I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.
I am hoping it puts them back on track, im a big GW fan they, they never really did anything that upset me, other than put up the prices, but I guess thats expected
I do not blame the game designers, nor do I blame the sculptors (mostly... there have been some very lazy shortcuts being taken on some of the sculpts for the last few years).
The people that make the decisions that the game designers and sculptors are then stuck with are the ones that I bear a burden of dislike for.
The people that decide to be IP bullies, those I very much dislike.
The people that are so enamored of their own opinions that they crow about not bothering with market research, I despise.
I believe that, while the current management keep their posts, a company with such crazy potential as GW will keep going nowhere.
Big changes are needed. And those changes won't happen unless the company gets in such a bad financial state that a real shake-up becomes the only solution. Kirby and his chore of yes-men have to go and never return.
In order for such a thing to happen, a big failure with the whole Fantasy reboot is mandatory.
That said, I believe even such an uninspired product as Age of Sigmar seems to be will find some kind of target demographic. I don't think it will be a big seller, specially if the rumored price (between 120 and 140€) is actually true. Perhaps in the end it will be some kind of a "moderate failure", I mean, selling enough that it won't have a huge negative impact on the companie's numbers but hardly achieving goals like bringing some veterans back to the game or attracting a new audience.
Mostly because you usually have to offer a good deal in order for a new audience to feel interested. And seriously 120-140€ for what we've seen in the pics is insane. Although in line with their overall pricing policies so hardly surprising.
the reported sales of fantasy (baring the boost the end times releases brought) probably means that whatever AoS does sales wise is not going to be seen as much of a negative
if it does well, it's a win for GWs management, sales of game No2 are up and they are happy
if it does badly it's almost as good as it shows that nobody (well nobody they sell to) cares about fantasy and they can forget about it forever and keep on making more and more 40K stuff without competition for design studio time, release slots etc
I see no particular reason to wish the demise of the company. I would just like to see them return to a focus on improving the product, rather than just changing it.
I hope AOS fails because it's boring and unimaginative.
As for GW, I don't like them, but I don't want them to disappear. Lots of good folks that love their games don't deserve that.
What I want is for GW under its current leadership to be bought out by someone actually competent. (Sadly, that would mean I think the designers need to go as well.)
How likely is this? I really am not sure. I think people tend to inflate the power of the IP.
MWHistorian wrote: I hope AOS fails because it's boring and unimaginative.
As for GW, I don't like them, but I don't want them to disappear. Lots of good folks that love their games don't deserve that.
What I want is for GW under its current leadership to be bought out by someone actually competent. (Sadly, that would mean I think the designers need to go as well.)
How likely is this? I really am not sure. I think people tend to inflate the power of the IP.
On the one hand, I wish AoS would make GW fail and get bought out. But on the other, I can easily see a bigger company messing with 40k or the remnants of WHFB too much to try and make it sell better.
GW have effectively destroyed one of their oldest properties and replaced it with God knows what, but it's looking like something closer to either LotR or 40k rules with fantasy figures. If it fails, I'd imagine it looks even less favourable to a buy-out of the company as the fantasy customer base will be gone, either to other games or simply out the hobby, making it very hard to resurrect anytime soon. GW will only be able to offer 40k as a going concern, they haven't got a portfolio, they've got one game. Dropping fantasy as we know it is probably the right call right now, but you have to accept that they are in this situation entirely through their own doing, they've driven fantasy into the ground with their rules and model prices making it too difficult to play. What a dreadful shame.
I simply don't care anymore. This AoS crap (because it's crap to me) is the last nail for me personally. I couldn't care less now besides maybe not posting in related threads!
I used to not care. Now, I'm feeling kind of sad, because I very much expect Age of Sigmarines to fail. And if AoS fails, GW as a whole won't be far behind.
If GW goes down, Warhammer in all its forms goes with it. D&D went through a similar crisis, and only barely survived, despite being a household name. If D&D can come so close to failure, Warhammer is doomed.
My personal answer is just a simple, "No", but I happen to like GW and its products (and don't care about their CEO, really any more than any other CEO).
I don't know at what point GW counts Sigmar as a "success", but the independent that I get most of my 40k stuff from already has a growing list of reservations for it -- ever since the picture leaks. I think it'll do "okay" on the merits of the models in the short term. If the rules are good, I think it'll do better than okay, and if the rules are bad, I think it'll fade into obscurity as an unsustainable product.
As for "the final nail", I think don't think Fantasy is doing much for GW at the moment anyways.
I for one can't wait to see what they have in store for us. GW focuses on minis, as do I, which I think is why I approve of a lot of the decisions they make. They cater to my demographic, and I see that happening, it seems most people on here don't approach the hobby the same way, I myself haven't played a game in years but am very up to date with the miniatures.
They have the best selection by far, I don't think people really make the effort to fathom the work that goes into creating such a massive, imaginative range. Again, they don't approach it the same way. I'm stoked for the new minis.
That depends on a lot of things, the price, the support, advertisement (or lack of it). What will those that played WHFB do, will they flock to it or run away, will 40k players pick it up or will there only be bought by a small group of modelers.
I might get a good laugh at seeing Tom Kirby thrown out of a window by a bunch of investors, but otherwise I want the company to do well and go back to making good games.
I don't think AoS failing will be the final nail. It will be the limited edition formations breaking what is left of 40k's shattered game balance. People will eventually tire of it and not want to keep up with it anymore.
Given their record lately, I don't see how anyone can hold out hope for a good game to emerge from the current management.
I mean I love the new Adeptus Mech models, but the rules, special this and special that, and meaningless names...
Age of Sigmar reminds me A LOT of DC Comics and the New 52.
It's a reboot!
But everything is staying!
It's shiny and new!
But also everything you love!
Look at the new toys!
But you can still use your old ones!
To succeed AoS has to sell. To sell it has to simultaniously bring in tons of new players while keeping existing players happy AND convincing players with closets full of painted minis to go out and buy more.
Maybe someone could pull off that trick, but I don't think the current management can.
I am actually excited at the new AoS and the starter box set. I was never really into Fantasy, however I have a few small armies, but never really got anywhere with.
With AoS 9th Edition I can start from scratch, so hope that AoS goes well.
As for GW failing, hope not, as I would hate to see front line guys lose their jobs, but something has to change from the top, GW needs to be bought out by Hasbro and the current administration sacked and a new one appointed by Hasbro.
Yeah, another nail in the coffin, but not the final one (that will be 40k). I just think its sad that they would rather destroy one of their games/ip lines rather than try to fix the rules of said game. Now they've given mass fantasy battles to mantic, while trying to compete with warmahordes. Good luck, they're going to need it.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Given their record lately, I don't see how anyone can hold out hope for a good game to emerge from the current management.
I mean I love the new Adeptus Mech models, but the rules, special this and special that, and meaningless names...
Age of Sigmar reminds me A LOT of DC Comics and the New 52.
It's a reboot!
But everything is staying!
It's shiny and new!
But also everything you love!
Look at the new toys!
But you can still use your old ones!
To succeed AoS has to sell. To sell it has to simultaniously bring in tons of new players while keeping existing players happy AND convincing players with closets full of painted minis to go out and buy more.
Maybe someone could pull off that trick, but I don't think the current management can.
Agreed. Fantasy needs something LIKE AoS, but the way it is being handled isn't helping anyone. Currently its like GW is doing everything they can to piss of existing customers, while only advertising to said pissed off customers their new replacement game.
I think its sad, because the minis seem to be very technically competent piece (stylistic choices aside) that if they'd been released in any other manner they would be getting praised.
It might make sense if Age of Sigmar was accompanied by a big marketing push in to mainstream toy stores... but currently I don't actually understand who the game is supposed to be for.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Given their record lately, I don't see how anyone can hold out hope for a good game to emerge from the current management.
I mean I love the new Adeptus Mech models, but the rules, special this and special that, and meaningless names...
Age of Sigmar reminds me A LOT of DC Comics and the New 52.
It's a reboot!
But everything is staying!
It's shiny and new!
But also everything you love!
Look at the new toys!
But you can still use your old ones!
To succeed AoS has to sell. To sell it has to simultaniously bring in tons of new players while keeping existing players happy AND convincing players with closets full of painted minis to go out and buy more.
Maybe someone could pull off that trick, but I don't think the current management can.
I don't wish them to fail, but I do hope they get on a more consumer friendly course.
It strikes me that many of the choices they make are aimed squarely at a) satisfying the needs of investors with b) the least amount of effort necessary.
Both of those are consistent with the actions of a well-run company, but they come at the expense of consumers all-too often. I haven't played fantasy since I was a kid, but I know a lot of people who have put a great deal of effort into that game. The idea it could be abandoned is horrifying.
Orock wrote: I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.
I hope not, lots of good people work at GW (both in stores and HQ) and it would be a shame for these people's jobs to be in jeopardy. Furthermore Warhammer World is an excellent nerd tourist attraction. It would be a shame for Nottingham if GW was to fail.
Honestly I hope it does tank but GW need to be bought by someone who cares. Or run as a Cooperative by it's fan base but that's never going to happen.
It's expanded to much and suffers heavily from bean counter syndrome. Upper management is logged with reshuffling constantly. It's lost what it was.
Kirby who was originally brought in as an accountant seized control really quickly. I think it's been noted that he has bought and sold stock in a very suspicious way. He is milking it and cares nothing, nothing for how people view it as long as they buy.
Grimtuff wrote: I'd call them a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would be an insult to cartoon mice everywhere.
I've actually never understood that expression. I mean, Mickey Mouse was pretty successful, right? No doubt the most successful mouse out there. Makes Jerry look like a welfare case, and is a lot more sane than Speedy Gonzales. The 3 blind dudes, well, they're not going anywhere fast, though Ralph has a motorcycle, so he can at least get around. I suppose there's always Chuck E. Cheese... at least he gets pizza!
I do not blame the game designers, nor do I blame the sculptors (mostly... there have been some very lazy shortcuts being taken on some of the sculpts for the last few years).
The people that make the decisions that the game designers and sculptors are then stuck with are the ones that I bear a burden of dislike for.
The people that decide to be IP bullies, those I very much dislike.
The people that are so enamored of their own opinions that they crow about not bothering with market research, I despise.
But GW, as itself?
I remember the 'good old days'.
The Auld Grump
what he said. The one and only good thing that remains with GW is the outstanding fluff. Or rather 'remained' WHFB appears to be gone for good and the 40K fluff has been in a downward spiral towards the darkest depths of fanfiction for years now.
There are 2 possibilities of salvation as far as I can see. Firstly a miracle occurs and GW put in place a competent management scheme. Secondly they get bought out by someone who knows what they are doing ( FFG writes far better 40K fluff than GW has for years). Even if they get bought out by some faceless megacorp I doubt things could be any worse than they are know.
They must be doing something right to attract the derision of so many Americans, jealous the world's number one gaming company is British!
Funny that , I come to the forum once a year too see those with the same agenda banging the same tired old drum, GW is going nowhere matter how much you people cry about it.
Have to love how you all think you know what is behind their decisions as well lol.
I do not blame the game designers, nor do I blame the sculptors (mostly... there have been some very lazy shortcuts being taken on some of the sculpts for the last few years).
The people that make the decisions that the game designers and sculptors are then stuck with are the ones that I bear a burden of dislike for.
The people that decide to be IP bullies, those I very much dislike.
The people that are so enamored of their own opinions that they crow about not bothering with market research, I despise.
No, not really. I mean, GW provides me with my 40k Hobby, which I really like. I don't really care about LOTR/Hobbit, although it looks neat, and I gave up on WFB at the start of 6th edition. That GW is producing new products is a good thing, although I suppose what I really really want is an Adeptus Titanicus with the newest plastic-tech featuring 6mm version of the Forgeworld 28mm Titans. That would be awesome.
My point being that I would have to care about things like WFB and AoS in order to have much of an interest in which way they go. Which may seem odd if I'm writing about them, but I've occasionally felt my lack of care for them rather oddly, like one might probe a gap where a wisdom tooth used to be. There's plenty of other stuff I don't care about, but for the most part it's not stuff that I once tried to make an effort to like.
Absolutely, though I imagine it won't be - rather just an accelerant for the inevitable slide into irrelevance that GW is on.
The idea that an imbecile like Kirby can be allowed to run a once-great company into the ground, allowing its games and universes to be destroyed by abysmal design and writing (and in Fantasy's case, tossed out altogether) in the interests of lining his own pocket with no thought for those whose jobs he is sacrificing, and being poised to walk away with enough money to keep him highly comfortable for the rest of his life without any consequences for his utter incompetence, makes me sick.
I would far prefer GW to be 'saved' by having Kirby and his ilk ousted forcibly from the company, but it's not going to happen. All I can hope for is that the company dies sooner rather than later, to spare any further damage being done.
Last time I worked it out they would need to pay between 39- 50 million .
However in order to break Kirby's power over GW they need to have over 6-12 million in shares there by being the senior share holder and effectively being GW's boss.
But Kirby is sneaky and I'd suspect he intends to run it to the ground and would torpedo anybody who tried to "save" GW.
This is why you don't give accountants power within a company.
migooo wrote: Last time I worked it out they would need to pay between 39- 50 million .
However in order to break Kirby's power over GW they need to have over 6-12 million in shares there by being the senior share holder and effectively being GW's boss.
But Kirby is sneaky and I'd suspect he intends to run it to the ground and would torpedo anybody who tried to "save" GW.
This is why you don't give accountants power within a company.
Well now I know. Now I just need to find an insane billionaire to fund my grand schemes.
migooo wrote: Last time I worked it out they would need to pay between 39- 50 million .
However in order to break Kirby's power over GW they need to have over 6-12 million in shares there by being the senior share holder and effectively being GW's boss.
But Kirby is sneaky and I'd suspect he intends to run it to the ground and would torpedo anybody who tried to "save" GW.
This is why you don't give accountants power within a company.
Well now I know. Now I just need to find an insane billionaire to fund my grand schemes.
migooo wrote: Last time I worked it out they would need to pay between 39- 50 million .
However in order to break Kirby's power over GW they need to have over 6-12 million in shares there by being the senior share holder and effectively being GW's boss.
But Kirby is sneaky and I'd suspect he intends to run it to the ground and would torpedo anybody who tried to "save" GW.
This is why you don't give accountants power within a company.
Well now I know. Now I just need to find an insane billionaire to fund my grand schemes.
Happens in football...
And basketball. LA Clippers sold to Ballmer for $2 billion, I think.
The sad part is that the only way things will change at GW is when they finally do go into the red for a year. And, at that point, it could be too late to really save them, as how much money would they still have on hand in order to reinvest into a better product? How long until they reach the point TSR hit, when they suddenly get a whole bunch of unsold product returned to them that they can't cover the costs on?
If Mikhaila's information from his rep is accurate, you might just get your wish. This sounds frightfully terrible. Things were sounding amazing earlier: 4 pages of rules. Data cards with each unit. Now we find out 1 chaos warrior=1 goblin. One dragon=20 night goblins. Da fuq?!
Grimtuff wrote: I'd call them a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would be an insult to cartoon mice everywhere.
I've actually never understood that expression. I mean, Mickey Mouse was pretty successful, right? No doubt the most successful mouse out there. Makes Jerry look like a welfare case, and is a lot more sane than Speedy Gonzales. The 3 blind dudes, well, they're not going anywhere fast, though Ralph has a motorcycle, so he can at least get around. I suppose there's always Chuck E. Cheese... at least he gets pizza!
Mickey mouse hangs out with a sailor who doesn't wear pants, and a stoner who can only be described as goofy. They get the job done, but it's always an effort and things never go according to plan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: The sad part is that the only way things will change at GW is when they finally do go into the red for a year. And, at that point, it could be too late to really save them, as how much money would they still have on hand in order to reinvest into a better product? How long until they reach the point TSR hit, when they suddenly get a whole bunch of unsold product returned to them that they can't cover the costs on?
Right now they could pretty much rename themselves warhammer 40,000 as a business, so i think the point of no return will be visible when 40k starts getting a similar approach.
migooo wrote: Honestly I hope it does tank but GW need to be bought by someone who cares. Or run as a Cooperative by it's fan base but that's never going to happen.
It's expanded to much and suffers heavily from bean counter syndrome. Upper management is logged with reshuffling constantly. It's lost what it was.
Kirby who was originally brought in as an accountant seized control really quickly. I think it's been noted that he has bought and sold stock in a very suspicious way. He is milking it and cares nothing, nothing for how people view it as long as they buy.
How many gamers putting in $1000 a piece would it take to get a majority share of GW?
Before you say it's not possible, think about how much you spent on your current army. Now imagine if dividends could be paid out in heavily discounted miniatures.
timetowaste85 wrote: If Mikhaila's information from his rep is accurate, you might just get your wish. This sounds frightfully terrible. Things were sounding amazing earlier: 4 pages of rules. Data cards with each unit. Now we find out 1 chaos warrior=1 goblin. One dragon=20 night goblins. Da fuq?!
That quote in all its full, WTF glory!
mikhaila wrote: OK,....this sucks so hard....I'm having trouble typing, hands shaking....
Just spent an hour and a half on the phone with GW, them trying in vain to make me understand how I can play the game, let alone how i could make someone want to buy it.
It has no points, no system to balance armies, nothing whatsoever tells the two players what they can put on the table.
Just play with what you want to play with.
I'm having trouble with the idea of two 12 year olds opening up figure cases and playing a game....let alone running a league, or a tournament.
I argued and asked for any reason they didn't have a points system. They just kept telling me it doesn't have one, doesn't need one, the game has things that give the player with least models an advantage, or why one dragon gets killed by a unit. It was like talking with people that don't play the game. Have never played the game. Only played the scenarios in AoS.
With the vast difference in profile between models in Warhammer, it's absurd to think you can balance by model count.
And you can't balance by Warscroll, this is just multiple models which can have hugely different numbers and stats.
And you can't balance by wounds. Chaos Warrior = 1 goblin? Nagash = 10 goblins?
In fact, Nagash or a large dragon or blood thirster is aways optimal. Warscrolls =1, Model count =1, Wounds < 10.
Because of the huge difference in power of the playing pieces, nothing makes sense unless you balance by a number that reflects the value of the individual piece in the game.
AoS is essentially Unbound armies where you bring what you want. You aren't even restricted by faction, you just might have models that don't gain a bonus others might from an icon or leader.
I've actually been in tears today over what they did to WFB. I have no idea how I will sell this game in my shop other than an expensive boardgame.
I see no particular reason to wish the demise of the company. I would just like to see them return to a focus on improving the product, rather than just changing it.
I'll third that. I have enjoyed both Fantasy and 40K for a couple decades and hope they come back to their senses. That post by Mikhaila about Fantasy, though...
The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.
