week, we see the 30k sprues, and we know that that rumor too was true. I don't think either of us really believed it would be either. So speaking to my brother today, he says to me he thinks that it's gonna be AoS-like too. I argued against the idea, saying what many on the net have been saying, "Nah, why would they mess with something that is working so well? Fantasy, sure. It was dying. But 40k, and 30k too, are doing fine." I wanted to believe this. Maybe I even did once. But everything I was saying sounded so hollow this time, even to me. And this was all before either of us saw the rumors regarding the end of codexes and all the rest Hastings was saying.

So why am I posting all this? Well, honestly, perhaps I'm hoping for some sorta cathartic purge of my spirit. Because, honestly, I believe it IS a done deal. Looking at the trends over the last year, even before AoS, we all know/knew GW is gonna release a new edition of 40k next year. Knowing that, and looking at how 40k is rapidly sliding into the same sorta 'extremely large armies to play' model that ended Fantasy (i.e. Formations that gift 500+ free points), I don't think it's that hard to see the writing on the wall, once I turn off my bias. The things that Hastings was saying just ring true to what GW has done as of late. The next edition, which will come next year, will be some form of AoS. And I find that depressing. I hate the whole idea of AoS.

And that's the real kicker. I hate AoS, but both my brother and I are fluffy players. We should love it, right? Turns out, not so much. We play the armies we like, build them the way we like, and then get on with the losing. We attend tournaments occasionally and mostly lose there too. We've railed against 'power-gamers,' 'beardy players' and whatever other spiffy term that was in vogue at the time. And we carried on doing our thing. So, oddly enough, over the course of the last year, while debating this or that horrifically broken net list or dreary Goatboy article where he tries to convince everyone that he loves and embraces the fluff and then attaches a power/spam list at the end that proves otherwise, we found ourselves agreeing with many of the opinions of those 'dirty power-gamers' or event organizers when they began arguing for, and then implementing, slight rules corrections/modifications (for example, nerfing Invisibility, D weapons, etc.). We began to openly question each others sanity. How can this be? How can we be agreeing with these guys? After some soul searching, the answer is simple really. We just want a fair game. We love 40k and we don't mind losing, but we want it to be fair. I want a fair fight. Or at least, I don't want it to be so obvious that it isn't a fair fight.

So, I know that's a lot said, but not really a topic for a discussion, right? Well, if you've come this far, and honestly, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, as I think I might be sorta talking to myself, let me give you one. So after feeling a bit depressed about the coming apocalypse as I see it, I realized I'd probably just stick to 7th edition (why can't I quit you!). Likely to just play against my brother once or twice a year when we get together. Because, I've played all the editions, and I honestly feel it's the best, most closely evocative of the fluff GW has produced. At least, it was at the beginning. There are a number of things I think could and should be changed, but realistically, Formations and some of the altered detachments are the biggest problem. I originally thought they were just a cheap method to push product on us, and then somehow I was hypnotized to believe some were kinda cool and not so bad, and now this year, we see them is all their naked glory. Marketing has taken complete control of the ship and they are steering us into the iceberg. Anyway, back on track. So here's the crux of it. I think 7th in its purity is great and I'll keep playing it. But when GW turns to the AoS version of 40k, and I find myself playing a defunct version of the game, why not tweak it in such a way that I know is just more fair? And if I'm willing to do that, would others be too? So, what I'm asking is, are there fans out there that would consider joining me, and likely my brother, to form a cabal of limited size to tweak the 7th edition rules to be fair and fun? I'm not interested in writing a whole new edition, or creating our own codexes wholesale blah-blah-blah...I'm talking about taking what we've got, ironing out the stuff that we all know to be unfair, broken and/or stupid underpowered, and straight-up fixing it. Build a living, breathing 7.5 and doing what GW refuses to do -- identify the stuff that doesn't work, throw out ideas and debate them with one another and then just fix it.

So, would there be an interest from the fans in doing such a thing? Am I just talking to myself at this point? Why am I even still up???

Mr Mystery
07-28-2015, 01:33 AM
Warhammer had an issue that 40k simply doesn't. Downward scaling.

40k plays just fine at 500 points. The game might be fairly short, but you don't really miss out on any of the key tactical challenges the game presents.

Warhammer didn't really work beyond 1,500, as you'd typically lack enough units to enjoy the manoeuvres that brought victory, and a single whiffed combat spelled disaster.

Me, I don't think 40k as we know it is going anywhere. The formations you mentioned? Some are for large games, others for smaller games, and some offer a bit of everything for all sizes of game. They're there to encourage and reward those who want a 'historically accruate' type force, rather than a more eclectic mix of what's available.

Some do get a bit daft, but then they're not a compulsory part of the game - so just as you agree a points limit with your opponent and perhaps a specific scenario, discuss which, if any, formations you'd like to exclude.

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 02:02 AM
I do think they will try and purge 40K of the competitive scene, but this has already been happening, they have so many options and fluffy things there now, it's becoming less and less suitable for competitive play with every release.

If anything, the Formations and Detachments help evoke the fluff better than anything else has in years by offering incentives to move your army away from the min/max ideals.

GW see their market as casual miniature collectors who might want to play a game with their models, you can agree or disagree with the viability of that strategy but that's the market they want.

Denzark
07-28-2015, 04:56 AM
There is a major anti-competitive theme with GW. Their very own flagship tournament chooses the winner on 'favourite game' votes. When a shedload of people provided feedback that they wanted skill as a general recognised, this was chinned off.

I don't think 40K will be 're-booted' in the way WFB/AoS happened - because I think AoS was done deliberately to access a new market because of falling sales.

However, that being my thought until 5 minutes ago, I notice from the front page and then reading the investor comments, that GW is launching a top down review of all products. So who knows what idiocy this will entail.

Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 08:32 AM
Me, I don't think 40k as we know it is going anywhere. The formations you mentioned? Some are for large games, others for smaller games, and some offer a bit of everything for all sizes of game. They're there to encourage and reward those who want a 'historically accruate' type force, rather than a more eclectic mix of what's available.

Some do get a bit daft, but then they're not a compulsory part of the game - so just as you agree a points limit with your opponent and perhaps a specific scenario, discuss which, if any, formations you'd like to exclude.

I wish I could agree, but I no longer do. I think GW's plan is indeed to move 40k to the AoS model. And I don't agree about the formations either. They have fully embraced a blatant 'sell lots o' models' mentality. The space marine ones that grant you free tanks are a naked push to get players to buy multiple tank kits. It is not about representing anything fairly or historical anything else, it is simply about getting the space marine player to buy a bunch of tanks, and you gotta do it now now now, damn game balance and any illusions of fairness or balance.

I wish I could believe otherwise, but I'm done apologizing for them. They no longer have interest in balanced game play, and appallingly, are even saying so openly.

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 08:39 AM
I wish I could agree, but I no longer do. I think GW's plan is indeed to move 40k to the AoS model. And I don't agree about the formations either. They have fully embraced a blatant 'sell lots o' models' mentality. The space marine ones that grant you free tanks are a naked push to get players to buy multiple tank kits. It is not about representing anything fairly or historical anything else, it is simply about getting the space marine player to buy a bunch of tanks, and you gotta do it now now now, damn game balance and any illusions of fairness or balance.

I wish I could believe otherwise, but I'm done apologizing for them. They no longer have interest in balanced game play, and appallingly, are even saying so openly.

Its not though, that formation is to let you play a full company and get a bonus for doing so. The design team didn't make the decision to include that because they thought it would sell tanks, they did it because they wanted people to use Space Marines how the fluff depicted them

Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 08:40 AM
However, that being my thought until 5 minutes ago, I notice from the front page and then reading the investor comments, that GW is launching a top down review of all products. So who knows what idiocy this will entail.
Yeah, I saw this after posting originally. It did not lift my depression, as it seems to pretty much confirm my vision of the future. And perhaps even sooner than I imagined.

Alaric
07-28-2015, 08:45 AM
Cant see why you couldnt do a living rulebook. It would be alot of thankless, non paying work but if it makes ya happy, why not? Really tho, is that what you wanna do? You have seen how impossible it is to please gamers (re: yourself) so I have no idea why you would wanna go down that road.

There are lots of other games dude, Id look into them if I was you, no sense getting mopey over a game you have no hope of changing easily.

Caitsidhe
07-28-2015, 08:46 AM
So, would there be an interest from the fans in doing such a thing? Am I just talking to myself at this point? Why am I even still up???