A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.
The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.
I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.
migooo wrote: Honestly I hope it does tank but GW need to be bought by someone who cares. Or run as a Cooperative by it's fan base but that's never going to happen.
It's expanded to much and suffers heavily from bean counter syndrome. Upper management is logged with reshuffling constantly. It's lost what it was.
Kirby who was originally brought in as an accountant seized control really quickly. I think it's been noted that he has bought and sold stock in a very suspicious way. He is milking it and cares nothing, nothing for how people view it as long as they buy.
How many gamers putting in $1000 a piece would it take to get a majority share of GW?
Before you say it's not possible, think about how much you spent on your current army. Now imagine if dividends could be paid out in heavily discounted miniatures.
We should totally start an investors group.
81,000. Edit: That'd be for £1,000 each. So, 120,000ish with $1,000 each.
Plus a good deal more, since the stock prices will go up when someone starts buying like crazy.
To me it feels like AoS is more a hobbit/lotr substitute than a whfb reboot.
I have invested so much in gw games over the last 23 years to see them go under. If someone could turn them round than that's got to be good for everyone.
Orock wrote: I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.
I think it's been said before that Hasbro (or anyone else) would never buy an extensive retail chain & manufacturing company like this.
Previous stuff they bought, like Wizards of the Coast, was just an office with a handful of people, some IP stuff and perhaps a few running contracts with external printing companies/distributors, etc.. Not hundreds of stores around the world with staff, rents, overheads, etc.., logistic centers, factories, etc..
Also, AoS won't sink GW. Fantasy was/is dead and GW was/is afloat. If AoS tanks, they'll just be at the same point they are now.
Kilkrazy wrote: The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.
A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.
The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.
I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.
This in a nutshell is the very basic problem with GW. Nothing GW does will work correctly until they fix the underlying issue of incompetence at designing games. Lots of ideas yet no quality control on them and/or implementing them in the worst way possible.
Wish I was home so I could have sold my WFB 6 months ago.
Kilkrazy wrote: The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.
A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.
The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.
I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.
They did it with Inquisitor. The game's balancing mechanism was a third player as "game master".
Kilkrazy wrote: The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.
A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.
The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.
I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.
They did it with Inquisitor. The game's balancing mechanism was a third player as "game master".
So do other RPG's. The game master also has a direct hand in directing the game itself. I doubt that any third party will want anything to do with an AoS game after you've hammered out army lists.
I don't want GW to collapse. If only because less competition on the market is bad for the market as a whole. It drives other companies to do better. If we didn't have GW, we wouldn't have Privateer Press, Wyrd, Corvus Belli, Battlefront, Hawk or any other companies trying their best to make great games with great miniature ranges to play.
Games Workshop is still the big fish, though floundering a lot these days, with a great set of IP that it can draw on to make new games, with the (steadily dwindling) capital to make new, exciting games. If they booted the current management interested only in filling their retirement funds with people interested in making these games, they'd return to being a real force in the industry. This really needs to happen, because the hobby would be poorer without them.
Kilkrazy wrote: The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.
A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.
The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.
I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.
They did it with Inquisitor. The game's balancing mechanism was a third player as "game master".
Funny how they "discovered" this, seeing as it is a Mechanism that has been used by US Companies for two to three decades.
ALL of GDW's miniature games were intended to have a GM.
And it remains the best solution to the problem of miniature game balance yet existing.
Technically it is really only necessary for games where the battle is not fought as a set-piece battle (like Ancients/Medieval Battles were often fought - "often" NOT "always").
Inquisitor remained my Favorite GW game, and I was pretty pissed that it did not get more support.
Ultimately, though, nothing GW does is really that original any more.
The whole "GrimDark" thing is just stealing from the Goth Scene, and making miniatures based upon that design aesthetic. Other games have been doing that for over a decade, at least. Steampunk is flooding everything, and that is the remaining element of GW's Game designs.
I make no secret of the fact I hope GW dies.
The Licenses need to be freed up.
I would like to see 40K become an ACTUAL Sci-Fi game, again.
WHFB... Not sure that I care at all what happens there. I know they originally talked of it being a world not unlike that in Moorcock's Elric novels.
But they certainly seem to have no concern for their fans, which seems to be rather insulting.
I used to care a lot about editions and rules. Then I realized that GW has no idea what it is doing. Their game design sucks and if we're honest, it's always sucked. Their "fluff" is juevenile, balance a bad joke.
In the past couple years, I have used GW as a provider of components. That's all. Age of Sigmar adds more plastic that I can buy or chop up and combine with other pieces. If you go in for GW as a game company, wow, I don't even know what to say.
Case in point: recently I got interested in Mordheim. Have you seen the rules for mordheim? Terrible! Unbalanced garbage. Instead I found a ruleset (Wyrdwars) and I can be happy and enjoy a warhammer based skrimish game with virtually no issues. People who mention Kings of War are probably on to something...
There are a bunch of sites with "previews" of the Age of Sigmar rules. The fact that it appears to be a "use anything you want", no points values, measure from the closest part of the model type game seems problematic.
So do other RPG's. The game master also has a direct hand in directing the game itself. I doubt that any third party will want anything to do with an AoS game after you've hammered out army lists.
Inquisitor wasn't a proper RPG, though. It was an awkward missing link between wargames and RPGs, mostly sold to wargamers as a wargame, at least as far as I've seen.
I just wanted to point out that it's not beyond GW to make games with next to no balancing mechanisms.
One might also cite Unbound (or "regular") 40k.
Korraz wrote: I think the phenomenon of Groupthink explains most, if not all, of GWs decisions in recent years.
Likewise, for GW's detractors and supporters. The reverberations of the echo chambers are something fierce. It's worse than trying to get something done in the US Congress.
But whatever, they can do what they like; it's their company and they owe me nothing. I just happen to slip into the demographic that they are targeting, and whatever their groupthink has self-affirmed and however polarizing that is, it works for some people, obviously.
It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal). There are so many companies that make stuff I want and can't afford, or things I don't want, or things I don't want anymore but used to enjoy, and I don't want any of them to go out of business (though I wouldn't care if they did).
For example, I loved David Edding's first 5 fantasy novels. Most of the rest were pretty shoddy, I think, but whatever, I didn't secretly pray that he went bankrupt or that people stopped buying his books. I don't wish ill for Tiffany's, even though I think they are crazy overpriced, and I don't want basketball to die even though I can't fathom how you can get up and cheer every 60 seconds and I can't comprehend how an NBA team is worth $2 billion.
Actually, neither groups should be subject to that phenomenon to a significant digree, since forums (at least big, open ones like Dakka) do not have the necessary prerequisites for it to develop. They might "suffer"(?) from other psychological phenomena, but Groupthink requires close cohesion, leadership and a couple of other things. Maybe a special kind of forum-groupthink? No idea, but might be an interesting study.
GW's board on the other hand is pretty much a textbook example of a breeding ground for Groupthink: Extreme cohesion of the group, loyalty to it, isolation from output from the outside, (as far as we know) no contact to experts from outside, silencing of divergent thoughts and, foremost, high empasize on a single leader that "shows the way" for the group.
Addendum: The concept of people liking a product (in this case: Warhammer/40k/LotR/SGS), but disliking the way it has developed in recent years severely and, thus, hating the company that owns and "mistreats" it doesn't seem too outlandish to me. Wanting that company to go under, so another one might pick up the IP seems only human, then, especially if you are already convinced that the current company will do nothing to change its ways.
In short: People have strong feelings about things they like.
And GW should be grateful for it, as long as people still care they might yet mend wounds and rebuild bridges.
Talys wrote: It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal). There are so many companies that make stuff I want and can't afford, or things I don't want, or things I don't want anymore but used to enjoy, and I don't want any of them to go out of business (though I wouldn't care if they did).
Wow. Just wow.
There are three types of people that don't lie in GW's target demographic.
1. People that don't know about GW and therefore couldn't give a flying gak about what GW does and/or have any stake in GW's survival.
2. People that have left (or were excluded) from GW's target demographic. These guys don't care about what happens to GW either.
3. Former members of GW's target demographic who are like are an aunt/uncle wanting a child (GW) to be taken away from their parents (GW's management) and put into foster care (buyout of assets by others) because the kid's parents (in their opinion) are doing a rubbish job of parenting. They don't wish this upon the child because of hate but because they feel the child deserves better.
@Korraz - I guess I'm too practical to put myself into those shoes effectively. To me, to do so would feel like a massive waste of my time, a resource I have a finite amount of. I would rather spend my time with something I love than against something I hate -- especially if the only thing I can effectively do is preach to the choir. You don't see anyone who is spending a thousand bucks a month on GW and happy with their product and direction go, "wow, those guys on Dakka are right... I'm gonna spend a thousand bucks a month on other games instead!". Instead, you get, "Amen, I despise them too" and, "I don't want them to go out business but I do want them to change drastically" from people who aren't buying GW product anyhow. There are very few people who can be convinced either way.
The problem with your characterization of GW's management is that you exclude the possibility that they do consider and debate alternatives, and have simply chosen a path contrary to what would be ideal for you. Also, the presumption that 'we' (collectively, forum posters) know better about GW's profit maximization than GW. I think that's just hubris.
I think that many people discount that Kirby was General Manager of games workshop through most of the years they were really fond of (he joined mid 80s as such and then positions of increasing responsibility). The guy who made critical decisions then was competent, and then somehow became incompetent 20 years later? I choose to believe, instead, that he's no less competent and simply leading the company in a direction that is unpopular to some people.
Even of that happened to me... I would move on, not blow my time hoping for something that will take years, if not a decade or more, if ever, to happen.
Or, as time went by, he got increasingly close to retirement, and consequently less and less concerned with long term sustainability and more and more concerned with feathering his retirement nest and stitching together his golden parachute.
Plus, one could also argue GW did what it did in spite of Kirby, not because of him. They still had the creator of 40K on staff, they still had a number of people who have established themselves as pillars of the industry as well. They had the licence to LotR which was as much luck as judgement (nobody anticipated the movies blowing up quite the way they did at the time IIRC) which was responsible for continued success for a good period too.
All of that aside, people have different capabilities as CEOs, someone well able to steward a company through growth isn't necessarily the same person to manage the company once it matures and its market settles down, what worked before doesn't work again, new ideas are needed. The better ones acknowledge their shortcomings and move on to a role that better suits their abilities, the lesser ones dig in like a tick and get what they can, before they drop off, full to bursting, or get yanked out and stepped on.
It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal).
I bought my first GW toys approximately 28 years ago, a blister pack of Squat Adventurers, and GW has made a lot of money from me since then. I still find the setting of their games engaging, the 40k of the early 2000s is still my favourite fictional setting, but I now buy nothing new from GW aside from a very occasional pot of paint.
However there are so many absolutely fundamental problems with GW that they have been systematically destroying my interest in the Imperium and the Old World for over a decade now. It began when my favourite race was literally 'Squatted', then my favourite games were either horribly mangled or simply abandoned, and worst of all is that the newer fluff is nothing more than bad fan fiction that actively contradicts much of what came before.
Age of Sigmar, with the attendant abandonment of the most iconic wargame in the world, piled atop the already tottering pile of ignorance, stupidity and hubris that GW has built over the last 15 years or so has completely convinced me that GWcannot be trusted to look after its own IP and that at this stage by far the best outcome would be for someone at least slightly competent to buy the IP. Its not as if GW can get much worse than they are now, and I am completely sincere when I say this.
I don't think its bizarre to 'hate' GW, quite the reverse.
I am still an active wargamer, I play most weeks, its just that prefer to play games that are actually fun and mentally engaging (which includes old GW games) even if their fluff isn't quite as engaging.
Azreal13 wrote: Or, as time went by, he got increasingly close to retirement, and consequently less and less concerned with long term sustainability and more and more concerned with feathering his retirement nest and stitching together his golden parachute.
Plus, one could also argue GW did what it did in spite of Kirby, not because of him. They still had the creator of 40K on staff, they still had a number of people who have established themselves as pillars of the industry as well. They had the licence to LotR which was as much luck as judgement (nobody anticipated the movies blowing up quite the way they did at the time IIRC) which was responsible for continued success for a good period too.
All of that aside, people have different capabilities as CEOs, someone well able to steward a company through growth isn't necessarily the same person to manage the company once it matures and its market settles down, what worked before doesn't work again, new ideas are needed. The better ones acknowledge their shortcomings and move on to a role that better suits their abilities, the lesser ones dig in like a tick and get what they can, before they drop off, full to bursting, or get yanked out and stepped on.
You live in tick country, don't you?
The Auld Grump... it does look like GW is suffering from Lyme's disease....
Orock wrote: IWhat they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them.
Everything they've done in the past 21 years hasn't worked for you? Seems like you should have let go a long time ago!
I'd disagree. GW used to be very embracing towards their community, really considering themselves a hobby supplier and acting upon that premise. That changed a few years ago...they pretty much turned 180°.
Orock wrote: IWhat they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them.
Everything they've done in the past 21 years hasn't worked for you? Seems like you should have let go a long time ago!
I'd disagree. GW used to be very embracing towards their community, really considering themselves a hobby supplier and acting upon that premise. That changed a few years ago...they pretty much turned 180°.
Yup, 12 years ago my club held its first large tournament, and Gav Thorpe helped out with the rules pack, and GW flew a guy over from the UK to sell models, pour beer and hang out.
I don't expect that from them now, but I'd at least like a product that makes me want to buy more stuff and play more games.
Orock wrote: I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.
I think it's been said before that Hasbro (or anyone else) would never buy an extensive retail chain & manufacturing company like this.
Previous stuff they bought, like Wizards of the Coast, was just an office with a handful of people, some IP stuff and perhaps a few running contracts with external printing companies/distributors, etc.. Not hundreds of stores around the world with staff, rents, overheads, etc.., logistic centers, factories, etc..
Also, AoS won't sink GW. Fantasy was/is dead and GW was/is afloat. If AoS tanks, they'll just be at the same point they are now.
Actually believe it or not, WotC had a chain of 81 company stores at the time of the Hasbro purchase. First thing Hasbro did? Drop the retail stores like a hot potato!
to OP; No, I hope it succeeds for GW and broadens their market. And then they realize if they upgraded product for fantasy and support such as books and rules, that sales would further increase.
The problem with your characterization of GW's management is that you exclude the possibility that they do consider and debate alternatives, and have simply chosen a path contrary to what would be ideal for you. Also, the presumption that 'we' (collectively, forum posters) know better about GW's profit maximization than GW. I think that's just hubris.
I think that many people discount that Kirby was General Manager of games workshop through most of the years they were really fond of (he joined mid 80s as such and then positions of increasing responsibility). The guy who made critical decisions then was competent, and then somehow became incompetent 20 years later? I choose to believe, instead, that he's no less competent and simply leading the company in a direction that is unpopular to some people.
Even of that happened to me... I would move on, not blow my time hoping for something that will take years, if not a decade or more, if ever, to happen.
The question is, then, why they decided to take actions that have proven time and time again to lead to growth, expansion or, indeed, even keep the current buyerbase stable. The fact remains that GW's buyerbase has shrunk while operating in a market that has seen undeniable growth, that being the traditional gaming hobby market.
Also, regarding Kirby, let's not attribute his actions to malice here for a moment: There is such a thing as a growth-manager. Some people are very competent at helping a company grow or go public, but have not a lick of talen when it comes to managing a mature company. He could belong to that sort.
Korraz wrote: The question is, then, why they decided to take actions that have proven time and time again to lead to growth, expansion or, indeed, even keep the current buyerbase stable. The fact remains that GW's buyerbase has shrunk while operating in a market that has seen undeniable growth, that being the traditional gaming hobby market.
Also, regarding Kirby, let's not attribute his actions to malice here for a moment: There is such a thing as a growth-manager. Some people are very competent at helping a company grow or go public, but have not a lick of talen when it comes to managing a mature company. He could belong to that sort.
I'm going to try not to be repetitive in my posts, so I'll keep it very brief. Consider a few possibilities:
- 40k might have actually grown in revenue, not shrunk, in the last few years, whilst but Fantasy and LoTR/Hobbit have shrunk (more) in revenue - A mature company shouldn't be expected to have the same growth expectations as startups and younger companies - Even if GW did everything right, going from monopoly to non-monopoly will mean a smaller marketshare - Even if GW did everything right, some people will get bored and play/model other stuff, or other games or models may appeal to them more - It's possible that the current formula of targeting superfans optimizes GW's profit, relative to GW's alternatives for 40k - It's possible that some or most of GW's competitors are also making less profit, even if they are popular, even though the market as a whole has grown (as there are more companies than ever, too).
With respect to Kirby not being the best Chairman of GW in it's current size -- you might be right (or not), but it doesn't really matter. He was there nearly from the start and was very instrumental in getting GW to where it is today, and he owns a really big chunk of it. He's been around during less profitable times and more. Founders and early insiders often become CEOs, even if they're not the best person for the job, and they are given a lot of latitude to learn through experimentation.
A lot of small-company founders make non-ideal big-company CEOs once the company gets there, but the point is, they got it where it is, and it's their company to screw up. If you're not into founder CEOs as an investor, that's fine; you should just avoid investing in such companies. However, as I've also mentioned, professional CEOs can also destroy companies. Look at Carly Fiorina or Mark Hurd at Hewlett Packard. Or Some would point at Stephen Elop and say that he destroyed Nokia. Though Elop is clearly debatable, and maybe he just made the best lemonade out of the lemons he had.
Kilkrazy wrote: If GW's IP is so great why have they just thrown half of it (Warhammer Fantasy) down the pan by the End Times?
Because they didn't have a clue what to do with it. Just like they don't have a clue what to do with 40k right now, but that game is still selling on the strength of Space Marines, which is why they've pushed forwards on the Horus Heresy range.
Actually reminds me of when Marvel was going to buy DC. One of the Marvel heads said they didn't want to go through with it because DC comics weren't selling, so the characters they would have bought were pretty worthless. Why buy an IP that doesn't sell? There's obviously something wrong with it.
Not knowing what to do with the IP isn't a failing of the IP itself, but the company that is struggling with it.
This must have been said in a lot of other places, but 40k is on an even faster track to the same fate. As it stands, you can have Marnius Calgar lead a force of Tyranids supported by a Squiggoth. Throw out the point values and you're there.
What's really scary is if this flops, it only might discourage GW from trying it with 40k.
there's alot of decent people who work in store, so I'd rather it not be the end of GW as we know it.
The undeniable fact is that WHFB was not pulling in the sales to warrant being left alone, they needed to shake it up to try drum up interest in playing it again
As a 40k player, I'm curious about AoS until I see it drop, based on rumours of a 4 page rulebook for the main game and individual rules with the models as you buy them couldbe enough to tmpet me to dabble in the new "game" (wether it stay called fantasy or not I'm not sure, and yes, I know there are already games out there with this kind of mechanic)
As regards Kirby, it is possible that he was a good general manager of a large private company, and is a bad CEO of a small public company. However leaving that to one side, the extraordinary thing about GW is that over the decades they have changed themselves from a company that designs and publishes a wide range of wargames, board games and RPGs, to a company that sells WHFB and 40K stuff.
They seemingly managed to wreck WHFB's popularity with 8th edition, and the End Times and Age of Sigmar are a try at rebooting the franchise. It's going to be a lot cheaper to play, because the rules will be free and everyone already has loads of figures or can buy them from rival companies (Mantic).
This could work for a lot of people.
If it doesn't, then GW will become the company that sells 40K stuff. When you think of all their capabilities to do so much more than that, it would be a sad end if it came about.
Wont be the last nail. Fantasy wasn't quite as important as 40k, so even if this thing tanks, it's not enough to be a real death-blow. Worst case it'll just mean the total end of fantasy or anything other than 40k, so a slightly beaten but still twitching GW will be churning out more space marines for a couple more years before they drive 40k into the ground as well.
Orock wrote: I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
.
no they wouldn't. Haesbro has stopped making it's own mini games. they've MASSIVLY scaled down D&D because apparently the world's most popular RPG isnt a high eneugh profit margin for em. they'd not be intreasted in GW at ALL.
Orock wrote: I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
.
no they wouldn't. Haesbro has stopped making it's own mini games. they've MASSIVLY scaled down D&D because apparently the world's most popular RPG isnt a high eneugh profit margin for em. they'd not be intreasted in GW at ALL.
That goes back to my idea that many people massively overestimate GW's IP.
They need new management because they ruined WFB completely and are close to ruining 40k as well. But I don't know who will buy them out unless they sell for a song.
I gotta say, seeing all of the races being renamed in attempt at creating more copyright- Seraphon (Lizardmen), Orruks (Orcs), Red Slayers...I now do want to see GW suffer (financially).
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards Kirby, it is possible that he was a good general manager of a large private company, and is a bad CEO of a small public company. However leaving that to one side, the extraordinary thing about GW is that over the decades they have changed themselves from a company that designs and publishes a wide range of wargames, board games and RPGs, to a company that sells WHFB and 40K stuff.
They seemingly managed to wreck WHFB's popularity with 8th edition, and the End Times and Age of Sigmar are a try at rebooting the franchise. It's going to be a lot cheaper to play, because the rules will be free and everyone already has loads of figures or can buy them from rival companies (Mantic).
This could work for a lot of people.
If it doesn't, then GW will become the company that sells 40K stuff. When you think of all their capabilities to do so much more than that, it would be a sad end if it came about.
This right here is why I just don't understand their totally lacklustre handling of the Hobbit license. Sure, the films were nowhere near the phenomenon of the original movies (though my kid D'n'D group all reference the Hobbit movies when any tropes related to Middle Earth come up, so I guess it made an impact on them), but it baffles me that they seem to have essentially strangled and discarded the line before the third movie was even out.
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards Kirby, it is possible that he was a good general manager of a large private company, and is a bad CEO of a small public company. However leaving that to one side, the extraordinary thing about GW is that over the decades they have changed themselves from a company that designs and publishes a wide range of wargames, board games and RPGs, to a company that sells WHFB and 40K stuff.
They seemingly managed to wreck WHFB's popularity with 8th edition, and the End Times and Age of Sigmar are a try at rebooting the franchise. It's going to be a lot cheaper to play, because the rules will be free and everyone already has loads of figures or can buy them from rival companies (Mantic).
This could work for a lot of people.
If it doesn't, then GW will become the company that sells 40K stuff. When you think of all their capabilities to do so much more than that, it would be a sad end if it came about.
This right here is why I just don't understand their totally lacklustre handling of the Hobbit license. Sure, the films were nowhere near the phenomenon of the original movies (though my kid D'n'D group all reference the Hobbit movies when any tropes related to Middle Earth come up, so I guess it made an impact on them), but it baffles me that they seem to have essentially strangled and discarded the line before the third movie was even out.
I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that LoTR was something of a flash in the pan. I think it drew in a lot of people that liked LoTR, not really miniatures games. The Hobbit movies were successful, but there wasn't the massive hype for it like LoTR.
Orock wrote: I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
.
no they wouldn't. Haesbro has stopped making it's own mini games. they've MASSIVLY scaled down D&D because apparently the world's most popular RPG isnt a high eneugh profit margin for em. they'd not be intreasted in GW at ALL.
That goes back to my idea that many people massively overestimate GW's IP.
They need new management because they ruined WFB completely and are close to ruining 40k as well. But I don't know who will buy them out unless they sell for a song.
and even if we accept that the IP is reasonably valueable, it doesn't stand to reason that the game itself would be viewed as valueable. sure if GW went under some awesome company could take over and produce 40k exactly as we hoped etc. but honestly most likely? it'd be bought out by a company with differnt plans for the IP. Honestly GW's in a bad spot from a buy out prespective, it's proably too valueable for a gaming company to buy out (I tend to belive that the best result for a buy out would be FFG) but any bigger company that buys it out is proably not gonna be intreasted in continueing the warhammer tabletop games.
That said I think the most likely "death" of GW would be it ceasing production of product and becoming a holding company dedicated to lisencing out it's property
BrianDavion wrote: no they wouldn't. Haesbro has stopped making it's own mini games. they've MASSIVLY scaled down D&D because apparently the world's most popular RPG isnt a high eneugh profit margin for em. they'd not be intreasted in GW at ALL.
There's an important difference here: they've abandoned their own miniatures games, but those games never had much popularity and faced huge barriers to entry in the miniatures market. So why keep throwing money at a plan that isn't working very well? Buying GW would be a completely different situation, since they'd instantly be the dominant company in the market and have near-guaranteed profit as long as they can avoid making GW's mistakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: and even if we accept that the IP is reasonably valueable, it doesn't stand to reason that the game itself would be viewed as valueable.
Of course the game isn't valuable. It's a terrible game, and the first thing any sensible company would do if they bought the IP would be to delete the whole rulebook and start over again from scratch. But that's exactly what would be best for the community. Nothing about the current rules is worth keeping, and even if a new game in the 40k universe isn't perfect it would be hard to imagine getting one that is worse than what we have right now.
Accolade wrote: I gotta say, seeing all of the races being renamed in attempt at creating more copyright- Seraphon (Lizardmen), Orruks (Orcs), Red Slayers...I now do want to see GW suffer (financially).
why be so vindictive???
why not just enjoy the previous 30+ years of product, and be happy that you will not have to give them any money for a product you don't like???
The Old World still exists in every book and mini you have purchased over the years...
it's not like your old books and models blew up along with The Old World...
as long as GW continue to release nice models, i will continue to support them, regardless of what kind of craziness the beancounters try to pull...
Accolade wrote: I gotta say, seeing all of the races being renamed in attempt at creating more copyright- Seraphon (Lizardmen), Orruks (Orcs), Red Slayers...I now do want to see GW suffer (financially).
why be so vindictive???
why not just enjoy the previous 30+ years of product, and be happy that you will not have to give them any money for a product you don't like???
The Old World still exists in every book and mini you have purchased over the years...
it's not like your old books and models blew up along with The Old World...
as long as GW continue to release nice models, i will continue to support them, regardless of what kind of craziness the beancounters try to pull...
cheers
jah
There is no reason, NO REASON, they are changing the names of the factions other than to pretend that they (GW) invented all of these concepts. All of these generic concepts they took from Tolkien, other fantasy sources, are being renamed so GW can stand by what they said in court- that all of their designers come up with their ideas off the top of their heads. It wouldn't be such a big deal if they were just honest about it, but they've gone so far as to come up with stupid-ass mispellings to try to differentiate themselves.
I'm glad you don't care that GW has butchered everything that made WHFB the game it was, in the pursuit of...? I don't even know, they're not even fething accomplishing anything by doing this! But if you don't care that they're sacrificing the universe of the game for some imaginary copyright concepts, that's great. But I think it's incredibly lousy and callous, so I wouldn't mind seeing them suffer the consequences of killing a game 30 years old JUST to play make-believe.
Their treatment of Middle-earth is kind of exactly what I would expect, as it is exactly the kind of Treatment that Peter Jackson gave to Middle-earth:
Dismissive and thinking that their modifications to Middle-earth, and ignoring the actual creator of Middle-earth is going to help them.
And that attitude spills over into their other games.
They simply do not know how to properly manage an IP meant for gaming, because they do not pay attention to their customers.
They think that miniatures gaming is something like selling Apple Computers (because they seem to have a Steve Jobs' attitude that they know better than their customers).
For making a computer, that might make sense, where only a small population of developers is going to have specific needs or desires, and the general population is largely ignorant of the specifics of a computer.
But gamers are not a "Naive Audience/Consumer base," as is the market for Home Computers. Gamers tend to know very much what they want.
Yet GW keeps telling these people that their desires don't matter, and they will take what GW gives them.
@Accolade: i am just not the invested in something that is make-believe in the first place, that the name changes are going to upset me...
like i said, i can still enjoy the old fiction...
it's not like i am going to pick up an old Gotrek and Felix novel and think, "i can't read this!!! that world blew up!!!"
@Azreal13: yet, GW's products did none of those things...
i am obviously not as emotionally invested as some people, despite eating, sleeping, and breathing the miniatures, fiction, and art for 31 years...
i will still enjoy all my books and models just as much as i ever did...
Don't be so bloody literal, you could see the point I was making, but I guess that's the price you pay for painting for other people, you never get to emotionally invest in the things you create.
why would i get emotionally invested in fiction in the first place???
i mean, i don't get why people get so upset about the Star Wars prequals either...
my memories of the original movies are still just the same as they were on the first day i saw them...
plus, i got to see Pod Racing, massive Clone Trooper battles, loads of Jedi in action, beautiful CG worlds and ships, and Yoda in all his glory as fighter...
now i have twice as many films to enjoy...
i put a lot of thought and research into everything i paint...
that is why it all looks "right" in the end...
i am very invested by what i paint, as it is a physical object...
if i drop it after all that hard work, i will be gutted...
then i will dust myself off, fix what's broken, and show off a beautiful creation...
if someone changes my guy's name, i will not be bothered at all...
call it whatever you like, Az...
it doesn't bother me...
i am just sharing my perspective on the topic at hand...
someone deciding to change the name of their creation is not going to get me all worked up...
if i like the change, i will continue to buy...
if i don't, i won't...
that does not invalidate the enjoyment i can get from my previous 30 years of purchases...
it also doesn't make me wish to see a company fail, and put the creators of the art, minis, and fiction that i enjoy out of work...
i want more new itterations of models like the latest Khorne Warriors coming out in AoS, so i have more cool minis to paint...
Imagine we've been friends for years, then I sleep with your girlfriend, kick your dog and punch you in the face.
Still want to be friends?
That's essentially the same process of emotion, albeit a little less personal.
I think that's a terrible comparison.
Imagine that you've been married for 20 hears, you have kids, a home, and a dog. You've had some awesome years, and some not so great years, but recently you've grown
to be so different that you're going to part ways.
Do you part as friends or do you hate her and hold a grudge for the rest of your days?
Or you could really use your imagination... picture this.... you play a game for a decade or two, something you like better comes along or whatever you're playing has changed course. Do you play something else, or do you stay angry?
Coz y'know, it's just a game. Little less serious than a marriage, or a friend that sleeps with the missus or kicks your dog!
jah-joshua wrote: call it whatever you like, Az...
it doesn't bother me...
i am just sharing my perspective on the topic at hand...
someone deciding to change the name of their creation is not going to get me all worked up...
if i like the change, i will continue to buy...
if i don't, i won't...
that does not invalidate the enjoyment i can get from my previous 30 years of purchases...
it also doesn't make me wish to see a company fail, and put the creators of the art, minis, and fiction that i enjoy out of work...
i want more new itterations of models like the latest Khorne Warriors coming out in AoS, so i have more cool minis to paint...
cheers
jah
Maybe change to something you understand? The company you use brushes from for the last 20 years changes their best sable hair brushes to nylon and increases their prices?
The paint you were always glowing about change their acrylic top of the line paint to finger paint and says , it is just as good!
It is when Metallica's cliff Burton died and the next album was some kind narcissistic self gratifying concept album, I didn't go "i respect their artistic interpretation of metal it doesn't affect me" i went "What the F is this Shait!" and stop buying it.
St. Anger was the first album i bought from them that I felt was more like their earlier stuff. (this is an example!)
jah-joshua wrote: call it whatever you like, Az...
it doesn't bother me...
i am just sharing my perspective on the topic at hand...
someone deciding to change the name of their creation is not going to get me all worked up...
if i like the change, i will continue to buy...
if i don't, i won't...
that does not invalidate the enjoyment i can get from my previous 30 years of purchases...
it also doesn't make me wish to see a company fail, and put the creators of the art, minis, and fiction that i enjoy out of work...
i want more new itterations of models like the latest Khorne Warriors coming out in AoS, so i have more cool minis to paint...
cheers
jah
Maybe change to something you understand? The company you use brushes from for the last 20 years changes their best sable hair brushes to nylon and increases their prices?
The paint you were always glowing about change their acrylic top of the line paint to finger paint and says , it is just as good!
It is when Metallica's cliff Burton died and the next album was some kind narcissistic self gratifying concept album, I didn't go "i respect their artistic interpretation of metal it doesn't affect me" i went "What the F is this Shait!" and stop buying it.
St. Anger was the first album i bought from them that I felt was more like their earlier stuff. (this is an example!)
exactly...
you were not happy with something, and stopped buying it...
totally understandable...
my point was, that i don't have the same extreme emotional attatchment to a fictional world that is driving some people up the wall with these changes to Fantasy...
keep in mind, i was talking about the fiction, not the rules...
that is a whole other kettle of fish which i will not touch with a ten-foot pole...
i don't have a big problem with change, and regardless of what some people may think, my loyalty to a product is dependent on it being something i want, not just blind acceptance...
for example, i started with acrylic mini paints when the little glass Partha bottles were the main ones around, then Citadel released their paints, and i switched...
later, after painting a few years worth of minis for the PP studio using Citadel paints (ironic, huh???), PP paints were born and i switched again...
if someone can make a paint i like better than PP, i will be happy to switch again...
change can be good...
my point is, per your example, Ride the Lightning was an awesome album...
i don't really care for Metal, and even i like that album...
what i'm saying is that Master of Puppets' existence should not take away your ability to enjoy Ride the Lightning any less than you did before MoP was released...
you feel me???
it's personal choice...
walking away is one thing, but wishing for a company to fail because someone is not happy with a product's change of direction just seems way too reactionary to me...
if that is someone's reaction, that is their choice...
i have never told anyone that they are wrong, blind, oblivious, stupid, a moron, a sucker, or any of the other labels thrown at people on here who have said that they are happy with their GW products...
i don't believe i've ever called any of those people throwing stones Haters, either...
i simply present my differing opinion...
jah-joshua wrote: why would i get emotionally invested in fiction in the first place???
i mean, i don't get why people get so upset about the Star Wars prequals either...
my memories of the original movies are still just the same as they were on the first day i saw them...
plus, i got to see Pod Racing, massive Clone Trooper battles, loads of Jedi in action, beautiful CG worlds and ships, and Yoda in all his glory as fighter...
now i have twice as many films to enjoy...
i put a lot of thought and research into everything i paint...
that is why it all looks "right" in the end...
i am very invested by what i paint, as it is a physical object...
if i drop it after all that hard work, i will be gutted...
then i will dust myself off, fix what's broken, and show off a beautiful creation...
if someone changes my guy's name, i will not be bothered at all...
i live a very Zen life...
cheers
jah
I gave my posts a little thought while I was out to perhaps better clarify my reasoning on this.
I think what my issue comes down to is the inherent deceitful nature of the changes. I don't really care about the world exploding, Sigmarines, lore alterations, etc. Those things I look at incredulously, but not really in judgment- it's GW's choice to decide how to mix up the game, and people will choose to play it or not play it.
But the renaming of all of these races just stinks of a huge lie. They're lying that they created these concepts. Like Mark Wells said in the CHS court case, the designers come up with their concepts "with no outside inspiration." He stands there and lies through his teeth over this.
And if making up insane claims wasn't enough, they have to now spread the lies across their game. They can't just embrace that they took concepts from other places, they instead rename them, litter then with trademarks and shout "look at this amazing new GW concept! We are the innovators of the industry!"
This is why I have genuine distaste towards this. It's the same as watching anyone else lie, steal or cheat. They had a concept going for 30 years, and now they're going to pretend it's something else so, at the next board meeting, they can come up with new ways to shut down other groups for getting anywhere near their precious stolen goods.
Imagine that you've been married for 20 hears, you have kids, a home, and a dog. You've had some awesome years, and some not so great years, but recently you've grown
to be so different that you're going to part ways.
Do you part as friends or do you hate her and hold a grudge for the rest of your days?
After she dragged all my stuff out into the yard and set fire to it, had the kids' names changed so that she could trademark them, and announced that she's leaving because, while she certainly could put in the effort required to fix our marriage, it's much more fun to just hang around with an ever-changing procession of college students?
jah-joshua wrote: call it whatever you like, Az...
it doesn't bother me...
i am just sharing my perspective on the topic at hand...
someone deciding to change the name of their creation is not going to get me all worked up...
if i like the change, i will continue to buy...
if i don't, i won't...
that does not invalidate the enjoyment i can get from my previous 30 years of purchases...
it also doesn't make me wish to see a company fail, and put the creators of the art, minis, and fiction that i enjoy out of work...
i want more new itterations of models like the latest Khorne Warriors coming out in AoS, so i have more cool minis to paint...
cheers
jah
Maybe change to something you understand? The company you use brushes from for the last 20 years changes their best sable hair brushes to nylon and increases their prices?
The paint you were always glowing about change their acrylic top of the line paint to finger paint and says , it is just as good!
It is when Metallica's cliff Burton died and the next album was some kind narcissistic self gratifying concept album, I didn't go "i respect their artistic interpretation of metal it doesn't affect me" i went "What the F is this Shait!" and stop buying it.