You aren't talking to yourself. I think you made your points clearly. I've always said that the rules have to be as good as the models. Only a portion (and I'd argue a smaller portion) of the fan base collect the models purely for the models. A significant portion play the game because the hobby is actually war gaming. Good rules work for both fluffy and competitive players. Idiotic, random rules work, at best, for the fluffy types but not for anyone else. I'd argue, as you said yourself, that even many fluffy types would like to see the game be fair and work. In that that light, it is literally insane (and bad business) to intentionally work toward eliminating a large percentage of your consumers. It all but ensures that those who do want good rules will migrate to other games. In Bizarro World ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World ) it might make some sense to eliminate customers (cutting the dead weight from the customer base) rather than trying to grow them, but in our world it is just moronic.

There is simply no logical reason not to cater to as wide a consumer base as possible. Perhaps they believe they are the gaming geek version of the Soup **** from Seinfeld. "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" Sad to say, that doesn't work because they don't have the gamer version of good soup. It looks good but tastes like dirty water. :D

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 08:48 AM
Which is exactly why they don't want you as a customer.

Alaric
07-28-2015, 08:53 AM
You aren't talking to yourself. I think you made your points clearly. I've always said that the rules have to be as good as the models. Only a portion (and I'd argue a smaller portion) of the fan base collect the models purely for the models. A significant portion play the game because the hobby is actually war gaming. Good rules work for both fluffy and competitive players. Idiotic, random rules work, at best, for the fluffy types but not for anyone else. I'd argue, as you said yourself, that even many fluffy types would like to see the game be fair and work. In that that light, it is literally insane (and bad business) to intentionally work toward eliminating a large percentage of your consumers. It all but ensures that those who do want good rules will migrate to other games. In Bizarro World ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World ) it might make some sense to eliminate customers (cutting the dead weight from the customer base) rather than trying to grow them, but in our world it is just moronic.

There is simply no logical reason not to cater to as wide a consumer base as possible. Perhaps they believe they are the gaming geek version of the Soup **** from Seinfeld. "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" Sad to say, that doesn't work because they don't have the gamer version of good soup. It looks good but tastes like dirty water. :D

Theres a very logical reason not to cater to all. Who wants cynical impossible to please customers? I turn away undesirables, I have no doubt GW would cut out people too if they could.

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 09:02 AM
Anyone who works in a retail environment that allows its customers to "hang out" in that environment will recognise the toxic nature of a certain type of customer and why they're bad for business.

People who can't fathom it are usually the type of customer that is undesirable.

Caitsidhe
07-28-2015, 09:23 AM
Anyone who works in a retail environment that allows its customers to "hang out" in that environment will recognise the toxic nature of a certain type of customer and why they're bad for business.

People who can't fathom it are usually the type of customer that is undesirable.

Yes, let's move on to the next level of scapegoating. Games Workshop (and its apologists and shills) never take any responsibility for their dropping sales. There is a whole rogues gallery of villains behind the dropping numbers. Bad managers, exchange rate, the economy (even though other game lines are growing) red tape, too many employees, and so on... into infinity. Having run out of other BS reasons, they have come to the ultimate villain, the evil mastermind behind the plot. It isn't GW's own poor management or bad rules behind their dropping sales, it is the dreaded Veteran, i.e. the single most dreaded monster in creation. This vile fiend whose love for the game and expectation that it maintain or improve is a poison which must be stopped. This belief that to increase sales to the dreaded Veteran would require actually providing improvements which would make him/her want to buy more is heresy. Once those Veterans have spent their starter money they must be purged! They breed like rats. How DARE they. :D

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 09:34 AM
I wish people would look up what the word shill means before throwing it around.

Caitsidhe
07-28-2015, 09:45 AM
I wish people would look up what the word shill means before throwing it around.

Hey man... I thought you were ignoring me. We know exactly what Shill means. :D But if anyone doesn't, this is a decent write up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill *I suspect most of us know exactly who the Shills hereabouts are too.

Alaric
07-28-2015, 09:48 AM
Hey man... I thought you were ignoring me. We know exactly what Shill means. :D But if anyone doesn't, this is a decent write up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill *I suspect most of us know exactly who the Shills hereabouts are too.

lol yer a piece of work

Denzark
07-28-2015, 10:24 AM
Bad managers, exchange rate, the economy (even though other game lines are growing)

I'd like to perform a like for like comparison with these other companies. Please let me know which miniature and rules producing company, with their own IP and are public (floated on a stock exchange), we are talking about?

Mr Mystery
07-28-2015, 10:36 AM
Anecdote Plc?

Baseless Assumption Corporation? :p

I know FFG now publish since the takeover.

Andrew Thomas
07-28-2015, 11:42 AM
I think any effort to rebalance 7th is going to require a massive amount of codex rewriting, because that is where the imbalances in the system arise. There's a clear disinterest in the idea of cross-Codex synergy, let alone any interest in anticipating and engineering answers to various game problems (codices lacking serious anti-air, anti-assault, anti-armor, or anti-vehicle options, anticipating/curtailing inevitable Codex Creep, etc). While I look forward to a liquidation of most of 7th's bloated rules set, I still hold out hope that what may come will remain markedly different from AoS. I want them to respect each faction's tactical biases —play distinctively— but I don't want a single faction to be useless against any particular foe. And I don't want to feel compelled to buy factions I have no interest in.

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 11:45 AM
AoS does this very well with Keywords and Synergies and how units work together. There is a lot more to it than people assume from glancing at the rules. Its got depth, maneuvering is completely different but still very important.

Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 11:50 AM
Its not though, that formation is to let you play a full company and get a bonus for doing so. The design team didn't make the decision to include that because they thought it would sell tanks, they did it because they wanted people to use Space Marines how the fluff depicted them

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. However, why do space marines get a free 500+ points to play "how the fluff depicted them" when other armies don't? Where are the free points to make Chaos play the way they are depicted? And Imperial Guard? Orks? Sisters? Tau? Dark eldar? Sure, maybe the plan is to flip everyone to such a format, after all Ad Mech have such a formation and so do Dark Angels (though they're just space marines, so it's basically the same). But in the meantime, the rest of us are playing 500+ points down and GW doesn't care that it is blatantly unbalanced/unfair. And even once all the armies have such a free-points-granting-formation-whatever (though I sincerely don't believe that will come to pass as I firmly believe we'll be moved along to the AoS model before all the armies, most even, get such an update), that just means we're all playing much bigger battles then we think we are. Which means we had to get a lot more models to do so. Surely you see this is the case?

In the end, why add such a blatantly unfair mechanic to the game? And to be specific. You (GW) establish a measurement of fairness in your game (points). Play space marines the way we say = additional 500+ points. Play any other army = nothing you can do (yet)/too bad for you/buy some space marines. And sure, I suppose I could play a few broke-*** combo armies (eldar/Ad Mech with free points/whatever), but I won't. I'll keep painting, converting and building my armies and losing. The difference will be that the illusion that it's fair, that I have a chance, will be gone.

Path Walker
07-28-2015, 11:54 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. However, why do space marines get a free 500+ points to play "how the fluff depicted them" when other armies don't? Where are the free points to make Chaos play the way they are depicted? And Imperial Guard? Orks? Sisters? Tau? Dark eldar? Sure, maybe the plan is to flip everyone to such a format, after all Ad Mech have such a formation and so do Dark Angels (though they're just space marines, so it's basically the same). But in the meantime, the rest of us are playing 500+ points down and GW doesn't care that it is blatantly unbalanced/unfair. And even once all the armies have such a free-points-granting-formation-whatever (though I sincerely don't believe that will come to pass as I firmly believe we'll be moved along to the AoS model before all the armies, most even, get such an update), that just means we're all playing much bigger battles then we think we are. Which means we had to get a lot more models to do so. Surely you see this is the case?

In the end, why add such a blatantly unfair mechanic to the game? And to be specific. You (GW) establish a measurement of fairness in your game (points). Play space marines the way we say = additional 500+ points. Play any other army = nothing you can do (yet)/too bad for you/buy some space marines. And sure, I suppose I could play a few broke-*** combo armies (eldar/Ad Mech with free points/whatever), but I won't. I'll keep painting, converting and building my armies and losing. The difference will be that the illusion that it's fair, that I have a chance, will be gone.

Everyone will be getting stuff like it. It takes time and its just a game so chill out, if you don't want your opponent using it, ask them not to.

Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 11:57 AM
Cant see why you couldnt do a living rulebook. It would be alot of thankless, non paying work but if it makes ya happy, why not? Really tho, is that what you wanna do? You have seen how impossible it is to please gamers (re: yourself) so I have no idea why you would wanna go down that road.

There are lots of other games dude, Id look into them if I was you, no sense getting mopey over a game you have no hope of changing easily.