St. Anger was the first album i bought from them that I felt was more like their earlier stuff. (this is an example!)
exactly...
you were not happy with something, and stopped buying it...
totally understandable...
my point was, that i don't have the same extreme emotional attatchment to a fictional world that is driving some people up the wall with these changes to Fantasy...
keep in mind, i was talking about the fiction, not the rules...
that is a whole other kettle of fish which i will not touch with a ten-foot pole...
i don't have a big problem with change, and regardless of what some people may think, my loyalty to a product is dependent on it being something i want, not just blind acceptance...
for example, i started with acrylic mini paints when the little glass Partha bottles were the main ones around, then Citadel released their paints, and i switched...
later, after painting a few years worth of minis for the PP studio using Citadel paints (ironic, huh???), PP paints were born and i switched again...
if someone can make a paint i like better than PP, i will be happy to switch again...
change can be good...
my point is, per your example, Ride the Lightning was an awesome album...
i don't really care for Metal, and even i like that album...
what i'm saying is that Master of Puppets' existence should not take away your ability to enjoy Ride the Lightning any less than you did before MoP was released...
you feel me???
it's personal choice...
walking away is one thing, but wishing for a company to fail because someone is not happy with a product's change of direction just seems way too reactionary to me...
if that is someone's reaction, that is their choice...
i have never told anyone that they are wrong, blind, oblivious, stupid, a moron, a sucker, or any of the other labels thrown at people on here who have said that they are happy with their GW products...
i don't believe i've ever called any of those people throwing stones Haters, either...
i simply present my differing opinion...
cheers
jah
I get what you are saying but you kinda missed my point, Most people get emotionally attached to things they like, sometimes too much, but it is because they like the music, setting, world, rules, community that people react so emotionally when the Artist/company changes or totally go a different way then what the fans want or perceive as right. Seeing Fanboys going at each other is like seeing religious fanatics going at each other, "Protestant is the only way, we Catholics are the only way, The book of Mormon is the true word!"
I am looking forward to people reactions when 40K universe implodes and we get the Age of the Emperor!
insaniak wrote:After she dragged all my stuff out into the yard and set fire to it, had the kids' names changed so that she could trademark them, and announced that she's leaving because, while she certainly could put in the effort required to fix our marriage, it's much more fun to just hang around with an ever-changing procession of college students?
Yeah, I might hold something of a grudge.
Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it
I've actually divorced once. The order of magnitude compared to quitting a game is so colossally different, lol. I kind of wish I hadn't posted the first part, to be honest, because losing a game is not really comparable to any of the things there, from having a pet hurt or a buddy sleeping with your miss, or whatever. I guess as much time as I spend on minis and 40k, in the end, I could live without it (or replace it with something else I really enjoy) a lot easier than I could without a lot of other things.
Oh well, I guess we all deal with such things differently
Jehan-reznor wrote:I am looking forward to people reactions when 40K universe implodes and we get the Age of the Emperor!
Then all the races would be reborn, and the new models would have big shoulder pads, a six-pack, and ginormous weapons! Except Space Marines, who will have EVEN BIGGER pauldrons!
Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it
You've heard of metaphors, right?
The stuff they set fire to, in this case, is a game setting that people are quite find of. Yes, they still have their existing books... But the setting is now officially dead and buried, and won't be developed any further in any recognisable way.
-Squandering End Times which had good lore and reinvigorated a dying franchise
-New lore is awful
-Introducing space marine ripoffs into fantasy
-No points because feth gameplay lets shove as many models as we want in there
-Renaming everything with nonsensical copyrighted BS
Names are not copyrightable, and Trademarks can legally be used by rival companies if done according to the rules. Thus for example I could market a range of Fantasy Lizardmen as being "Compatible with Warhammer(TM) Age Of Sigmar(TM) Seraphon(TM)."
All GW have achieved is to prevent me making a Lizardman and calling it a Seraphon.
Seraphon is a made up name that has no inherent meaning and doesn't sound like anything Lizardy or Fantasy. TBH it reminds me of Seraphim which is a completely different concept.
Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it
You've heard of metaphors, right?
The stuff they set fire to, in this case, is a game setting that people are quite find of. Yes, they still have their existing books... But the setting is now officially dead and buried, and won't be developed any further in any recognisable way.
I was being facetious. I know what you're saying -- but the problem was one of two things -- either the people who were fond of the setting weren't spending enough money, or there weren't enough people who were fond of the setting. It's pretty unreasonable to ask a company to keep producing stuff that isn't doing well.
So, GW has could either try to tweak the existing game in a way that would try to attract new customers, or do a reboot; they went for the latter. I'm pretty sure they figured, "Well, what have we got to lose? This stuff isn't moving anyhow."
The third alternative would be to create Sigmar as a forked path, and soldier on with 9e. I'm guessing they figured that wasn't profitable. Although, if Sigmar totally tanks, I suppose they could print 9e rules in a more traditional fantasy fashion, let Sigmar be Sigmar, and just not invest in many new models.
BrianDavion wrote: no they wouldn't. Haesbro has stopped making it's own mini games. they've MASSIVLY scaled down D&D because apparently the world's most popular RPG isnt a high eneugh profit margin for em. they'd not be intreasted in GW at ALL.
There's an important difference here: they've abandoned their own miniatures games, but those games never had much popularity and faced huge barriers to entry in the miniatures market. So why keep throwing money at a plan that isn't working very well? Buying GW would be a completely different situation, since they'd instantly be the dominant company in the market and have near-guaranteed profit as long as they can avoid making GW's mistakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: and even if we accept that the IP is reasonably valueable, it doesn't stand to reason that the game itself would be viewed as valueable.
Of course the game isn't valuable. It's a terrible game, and the first thing any sensible company would do if they bought the IP would be to delete the whole rulebook and start over again from scratch. But that's exactly what would be best for the community. Nothing about the current rules is worth keeping, and even if a new game in the 40k universe isn't perfect it would be hard to imagine getting one that is worse than what we have right now.
actually Haesbro's past mini games, for a time where doing quite well. then the CMG bubble burst.
as for the game, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. if GW goes under and someone buys the 40k IP? It's very likely, 40K will as a game will be dead. instead the IP will be used to produce video games or something.
assuming they care about the IP at all and don't just want GW for their production hardware or something.
If GW goes under we can't assume 40k'll even be redeveloped. and if it is, it'd likely end up being a pre-painted collectable mini game or something.
sure tac squads are expensive, but when I open a box of them I don't have to worry if I've got tac marines or yet more eldar guardians.
people hoping for a Haesbro buyout need to look at the kinda mini games Haesbro has produced. they should also look at what Haesbro meddling did with D&D
Kilkrazy wrote: Names are not copyrightable, and Trademarks can legally be used by rival companies if done according to the rules. Thus for example I could market a range of Fantasy Lizardmen as being "Compatible with Warhammer(TM) Age Of Sigmar(TM) Seraphon(TM)."
All GW have achieved is to prevent me making a Lizardman and calling it a Seraphon.
Seraphon is a made up name that has no inherent meaning and doesn't sound like anything Lizardy or Fantasy. TBH it reminds me of Seraphim which is a completely different concept.
First of all, Seraphon is a dumb name for Lizardmen. They should have been something suitably reptilian, like Sthiss or Drakkos. Wait, I know: Slytherin! And they turn into giant snakes.
More generally, I guess I sort of see the desire to separate GW Lizardmen from generic Lizardmen; just like PP has Trollbloods instead of Trolls. On the other hand, I'm not really sure I see the point. Other than tournament settings (which GW gives an ork's fart about) and GW stores, who cares; you can use whatever model you want, including Termagants or Genestealers. Or Eldar. Or a roll of quarters. I mean, since the rules are free, and if you really like models from company X, what does it matter what those models are called?
But other than seeing it as pointless, I don't really care one way or the other what the Lizardmen were called. It's not like I was buying Lizardmen before, and it's pretty unlikely I'll be buying Seraphon in the future, or Lizardmen by any other name I'm just not a very reptile-friendly fella.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: as for the game, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. if GW goes under and someone buys the 40k IP? It's very likely, 40K will as a game will be dead. instead the IP will be used to produce video games or something.
assuming they care about the IP at all and don't just want GW for their production hardware or something.
If GW goes under we can't assume 40k'll even be redeveloped. and if it is, it'd likely end up being a pre-painted collectable mini game or something.
I agree with this 100%.
I think the intellectual property is worth far more than the miniature business, because it has much more potential than the miniature business. In 30 years, Games Workshop has proven that even if you do everything right, even if you took their best year, in the grand scheme of things both the total profit and net profit margin are very low. Companies making acquisitions want the prospect, at least the possibility, of buying something for $50 million that will one day make $500 million.
No matter what you do, the entire miniature market will just not be that profitable. I mean, we can talk about "growth" and all that, but the truth is, most people in the world spend $0 per year on miniatures or miniature wargaming, and don't expect to. I mean, most people don't think about it or consider it, and if they did they would say, "this isn't for me". It isn't something that advertising or awareness or great rules or awesome models or cheap models can fix, because the truth is, the vast majority of folks don't have the patience to deal with minis and wargames. The gratification is most certainly far from instantaneous. Even with prepainted minis, it takes WAY more time to meet up with someone and play a game of X-Wing than it does to turn on the PC or Tablet and play an RTS, and let's be honest -- this is what a lot more people want. I'm not just saying that; compare the video game market to the hobby market. I mean, a great video game -- one title -- is worth a billion dollars, for heavens sakes. And then you get to make 10 sequels and a bazillion DLCs afterwards that people will autobuy.
But make the next Avengers or the next Halo with 40k IP? Now, that's sexy. Just look at the Transformers franchise -- and what a couple of successful movies was worth, compared to everything that preceded it.
Talys wrote: I was being facetious. I know what you're saying -- but the problem was one of two things -- either the people who were fond of the setting weren't spending enough money, or there weren't enough people who were fond of the setting. It's pretty unreasonable to ask a company to keep producing stuff that isn't doing well.
It's unreasonable to expect them to keep doing the same thing that isn't making money, certainly.
And fixing whatever is wrong is a much harder proposition when you don't do market research.
The third alternative would be to create Sigmar as a forked path, and soldier on with 9e. .
Not so much a forked path as a gateway drug, in the same way that Heroquest and Space Crusade led so many gamers of my generation to the wider world of Games Workshop games.
The idea of having a quick, easy to learn game to get people into the setting is a good one. Having it as the only product suggests though that they still think the majority of their customers are people who buy once and then move on... because I can't see this game holding anyone's interest for very long.
Kilkrazy wrote: Names are not copyrightable, and Trademarks can legally be used by rival companies if done according to the rules. Thus for example I could market a range of Fantasy Lizardmen as being "Compatible with Warhammer(TM) Age Of Sigmar(TM) Seraphon(TM)."
All GW have achieved is to prevent me making a Lizardman and calling it a Seraphon.
Seraphon is a made up name that has no inherent meaning and doesn't sound like anything Lizardy or Fantasy. TBH it reminds me of Seraphim which is a completely different concept.
Indeed, I'm not sure why some many people get so hung up on the legal aspect of GW so much.
I think this is simple product delineation, so when Little Jonny Gamer goes into they FLGS and looks for Orruks (or whatever) that's what they search out or ask for rather than half a dozen other companies Orcs.
Seeing as they were rebooting the whole system it makes sense to do it now rather than piecemeal like 40K.
Discomfort/unfamiliarity with the new names and confusion on the whole Sigmarine/Angel line aside I'm hoping that this is a decent product. If it is and the interest I have seen at our club is anything to go by then I could see this being a good move by GW. If anything it could be more of a problem for Mantic than GW.
Honestly I just want them to start fixing their mistakes, don't particularly care how.
If this is a mistake that bankrupts them and they get bought by people who run them better, that's great by me.
If this is a failure that pushes them to start mending their ways, that's great by me.
If this is a success that encourages them to make better stuff, that's great by me.
And I speak as a new player keen to get involved (admittedly with 40k, not interested in new or old Fantasy Battle and LOTR is dead it would seem) and who will continue to get more stuff for quite a while as long as nothing too catastrophic happens. I still see that they've been screwing up quite a lot of stuff and that's a huge mistake with such a niche thing.
I'm no businessman but I can see that when you've got such a dedicated consumer base that they'll spend massive moolah on you quite regularly, that's quite a gold mine! But at the same time that gold mine comes at the cost that you really need to listen to them! Most entertainment stuff can afford to piss off dedicated fans in favor of appealing to a wider audience because they have the mainstream appeal to draw in that wider audience, wargaming really doesn't have that so they need to keep the dedicated fans in at least a REASONABLE state of morale to support them.
That all said, GW can probably continue to tick over as long as they don't deteriorate further or stay like this for too long.
Honestly a little bit of listening would go a long way to stabilizing them and their continual refusal to do so is probably the biggest mistake of them all... Price rises and undesired changes are at least understandable, refusing to even TRY to listen to the people who care enough to throw big money at you is just dumb.
As far as buyout discussions, Hasbro seems like a weird choice. What's next, are they gonna canonize all those 40k/MLP crossovers I keep bumping into? Are we gonna open the 9th Edition Spaces Marines codex to find that Varro Tigurius has been retconned out in favor of a new Chief Librarian of the Ultramarines?
Spoiler:
Sad thing is that probably would still not piss people off as much as some of GW's own decisions...
Hate to dredge up some stuff from last page but jah_joshua's replies got on my nerves a bit.
Dude, they are NOT getting mad at you because you still like GW's stuff, it's because you give the impression that you're not even TRYING to understand why they're upset or unsatisfied at all. If it was more along the lines of "I get what you're saying but it doesn't personally bother me, I'd personally suggest focusing on the old stuff you still like, that might soften the blow a bit." or "I don't really understand why this in particular is such an issue, could you explain it to me?" then you probably wouldn't be getting much hostility, if any. Hell they'd probably still be fine if it was you were just trying to explain your views in return. A little bit of empathy goes a long way and the big thing causing these spats is that you don't seem to be coming across as trying to have any.
The new names are interesting from a business viewpoint because GW themselves obviously are so hung up on it.
Why does GW need to differentiate their product after nearly 35 years of Warhammer Fantasy Battle being the most popular and best-known fantasy wargame in the world?
Only because 8th edition has clearly been such a disaster that it is considered better to throw away that heritage and begin something new that doesn't have any product familiarity.
Renaming the factions is all right, it can't do any harm really, GW are aiming at a new audience with AOS. It's a shame that names like "orruks" and "oggers" are so pathetic. One might have hoped the Design Studio could think of something more original and distinctive.
If GW are going to do it for legal reasons, it would be business-like actually to register the trademarks.
Talys wrote: I know what you're saying -- but the problem was one of two things -- either the people who were fond of the setting weren't spending enough money, or there weren't enough people who were fond of the setting. It's pretty unreasonable to ask a company to keep producing stuff that isn't doing well.
You're entirely right. Its the fault of the customers that GW couldn't sell enough Fantasy to keep it afloat in its old incarnation. Since market research is otiose in a niche and they do not perform play testing, clearly... GWhad no other choice than to do what they did.
Been talking to a few people locally about this new system and it seems that the interest is surprisingly high, lots of people looking forward to simple rules and less restrictions on what they can and can't use.
I think its going to be pretty hit and miss, I am finding it hard to predict what the overall outcome will be. After reading the expected negativity on here I was not surprised to see plenty of people really excited by a whole new more accessible system.
Im still a bit gutted that they totally replaced the old one tbh.
Has there been any announcement on the nature transition from WHFB to this, or is it all assumption still?
One of things I really lost respect for GW over was the fate of Specialist Games. THere was no 'so long and thanks for all the fish', just a quiet removal of all the stock on the webstore, like they had finally noticed it and were embarrassed it was still there.
I've never been a Fantasy player, but I'd be disgusted if 'the end of Fantasy as we know it' were treated similarly.
Fantasy has been dead for quite a few years and AoS is not (at least in my area) going to bring in new players to the fantasy world. GW should have just pulled the plug and moved on. Yes it's another nail in the coffin right next to the old nail that was WHFB 8th Ed.
Nope, I don't want it to be the 'final nail' or whatever. I want it to succeed.
Sadly, I don't see that happening unless they start trying to get into the social media scene even somewhat. They need to actually drive their product toward new folks that have already seen their digital products and entice them to play.
AoS will just be the gateway plastic-drug. The problem I see now is that folks that had fantasy minis just need the warscrolls - so they need to release a book of those, but from a money making standpoint, it should be one for each faction.
Without the new customer infusion though, they're in the same boat, just different unknown waters.
They really need to take how Privateer Press or Wizards of the Coasts markets things and go that route - daily content, sneak previews, etc. They need to drum hype, and try to drive conversations that don't have such of a negative slant.
I don't know whether WH had an allies-matrix-style thing, but I see the AoS to be a lot of that.
If Good guys against Bad guys is doable, this will keep the number of army books down, and free up shelf space for other (40k) models.
As long as old models can be used, and if more ways to play (skirmish, movement tray formations, etc) are viable, WH might just survive this.
Did I read that the rules will be free? Cut to the bone, obviously, with an Advanced WH hardback as an option, I expect.
An interesting point about AOS is that the new round bases make your new Fantasy models incompatible with all other Ancients/Fantasy mass battle rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: An interesting point about AOS is that the new round bases make your new Fantasy models incompatible with all other Ancients/Fantasy mass battle rules.
True, but it now makes it compatible with Pathfinder/D&D minis!
I see this as part of a trend with GW that has been around for a while, which I just find mystifying. GW seems to want to avoid making things that you might use in another game.
I know that they would prefer if you would play their game, and not other people's games, but if someone wants to buy a GW model and use it in D&D, who cares?
GW has the economy of scale and the control over their own production to really be able to dominate the (admittedly small--sorry for the pun) miniatures market, but they insist on grimdarking (or now hammer/lightning) things up so that they are a bad match for others. Everybody could buy a gameboard, but GW makes one with skull pits. Everybody could buy Fantasy or Sci-Fi bunkers, but GW covers theirs with game-specific stuff (instead of having that stuff as sprue decoration).
It's like they think that by reducing the potential audience to players of their games, they will get people to play their game.
Rayvon wrote:Been talking to a few people locally about this new system and it seems that the interest is surprisingly high, lots of people looking forward to simple rules and less restrictions on what they can and can't use.
That's the thing, whether people love it or hate it, something like this WILL inevitably grab a lot of attention by its very nature.
Not to discredit what you said, just food for thought because this is probably a good part of why GW are doing this. Fantasy Battle's biggest "failing" in GW's eyes is probably how few people gave a crap about it and ignored it in favor of 40k and (when it was big) LOTR, so it's understandable why they'd do something so attention-grabbing, even at the cost of pissing off a lot of people.
Kilkrazy wrote: An interesting point about AOS is that the new round bases make your new Fantasy models incompatible with all other Ancients/Fantasy mass battle rules.
Well, you can base your AOS models on whatever bases you want, since they're irrelevant to AOS
Why is my first reaction that this is a clone of Warmahordes from how they seem to be organizing factions and models?
I dunno... seems interesting to me. I totally divested myself of WHF but might give AoS a look.
If they can capture reasonable gameplay with warhammer theme, and lower model count, they might have a winner since 'price per model' means nothing and people have no issue paying for expensive models as long as 'total buy-in' is low, right?