Oh, I know there are other games, and I play many of them. Really enjoying Mars Attacks and Heroclix (as I've always done). Looking forward to Conan by Monilith sometime next year too. I enjoy these games and others and will carry on playing them. But, for all that, 40k is different. It's special and I simply cannot quit it. Don't want too even. I love the fluff, I love the models and I love the game too (without the broken, get them to buy more stuff, crap layered over it). I will carry on enjoying it. I'm just wondering if there are others, perhaps even a significant number of others, who feel as I do on the matter.

Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 12:09 PM
Anyone who works in a retail environment that allows its customers to "hang out" in that environment will recognise the toxic nature of a certain type of customer and why they're bad for business.

People who can't fathom it are usually the type of customer that is undesirable.

So I'm the bad guy now? When did I become the bad guy? I didn't say I was going to my local GW or other hobby stores and railing against the system or bad-mouthing AoS to the customer base. I could, but I won't. Instead, I came here looking for real conversation on the matter. My understanding is that many of the guys at the local GW are really enjoying it, but honestly, I'm not there enough to know for sure. Time will tell if AoS is successful.

It's funny though, because that GW breaks your mold completely. It IS a hang out for the local guys and they come there regularly to play, talk and just hang out. But they love the manager (who is awesome) and are totally loyal to the guy. They buy from him, sell to new comers for him, and present a united and enthusiastic front for the company for him. I go out of my way, and it's a long way, to go and play there when I can too. The atmosphere is that good.

Andrew Thomas
07-28-2015, 12:58 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. However, why do space marines get a free 500+ points to play "how the fluff depicted them" when other armies don't? Where are the free points to make Chaos play the way they are depicted? And Imperial Guard? Orks? Sisters? Tau? Dark eldar? Sure, maybe the plan is to flip everyone to such a format, after all Ad Mech have such a formation and so do Dark Angels (though they're just space marines, so it's basically the same). But in the meantime, the rest of us are playing 500+ points down and GW doesn't care that it is blatantly unbalanced/unfair. And even once all the armies have such a free-points-granting-formation-whatever (though I sincerely don't believe that will come to pass as I firmly believe we'll be moved along to the AoS model before all the armies, most even, get such an update), that just means we're all playing much bigger battles then we think we are. Which means we had to get a lot more models to do so. Surely you see this is the case?

In the end, why add such a blatantly unfair mechanic to the game? And to be specific. You (GW) establish a measurement of fairness in your game (points). Play space marines the way we say = additional 500+ points. Play any other army = nothing you can do (yet)/too bad for you/buy some space marines. And sure, I suppose I could play a few broke-*** combo armies (eldar/Ad Mech with free points/whatever), but I won't. I'll keep painting, converting and building my armies and losing. The difference will be that the illusion that it's fair, that I have a chance, will be gone.
You're complaining about what is easily a 3500-4000 point army before you take any other Dataslates. How often are you ever going to see that list and not have enough firepower to render that extra 36 AV 11-12 Hull Points redundant?

Alaric
07-28-2015, 01:07 PM
Oh, I know there are other games, and I play many of them. Really enjoying Mars Attacks and Heroclix (as I've always done). Looking forward to Conan by Monilith sometime next year too. I enjoy these games and others and will carry on playing them. But, for all that, 40k is different. It's special and I simply cannot quit it. Don't want too even. I love the fluff, I love the models and I love the game too (without the broken, get them to buy more stuff, crap layered over it). I will carry on enjoying it. I'm just wondering if there are others, perhaps even a significant number of others, who feel as I do on the matter.

I hear you, and years of laughing at forums (not you i mean) has taught me you are definitely not alone.


Edit, I dont think path is saying your a bad guy fwiw

Kazzigum
07-28-2015, 02:09 PM
You're complaining about what is easily a 3500-4000 point army before you take any other Dataslates. How often are you ever going to see that list and not have enough firepower to render that extra 36 AV 11-12 Hull Points redundant?

No, I'm not. The Ad mech formation grants you 500-600 free points for well under 2,000 points, under 1,500 even I believe. The space marine one allows you a host of free transports and is achievable well under 2,000 points as well... That's the problem.

- - - Updated - - -


I hear you, and years of laughing at forums (not you i mean) has taught me you are definitely not alone.


Edit, I don't think path is saying your a bad guy fwiw

Really? Because I think he indirectly called me "undesirable." If I'm mistaken, then I apologize and apparently don't get his point. I suppose I just need to go back to chillin'. :rolleyes:

Mr Mystery
07-29-2015, 05:31 AM
It's not a direct insult - just a poorly chosen descriptive.

The Mechanicus Mega-Force formation is also cash cost intensive. You need at least one of everything for Mechanicus, Skitarii and Knights. I'll do a quick tot up of that price....£471. For the absolute bare minimum - and you not being able to fully take advantage of the freebies it offers. Add in that in minimum sized units, many Mechanicus units are, well, a bit cack and it's not the problem many seem to think it would be.

Yes, free upgrades are nice and you can shoehorn the force into a surprisingly tiddly army points wise - but it's not going to take much to start smashing up the best stuff they've got. 3 Kataphron don't last very long. A single Onager, let alone single Sidonian Dragoon is pretty well pointless in the grand scheme of things, as they only really excel when taken in larger numbers (three Dragoons minimum for me)

Which sets the stage pretty clearly - these formations are perks and encouragement to buy lots of stuff, no easy ways to flatten all opposition.

Path Walker
07-29-2015, 06:06 AM
When I said "undesirable" I meant that customers who haven't spent much money in a shop for a long time and hang around there and make it difficult for the staff to recruit new hobbyists were undesirable, I wasn't attributing that trait to any individual in the thread just stating that from the businesses perspective that is the case.

This is what I mean by the problematic veterans being moved along, when you have people (to use a stereotype that exists for a good reason) who spend all day in a shop, taking up a member of staffs time without buying product and complaining endlessly about the game/company, you're creating an unwelcoming environment for potential new hobbyists.

When the best way for the business to continue is based on recruitment, you don't want the veterans there making the hobby look bad.

40kGamer
07-29-2015, 06:45 AM
When I said "undesirable" I meant that customers who haven't spent much money in a shop for a long time and hang around there and make it difficult for the staff to recruit new hobbyists were undesirable, I wasn't attributing that trait to any individual in the thread just stating that from the businesses perspective that is the case.

This is what I mean by the problematic veterans being moved along, when you have people (to use a stereotype that exists for a good reason) who spend all day in a shop, taking up a member of staffs time without buying product and complaining endlessly about the game/company, you're creating an unwelcoming environment for potential new hobbyists.

When the best way for the business to continue is based on recruitment, you don't want the veterans there making the hobby look bad.


I was hanging out at the local game shop last night and a long time staffer described 'undesirable' quite well. With WFB there was a large contingent of local players that downloaded pirated army books, bought their FW models from the Chinese and Russian recasters and proxied in non-GW models. This group is now raging the loudly about AoS!

Thinking a company that you don't support in any way should continue supporting an unprofitable game system just for you is a mind boggling sense of entitlement! Not the case with all the unhappy folks I'm sure, but it's interesting the # of local haters that do fit this description.

Path Walker
07-29-2015, 06:58 AM
There are genuine reasons to be disapointed with Age of Sigmar, it doesn't offer the experience some hobbyists will want, however, this is the game GW want to make and they want to appeal to the type of customer that enjoys that type of game.

There are options for you if you're one of these hobbyists who is no longer able to enjoy the game GW makes. Raging about it achieves nothing. Going on and on and on about how GW is a crap company achieves nothing.

The odd thing is people feel entitled to rage and shout and scream about these things, they have a really odd view of how the customer/supplier dynamic works.

A company has to supply a product that works as promised, when you buy a rulebook and some models from GW, that's what they've done. Supplied you with a rulebook and some models, if the models were faulty or miscast, you'd be entitled to a replacement or a refund. If the rules were misprinted or missing pages, again, refund or replacement. (incidentally, part of one of my Realmgates, which are made in China, was missing from the bag, GW sent out a full box to replace them without delay, this is the second refund or replacement I've had to get off GW in the last 4 years and both were on terrain kits made in China)

You're not entitled for that game to stay on the shelves forever and ever, you don't get to decide how long Games Workshop have to wait before they change things.

If you don't like a new game or a new model or how they release new rules, you don't have to buy it. That is all you are entitled to, you have the right to withdraw your custom.