Rayvon wrote:Been talking to a few people locally about this new system and it seems that the interest is surprisingly high, lots of people looking forward to simple rules and less restrictions on what they can and can't use.
That's the thing, whether people love it or hate it, something like this WILL inevitably grab a lot of attention by its very nature.
Not to discredit what you said, just food for thought because this is probably a good part of why GW are doing this. Fantasy Battle's biggest "failing" in GW's eyes is probably how few people gave a crap about it and ignored it in favor of 40k and (when it was big) LOTR, so it's understandable why they'd do something so attention-grabbing, even at the cost of pissing off a lot of people.
To be fair, a lot of us didn't give a crap because it sucked, and sucked enough that it wasn't worth talking about, let alone motivating us to buying anything. Normally I just avoid or tune out WFB discussion, but it's worth noting here because I'm seeing a WFB that doesn't contain all the stuff that made me indifferent to the previous version.
nkelsch wrote: Why is my first reaction that this is a clone of Warmahordes from how they seem to be organizing factions and models?
I dunno... seems interesting to me. I totally divested myself of WHF but might give AoS a look.
If they can capture reasonable gameplay with warhammer theme, and lower model count, they might have a winner since 'price per model' means nothing and people have no issue paying for expensive models as long as 'total buy-in' is low, right?
I never bought into the argument of the "high ppm is cool as long as total buy-in is low", because I enjoy the modelling aspect. But yeah, you certainly can't argue that the total buy-in of Sigmar is high. The game is very cheap. And without knowing if there's some kind of scenario system in the 96 page book, we can at least assume that two players will agree on the approximate size of the battle to be limited to the army size of the player with the smaller collection.
Like, "I have 300 models." "But I only have 30" "Okay, I'll just play these guys, and we'll do a 4x4 then, cool?"
As far as the miniatures go, it's a better price than any other comparable bundle that I can think of.
The real question for gaming, to me is: "Is it fun?"
If it's fun, we'll use it as a filler, just as we sometimes use WMH or XWing or Kill Team, because we have not enough time to play a 40k game. If gameplay is stupid, it will be a hundred-some-odd-dollar box of models with a rulebook that gathers dust.
I'm also totally ok with just playing with the models in Sigmar and nothing else.
No matter how many bad things Games Workshop had been doing over the years, I wouldn't want to see them gone. Changed - yes, but not gone. Tabletop wargames have found themselves in a niche like never before; who would've thought virtual gaming to become so popular as it is nowadays. I think that their sales are declining not only because of the prices, but also because of the interest drop in our hobby.
To be honest I've never bought any GW miniatures directly from their stores; paints, brushes - yes, but all my miniatures are second-hand or from retail sellers who held discounts. I really do hope GW's prices will change, or that we would at least see some discounts from time to time on some of their stock...
Rayvon wrote:Been talking to a few people locally about this new system and it seems that the interest is surprisingly high, lots of people looking forward to simple rules and less restrictions on what they can and can't use.
That's the thing, whether people love it or hate it, something like this WILL inevitably grab a lot of attention by its very nature.
Not to discredit what you said, just food for thought because this is probably a good part of why GW are doing this. Fantasy Battle's biggest "failing" in GW's eyes is probably how few people gave a crap about it and ignored it in favor of 40k and (when it was big) LOTR, so it's understandable why they'd do something so attention-grabbing, even at the cost of pissing off a lot of people.
To be fair, a lot of us didn't give a crap because it sucked, and sucked enough that it wasn't worth talking about, let alone motivating us to buying anything. Normally I just avoid or tune out WFB discussion, but it's worth noting here because I'm seeing a WFB that doesn't contain all the stuff that made me indifferent to the previous version.
Also a good point. in fact I think the two reasons actually kinda tie in together.
Since a lot of people really didn't like it the "guaranteed buzz" of a big reboot would beat out anything relying on normal fan interest.
And because of what you said you'd have "Will they make it better?" hype on top of the whole reboot buzz.
At least, that's my theory.
More generally, I guess I sort of see the desire to separate GW Lizardmen from generic Lizardmen; just like PP has Trollbloods instead of Trolls.
Point of order, PP absolutely has Trolls. "Trollbloods" is the name of the faction, which contains the more intelligent Trollkin and also full blood Trolls for Every. Single. Warbeast.
Kilkrazy wrote: An interesting point about AOS is that the new round bases make your new Fantasy models incompatible with all other Ancients/Fantasy mass battle rules.
Well, you can base your AOS models on whatever bases you want, since they're irrelevant to AOS
I shall not be buying any AOS models, as I will play it with models I have from other systems. However a noob, who is buying AOS from the get go, if in a couple of years they decide they want to play something else, they will have a major job of rebasing on their hands.
This is not IMO a cunning plan by GW to put people off from other games. It is just that the circular bases are more artistic for model collectors.
Kilkrazy wrote: I shall not be buying any AOS models, as I will play it with models I have from other systems. However a noob, who is buying AOS from the get go, if in a couple of years they decide they want to play something else, they will have a major job of rebasing on their hands.
This is not IMO a cunning plan by GW to put people off from other games. It is just that the circular bases are more artistic for model collectors.
Yes -- it sounds dumb, but one of the reasons I never much painted Fantasy models is because they were on square bases, and I don't like them as much for modelling; at the same time, I didn't want to paint up models that couldn't be used. So in that sense, the round bases appeal to me, though certainly, there are many other reasons I paint more scifi rather than Fantasy models -- mostly, that I like high tech, futuristic guns. I guess that would be a bit hard for GW to fix in a fantasy setting If only Wood Elves had Shuriken Cannons, and Sigmarites had Heavy Flamers!
Ironically, one of the reasons I paint less WMH models than I do is that I don't like lipped bases, LOL. Many times, I've actually prepped a WMH model, looked at the base, and then take it apart and shelve it.
keezus wrote: You're entirely right. Its the fault of the customers that GW couldn't sell enough Fantasy to keep it afloat in its old incarnation. Since market research is otiose in a niche and they do not perform play testing, clearly... GWhad no other choice than to do what they did.
Who said they don't play test? They certainly do, and it isn't done by studio staff. They have a dedicated team for each system (well, not lotr anymore).
It's no ones fault, the market clearly isn't sustaining the game, and hasn't been for a long time. So they are making the right decision and moving on. No one expected Sony to continue making walkmans when people stopped buying cassettes.
keezus wrote: You're entirely right. Its the fault of the customers that GW couldn't sell enough Fantasy to keep it afloat in its old incarnation. Since market research is otiose in a niche and they do not perform play testing, clearly... GWhad no other choice than to do what they did.
Who said they don't play test? They certainly do, and it isn't done by studio staff. They have a dedicated team for each system (well, not lotr anymore).
It's no ones fault, the market clearly isn't sustaining the game, and hasn't been for a long time. So they are making the right decision and moving on. No one expected Sony to continue making walkmans when people stopped buying cassettes.
Yeah, but nobody expected them to stop making the Walkman (modern) and instead build a hand-wound record player (outdated). That's basically what these rules are. They have the capacity to create a game that would be attractive to all but instead chose to make something that is equivalent to put all of your models on the table, move them around and make clang clang noises until your opponent gives up and walks away.
Kilkrazy wrote: I shall not be buying any AOS models, as I will play it with models I have from other systems. However a noob, who is buying AOS from the get go, if in a couple of years they decide they want to play something else, they will have a major job of rebasing on their hands.
This is not IMO a cunning plan by GW to put people off from other games. It is just that the circular bases are more artistic for model collectors.
Yes -- it sounds dumb, but one of the reasons I never much painted Fantasy models is because they were on square bases, and I don't like them as much for modelling; at the same time, I didn't want to paint up models that couldn't be used. So in that sense, the round bases appeal to me, though certainly, there are many other reasons I paint more scifi rather than Fantasy models -- mostly, that I like high tech, futuristic guns. I guess that would be a bit hard for GW to fix in a fantasy setting If only Wood Elves had Shuriken Cannons, and Sigmarites had Heavy Flamers!
Ironically, one of the reasons I paint less WMH models than I do is that I don't like lipped bases, LOL. Many times, I've actually prepped a WMH model, looked at the base, and then take it apart and shelve it.
Of course, I can base models on whatever I like. It doesn't really make it a good idea, though, because then I have models on bases not standard for the game. I'm just saying that I like the aspect of AoS which makes bases decorative only. It lets me put something on whatever size and shape of base I think looks best for the model, and (legally) play it. And yes, if this were 40k, someone could make a turret that was 24" long.. but that's ok, I just would not play with such a player anyhow.
keezus wrote: You're entirely right. Its the fault of the customers that GW couldn't sell enough Fantasy to keep it afloat in its old incarnation. Since market research is otiose in a niche and they do not perform play testing, clearly... GWhad no other choice than to do what they did.
Who said they don't play test? They certainly do, and it isn't done by studio staff. They have a dedicated team for each system (well, not lotr anymore).
It's no ones fault, the market clearly isn't sustaining the game, and hasn't been for a long time. So they are making the right decision and moving on. No one expected Sony to continue making walkmans when people stopped buying cassettes.
Not doing it and being utter gak at it are synonymous in this context.
@ the OP: I for one do not want GW to die. I love the settings (WHFB, 40K and now AoS). What is absolutely needed (and I know a number of folks of this have said already) is new, fresh blooded management. Not a Tom Kirby minion who appears to function like a Kastelan robot.
I won't be buying any, I don't care for how the new models look. The only reason I've ever bought any of their fantasy line was to use it with Mordheim and these are just too crazy in design to fit in.
I like D&D styled stuff and general fantasy so I own a bunch of reaper models, stuff from Red Box Games etc but I've never cared much for GW's take on fantasy as I'm not interested in rank and file based units.
angelofvengeance wrote: @ the OP: I for one do not want GW to die. I love the settings (WHFB, 40K and now AoS). What is absolutely needed (and I know a number of folks of this have said already) is new, fresh blooded management. Not a Tom Kirby minion who appears to function like a Kastelan robot.
Haha, I'd love to see a picture of Tom Kirby and Kevin Roundtree's heads photoshopped over the Kastellan kit!
JamesY wrote: So you have written it off without any knowledge of how the game plays or what will happen to it to expand it?
Nice one.
I'm not running around with my hair on fire, frothing at the mouth and ranting here, I'm just saying that the rules as presented are a steaming pile of dung. If they do something later to make them less dung-like, I'll be happy to play. But I'm not big on scenarios or a game dependent upon scenarios for a sense of balance. I have literally made my own rules for games better than the four pages of AoS crapness and I'm no genius by any stretch.
Interesting things being posted in the Fantasy forum. The "model to model" measuring is asinine. To patch what was originally a terrible idea:
1. To stop guys with huge overhangs on their models, they've made it so each part of the model can only travel up to the max distance allowed by movement. This also has the side effect of making "long models" like the HE dragon unable to turn around even after using all its movement. Awesome!
2. To fix the issue that models in BTB can't meet the 0.5" melee range, they made it so its possible for enemy models to encroach on the bases of your models. I'm sure all the guys with scenic bases (i.e. standing on a bit of ruined bridge, or awash in foliage) thank you for this. The guy standing on the ruined bridge might never get into melee if the bridge pier is too high.
3. Guys on the 3" flying stands are largely invulnerable to melee due to the 0.5" range, but confer the "can't move" rule on enemy models within 3". Granted, you can still shoot the flying beastie, but I'm not sure that having un-engagable models is the design intent.
This could have all been avoided if they did base to base instead of model to model. Sure its an abstraction, but it wouldn't have needed so much patching.
I rather hoped that they would actually want my continued custom and that of my two lads and their mates and my own buddies.
AoS is not for me. It may have been since I have a resurgent interest in fantasy but the fluff, new naming conventions and what I have seen of the rules has seen me bowing out. My buddies feel the same. My lads took one look and decided not to buy.
From having virtually all of the gaming bases covered AoS looks leaving 'Games Workshop' with One core system and something with which to fill up the space in their stores.
Just like any expressed, personal opinion, my views are subjective. Do you require a byline or disclaimer to every post or just those that don't mesh with your views?
keezus wrote: Interesting things being posted in the Fantasy forum. The "model to model" measuring is asinine. To patch what was originally a terrible idea:
1. To stop guys with huge overhangs on their models, they've made it so each part of the model can only travel up to the max distance allowed by movement. This also has the side effect of making "long models" like the HE dragon unable to turn around even after using all its movement. Awesome!
2. To fix the issue that models in BTB can't meet the 0.5" melee range, they made it so its possible for enemy models to encroach on the bases of your models. I'm sure all the guys with scenic bases (i.e. standing on a bit of ruined bridge, or awash in foliage) thank you for this. The guy standing on the ruined bridge might never get into melee if the bridge pier is too high.
3. Guys on the 3" flying stands are largely invulnerable to melee due to the 0.5" range, but confer the "can't move" rule on enemy models within 3". Granted, you can still shoot the flying beastie, but I'm not sure that having un-engagable models is the design intent.
This could have all been avoided if they did base to base instead of model to model. Sure its an abstraction, but it wouldn't have needed so much patching.
#1 - I suppose this does disadvantage some models. I guess you could say, it actually makes some sense that large, awkward units are less nimble? I don't think it's game-breaking, anyhow, but it's a valid point.
#2 - I imagine these are the exception, rather than the rule. If you base something for a competition/showcase to be highly scenic, and want to play it, just agree to something before the start of the game. But how often do you actually see that?
#3 - By that logic, there's no inequity, because a flying model couldn't melee the ground model either. In some ways, it makes sense, you can't smack an eagle with a sword, or punch an fighter jet. However, for fantasy gaming purposes you could just say that the stem is part of the model, rather than part of the base. Why? A griffon might swoop down, for instance, coming low enough to melee.
JamesY wrote: So you have written it off without any knowledge of how the game plays or what will happen to it to expand it?
Nice one.
I'm not running around with my hair on fire, frothing at the mouth and ranting here, I'm just saying that the rules as presented are a steaming pile of dung. If they do something later to make them less dung-like, I'll be happy to play. But I'm not big on scenarios or a game dependent upon scenarios for a sense of balance. I have literally made my own rules for games better than the four pages of AoS crapness and I'm no genius by any stretch.
By the way agnosto, it seems that there WILL be scenarios and campaign rules -- or so allegedly stores have been told.
I know you just mentioned that they aren't for you, so maybe that isn't helpful. In our group, scenario-play is HUGE (like, 75% of our games), so this would make AoS much more attractive for us. If campaign play is some kind of miniature warfare based RPGish thing, we'd probably actually make AoS more of a regular game, and less of a time filler.
From what it looks to be, GW isn't trying at all to make AoS a competitive/tournament friendly format (though no doubt different groups will try to make that a thing).
GW do not see this as a tournament set of rules. It is obviously something cobbled together rather quickly without much thought or testing.
GW will rely on players to make suitable adjustments to make it playable. We have already spoken about factors such as the bases (don't ignore them as the rules specify), how to balance forces, how to attack flying units, and so on.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Why am I sorely tempted to start a thread titled 'Who Isn't Buying Age of Sigmar - Negative Things Only'?
(Not gonna... but my inner child thinks that it would be funny....)
More seriously, how long do folks think that AoS is going to last before the game dies the death?
I... give it a year.
With no later resurrection of Warhammer to follow.
The Auld Grump... that... Khorne... thing... has skulls coming out of its knees!
I think the models will sell the the box-set; there are enough people interested in those just based on comment around Dakka. That doesn't mean people will play the game, though I imagine some will. The first true test for GW will be when they start to release supplemental books, then you'll have a better idea of how successful the game itself will be.
If GW going down makes my collection more valuable then die baby die! The game I loved is now a tedious and expensive exercise in lazy rules design. I'd just like to trade out all my crap for more games my family will enjoy...
BladeWalker wrote: If GW going down makes my collection more valuable then die baby die! The game I loved is now a tedious and expensive exercise in lazy rules design. I'd just like to trade out all my crap for more games my family will enjoy...
This is the result of hiring someone from Mantic as a rules designer.
Because virtually any rules would be better than this garbage. GW is clearly treating their new game like one of those games on the back of a cereal box: a quick "screw around for a few minutes" thing you can do with the toys you're already buying, with a primary goal of keeping "development" expenses to an absolute minimum. You'd have to deliberately create the worst possible game you can think of to even have a chance of matching GW's sheer incompetence.
Hate to dredge up some stuff from last page but jah_joshua's replies got on my nerves a bit.
Dude, they are NOT getting mad at you because you still like GW's stuff, it's because you give the impression that you're not even TRYING to understand why they're upset or unsatisfied at all. If it was more along the lines of "I get what you're saying but it doesn't personally bother me, I'd personally suggest focusing on the old stuff you still like, that might soften the blow a bit." or "I don't really understand why this in particular is such an issue, could you explain it to me?" then you probably wouldn't be getting much hostility, if any. Hell they'd probably still be fine if it was you were just trying to explain your views in return. A little bit of empathy goes a long way and the big thing causing these spats is that you don't seem to be coming across as trying to have any.
where did i ever say that anyone was getting mad at me???
i have never made a "woe is me, people are attacking me and i can't see why" post...
i have stated multiple times in this thread alone that i understand why people would be upset, but i am not one of those upset people...
those two quotes you have in your post for how you would like to see me present my stance are pretty much exactly what i have already said...
it looks like you don't even bother reading what i write...
i don't really feel any hostility from anyone here, and all i ever do is explain my views in return...
i have never once told anyone they are wrong, or that their opinion is invalid...
everyone is welcome to their opinion, even you...
as for empathy, well, i have a lot of sympathy, but not much empathy...
there is often a post in these debates that says, "you are happy with the way things are, but i am not, so you are being selfish"...
so, the only way for me to not be selfish is for GW to cater to you, and not me...
of course, in an ideal world, we could both be happy...
in the reality before us, it is not working out like that...
i can totally sympathise...
should i empathize with someone who wants to see a company that makes a product i love fail, because they don't like the new direction AoS is taking...
i'm sorry, but that just seems like a very vindictive, negative attitude, which doesn't jive with me...
walk away, fine...
i have never told anyone what they should buy, or do...
i am simply saying NO to the OP's question...
anyone else's choice is fine, for them...
should i empathize with someone who wants to see a company that makes a product i love fail, because they don't like the new direction AoS is taking...
i'm sorry, but that just seems like a very vindictive, negative attitude, which doesn't jive with me...
walk away, fine...
i have never told anyone what they should buy, or do...
i am simply saying NO to the OP's question...
anyone else's choice is fine, for them...
cheers
jah
This is the net after all man, people are showing off left right and centre when they are upset, if anything it speaks volumes about the individuals that wish failure on others simply because they dislike the changes they make.