You have the right to go to another company, Mantic's Kings of War is a mass unit based fantasy wargame, designed in part by one of the team that made stuff from Fantasy. Avatar's of War make Warthrone, there at 8 editions of Warhammer Fantasy that all still work fine.

nuttyjawa
07-29-2015, 07:19 AM
As a former club president I noticed that last week GW (in the UK at least) officially told stores to stop displaying the posters for local clubs that they used to produce and display, for GCN membered clubs.

Not sure if relevant? I think some of the way the discussion has gone does make it relevant.

sfshilo
07-29-2015, 07:30 AM
Warhammer had an issue that 40k simply doesn't. Downward scaling.

40k plays just fine at 500 points. The game might be fairly short, but you don't really miss out on any of the key tactical challenges the game presents.

Warhammer didn't really work beyond 1,500, as you'd typically lack enough units to enjoy the manoeuvres that brought victory, and a single whiffed combat spelled disaster.

Me, I don't think 40k as we know it is going anywhere. The formations you mentioned? Some are for large games, others for smaller games, and some offer a bit of everything for all sizes of game. They're there to encourage and reward those who want a 'historically accruate' type force, rather than a more eclectic mix of what's available.

Some do get a bit daft, but then they're not a compulsory part of the game - so just as you agree a points limit with your opponent and perhaps a specific scenario, discuss which, if any, formations you'd like to exclude.

40k does NOT scale down well to 500 points.

Languin
07-29-2015, 07:36 AM
Path you also as a customer have a right to complain and be heard especially if you have a product that is sold as a long term investment which this is. You dont see tool makers just shifting their standards every two years because they would get creamed.
While you can go ahead and not buy as your last recourse its not a great one as it is GW is slowly losing market share and thats is a direct to the top problem...we have 1990 thinking in 2015 with GW management. You MUST complain and not victim blame.

Mr Mystery
07-29-2015, 07:45 AM
40k does NOT scale down well to 500 points.

40k in 40 Minutes begs to differ dude :)

Path Walker
07-29-2015, 07:50 AM
Path you also as a customer have a right to complain and be heard especially if you have a product that is sold as a long term investment which this is. You dont see tool makers just shifting their standards every two years because they would get creamed.
While you can go ahead and not buy as your last recourse its not a great one as it is GW is slowly losing market share and thats is a direct to the top problem...we have 1990 thinking in 2015 with GW management. You MUST complain and not victim blame.

Victim Blame? ****ing hell. Comparing your imagined plight by using a phrase almost exclusively used in regards to victims of rape? Get a grip.

These are not "long term investments" they're models, when you buy a model you get a model, that's their duty to you fulfilled.

This change hasn't invalidated anything, everything you bought is usable to the exact same extent you as when you bought it. You have a right to complain if you bought faulty goods, not if the shop decided to change what it sells after you've completed your transaction once that transaction is complete, you are no longer a customer until next time you decide to buy something.

- - - Updated - - -


40k does NOT scale down well to 500 points.

It does if your opponent isn't a colossal dicksplash

Languin
07-29-2015, 07:57 AM
Thats complete bs and your being a huge tool to folks here. (victim blaming isnt just relegated to rape and i have no idea where you got that in this context) GW from the get go sold you a long term hobby and that was the sale plan from very long ago you buffoon...i know this because that was how it was explained to me in sales discussion with GW management at glen burnie back in the day. To quote "we want like Gi joe and other brand names a Games workshop box in every kids toy chest where they have a lifetime hobby."
Seriously how the hell do you think youve got a handle on your side of the argument with the combative nonsense vomiting out of your posts..

Mr Mystery
07-29-2015, 08:19 AM
Did you previous Codex or Army Book burst into flames?

Did your models decay on some hidden signal?

No? Then they're both still perfectly usable.

And how are you a victim in this? You've got your models, you've got your rules. Contract fulfilled GW's end.

grimmas
07-29-2015, 08:35 AM
I think we all need to Embrace the Horror. Change has happened this needs to be accepted. its the only constant when it comes to GW. Hell give it 4 years and it'll probably change again. Stops us getting stale and bored and it doesn't sound like anyone is bored at the moment in fact some of you seem to even be enjoying how much you don't like it.

Alaric
07-29-2015, 08:42 AM
Path you also as a customer have a right to complain and be heard especially if you have a product that is sold as a long term investment which this is. You dont see tool makers just shifting their standards every two years because they would get creamed.
While you can go ahead and not buy as your last recourse its not a great one as it is GW is slowly losing market share and thats is a direct to the top problem...we have 1990 thinking in 2015 with GW management. You MUST complain and not victim blame.

You dont HAVE to complain. Ever. Whiners be whiners on the internet tho. How bout you man the hell up and move on bub. They don't listen to your complaining and I dont blame them lol.

Languin
07-29-2015, 08:43 AM
There is customer support which is another part of the sale pal...and you know what they arent adhering to it..cripes if your mantra is superior customer support in relation to a "life time hobby" then uphold your part of the bargain and listen to complaints about past investment and constant phase out.
Its like im in a freaking Ayn Rand dystopia here.

Gotthammer
07-29-2015, 08:49 AM
I think we all need to Embrace the Horror.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/c14595d8a5a3a167ebb65eb09d85efe8/tumblr_nbbae2HcD11qayvz8o1_500.png

Mr Mystery
07-29-2015, 08:53 AM
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/17300000/Christopher-Lee-christopher-lee-17378732-1200-967.jpg

I wish I'd had the privilege of befriending the true face of horror.

Path Walker
07-29-2015, 08:53 AM
There is customer support which is another part of the sale pal...and you know what they arent adhering to it..cripes if your mantra is superior customer support in relation to a "life time hobby" then uphold your part of the bargain and listen to complaints about past investment and constant phase out.
Its like im in a freaking Ayn Rand dystopia here.

Customer support means supporting a customer, when you buy a model that doesn't work as intended, then yes, that's a customer service issue.

A company bringing out a new game when you liked the old one isn't. Nothing Randian about it.


(victim blaming isnt just relegated to rape and i have no idea where you got that in this context)

I didn't say it was only used in cases of rape but that the most common usage was for victims of that crime.

Auticus
07-29-2015, 08:58 AM
My only words on this are simply: if you feel you can do better then do so. This is the internet age... self publication is very easy. Write your version of 40k, then push it out to the masses. If its truly good and sticks, you will have a great product. If not, then it will fall on its face.

A community edition of anything is hard because the community has 100 different ideas about what 40k should be. I think a community edition of 40k is destined to be stillborn. I thnk you're better off writing a sci-fi set of rules that any models can use, then try to market it on your own.

Let it stand on its own and be judged by its own merits.

Auticus
07-29-2015, 09:14 AM
40k does NOT scale down well to 500 points.

Agreed. 40k is pretty horrible at 500 or 1000 points. We had a 1000 point escalation league won by an eldar player who figured out that 3 wraith knights at 1000 points would win him games.

Subs
07-29-2015, 10:12 AM
(A) In my experience 40k plays perfectly well at the 500 pts patrol / kill team level.

(B) 30K is going to be the AoS style simple intro / feeder game for both 40K and Forge Worlds Heresy version.

Path Walker
07-29-2015, 10:30 AM
Agreed. 40k is pretty horrible at 500 or 1000 points. We had a 1000 point escalation league won by an eldar player who figured out that 3 wraith knights at 1000 points would win him games.

You need to remember the caveat about not playing with dickholes

40kGamer
07-29-2015, 11:25 AM
(A) In my experience 40k plays perfectly well at the 500 pts patrol / kill team level.

(B) 30K is going to be the AoS style simple intro / feeder game for both 40K and Forge Worlds Heresy version.

small scale 40k works well with combat patrol or similar restrictions. It can get silly when it's wide open. And a small scale 30k intro game does sound like a good place to start.

Kazzigum
07-29-2015, 11:46 AM
There are genuine reasons to be disapointed with Age of Sigmar, it doesn't offer the experience some hobbyists will want, however, this is the game GW want to make and they want to appeal to the type of customer that enjoys that type of game.

There are options for you if you're one of these hobbyists who is no longer able to enjoy the game GW makes. Raging about it achieves nothing. Going on and on and on about how GW is a crap company achieves nothing.

The odd thing is people feel entitled to rage and shout and scream about these things, they have a really odd view of how the customer/supplier dynamic works.

A company has to supply a product that works as promised, when you buy a rulebook and some models from GW, that's what they've done. Supplied you with a rulebook and some models, if the models were faulty or miscast, you'd be entitled to a replacement or a refund. If the rules were misprinted or missing pages, again, refund or replacement. (incidentally, part of one of my Realmgates, which are made in China, was missing from the bag, GW sent out a full box to replace them without delay, this is the second refund or replacement I've had to get off GW in the last 4 years and both were on terrain kits made in China)

You're not entitled for that game to stay on the shelves forever and ever, you don't get to decide how long Games Workshop have to wait before they change things.

If you don't like a new game or a new model or how they release new rules, you don't have to buy it. That is all you are entitled to, you have the right to withdraw your custom.

You have the right to go to another company, Mantic's Kings of War is a mass unit based fantasy wargame, designed in part by one of the team that made stuff from Fantasy. Avatar's of War make Warthrone, there at 8 editions of Warhammer Fantasy that all still work fine.

I think that you are extrapolating too much regarding my original post and projecting AoS Internet Hate onto what I'm trying to say. Yes, I dislike AoS and I openly said so. Yes, I don't want 40k to become AoS, and I said so. I also said that it is my firm belief that that is what is gonna happen in the near future anyway. But, and here is where I don't think I qualify as the Hater/Complainer, I'm not complaining to GW or trying to get them to give me what I want and damn the rest. They are gonna do what they're gonna do, which is a mistake in my view, but that's a topic perhaps best for another thread. I'm just not with them on this one. If (I say when) they change 40k to a AoS style set, I'm not not participating and will stick with 7th edition. I'm not quiting the hobby. I enjoy it too much, and they are not the boss of me. But the difference is I'm not raging against the machine or throwing a fit or trying to get GW to change their ways. I'm old and wise enough to know that it doesn't work and ultimately doesn't matter.

I'm just saying I'll be sticking with 7th and still enjoying the hobby, and I was wondering if there others out there that would be too. If so, and there were enough of us, perhaps we could tweak it here and there together to better resemble the designers' visions of how it should be before they were all jettisoned and the marketing guys started layering crap over it that is obviously only meant to upsell, sell, sell, sell! 40k is on the same path in this regards that Fantasy ended on and it only ends one way. You need to wipe the slate clean and start over from scratch. And if you must reboot it, why not use the exact model that you just created for Fantasy to better tie them together? The CEO straight up confirmed this in writing after I originally posted. What I don't think fans realize is just how far along the process really is. I predict that whatever remaining codexes we get this year will be the last ones.

Time will tell I guess. Either way, I have armies planned and assembled that should keep me converting and painting for half a decade to come at least. I'm good. Just wondering if there is a possibility that 7th may live on as a smash underground hit in the same way D&D 3.5 did.

Auticus
07-29-2015, 11:48 AM
You need to remember the caveat about not playing with dickholes

That doesn't work well with public events unfortunately, you get paired up with whomever.

Kazzigum
07-29-2015, 12:20 PM
My only words on this are simply: if you feel you can do better then do so. This is the internet age... self publication is very easy. Write your version of 40k, then push it out to the masses. If its truly good and sticks, you will have a great product. If not, then it will fall on its face.

A community edition of anything is hard because the community has 100 different ideas about what 40k should be. I think a community edition of 40k is destined to be stillborn. I thnk you're better off writing a sci-fi set of rules that any models can use, then try to market it on your own.

Let it stand on its own and be judged by its own merits.

It is not so much a matter of doing better, more an attempt to return the game to its purity. It is my firm view that Formations and altered detachments are the primary reason 7th has begun to fail, and they are such an obvious ploy to get players to just buy more models and damn the game consequences that, well, I digress. I have a little experience with game design, though I don't flatter myself enough to really say I'm a game designer anymore, but I've always believed that you should not wholesale remake an already successful game simply in the name of change. This is what D&D did with 4th edition, because they believed they knew better than their own fans, and it blew up in their face. Amazingly, GW is about to make the exact same series of mistakes (in my view) even when they have a prime example of what not to do in their own industry (pretty much) staring them in the face.

Perhaps you are right though. Maybe it is a wasted effort. But the reason I wonder is precisely the 3.5-4th edition D&D example above. 40K, like D&D, is not like any of its peers in its gaming market. It's huge, special and possibly bigger than can be really quantified in the realms of wargaming. It is. Just my gut feeling. And I wonder, if like D&D, the company steers it too far away from what it actually is, will the fans just refuse to go along. Not go away, to other things, but just carry on despite what the company wants. Maybe, maybe not. There is admittedly not much precedence. But I look at the big tournaments, how many of them have already done so much to tweak and clarify 40k issues that GW refuses to be bothered with any more, and I wonder what they will do. Will they just go away? Move to other games? They won't be able to run tournaments of an AoS type 40k, and honestly, I don't believe any other game out there currently can sustain them even near the levels they are now. But perhaps, like the fans of D&D 3.5, they can just carry on with 7th.

Anyway, that's the whole path my mind was beginning to steer down when I originally posted.

- - - Updated - - -

For what it's worth, the Kill Team rules seem to work really well for 7th. Looking them over a playing a bunch of games with my brother with them, they seemed pretty Broken-proof. At least, we couldn't see any way to just steamroll everyone. My only complaint is that I wish there were more scenarios, particularly ones using the Tactical Objectives. Still, I'm working on that... :cool:

Alaric
07-29-2015, 01:08 PM
It is not so much a matter of doing better, more an attempt to return the game to its purity. It is my firm view that Formations and altered detachments are the primary reason 7th has begun to fail,

How has it begun to fail? Its doin very well in most areas...Im guessing this is your personal speculation as well. No evidence to support that claim.

Path Walker
07-29-2015, 03:10 PM
It is not so much a matter of doing better, more an attempt to return the game to its purity. It is my firm view that Formations and altered detachments are the primary reason 7th has begun to fail, and they are such an obvious ploy to get players to just buy more models and damn the game consequences that, well, I digress. I have a little experience with game design, though I don't flatter myself enough to really say I'm a game designer anymore, but I've always believed that you should not wholesale remake an already successful game simply in the name of change. This is what D&D did with 4th edition, because they believed they knew better than their own fans, and it blew up in their face. Amazingly, GW is about to make the exact same series of mistakes (in my view) even when they have a prime example of what not to do in their own industry (pretty much) staring them in the face.

Perhaps you are right though. Maybe it is a wasted effort. But the reason I wonder is precisely the 3.5-4th edition D&D example above. 40K, like D&D, is not like any of its peers in its gaming market. It's huge, special and possibly bigger than can be really quantified in the realms of wargaming. It is. Just my gut feeling. And I wonder, if like D&D, the company steers it too far away from what it actually is, will the fans just refuse to go along. Not go away, to other things, but just carry on despite what the company wants. Maybe, maybe not. There is admittedly not much precedence. But I look at the big tournaments, how many of them have already done so much to tweak and clarify 40k issues that GW refuses to be bothered with any more, and I wonder what they will do. Will they just go away? Move to other games? They won't be able to run tournaments of an AoS type 40k, and honestly, I don't believe any other game out there currently can sustain them even near the levels they are now. But perhaps, like the fans of D&D 3.5, they can just carry on with 7th.

Anyway, that's the whole path my mind was beginning to steer down when I originally posted.

- - - Updated - - -

For what it's worth, the Kill Team rules seem to work really well for 7th. Looking them over a playing a bunch of games with my brother with them, they seemed pretty Broken-proof. At least, we couldn't see any way to just steamroll everyone. My only complaint is that I wish there were more scenarios, particularly ones using the Tactical Objectives. Still, I'm working on that... :cool:

See this is where your problem is, you're seeing their audience as the tournaments and the competitive players. Its not, hasn't been for years,.

Also 4th Edition D&D was cool which a really interesting tactical combat system and ruined by nerds resistant to change running rampant online with negative reviews.

Toofast
07-29-2015, 03:45 PM
How has it begun to fail? Its doin very well in most areas...Im guessing this is your personal speculation as well. No evidence to support that claim.

Apparently you haven't read their last 3 yearly financial reports. If 7th was doing as great as all the GWombies claim, why has GW lost revenue for 3 straight years while the overall tabletop wargaming industry grew at a record pace? Correlation doesn't equal causation but there's a strong case here...

Alaric
07-29-2015, 04:09 PM
Also 4th Edition D&D was cool which a really interesting tactical combat system and ruined by nerds resistant to change running rampant online with negative reviews.

For myself it felt like they tried to turn it into a gotdamn vidya game. If I wanted to play a gotdamn vidya game Id play a gotdamn vidya game. Just felt very pigeonholed for character development, the magic weapons WERE vidya game statistics pretty much. I gave it a fair try, a year, but when I asked the group what system to stick with it was a resounding 3.5.

Wolfshade
07-29-2015, 04:27 PM
Apparently you haven't read their last 3 yearly financial reports. If 7th was doing as great as all the GWombies claim, why has GW lost revenue for 3 straight years while the overall tabletop wargaming industry grew at a record pace? Correlation doesn't equal causation but there's a strong case here...