Im with you on the vindictive part but I think its childish as much as vindictive also, kind of a, "if I cant have my way then no one can" attitude !!
I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !
Rayvon wrote: I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !
I could not possibly agree more. When it comes to entertainment, people should do things that they enjoy, because you have only 25,000 days, give or take, to do so.
Gaming isn't like climate change or government corruption or public safety. The consequences of a bad game is that you go do something else -- that you enjoy more. If you want to take up arms and march on a crusade, do the world a favor and pick a cause that actually matters, like the well-being of our planet. "You should be ashamed of yourself for having such a massive carbon footprint" is something I can get behind. "You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such a crappy gaming company" sounds just ridiculous
Now back on the topic of Age of Sigmar, WD75 is totally sold out in my town, and stores have huge Sigmar preorder lists -- exceeding Space Marines releases, and even Deathstorm/Stormclaw. So this may be something that gains traction, or it may be something that flames out quickly, but it's probably going to be GW's most successful Fantasy release going back a long while -- if you define success as sales volumes.
Rayvon wrote: I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !
Now back on the topic of Age of Sigmar, WD75 is totally sold out in my town, and stores have huge Sigmar preorder lists -- exceeding Space Marines releases, and even Deathstorm/Stormclaw. So this may be something that gains traction, or it may be something that flames out quickly, but it's probably going to be GW's most successful Fantasy release going back a long while -- if you define success as sales volumes.
That's just sales in your little part of Canada.. The U.S. Market is going to make or break this release. There are zero pre orders in the three shops I frequent here. So if I base it on my little corner of the world it's going to be a flop
Talys wrote: When it comes to entertainment, people should do things that they enjoy, because you have only 25,000 days, give or take, to do so..
Absolutely.
The reason for the complaining is that people want to continue doing that thing that they enjoy, and so they get upset when the ability to do so is inhibited.
Talys wrote: When it comes to entertainment, people should do things that they enjoy, because you have only 25,000 days, give or take, to do so..
Absolutely.
The reason for the complaining is that people want to continue doing that thing that they enjoy, and so they get upset when the ability to do so is inhibited.
No disagreement. At some point, when fighting for change becomes futile, I just think people are better off doing something (else) positive that they enjoy, than something negative that they don't. Unless people enjoy complaining, which I would not understand.
That's just sales in your little part of Canada.. The U.S. Market is going to make or break this release. There are zero pre orders in the three shops I frequent here. So if I base it on my little corner of the world it's going to be a flop
There are fewer stores in Canada because our population is about 1/10 of the US. However, the buying patterns are pretty similar. It's not all about the USA, by the way. Europe is also a big market. And let's not forget about Australia . Didn't someone say it was 7%+ of FW's revenue? or course, with Australia's super special pricing that's probably just six copies of the game
Talys wrote: #1 - I suppose this does disadvantage some models. I guess you could say, it actually makes some sense that large, awkward units are less nimble? I don't think it's game-breaking, anyhow, but it's a valid point.
You can't try to rationalize it on "awkward=less nimble" because the way the rule works is entirely arbitrary based on the configuration of the model. An empire general with his sword at his waist turns on a dime where as that same general with his sword extended calling for a charge is suddenly less nible? Guys on rectangular bases are more awkward for no reason - Silver Helms are as awkward as Skaven Jezzails?
Talys wrote: #2 - I imagine these are the exception, rather than the rule. If you base something for a competition/showcase to be highly scenic, and want to play it, just agree to something before the start of the game. But how often do you actually see that?
I think it will happen more often than you think. The 0.5" rule means that your opponent's models may need to encroach onto your bases. I don't think it is an unrealistic stretch for a gaming army to have elements like long static grass, leaf scatter and/or flowers modeled onto them. I for one would not want enemy models resting atop my base material, let alone moving around on it even if it isn't overly scenic. Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.
Talys wrote: #3 - By that logic, there's no inequity, because a flying model couldn't melee the ground model either. In some ways, it makes sense, you can't smack an eagle with a sword, or punch an fighter jet. However, for fantasy gaming purposes you could just say that the stem is part of the model, rather than part of the base. Why? A griffon might swoop down, for instance, coming low enough to melee.
Its not that the flying thing is trying to melee... more that it projects that 3" zone where things can't move... and the things that can't move can't melee it to get rid of the can't move zone because they can't pile in. This only occurs with the monsters on the super tall flying bases like the HE pheonix. If you have dudes with long enough spears... well... no problem. Again... its inconsistent. All the other flying critters can be melee'd just fine.
If they had just kept it base to base, these would never have been an issue, and you wouldn't have to issue a FAQ response clarifying if Nagash's souls are part of a scenic base or part of the dude. (It could be argued either way.)
Azreal13 wrote: I'm curious, was there a purpose to that post beyond a backhanded swipe at people you disagree with?
Purpose? OP asked a question and I responded.
I don't think I disagreed with anything. I simply pointed out that YES a sub-sect of people exist and seem to have always existed that have predicted and hoped for the demise of GW. I didn't speak to the validity of their opinion or motivations one way or the other: their motivations might be valid or totally bunk. I don't really care.
However most in my experience seem to be failing at nailing down the timeframe of GW's demise.
keezus wrote: Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.
Which leads to the next problem, which is - What happens when it's the Bloodthirster's turn to move, and he has half the opponent's army sitting on his base?
keezus wrote: Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.
Which leads to the next problem, which is - What happens when it's the Bloodthirster's turn to move, and he has half the opponent's army sitting on his base?
keezus wrote: Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.
Which leads to the next problem, which is - What happens when it's the Bloodthirster's turn to move, and he has half the opponent's army sitting on his base?
All big bases to have docking points on them for smaller bases of all sizes, round and square. It's easy this games design lark, i can see why GW left that one to us.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am looking forwards to 40K rules and codexes being free.
4 page rules and the codex rules will be on the scrolls!
The funny thing is that i think Aos will be an success, so many 40k players and collectors are interested in the models that it will sell out, giving the wrong signal to the GW overlords
A successful release doesn't mean the game will succeed. Gws rules have always been pretty bad but in the past they were bad. because of too much creativity. Today's bad ideas are born from the desire to slash costs and boosts profits by any means.
It'll be a flop because people play gw games for the fluff, the atmosphere and a personal connection to an army. Aos destroyed all of those. It'll be dead and gone within the year I imagine. No amount of positive thinking will bring back lost sales from people disgusted by the changes.
The funny thing is that i think Aos will be an success, so many 40k players and collectors are interested in the models that it will sell out, giving the wrong signal to the GW overlords
Lots of people liked Dreadfleet's models.....
The real test of this games commercial success or failure will be what its sales are like next year.
It won't be the final nail at all, 40k alone will keep the company buoyant for a long time to come. If it bombs, the game will probably die, and they can let it go. We can still play the game, so that won't change. There is 30 yrs worth of fluff out there (coincidentally, whilst people talk about loving the background, in a year in the Nottingham store, I saw less than 5 fantasy novels meet the till), so plenty to read even if nothing new is added. Models will still be available via alternative channels. If it succeeded, well then they have flogged a dying horse back to life. Either way, they will carry on.
The problem of moving models with long spears or tails, because you have to swing them round and the spearpoint defines the movement, is irrelevant because there are no rules regarding facing. Just move your figure in a straight line without changing its facing and you will be fine. Players who dislike the aesthetic will agree to move the models, then spin them into a realistic alignment.
The problem of 3 inch flying bases, or wide bases preventing contact, will just be ignored by most players, whio will agree to measure base to base.
Obviously these points are real problems in the rules, and there will be other snags to be discovered. This is the inevitable result of a set of rules that could have been written by a clever 12 year old during a boring history lesson.
To be fair to GW, since the AOS rules are free, I don't think they owe players a lot of in-depth design, and you are not getting it.
However GW have always had the view that players should sort things out among themselves. If we are to be optimistic, this opens the field for players to elaborate and improve the rules in various directions. Perhaps codifying it into a tournament playable format via an INAT style FAQ.
What has really hurt in this case, and I think is the real indicator of precisely how callous GW are in terms of driving towards the big $, is that they decided to stop supporting the game that was for many years the bed-rock of what made GW the leading company in sci-fi/fantasy gaming.
I haven't played as many games of WHFB as some of the tactical elements of it had been reduced in 8th edition, but at it's core it's still an excellent system. As a wargamer, and someone who enjoys having to use my noddle when playing a game and the use of strategy in a game, I thoroughly appreciated it.
But rather than letting this game continue in some form (which really wouldn't have been that difficult, in terms of how specialist games were supported for many years) the entire thing has been officially consigned to the scrap-heap, in favour of.. well, something that looks extremely shallow by comparison, and is already being ripped apart by the veteran gaming community.
Everyone is distracted by the new shiny for now; some of the miniatures, the new artwork and setting, admittedly it looks lovely and GW has done a great job of bedazzling, but from what has been released so far, once you get into the core mechanics of the game and repeat play, it's basically going to be replacing Tchaikovsky with Alex from One Direction (dressed up really smartly) sat playing on a tin-can drum. (Not to be too extreme! )
You know, I'm sick of all the GW-bashing. Sick of it. It just goes on, and on, and on, and on. It's like people have got nothing better to do with their lives than whine about the same thing.
If you don't like GW, move away from GW and play another games system. Don't buy their products, don't read their news or their financial reports.
Every single GW-related forum I've visited endlessly whines, bitches, gripes, complains, insults and spreads vitriol, negatively dissecting every single decision the GW makes.
The GW then receives even more criticism for disengaging from public debate eg by closing its forums. It gets slagged off for not listening to its supposed "fans".
Newsflash: YOU ARE NOT FANS. YOU ARE DETRACTORS. In many cases YOU NO LONGER EVEN PLAY THE GAMES. Your right to whine about the GW's decisions ended with your involvement in playing their games.
THEY ARE DISENGAGING TO AVOID YOUR UNHELPFUL AND (in the case of those who don't play) IRRELEVANT CRITICISM. They are human beings who don't want to spend all day reading sarcastic and insulting crap from people who do not have to make the decisions they do and who DON'T EVEN BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
EDIT: That said, I am open to a REASONABLE argument why people don't like the GW, it just comes across like some people are being little bitches!
This is a forum for discussing toy soldier games. Necessarily that includes discussion of companies that produce such games.
It is a natural part of discussion that people will argue for and against particular issues. So long as people are polite in their detractions, there is no legitimate reason to stop them from making them.
NoPoet wrote: You know, I'm sick of all the GW-bashing.
You know what?
So are most of those complaining.
For the most part, these are people who are passionate about the games that they've devoted time, effort and so, so much money to, and so yes, they get somewhat invested, and take changes that they see as being detrimental to their hobby somewhat personally.
They would like nothing better than to go back to enjoying their hobby the way they used to. But since GW don't listen to the complaints, and proudly proclaim that they do no market research, those people are left making the best that they can of what they're given, and complaining about the things that they don't like in the (probably vain) hope that maybe, just maybe, GW might at some point remember just who it was that got them to the top of the gaming heap and start listening to them again.
You're absolutely spot on that the complaints get tiresome and repetitive. What you're missing is that those complaints are a symptom of the problem, not themselves the problem.
Every single GW-related forum I've visited endlessly whines, bitches, gripes, complains, insults and spreads vitriol, negatively dissecting every single decision the GW makes.
Every single GW-related forum I've visited endlessly whines, bitches, gripes, complains, insults and spreads vitriol, negatively dissecting every single decision the GW makes.
The GWaren't reading it. This gets them accused of ignorance, aloofness and not caring what people want. Your circular argument means nothing in this context.
It's funny, every decision the GW makes is ripped apart like no other company's. Yet someone like Apple dishes out yesterday's technology and calls it today's must-have innovation, they charge way over the odds for it, and people lap it up. GW have made some repellant decisions to protect its IP, I frankly admit this. But as far as I know, unlike Apple, the GW does not employ sweatshop staff who are committing suicide because of their unbearable conditions, and it is not trying to muscle its way to world domination by forcing everyone to do things its way and pay its inflated prices - Apple customers are totally locked in, GW customers can always use Mantic or whatever models, the only essential purchases are rulebooks (unless of course you're a tournament player).
EDIT: Removed potentially defamatory comment about tournament players.
Every wargames company gets their own fair share of getting ripped apart with criticism, even Mantic (the main competitor for mass battle fantasy) is frequently criticized as a cheap knock-off with horrible miniatures, and most Warhammer players won't even give it a try, despite the rules being free and them being able to use their existing warhammer armies.
Everyone is free to have their own opinion, the more extreme opinions are rarely the accurate ones.
AoS isn't made for veterans, it is made for the target market of children and teenagers. The free rules and lower number of miniatures makes it easier for a modern target audience that doesn't want to paint 100+ miniatures, or deal with minis that are complex to assemble.
It will probably be quite successful and maximize dividend yield for the shareholders.
As for the topic of the thread, I would like GW to stay around, they serve an important purpose as being the "gateway" into wargaming for a lot of young people who then get older and start playing a wider range of games.
AoS isn't made for veterans, it is made for the target market of children and teenagers. The free rules and lower number of miniatures makes it easier for a modern target audience that doesn't want to paint 100+ miniatures, or deal with minis that are complex to assemble.
if that were the case its an odd choice considering GW is in the business of selling 100's of miniatures.
Free rules for AoS also hampers their key business of selling 'the best models in the world'.
As for the topic of the thread, I would like GW to stay around, they serve an important purpose as being the "gateway" into wargaming for a lot of young people who then get older and start playing a wider range of games.
I think GW served that purpose up to about 5 years ago. Their only gateways are now 40k and AoS. IMO the pool of hobbyists coming into the larger gaming world via GW will shrink. The popularity of boardgames and major franchise game tie ins are better gateways in this age.
Apple do get their share of flak, which I personally believe they deserve.
I worked in the mobile industry and Apple, and in particular its fanboys/fangirls, were just horrible - we all hated them. Note the genuine Apple fans, they were a decent breed, it was the hangers-on, the complainers, those who just wanted an iPhone but wanted to pay Android or Windows prices.
However Apple has a huge following who are extremely devout. The GW seems to have an unvocal minority or defenders. There's a world of difference between the two.
The GWaren't reading it. This gets them accused of ignorance, aloofness and not caring what people want. Your circular argument means nothing in this context.
.
Try reading it again. You don't like people sledging the GW? Don't read a thread with a title like this one. Obvious, really.
GW don't try and force everyone to do it their way and pay inflated prices? you sure about that.
keezus wrote: Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.
Which leads to the next problem, which is - What happens when it's the Bloodthirster's turn to move, and he has half the opponent's army sitting on his base?
I believe this is covered by the rules. He can't move because there's enemies within 3".
Korinov wrote: You know what's even more tiresome than the constant whining? The constant whining about the whining
Welcome to the internet, where opinions different to yours may exist, and people may even dare to post them.
And please let's not even get started on the issue of Apple's "true fans", easily the most brainwashed, self-entitled bunch of smugs in human history.
Are you whining about the whining about the whining, again?
Hah, I say, hah! I shall now whine about your whining about the whining about the whining!
*Ahem*
Whiiiinnnge!
Seriously, you are right - but it seemed amusing.
And after the whole child labor thing came out... Apple pretty much lost any and all good-guy cred. (And the whole thing with Gizmodo was just pathetic.)
When a company, any company, does something unethical, callous, or just plain dumb then people are going to let their feelings be known.
GW has managed all three in a single legal case, but, beyond that, has done its best to make sure that everyone that wants to complain has plenty of reason to.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair the price of the AOS rules is £0 so I don't think we can complain about that.
We could complain that the world's most successful fantasy wargame designer has sunk to such depths.
They probably misunderstood that the free PDF download for other companies is the starter rules, not the full set. Or maybe they didn't and there is a full book later and they is bullshitting the retailers.
That Dakka is the biggest forum of this type by a larger margin should tell viewers that people want open conversation, even the (dare I say it) negative opinions on a particular release. What I find infinitely more tiresome than posters having complaints is the idea of going to a forum where negative opinions get shouted down and the world is all puppy dogs and space marines. I'd much rather people be honest and a true discourse go on than everyone repeatedly saying "boy, this is the best thing GW has ever done!" every second release.
I'm tired of the whining about the whining about the whining!
No matter what criticisms are levelled at GW, even if they address those criticisms, those criticisms won't be addressed in a way that pleases everyone.
I remember criticisms of WHFB requiring too many models, veterans insisting on large games that are inaccessible to newbies, the flaws of the codex/armybook system, the bloat of the rulebook, that rules should be free.
They've addressed all these things, but still there are plenty of criticisms (not that I think GW is beyond criticism).
I wish there were lightside/darkside flags so you could blanket ignore all pro/anti gw posts depending on how the fancy took you that day!
I suppose the closest to this is sticking to hobby/battle report subsections of forums rather than the general sections.
nareik wrote: I'm tired of the whining about the whining about the whining!
No matter what criticisms are levelled at GW, even if they address those criticisms, those criticisms won't be addressed in a way that pleases everyone.
No, but being seen to try would go a long way with many people.
I remember criticisms of WHFB requiring too many models, veterans insisting on large games that are inaccessible to newbies, the flaws of the codex/armybook system, the bloat of the rulebook, that rules should be free.
They've addressed all these things, but still there are plenty of criticisms (not that I think GW is beyond criticism).
Then they removed any semblance of a system to allow people to have a fair game, removing, at a stroke, the thing that most people who play get a buzz out of (a closely contested, fair, game.)
I wish there were lightside/darkside flags so you could blanket ignore all pro/anti gw posts depending on how the fancy took you that day!
I suppose the closest to this is sticking to hobby/battle report subsections of forums rather than the general sections.
Yeah, cause only listening to people you agree with is a really healthy way to have a discussion and grow as a person.
I don't come here to grow as a person. I come here to share my interests and excitement with like-minded people. I get plenty of personal growth in real life.
Well, if you're looking for a forum where everyone blindly agrees with you, I'd suggest starting your own and maintaining a very strict registration policy.
Otherwise I'm afraid your going to have to deal with the prospect that not everyone thinks the way you do.
Of course not everyone thinks the way I do. Most people think playing with toy soldiers is stupid, for example. You and I agree, I presume, that it is awesome. I like this agreement.
Well, I read the White Dwarf and also went through the rules for AoS.
First of all, the dragon with the long neck. I think the rules the way they are make lots of sense. Imagine if a dragon is on a 2" base and has a 3" neck and tail.
If you breathe 12" of fire from the neck, it goes to a certain spot. If you could move the dragon, and turn it, that fire distance would be further than if you ONLY moved it. Therefore, during the movement, no part of the dragon should exceed the total movement range. As Insaniak pointed out, since facing doesn't have a meaning (and you could imagine this as the dragon turning its long neck), you can simply keep your models facing the same direction, if you wish. Again, this causes a problem only on a small number of models.