While GW's financial statements are a public record, as they are a publicly traded company, where are records for the privately held other wargaming firms? Or the tabletop wargaming sector.

Alaric
07-29-2015, 04:36 PM
Apparently you haven't read their last 3 yearly financial reports. If 7th was doing as great as all the GWombies claim, why has GW lost revenue for 3 straight years while the overall tabletop wargaming industry grew at a record pace? Correlation doesn't equal causation but there's a strong case here...

Fair nuff, but losses on their end cant be strictly blamed on 7th. No evidence says that 7th is the cause, that's what I was getting at.

Denzark
07-29-2015, 04:40 PM
Fair nuff, but losses on their end cant be strictly blamed on 7th. No evidence says that 7th is the cause, that's what I was getting at.

They're not making losses, if I recall sales were down but profits were up. That is still not a loss...

Alaric
07-29-2015, 04:42 PM
They're not making losses, if I recall sales were down but profits were up. That is still not a loss...

He was saying losses, me I could care less, I just play the game ;)

Wolfshade
07-29-2015, 04:45 PM
They're not making losses, if I recall sales were down but profits were up. That is still not a loss...

Quite right, and Toofast references that,

Denzark
07-29-2015, 04:46 PM
He was saying losses, me I could care less, I just play the game ;)

An eminently sensible outlook good Sir.

Alaric
07-29-2015, 04:49 PM
An eminently sensible outlook good Sir.

I would ask you to tell my wife that, but she wouldn't believe you anyways :D

edit: I mean about me being sensible in some way. as always, terrible at getting point across, and jokes are always funnier when u explain them right? lol

daboarder
07-29-2015, 05:28 PM
Everyone will be getting stuff like it. It takes time and its just a game so chill out, if you don't want your opponent using it, ask them not to.
Just like everyone was being balance to the new design philosophy in early 7th right? Or late 6th? Or early 6th?


Path.....a little self awareness

Alaric
07-29-2015, 05:59 PM
Da...A little less dickishness. Wow you guys go hard at proving your interwebz superiority. And in answer to your unasked question: Idc who yer a dick to. Ima call u on it from here on if I see it. You dont get to be like this Cuz u got keyboard courage. You cant abide stupid. I cant abide arseholes.

daboarder
07-29-2015, 06:12 PM
Alaric im being short yes. But after years of seeing the same posters continuosly claiming that GW is going to maintain a design philosophy through an entire cycle is just irritating. In particular when all experience would argue the complete opposite.

EDIT: As to the topic at hand, I wouldnt play it, but I kinda saw something like this potentially happening when 6th dropped, Id continue playing 6th through to 7.5th edition with my gaming group, I have all the rules for it and we got things working ok between ourselves so would just stay there. would be cheaper for the lot of us and get us out of the rat race

Brother Sutek
07-29-2015, 06:43 PM
For myself it felt like they tried to turn it into a gotdamn vidya game. If I wanted to play a gotdamn vidya game Id play a gotdamn vidya game. Just felt very pigeonholed for character development, the magic weapons WERE vidya game statistics pretty much. I gave it a fair try, a year, but when I asked the group what system to stick with it was a resounding 3.5.


Our group tried 4th as well and it felt the same way. Thank God for Pathfinder keeping the good fight going.

daboarder
07-29-2015, 07:17 PM
Our group tried 4th as well and it felt the same way. Thank God for Pathfinder keeping the good fight going.

5th is really nice

Lexington
07-29-2015, 11:25 PM
While GW's financial statements are a public record, as they are a publicly traded company, where are records for the privately held other wargaming firms?
Do we really need them to make a fairly educated guess? If the entire sector was in the same kind of decline as GW, we'd be seeing competitors drop out of the market at a notable rate - there's no way these small companies could soak that kind of loss. Besides that, by almost every publicly-observable metric, GW's competition is thriving. Corvus Belli's newest Infinity starter's pre-orders alone outstripped their full product lifecycle predictions by something like 30%. FFG's X-Wing has been released and clearly exploded in popularity during a period of strict decline in GW sales. Hell, Gripping Beast has managed to gain a foothold in the overall miniatures gaming community with Viking-era historical rules. This is not a shrinking market.

Kazzigum
07-30-2015, 12:09 AM
How has it begun to fail? Its doin very well in most areas...Im guessing this is your personal speculation as well. No evidence to support that claim.

That's fair enough, as it is my opinion, bias if you will, that 40k has begun to fail. No real evidence, but let me explain my thinking. It is my view that Warhammer ultimately failed because GW pushed the game and power curve so that the game just required too many models to play a basic game. The requirements to start up a basic army just grew too large, requiring an initial investment that simply priced beginning players out. It has been my experience that this view is widely held and even agreed to by the general fanbase. GW then escalated it further by adding huge monsters, super powerful magic and then the crazy, stupid power game that was the End Times culmination. It is my contention that such escalation leads only to ruin for the game system, as you can never put the genie back in the bottle once it is loose. Eventually it all collapses and you need to wipe the slate clean and start over. I contend that GW knew this, put the capper on it all with the End Times to say goodbye and ... Wallah! AoS.

I believe this same process is currently in progress with 40k. While 7th edition in fine, indeed, my favorite edition to date, it has been steadily pushed down this escalation path ever since its release. Formations, in my view, while initially cloaked in providing incentive to play unwanted units, have recently become nothing more than ways to play bigger battles by providing free units. You play 2,000 points, but get 500 points in free vehicles, so you are really playing 2,500 points. Oh, and since you get all these free vehicles, you're gonna need to buy the models... There are other examples, such as Daemon summoning. Personally, I love it, as it's fluffy and I'm a big Chaos guy. But with perspective, I must admit that it is also a push to make games bigger and get us to buy more models (Ha! Didn't work on me, I already had 2,000 points of daemons... Okay, who am I trying to fool, I still bought another 2,000 points.). Speaking for myself, I was in denial, and simply refused to believe it. The recent Space Marine codex, however, has pulled the blindfold from my eyes. And now I see ruin for the 40k I love fast approaching. I read the words of GW's CEO and I know his plan. And I don't like it.

Having said all that, I still enjoy 7th. It's great, and I can even enjoy my Thousand Sons as long as my opponent doesn't embrace the elements of ruin I've laid out above. Sadly, in simple pick up games, too often they do.

Denzark
07-30-2015, 02:12 AM
This is not a shrinking market.

Having gone to at least 4 (UK) games clubs in the last 5 years, I have seen all these newer games you are on about. It is not a shrinking market, no.

But the common factor I have observed, is that the older, established gamers, are the ones playing the newer games. The new gamers who don't have a link to the club - be it Dad, brother, whatever: Are playing the entry level drug provided by GW.

GW doesn't care one jot for vets, the reason being, after a level of saturation in the wargaming hobby (as opposed to 'The Hobby' as GW states), you don't need GW. You know where to get cheaper paints, cheaper tools, other miniatures, your army is mostly complete. GW grows the market, but deliberately targets the newer players. The new smaller gamer companies with no shareholders to please can do funky crowd pleasing stuff that GW has long dispensed with.

I am not commenting on whether I think this is sensible or not. But I think the fact they are increasing profit is their main objective - and you can read from the financial statement that NOW is when Rountree wants to grow sales, so maybe we'll see some change.

grimmas
07-30-2015, 04:22 AM
Having gone to at least 4 (UK) games clubs in the last 5 years, I have seen all these newer games you are on about. It is not a shrinking market, no.

But the common factor I have observed, is that the older, established gamers, are the ones playing the newer games. The new gamers who don't have a link to the club - be it Dad, brother, whatever: Are playing the entry level drug provided by GW.

GW doesn't care one jot for vets, the reason being, after a level of saturation in the wargaming hobby (as opposed to 'The Hobby' as GW states), you don't need GW. You know where to get cheaper paints, cheaper tools, other miniatures, your army is mostly complete. GW grows the market, but deliberately targets the newer players. The new smaller gamer companies with no shareholders to please can do funky crowd pleasing stuff that GW has long dispensed with.

I am not commenting on whether I think this is sensible or not. But I think the fact they are increasing profit is their main objective - and you can read from the financial statement that NOW is when Rountree wants to grow sales, so maybe we'll see some change.

For the market I think it's a great thing GW gets the new people in and then they can move onto other stuff which is good for the companies making the other stuff and GW doesn't really care as they are looking for new customers rather than trying to poach old ones back. I know we hear a lot about GW needing to pay attention to their "competition" but these companies aren't really viewed as competition as they aren't really competing for the customers they want, also I'd rather GW left them alone because I rather like fact we've got all this choice and I suspect if GW did what I've seen mentioned in places a lot of these other companies would disappear fairly quickly.

Mr Mystery
07-30-2015, 05:22 AM
GW are the only company I see as actively trying to recruit new hobbyists, rather than attract those with an established interest to a new game.

And consider some of the examples given.

X-Wing. Well, that's still a very, very young game. Couple of years at most? Those do tend to do well, or sink largely without comment. Me, I've got at least one of everything for it, but am now selling off my Scum and Villainy, and on a personal opinion level, I think the forthcoming wave with the Heavy Bombers may have 'jumped the shark' design wise. I just don't like the K-Wing or the TIE Punisher. Others will of course have their own equally valid opinions on that, and rightly so.

But everyone I know who plays X-Wing also plays GW games. Again, this is clearly a limited perspective as I don't know, and wouldn't pretend to know, every gamer in my local area, let alone globally.

Infinity? There's a small group of players at my local club who seem to enjoy it, but again - they also play GW games. Infinity just offers them something different, and it's a something different they enjoy. Me, can't get on with the aesthetic - but can't say I've ever actually played the game or read the rules/background. Could be I'm the one missing out, but when an aesthetic leaves me cold, there's little anyone can do to get me into a miniatures game, because the look of the thing is so important (at least to me. See above about opinions and rightly so etc)

Warmahordes? Don't recall seeing anyone play it down the club, though I don't get down there as often as I'd like due to work commitments, and generally being really tired by the time Thursday evening comes around. I think people do have forces, I just don't see it being played. Could mean it's mostly an 'in house' game, could mean all the forces are gathering dust, could mean something in between.

But despite these other games, GW remains the widest played company in my area, and there's always at least a couple of people embarking on new armies every month. Some months there's a notable increase, such as when they did Mechanicus, others lower than average. But on the whole there's a constant flow of money to GW from the wider community. AoS seems popular enough at the moment, and 40k is as popular as ever. Heck, people still play the SG round my way, either with existing forces, proxies, conversions from GW kits or third party equivalents. Blood Bowl remains ridiculously popular - I'd indulge that one myself, except I'm terrible at Bloodbowl. Never really got over the amusement of bundling opposing players into the crowd!

So it's a weird one. GW remain the biggest fish, though other small fish are growing - but then, given they've come from nowhere, as per my original point that's pretty much to be expected. Armada I note hasn't particularly taken off - not sure why, and given we've only had the initial release and the first wave, it's not that different to X-Wing. That didn't take off until the TIE Phantom wave around a year ago.

grimmas
07-30-2015, 05:37 AM
Thing is the other games are tiny in comparison when you look at the (limited) figures we have available. It's also telling that PP entire marketing line seems to be "tired of GW? Come play Warmachine" even the seem to acknowledge who's getting the new people in.

I think the really decider is though that New people are effectively an infinite resource to be tapped into where as existing gamers are a finite one. New people offer the only real prospect for growth, and it not new people to a specific system it's new people to the whole hobby (Wargaming)

daboarder
07-30-2015, 06:23 AM
GW are the only company I see as actively trying to recruit new hobbyists, rather than attract those with an established interest to a new game.



I am actually amazed you can say that with a straight face given that both infinity AND warmachine have active programs to mentor new people in the community. BOTH those companies have programs with local members either Warcors or Press Gangers that actively demo and teach the game in stores and at events. Like seriously, those two companies are actually taking that idea from GW after GW threw it out as a "too hard" and yet you think GW is the one supporting the community and new hobbiests?


What is the Press Gang?
The Privateer Press Gang is our elite corps of game demonstrators and event organizers that work around the globe. They volunteer their time and efforts at their local stores, game clubs and at conventions to demonstrate Privateer Press products. We'll bring the game. You bring the bodies.

Ready to join the ranks of the Press Gang?

Do I have what it takes?
The basic requirements:

A completed online application telling us about yourself and your gaming experience
Three digital photos: of yourself and either two different, painted Box sets if applying to support WARMACHINE and HORDES; or two Starter boxes if applying to support Monsterpocalypse. Note: When sending photos of your painted Box sets, both sets must be the same game type, as we do not endorse demoing Battle Box sets against Warpack Box sets.
An endorsement from a store in your area- An owner/manager's name, the store's name, address, and phone number are sufficient.
We hold our members to the same high standards as we do our own staff, but we give as good as we get. Be aware that there are several reason as to an application can be rejected, some of the more common are below...

Coverage: We can only support a few members in any one area. If there are already enough active members we will not add more.
Employee status: In general, game store employees and staff are ineligible. The program requires neutrality and the ability to support multiple stores.
References: All references will be checked and confirmed before acceptance.
Missing information or images: The application must contain all requested information and images for us to properly process an application.
Quartermaster’s verdict: Based on all data we have about an applicant we must make a final verdict on whether or not an individual will be a fit for our program.
The Press Gang is an exciting group of people to be part of. In addition to having great times at conventions and in-store events, there are Press Gang “points” or “credits” earned by running events and demos and applied towards Privateer Press products, opportunities to participate in play tests or other behind the scenes developments, and occasional advance access to models before they hit the street.

Thank you for your interest in helping to spread the word about WARMACHINE®, HORDES, and Monsterpocalypse. It's through the efforts of enthusiastic individuals like yourself that WARMACHINE has become the unstoppable force that it is today.

Do you accept non-North American Members?
Yes. Not only do we have Press Gangers in Europe, Australia, South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, but we are always looking for more! If there is not a Press Ganger in your area, sign up today!

Thank you again for your interest and we look forward to your application!


http://infinitythegame.com/warcors/warcors_list.php?lang=en

[removed]

Mr Mystery
07-30-2015, 06:26 AM
Not in the UK they don't - hence the 'only company I see' part.

I do try to speak only for myself in such matters, rather than make sweeping statements.

grimmas
07-30-2015, 07:33 AM
Don't forget UK is much more densely populated than the U.S. especially where Mystery says he lives (Kent I think) from what I've heard form our U.S. Cousins we do tend to have larger gaming communities over here.

I didn't look at the Infinty one ( couldn't be bothered sorry) but that PP one looks like it's still focused on existing Waragamers rather than completely new to Wargaming people, events in stores, clubs and conventions and the like.

Erik Setzer
07-30-2015, 09:11 AM
Warhammer had an issue that 40k simply doesn't. Downward scaling.

40k plays just fine at 500 points. The game might be fairly short, but you don't really miss out on any of the key tactical challenges the game presents.

Warhammer didn't really work beyond 1,500, as you'd typically lack enough units to enjoy the manoeuvres that brought victory, and a single whiffed combat spelled disaster.

Well, both games used to have versions of the rules for smaller scales. 40K had Kill Team and Combat Patrol; KT is "back" but only as a digital add-on you have to pay extra for on top of your $85 rulebook. Warhammer had Skirmish in the 6th edition rulebook, and Warbands added in White Dwarf (and available online free), so you had ways to play smaller battles, and they were fun.

Then GW decided to scoop that stuff out of the rulebooks as said rulebooks pretty much doubled in price. They didn't want people to think about playing smaller games. They wanted to encourage larger games.

And they've done that even more with the formations. You can say it "scales down well" (we'll get back to that), but a lot of people don't care about that. They see formations that give them bonuses for using more, detachments that reward larger armies. People who've spent thousands on figures don't want to set them all aside for smaller games.

With recent changes to the game, it doesn't really scale down well either. You can include a Knight, a super-heavy vehicle, in a 500 point game. And it's ridiculously effective and hard to kill. That's with a Battle-Forged list, mind you. Unbound will just open the floodgates of madness at lower points values. I saw more balance in the 500 point WFB armies in a recent set of escalation leagues than I did with the 500 point 40K armies... which is likely why people lost interest quickly and it was impossible to find league matches, but you could easily find someone wanting to do 2500 or 3000 points.

But the biggest problem, again, is that Games Workshop pushes the larger matches. They dropped the small match rules, they add formations and stuff to promote larger armies, they push formations with free stuff in order to push people to buy more stuff (the transports for a Battle Company, at their cheapest, are an extra $372.50... on top of hundreds of dollars for the other models, and that's able to fit under 2000 points). They even let super-heavies into the core game with 40K... which, again, you can field under 500 points! So, with the company itself pushing people to play big games, it's hard to get anyone to consider smaller matches. People wanted Epic 28mm, and now we have it, and suddenly they realize that because 40K got so huge, new players can't afford to play the matches that are most common. The company's having a hard time getting in new players, and I can't help but laugh at the people who think these are the glory days and skirmish-level 40K was so awful and boring.