Had the rules been "measure from the base" there would be a controversy over modelling for advantage: it would matter whether the dragon were on a 2", 3" or 5" base. Basically, the larger the base, the larger a radius you will have for shooting; and for a nonshooting unit, the smaller the radius of the base, the smaller a target you present.
Now, the rules & package in general.
They look pretty simple. It says clearly on the page before the rules, "Perhaps the most exciting thing in the box after the jaw-dropping miniatures, is the 96-page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar."
So that 96 page book probably isn't a zillion battlescrolls; more likely, you can download the full battlescrolls online, and the 96 page book contains a combination of battlescrolls and scenarios (detailing the opening battles of AoS).
So, if Scenarios are not your thing (a) make up your own balancing system or mechanism or (b) play something else.
Regarding the ruleset: Given the constraint of "we want to make this really simple and easy to pick up", I don't know what all the animosity towards them is. Sure it's simple. It's not WHFB, nor 40k. It's not hard to learn. It's a way to take your miniature collection, and within minutes, stick them on the table, move them towards each other, and pew pew.
It looks like it could be fun. But I'll reserve judgement until I try it out. Either way, this game is not my "thing", because I like big scifi battles with tons of models, infantry, tanks, jets, stompy robots and stuff -- not skirmishy games, and not really fantasy games (I need the futuristic weaponry). So I'll say the same thing about AoS as I do about WMH -- regardless of how awesome the rules are, the game itself won't grab me enough to make it my regular thing.
Still, it may be ok for a time-filler on a spare table, between games, after games, et cetera. The box set looks to be an exceptionally good value.
Then they removed any semblance of a system to allow people to have a fair game, removing, at a stroke, the thing that most people who play get a buzz out of (a closely contested, fair, game.)
I think you're wrong. I think this will be a highly scripted, scenario-based game (it virtually says so in the box contents in WD75, I quoted it above).
I have a feeling a lot will look elsewhere, Talys. The starter will do well, but I don't see Age of Sigmar being popular short of as conversion bits for 40k. Which will be result in even less sales than before, because at least there was a decent game beforehand (over-bloated with insane magic, but still quite structured. Almost *anything* works better than no points)
TheAuldGrump wrote: Are you whining about the whining about the whining, again?
Hah, I say, hah! I shall now whine about your whining about the whining about the whining!
*Ahem*
Whiiiinnnge!
But seriously, nothing wrong with complaining, complaining about complaining, complaining about complaining about complaining or so on. It's really not an issue that people get upset about something, it's about their reasons why and how they conduct themselves and explain it.
Accolade wrote: I have a feeling a lot will look elsewhere, Talys. The starter will do well, but I don't see Age of Sigmar being popular short of as conversion bits for 40k. Which will be result in even less sales than before, because at least there was a decent game beforehand (over-bloated with insane magic, but still quite structured. Almost *anything* works better than no points)
I think it will be very hard to tell in the short term, because the models and price per model for pretty cool stuff will make AoS a seller during launch.
In the medium and long term, the question are germane:
1. Do people PLAY AoS?
2. Do people BUY AoS, and potentially, future Fantasy releases?
#1 is important because mindshare is valuable. But even without #1, if #2 comes true, I'm not really sure if GW characterizes it as a success or failure. Is the goal of Sigmar to get people to PLAY Fantasy or to BUY Fantasy?
I mean, if people are buying fantasy because the price of miniatures is good (ie, GW keeps pumping out $125 boxes with 50 minis, perhaps being a mix of new minis and old), they'll keep selling those boxes, and SOME people will play their game. Since GW has a lot of models in the range already, and "nobody" is buying them, why not bundle them up and sell them for "cheap"? Whatever "cheap" is, it's more than nothing, and the production cost is a drop in the bucket, even as compared to the lowered prices. It will also apply downward pressure onto other games manufacturers, I think, which would be wonderful.
As much as people like to whine about GW prices, I would LOVE to get my PP models at $2-3 PPM, especially in a kit that included a few giant models that are currently in the $50+ range by themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CrashGordon94 wrote: But seriously, nothing wrong with complaining, complaining about complaining, complaining about complaining about complaining or so on. It's really not an issue that people get upset about something, it's about their reasons why and how they conduct themselves and explain it.
I am complaining that my head hurts.
But I agree: free speech and all, complain about what you want. At some point, though, complaining is a waste of time (though it's your time to waste!). Nobody ever said that we were a logical species. After all, a strange mutation causes a subspecies to spend its time on toy soldiers that go dakkadakkadakka instead of more productive ventures.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Are you whining about the whining about the whining, again?
Hah, I say, hah! I shall now whine about your whining about the whining about the whining!
*Ahem*
Whiiiinnnge!
But seriously, nothing wrong with complaining, complaining about complaining, complaining about complaining about complaining or so on. It's really not an issue that people get upset about something, it's about their reasons why and how they conduct themselves and explain it.
Dang, I was trying for this one:
(Just in case anybody was wondering, I am joking. Both times.)
I think that one question that people should ask themselves, when looking at any game these days is 'If this was on Kickstarter, would I back it, and if so, then how much?'
There are games on Kickstarter where I look at what is in the box, and even if the rules suck then I would be getting my moneys worth.
There are games on Kickstarter where the rules look awesome, and the miniatures look... adequate.
There are games on Kickstarter where the rules and the minis are separate entities, and you can choose between them.
If Age of Sigmarines was on Kickstarter... I might pledge a few dollars for the angels - to use with Kings of War, and a few bucks for the dude wid da dog - he would show up in an RPG.
I would not pledge $120 for the full box. Hell, I wouldn't pledge $50 - there is just not enough in the box that interests me.
The terrain... now that interests me, and I would likely get it as an addon if it were on Kickstarter.
Rules are free, so unless there were a super deluxe version... nah, even then I wouldn't bother. The rules look about as good as Dreadfleet, maybe a bit worse.
On Kickstarter, from an unknown company, knowing what was in the box... I do not think that it would hit a high funding goal.
The only thing that it is relying on is the GW name... and that just isn't worth much.
Accolade wrote: I have a feeling a lot will look elsewhere, Talys. The starter will do well, but I don't see Age of Sigmar being popular short of as conversion bits for 40k. Which will be result in even less sales than before, because at least there was a decent game beforehand (over-bloated with insane magic, but still quite structured. Almost *anything* works better than no points)
I think it will be very hard to tell in the short term, because the models and price per model for pretty cool stuff will make AoS a seller during launch.
In the medium and long term, the question are germane:
1. Do people PLAY AoS?
2. Do people BUY AoS, and potentially, future Fantasy releases?
#1 is important because mindshare is valuable. But even without #1, if #2 comes true, I'm not really sure if GW characterizes it as a success or failure. Is the goal of Sigmar to get people to PLAY Fantasy or to BUY Fantasy?
I mean, if people are buying fantasy because the price of miniatures is good (ie, GW keeps pumping out $125 boxes with 50 minis, perhaps being a mix of new minis and old), they'll keep selling those boxes, and SOME people will play their game. Since GW has a lot of models in the range already, and "nobody" is buying them, why not bundle them up and sell them for "cheap"? Whatever "cheap" is, it's more than nothing, and the production cost is a drop in the bucket, even as compared to the lowered prices. It will also apply downward pressure onto other games manufacturers, I think, which would be wonderful.
As much as people like to whine about GW prices, I would LOVE to get my PP models at $2-3 PPM, especially in a kit that included a few giant models that are currently in the $50+ range by themselves.
Well, on #1, I don't know if I foresee a lot of long-term playing. If the no-points thing comes true, then the actual ability to play a fair game comes at a level less the level of a game of Monopoly. There's no structure, no fairness, no ability to have a competitive experience. And by competitive[/], I mean the experience of playing a game against another person to determine a winner, so a "game" by the literal definition of the word.
That experience seems to be significant below the experience with the current edition. Now, AOS does have some big advantages in that the rules are free and there appears to be better scalability in game size, I just think the lack of any sense of balance will turn away people, especially in the long-term (how often do you need to play the no-balance random experience before you just feel it's no different than rolling a fist full of dice?). I suppose GW could come out with a points system at some point in the future and things might turn around, but all information points to them [i]wanting this. And like so many other occasions, GW will succeed in being their worst enemy.
Pertaining to #2, I think people will keep doing as they did before, and purchasing WHFB (with the models being as nice as they are) for personal projects. For a time the sales will be boosted by the new game, but I doubt that will have staying power. I suppose AOS's best chance for survival will come from the Sigmarines, which seems like a sorry future for the game overall.
keezus wrote: Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.
Which leads to the next problem, which is - What happens when it's the Bloodthirster's turn to move, and he has half the opponent's army sitting on his base?
I believe this is covered by the rules. He can't move because there's enemies within 3".
TheAuldGrump wrote: I think that one question that people should ask themselves, when looking at any game these days is 'If this was on Kickstarter, would I back it, and if so, then how much?'
No, this is a terrible litmus test. There are people like me who will never back ANY Kickstarter by any company. I would rather pay twice as much for a product that's ready for me to evaluate than to buy into something that isn't made yet.
Plus, I don't like startups generally. I wait until the company is a certain amount mature, they've found their footing, and in like there they're going.
The only thing that it is relying on is the GW name... and that just isn't worth much.
The Auld Grump
And a large miniature collection that some people really like. And a game that some people really like, too. And the highest sales revenue miniature war game. And a whole bunch of money in the bank with cash flow. Wait, that's more than a name
Well, on #1, I don't know if I foresee a lot of long-term playing. If the no-points thing comes true, then the actual ability to play a fair game comes at a level less the level of a game of Monopoly. There's no structure, no fairness, no ability to have a competitive experience. And by competitive[/], I mean the experience of playing a game against another person to determine a winner, so a "game" by the literal definition of the word.
That experience seems to be significant below the experience with the current edition. Now, AOS does have some big advantages in that the rules are free and there appears to be better scalability in game size, I just think the lack of any sense of balance will turn away people, especially in the long-term (how often do you need to play the no-balance random experience before you just feel it's no different than rolling a fist full of dice?). I suppose GW could come out with a points system at some point in the future and things might turn around, but all information points to them [i]wanting this. And like so many other occasions, GW will succeed in being their worst enemy.
Pertaining to #2, I think people will keep doing as they did before, and purchasing WHFB (with the models being as nice as they are) for personal projects. For a time the sales will be boosted by the new game, but I doubt that will have staying power. I suppose AOS's best chance for survival will come from the Sigmarines, which seems like a sorry future for the game overall.
You could be spot on. I certainly see that as a possibility.
The core question seems to be that GW is making a scenario-based miniature game that can be played as a very casual (but likely poorly balanced) pick-up skirmishes. It is NOT a miniature war game, at least not by any traditional definition -- so... is there a market for this?
Maybe not. Maybe?
Like I said, not really my thing, but I don't know. And yeah, the Sigmarite models will probably do just fine. Will they get formations?
TheAuldGrump wrote: I think that one question that people should ask themselves, when looking at any game these days is 'If this was on Kickstarter, would I back it, and if so, then how much?'
No, this is a terrible litmus test. There are people like me who will never back ANY Kickstarter by any company. I would rather pay twice as much for a product that's ready for me to evaluate than to buy into something that isn't made yet.
Plus, I don't like startups generally. I wait until the company is a certain amount mature, they've found their footing, and in like there they're going.
The only thing that it is relying on is the GW name... and that just isn't worth much.
The Auld Grump
And a large miniature collection that some people really like. And a game that some people really like, too. And the highest sales revenue miniature war game. And a whole bunch of money in the bank with cash flow. Wait, that's more than a name
A Cash Flow that is shrinking, year after year.
And the collections aren't tied to AoS - they are tied to Warhammer - a game that GW just crapped on - adding to the huge pile of crap that many people associate with the name GW.
A name that got a ton of negative publicity with the Spots the Space Marine debacle.
So, no - the name really isn't worth that much.
Buy GW, We Are IP Bullies That Write Crappy Rules!
But, Hey! At Least We Are Really Expensive!
GW are dumping their name from their shops in favour of Warhammer, and they are dumping the name Warhammer from Fantasy in favour of the hugely recognisable and evocative Age Of Sigmar.
The core question seems to be that GW is making a scenario-based miniature game that can be played as a very casual (but likely poorly balanced) pick-up skirmishes. It is NOT a miniature war game, at least not by any traditional definition -- so... is there a market for this?
Maybe not. Maybe?
Asmodee/Fantasy Flight Games make multiple games that fall somewhere between tabletop war-games and boardgames so the market is there and overall their revenue is higher than GW's (but spread over many games). Something similar could work for GW (with multiple scenario boxes each year to build your armies instead of boxes of regiments) but their rules quality tends be lacking and having simple but useable rules is kinda the minimum people expect when they buy a boardgame-ish game and GW doesn't deliver that with this new ruleset. I wouldn't call these rules simple but simplistic, they kinda try to emulate some sort of simplicity and clarity without knowing how to go about it (from what we have seen of them).
And who know how balanced the scenarios will be? Just because there are no points doesn't mean the scenarios will work out to be fun for both sides. Removing the points because balancing is work doesn't mean that the game is suddenly balanced. It just means they chose to not include this type of balancing factor.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Buy GW, We Are IP Bullies That Write Crappy Rules! But, Hey! At Least We Are Really Expensive!
It never ceases to amaze me that some people don't understand that there are people exist who don't feel the same way about a hobby as them.
There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there. I really don't care about what GW, Microsoft, Google, or Coca-Cola do to protect their IP. I so don't care if Coca-Cola goes and sues every soft drink manufacturer on the planet; I'll still buy flats of Coke. As to "Really Expensive?"
Age of Sigmar costs $125 for 47 models, or $2.66 per model, less 25%, will be $2 a shot. I'll spend an average of 10 hours painting it (some much longer, others perhaps a little less), so even without the game, that's $0.20 per hour for entertainment. And I have a model afterwards that I get to keep forever!
In contrast, when I buy a video game, the most I get out of it is about 100 hours for $60, about $0.60 per hour. If I buy a Blu-Ray disc, that's $20 a 120 minute flick, or $10 an hour. Or if I got to a movie, I'll spend $25 between ticket and food for 2 hours, or $12.50 per hour (really, twice that because I have to pay for my wife!). If I go out with my wife or friends, I'll probably spend at least $25 per hour (potentially much, much more).
As far as cost of fun stuff I do in my spare time goes, other than the things that are free or virtually free, like hiking or television, hobby, and wargaming are just about the cheapest thing that I do. Even for models that cost TEN TIMES Sigmar's fantastic deal -- say, $20 a pop -- it's still cheaper than most things I do. So no, it's not "Really Expensive".
I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Buy GW, We Are IP Bullies That Write Crappy Rules!
But, Hey! At Least We Are Really Expensive!
It never ceases to amaze me that some people don't understand that there are people exist who don't feel the same way about a hobby as them.
There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there. I really don't care about what GW, Microsoft, Google, or Coca-Cola do to protect their IP. I so don't care if Coca-Cola goes and sues every soft drink manufacturer on the planet; I'll still buy flats of Coke. As to "Really Expensive?"
Age of Sigmar costs $125 for 47 models, or $2.66 per model, less 25%, will be $2 a shot. I'll spend an average of 10 hours painting it (some much longer, others perhaps a little less), so even without the game, that's $0.20 per hour for entertainment. And I have a model afterwards that I get to keep forever!
In contrast, when I buy a video game, the most I get out of it is about 100 hours for $60, about $0.60 per hour. If I buy a Blu-Ray disc, that's $20 a 120 minute flick, or $10 an hour. Or if I got to a movie, I'll spend $25 between ticket and food for 2 hours, or $12.50 per hour (really, twice that because I have to pay for my wife!). If I go out with my wife or friends, I'll probably spend at least $25 per hour (potentially much, much more).
As far as cost of fun stuff I do in my spare time goes, other than the things that are free or virtually free, like hiking or television, hobby, and wargaming are just about the cheapest thing that I do. Even for models that cost TEN TIMES Sigmar's fantastic deal -- say, $20 a pop -- it's still cheaper than most things I do. So no, it's not "Really Expensive".
Shouting at the wall there a bit old chap.
Not only does what your write have no real relevance to what Grump posted, what he posted is rooted in indisputable fact.
You can 'feel' however you like about GW, but if you're going to gain any traction in this argument you're going to have to start using some of those pesky, inconvenient, facts of your own.
Talys wrote: The core question seems to be that GW is making a scenario-based miniature game that can be played as a very casual (but likely poorly balanced) pick-up skirmishes. It is NOT a miniature war game, at least not by any traditional definition -- so... is there a market for this?
Is there a market? Who cares. The more important question is how much of a market GW is throwing away by refusing to spend even a token amount of time and effort on making a proper game. A better version of AoS would be just as good for scenario-based games but would also be appropriate for random skirmishes. And that better version of AoS would have sold to the scenario-based market and to everyone else. I don't see how this can be considered anything but a spectacularly incompetent business decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: Given the constraint of "we want to make this really simple and easy to pick up", I don't know what all the animosity towards them is.
The animosity is that you can have a simple and easy to pick up game without the massive problems that AoS has. Other games have done it (X-Wing, for example) and the only reason AoS fails to do better is that GW simply doesn't give a . There is absolutely no way to defend the AoS rules or the incompetent morons who wrote them.
Talys wrote: There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there.
A business having super fans doesn't mean criticism directed towards it is unwarranted, nor is it necessarily indicate the business is in robust health.
There are / were super fans of all sorts of by-gone, obsolete and irrelevant things including:
Boeing 747's. These guys are being phased out due to fuel savings and flexibility offered by smaller wide bodies. These old queens of the sky have their own devoted following. It'll be sad when they are all retired.
A-10... Being replaced by F-35s. I can't say for certain, but from what I can tell, the operators, and those they provide air support for are pretty big fans of this plane. It's demise has been pushed back, but it's still on the chopping block. Blackberrys Amiga computers. These things never took off even though they were pretty good and had industry and enthusiast support.
Betamax. These things died a horrible death despite heavy use by the media industry and the format had its own super fan following.
Talys wrote: There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there.
A business having super fans doesn't mean criticism directed towards it is unwarranted, nor is it necessarily indicate the business is in robust health.
There are / were super fans of all sorts of by-gone, obsolete and irrelevant things including:
Boeing 747's. These guys are being phased out due to fuel savings and flexibility offered by smaller wide bodies. These old queens of the sky have their own devoted following. It'll be sad when they are all retired.
A-10... Being replaced by F-35s. I can't say for certain, but from what I can tell, the operators, and those they provide air support for are pretty big fans of this plane. It's demise has been pushed back, but it's still on the chopping block. Blackberrys Amiga computers. These things never took off even though they were pretty good and had industry and enthusiast support.