The good news is, it's all fixable. Easily, too.

The bad news is, GW won't do that, because they seem to think that if a new customer isn't willing to drop a thousand dollars, he's useless.

- - - Updated - - -


GW are the only company I see as actively trying to recruit new hobbyists, rather than attract those with an established interest to a new game.

Eh, you might not be paying attention to the others. And it could be your region. But I also find it humorous that you say that while they're changing the name of their stores to what they say their existing customers know them as, and "Warhammer" will only bring in people who know what Warhammer is, while "Games Workshop" brought a lot of foot traffic of people looking for various sorts of games. Their own marketing idea is geared toward people with familiarity, not new customers. (Also a bit bad when they admit they're already having trouble recruiting new customers.)



I think the forthcoming wave with the Heavy Bombers may have 'jumped the shark' design wise. I just don't like the K-Wing or the TIE Punisher. Others will of course have their own equally valid opinions on that, and rightly so.

Um... You're not a huge Star Wars fan, are you? It's hard for FFG to "jump the shark" with the design on those things.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/IT_Interdictor_starfighter

They're established parts of the Star Wars lore (and, frankly, less shark-jumping than most Space Marine flyers' designs). So FFG isn't deciding to go crazy on design, they're just releasing more stuff from the Extended Universe (now "Legends"). Casual Star Wars fans might not know that, but some of us definitely recognize the stuff they're putting out.

Houghten
07-30-2015, 02:49 PM
Recognise AND HATE.

So many better ships they could have used instead.

Imma scratch-build a Missile Boat and proxy it as my TIE Punisher anna Skipray to be a Decimator.

Mr Mystery
07-30-2015, 02:58 PM
That's pretty much the same as me.

I get that they're canon, I just think they look bloody awful, especially the K-Wing.

Path Walker
07-30-2015, 03:55 PM
Doesn't matter one jot that they're part of the universe, they look like ****.

This is a problem for FFG now, they're running out of good looking ships in the main universe.

Denzark
07-30-2015, 04:16 PM
Tbh if it wasn't in X-Wing: Alliance then they probably shouldn't bother.

Andrew Thomas
07-30-2015, 07:49 PM
I can see an argument for axing Decurion-style Detachments, or limiting their use to higher point-limit tournaments, but Formations, and the various non-Decurion Detachments serve a purpose, i.e.: allowing for canonical army building. Unbound has had no competitive presence, AFAIK, so imposing that kind of limit wouldn't be that hard a sell. We already limit Superheavies and Lords of War, so those kinds of limits aren't that draconian, anyway.

Erik Setzer
07-31-2015, 05:38 AM
It DOES matter that they were part of the universe, because the design choice isn't FFG's. They're bringing in stuff from the EU, as people want. Their own designs aren't "jumping the shark" because they aren't the ones who made the designs. If you hate the designs, fair enough, just don't blame FFG for the designs.

Mr Mystery
07-31-2015, 05:51 AM
Not to me it doesn't.

I don't really like the aesthetic of the two aforementioned ships. Doesn't mean they're bad models, or that they should have done something else from the background. I'm only talking about my own preferences, and I feel design wise they've jumped the shark.

I'm not even pretending to have a universally approved opinion.

Caitsidhe
07-31-2015, 05:53 AM
Will Star Wars games get a big bump? Certainly. Is it a bump that will be sustained. Almost certainly. The unprecedented price paid to purchase the rights to do the new Star Wars movies indicates that they don't just mean to make one or even a trio. They bought the Franchise and probably have 15-20 movies/television shows planned over the next twenty years. This will, without a doubt, dominate at least two generations of the age group that Games Workshop (my apologies, Warhammer) claims to target. Let's be pragmatic shall we? For those children (and their parents) who actually have an interest in such games, which system do you think will win the cash? For that matter, do some of you really think using the term "jump the shark" is a good idea when Warhammer is killing entire lines to replace them with other lines which look like dumbed down versions of other lines?

Mr Mystery
07-31-2015, 06:03 AM
No hint of lines being replaced in Age of Sigmar? Or 40k?

And yes, because I'm talking exclusively about my own opinion on a game I greatly enjoy, yet have found the forthcoming release to be disappointing.

Erik Setzer
07-31-2015, 08:01 AM
Not to me it doesn't.

I don't really like the aesthetic of the two aforementioned ships. Doesn't mean they're bad models, or that they should have done something else from the background. I'm only talking about my own preferences, and I feel design wise they've jumped the shark.

I'm not even pretending to have a universally approved opinion.

Okay, but if you're admitting that you know they're just using what's out there, then why are you saying FFG jumped the shark? They didn't make the design.

Actually, I think Star Wars design kind of "jumped the shark" with some of the stuff in the prequels, but eh, every sufficiently large sci-fi universe has its share of designs that inspire "WTF?" responses. Heck, the basic ship design in Star Trek never really seemed to make sense (and when they finally built a ship with a dedicated purpose and didn't decide to make it look the same as everyone else, it actually made sense, that ship being the Defiant and the class of vessels designed after it). 40K's Space Marine "flyers" are atrocious, ugly boxes that shouldn't be able to fly. I'm sure there were some in Babylon 5 that were not everyone's cup of tea, but at the moment I'm having a hard time remembering them all clearly (time and lack of caffeine do that to a person).

Similarly, I won't blame GW for the way the Goblins in the Hobbit game look, even though that's what kept me from playing them. They were working with the source material, which had hideous looking Goblins. I can understand why NLC did the Goblins that way, but I don't like them. Similarly, the rules for Elves being over the top is based on the movies and, I suppose, the books. (I have a Mirkwood Rangers force. Try playing them some time. It's insane.)

- - - Updated - - -


No hint of lines being replaced in Age of Sigmar?

Actually, there's plenty of them. Didn't you read the book?

The only reason there's warscrolls for the Warhammer armies is because otherwise they'd only have two small factions for AoS, and you're not going to do well with a game that's that limited (especially with all that remaining stock). In the long run, though, expect all the Elves to be replaced, as well as all the Humans, and probably most of the Dwarfs, Orcs, and Goblins. Especially as they renamed so many races to try to copyright them, so they certainly won't want armies that other companies can make models for (and there's some nice models out there as stand-ins for those armies). As they get the AoS races done, they'll drop the Warhammer armies.

I thought that was kind of blatant with the game?

- - - Updated - - -


They bought the Franchise and probably have 15-20 movies/television shows planned over the next twenty years.

They didn't just buy the franchise, they bought the whole company. Which means a possible return of Indiana Jones once they find an appropriate replacement (I'd vote for Chris Platt).

So far, there's already confirmation of Episodes 7-9, plus an Obi-Wan Kenobi standalone, a standalone called Rogue One, and at least one standalone (possibly two) based around Han Solo and Boba Fett. They've got Rebels going strong, and are looking at producing others.

Look at what Disney did with Marvel... and that started as a comics line, not cinema. They've got a bunch of movies lined up, but also several television series. You can do similar with Star Wars, especially if you start delving into the past, or even just base it around different characters and units.

Erik Setzer
07-31-2015, 09:52 AM
I'm not aware of an actual official communication about that. So far they've pushed hard that "you can still use the models you own!" Which, I suppose, will be true until they change the core rules, though it's similarly true that you can still use Dogs of War or Kislev in WFB 8th edition.

If they admitted that lines would be replaced, that might cause people not to buy some of the current models (similar to how sales of anything Warhammer started drying up even mid-End Times when the rumors got stronger about the replacement game). So it's in their best interests not to outright say that they're going to do it.

Erik Setzer
07-31-2015, 10:38 AM
Yeah, I might disagree with him, but I try not to assume people are being purposely misleading or anything. People can miss stuff, even when it's spelled out pretty explicitly (see the annual report for a great example of that). If someone gets combative when they're clearly not right, then, yeah, it can be annoying and a little bit of grouchiness seeps out. But in this case I think it's just missing some clues and trying to be optimistic, not malicious intent.


EDIT: This was in response to a post calling a comment about Mr. Mystery unnecessary. That post seems to have gone missing, so now my post doesn't make as much sense... Actually, the original comment that one was replying to is also gone. And now it seems really weird.

Haighus
07-31-2015, 12:43 PM
I'm glad your last edit was there Erik, I was definitely confused XD

Erik Setzer
07-31-2015, 01:12 PM
Can't remember who posted the initial comment, it was something like "Oh that's just Mystery and his usual disinformation," and then Alaric remarking that such comment wasn't necessary (I agree). I guess the mods came in and cleaned it up silently, like Internet Ninjas.