Betamax. These things died a horrible death despite heavy use by the media industry and the format had its own super fan following.
I love the movie "Pathfinder." It's a terrible, silly movie, but I like it. Doesn't mean I can't see its flaws. If something's crap, someone can still like it.
i'll try a few fun facts...
GW products being really expensive is a completely relative thing, which depends on what you want out of the product...
GW being an IP bully is also relative, depending upon which side of the fence you are on...
GW writers' making crappy rules is also relative, depending upon what you want out of the game...
what is a fact to one person in a case like this (ie enjoyment of a product, and perspective on a corporation) can be false to someone else...
do i think GW's products are really expensive??? no, i don't...
does Kirby think he is an IP bully??? i doubt it...
does Phil Kelly feel like he writes crappy rules??? not from my experience in talking with him at various Games Days...
even the temperature that water boils at changes depending on altitude...
facts are not always so concrete and immutable as people would like them to be...
sometimes it is a matter or perspective, or altitude...
ironic to see that even Mihikala (i'm sure i missed a letter or two in their somewhere) had a complete revelation in his first playtest of AoS, and had his mind changed about the inherent playability of the game...
people stated for a 100 pages that GW released a completely unplayable game, hands down...
turns out the game actually is playable, as the first run-through revealed, just not in a way that some people would like it to be...
kinda like life...
jah-joshua wrote: GW writers' making crappy rules is also relative, depending upon what you want out of the game...
No, it really isn't relative. GW's rules are terrible no matter what you want out of the game, unless what you want is "a masochistic contest of who can endure playing the worst possible game" but aren't quite ready for FATAL.
Water temperature comparisons?! Jah, at this point you're starting to sound like Bill O'Reily and his famous "You can't explain that" phrase
Particularly with the IP bully comments. Can you seriously look through the things GW...
- Was trying to claim ownership of (ie. Roman numerals and fur on shoulder pads)
- Mark Wells commenting about GW's designers coming up with all of their concepts "completely out of their own minds without any outside inspiration"
- Attempting to trick old artists into signing over rights to their art while simultaneously telling the courts they (GW) already owned these things?
- Drug the court case out as long as possible, freezing all of CHS's assets so that the owner was forced to eventually concede when he ran out of money
There are a TON more things that were gleamed from this case. How you can sit there and say "GW are not IP bullies" seems either uninformed or willfully ignoring their previous actions.
Additionally, the problems with the AOS are still there. There are no points, so there is no balancing the game. Things didn't turn around, opinions are still pretty much the same. Are we going to just say "everything is relative" if or when this game fails to make more profit than its predecessor?
EDIT: and to be clear, this post was said in a state of zen
my point is that those conclusions, no matter much anyone wants them to be facts, really are just opinions...
i never said anything about my personal feelings about GW's execs and lawyers being IP bullies...
i said i doubt that they feel they are...
maybe i am wrong, and all the people involved where giving high-fives over cocktails every night after court...
it is a fact that some people perceive them to be bullies, sure, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less of an opinion...
as to the rules, some people will like them, and some people won't...
just because someone feels they are crappy, doesn't mean there aren't others out there who enjoy them...
as was demonstrated in the News thread, the game is actually playable through the use of the rules, scrolls, and scenarios...
wether it is a well designed game or not is a different matter for each person to form an opinion on...
again, my point is, to me, most things are relative, and i like to keep an open mind, which is why i don't post in a manner telling people that their opinions are wrong...
i just present things as i see them...
how can "at least we are really expensive" be a universal fact, when many people have said that they don't think GW products are really expensive???
it can be a very valid opinion, but nothing more...
Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it
You've heard of metaphors, right?
The stuff they set fire to, in this case, is a game setting that people are quite find of. Yes, they still have their existing books... But the setting is now officially dead and buried, and won't be developed any further in any recognisable way.
And yet people raged at me when I made an IDENTICAL analogy to what Peter Jackson did to JRR Tolkien's works.
And the IP was not even a creation of Peter Jackson's.
He did the same disrespectful destruction of Tolkien's Middle-earth that people are accusing GW of doing to their own properties (as a sort of spite to their customers).
jah-joshua wrote: my point is that those conclusions, no matter much anyone wants them to be facts, really are just opinions...
i never said anything about my personal feelings about GW's execs and lawyers being IP bullies...
i said i doubt that they feel they are...
maybe i am wrong, and all the people involved where giving high-fives over cocktails every night after court...
it is a fact that some people perceive them to be bullies, sure, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less of an opinion...
as to the rules, some people will like them, and some people won't...
just because someone feels they are crappy, doesn't mean there aren't others out there who enjoy them...
as was demonstrated in the News thread, the game is actually playable through the use of the rules, scrolls, and scenarios...
wether it is a well designed game or not is a different matter for each person to form an opinion on...
again, my point is, to me, most things are relative, and i like to keep an open mind, which is why i don't post in a manner telling people that their opinions are wrong...
i just present things as i see them...
how can "at least we are really expensive" be a universal fact, when many people have said that they don't think GW products are really expensive???
it can be a very valid opinion, but nothing more...
cheers
jah
how they feel about themselves is irrelevant. They are IP bullies and for you to argilue that they're not is disingenuous at best. Trying to claim that they own the right to roman numerals and halberds is wrong.
devils advocate is annoying when there's no real argument.
jah-joshua wrote: my point is that those conclusions, no matter much anyone wants them to be facts, really are just opinions...
i never said anything about my personal feelings about GW's execs and lawyers being IP bullies...
i said i doubt that they feel they are...
maybe i am wrong, and all the people involved where giving high-fives over cocktails every night after court...
it is a fact that some people perceive them to be bullies, sure, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less of an opinion...
as to the rules, some people will like them, and some people won't...
just because someone feels they are crappy, doesn't mean there aren't others out there who enjoy them...
as was demonstrated in the News thread, the game is actually playable through the use of the rules, scrolls, and scenarios...
wether it is a well designed game or not is a different matter for each person to form an opinion on...
again, my point is, to me, most things are relative, and i like to keep an open mind, which is why i don't post in a manner telling people that their opinions are wrong...
i just present things as i see them...
how can "at least we are really expensive" be a universal fact, when many people have said that they don't think GW products are really expensive???
it can be a very valid opinion, but nothing more...
cheers
jah
You keep using that word, "Facts." I do not think it means what you think it means.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also... If GW's job is to sell miniatures, they are certainly going about it wrong.
Historical miniatures... Now those companies sell miniatures.
Their problem, though, is that History doesn't change, so you can only sell a person an Austrian Napoleonic, Early Imperial Roman, or Viking army once. And many Historical Players don't tend to wander outside of their genres too far.
But for selling miniatures, the games they sell them for demands hundreds and hundreds of miniatures (some Napoleonic Armies up to 500 minis - and some of the really Archaic Ancients Armies can wind up with close to 1,000 miniatures in tournament play).
Currently, though, Historicals are going through a bit of a slump. The WRG writers who dominated the field since the 1970s are fading, and no one has yet risen to claim their titles. There are some contenders, but they have yet to demonstrate their bona fides to the historical miniatures market. No single standard, as existed from 1970 - early-00s exists. And having a standard does an awful lot more to move the ENTIRE hobby forward than the litany of competing standards and scales, often from rules writers who are not sufficiently versed in the genres to completely understand what they are aiming for.
GW is in exactly this situation. They are trying to compete with everyone, and set a course that excludes any and all others. Exclusionary genres are very tough by their very nature, and perhaps GW has pushed against the edge of the envelope too hard, and is now beginning to break-up as a result? Maybe the solution is to begin allowing for a standard to arise (It is not lost on me that almost concurrent with Mantic producing Kings of War which used the same game standards - basing, movement, etc. - as did WHFB that GW suddenly decides to vacate that standard lest it be shared by anyone else). The future will tell if that is indeed what is happening.
But. . . In the meantime: They certainly don't act like their job is to sell miniatures.
@BeAfraid: feel free to refute me...
how is it a universal fact that GW products are "really expensive"???
if someone says, "it is a fact that GW products are really expensive to me", that is totally valid...
yet Talys said that he doesn't feel $2.66 per mini to be at all expensive, and Azrael13 responded with "you need to respond to irrefutable facts with facts rather than feeling"...
i am saying that something being "really expensive" is a personal value judgement, not a fact...
@MWH: if you find my posts annoying, you can always just put me on ignore...
i am not just playing Devil's Advocate to stir up argument...
i am saying that someone at GW obviously felt that they had a valid reason to go to court against Chapterhouse...
i have given my opinion on this subject before, but i will give it again...
the fact that i can't find the female Striking Scorpion Exarch for sale on the Chapterhouse site, shows me that GW's lawers had at least one valid claim in their case...
i do, however, think that they went about it in the wrong way, completely overstepped their bounds, and used some very dirty tactics...
in my opinion, GW should have bought the sculpt, and released it (or not released it, their choice)...
i don't think they made the right choice here, but i can see why some lawyer or exec felt that they should sue CH...
the fact that they got their butts handed to them by the judge shows that the GW folks involved in the case were wrong about their ridiculous claims...
if i recall the verdict correctly, they were right about a couple of claims, and wrong about a whole boatload of others...
for me, the most important thing about the topic of this thread is that my view of GW is that i enjoy the work the studio produces in terms of minis, art, and fiction...
those are the guys that i am supporting when i buy a GW product...
as insaniak pointed out in another thread, that means that i am also supporting the jackassery of the execs and legal department...
it sucks, but is true...
so, i guess i am guilty of being a GW supporter, even if i don't like the choices made by management, i like their product more than i dislike their execs...
judge me how you will...
Currently, though, Historicals are going through a bit of a slump.
Uhm, what?
We're seeing plenty of new historical rulesets and miniature lines hitting the market every month. And the release of DBA 3 shows that the WRG guys are still working on their games.
This thread seems to have outlived its useful life and turned into some kind of weird metaphor competition.
Given the explosion of plastic historical figures in the past few years, it's hard to say the genre is in a slump.
It is true that Corvus Belli have stopped making their 15mm Ancients, which is a real shame because they were great figures. But the reason is the company wants to concentrate on Infinity.
jah-joshua wrote: GW writers' making crappy rules is also relative, depending upon what you want out of the game...
No, it really isn't relative. GW's rules are terrible no matter what you want out of the game, unless what you want is "a masochistic contest of who can endure playing the worst possible game" but aren't quite ready for FATAL.
The AOS rules are OK for what they are, a free set that is intended to be very simple to learn and play. If you want more complication, you will have to look elsewhere.
A lot of the sillier ideas can easily be house-ruled out, like the shouting rules, or to make things a bit more tactical, it will be fairly easy to add house rules, for example, a different unit activation sequence if that is interesting.
Kilkrazy wrote: The AOS rules are OK for what they are, a free set that is intended to be very simple to learn and play. If you want more complication, you will have to look elsewhere.
A lot of the sillier ideas can easily be house-ruled out, like the shouting rules, or to make things a bit more tactical, it will be fairly easy to add house rules, for example, a different unit activation sequence if that is interesting.
Orock wrote: I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.
Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.
Are you a stockholder? An owner?
If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.
There are plenty of product substitutes...buy them if their selection does not satisfy.
The IP bully castigation is missing the point. IPs are an insect world. Love, hate, rage, joy, fairness, compassion, honor, etc. do not exist. Survival is the only instinct and behavior. There are no IP bullies...only those who can and can't. BTW I do / did not like how GW behaved, but it is expected.
I can accept a whole hell of a lot of poorly written rules and game imbalance if the price is right.
Kirby likens his products to Ferrari. At Ferrari prices I demand Ferrari performance.
What I am getting is Ferrari prices with Kia perfomance.
It did not used to be this way. They got greedy and lost their way.
Kia? You're being too conservative.....it's more like Ferrari prices at Yugo performance....guess where Yugo is at now?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have to admit though, that I do not wish GW under. I do think this is the step in the right direction, but they need to get off their High Horse and do a HELL of a lot of public outreach if they want to stay on top of the hill. I still can't for the life of me wonder why they haven't made SOME SORT of public statement trying to explain what the Hell is going on. Some kind of direction as to the whys whats and hows of the current picture of things....and I don't mean some sort of corporate BS lines from shareholder statements.
I despise Games Workshop. They couldn't go out of business fast enough for me. They suck all the air out of the room: people are talking about this ridiculous game and some will be spending money on this mockery of miniature wargaming, when they could be putting money into REAL wargames.
All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."
I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS. Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.
The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.
The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.
Marlov wrote: I despise Games Workshop. They couldn't go out of business fast enough for me. They suck all the air out of the room: people are talking about this ridiculous game and some will be spending money on this mockery of miniature wargaming, when they could be putting money into REAL wargames.
All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."
I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS. Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.
The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.
The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.
Not sure if serious ?
If so, Id have a lie down mate, I really do feel sorry for the gamers that really do not like the idea of an unbalanced game, I think its a shame that GW are not going to even cater to that crowd unless they are prepared to balance the game themselves. That really is the only bad side I can see against this new game, but it was clear they needed to do something if they were to get fantasy popular again, its just a real shame that the competitive side to the game is almost none existent.
Don't for one minute think that games need to be balanced to be popular or fun either, that's just not true.
Had a butchers in WW and GW nottingham today and both were buzzing with talk of the new game, I think it could be a good move for them.
All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."
Wow, want me to hold your high horse while you get down?
No, not really. Competitive games are fun, but they do not encompass all wargame are, nor should they. All you demonstrate is a shockingly skewed, short sighted, exclusionary and narrow minded view of our hobby. And a rather disgusting and toxic attitude towards people who have different interests thsn you. I play all types of wargames, from cut throat tournaments, to casual beer and pretzel games (with no points costs even) and thryre all different, but they're all valid ways of having fun.
And if that's your attitude on the tabletop, with 'destroying' your opponents, viewing them as 'pathetic and helpless' , wanting them to 'fear' you. Andgo home crying to momma, then frankly, your attitude stinks. You need to grow up, you need to play against grown ups, not kindergarteners.
Yours is the toxic attitude that ruins our community.
EDIT: WARgame or warGAME? if you want real war, go join the army mate. saying winning is all that matters says a lot less about you than it does about anything else. what happened to 'taking part', or 'spending a good evening with friends'? Winning is all that matters? Skewed, selfish and small minded priorities by you. plenty people play for far more varied reasons than that.
I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS.
So the 'one true game', eh? Not everyone wants tge same thing, and shockingly, thsts ok. Not everything has to be major league play - it's ok to kick the ball around in the park with your mates and have the dog running around after it too. For christs sakes, we play a game of plastic soldiers. Play with like minded individuals. Simples.
Good competitive games exist. Go play them. But leave that stinker of an attitude at the door please, before you clear the room.
Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.
No, those things exist everywhere, and in every game. It's ok to be a casual player, and it's ok to be competitive. The trick is to play with like minded people. Scenario and non scenarios. Again - scenario play is great for pugs and tournaments, but it can be soulless. The lack of assymetric missions is one of the areas WMH is lacking,for example. Narrative, off the wall games can be fun too. Again, communicate with your opponent. Painted vs unpainted a. You get this everywhere. Rich vs not Rich? Welcome to life. We play an expensive hobby...
The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.
Would they though?. Gw is a gateway for a lot of people. Chucking that arguably means less exposure and an eventual contraction in the plsyer base.i think it's a valid worry.
The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.
Or play a game of age of sigmar. Table top wargames aren't just for the chosen few of you and your elitist ilk. Dumb game? Yeah, probably. At the same time it's different. It's a co-operative game - ss was said by a poster on the p&p boards:
'AoS clearly isn't meant to be co-op in the sense of "us vs. the game". It's co-op in the sense that you are writing a scenario, together, with both players' enjoyment in mind when writing. Everything prior to "ok, now we start playing" is co-op. Once you start, it is you vs. me. But we've written the scenario we are in together, thus, we are both responsible for our enjoyment.
So there is no fuzzy line about "trying too hard to win" - the line is very clear, in that the "trying to win" starts *after*the miniatures are placed on the table, not before. I think the reason it seems fuzzy is just that most people who are negative about it are really uncomfortable with the idea of taking responsibility for the other player's enjoyment, and want the game rules to have that responsibility.'
In other words - yes it's rubbish, especially from the perspective that you are used to. But there are other ways of playing wargames Yes it takes work. Maybe too much work, but Maybe the act of tinkering and co-operation is what you like, and if so, fair play. Give it a shot.
Deadnight wrote: 'AoS clearly isn't meant to be co-op in the sense of "us vs. the game". It's co-op in the sense that you are writing a scenario, together, with both players' enjoyment in mind when writing. Everything prior to "ok, now we start playing" is co-op. Once you start, it is you vs. me. But we've written the scenario we are in together, thus, we are both responsible for our enjoyment.
It's still garbage as a cooperative game. A good cooperative game starts from a position of consistent balance and rules that function as-written, so that you can devote all of your cooperative efforts to customizing the game experience instead of trying to repair broken rules and make the game even somewhat playable. AoS doesn't do that at all. It isn't an open-ended game with the freedom to build an experience together, it's a half-finished (and even that is being generous) mess and a stunning display of incompetence.
Deadnight wrote: 'AoS clearly isn't meant to be co-op in the sense of "us vs. the game". It's co-op in the sense that you are writing a scenario, together, with both players' enjoyment in mind when writing. Everything prior to "ok, now we start playing" is co-op. Once you start, it is you vs. me. But we've written the scenario we are in together, thus, we are both responsible for our enjoyment.
It's still garbage as a cooperative game. A good cooperative game starts from a position of consistent balance and rules that function as-written, so that you can devote all of your cooperative efforts to customizing the game experience instead of trying to repair broken rules and make the game even somewhat playable. AoS doesn't do that at all. It isn't an open-ended game with the freedom to build an experience together, it's a half-finished (and even that is being generous) mess and a stunning display of incompetence.
Hey, No argument here...
It can work, but plenty other things work better and easier... Open ended and half finished sums it up nicely though...
agnosto wrote: I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.
With regards to the last page with it being up to the players being relied on to balance it and make it fun for both of them, that's valid point in both directions. That's to say that it is indeed good for that and that could be valid, but at the same time a pretty bad idea to focus on.
That would be a BRILLIANT idea if it was some sort of custom rules/scenario/mission maker like GURPS and marketed as such, but they're marketing them as the rules and that's the issue. You expect to have working rules based on that but they seem more half-finished.
So with that in mind is a failure of framing/marketing really.
agnosto wrote: I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.
CrashGordon94 wrote: With regards to the last page with it being up to the players being relied on to balance it and make it fun for both of them, that's valid point in both directions. That's to say that it is indeed good for that and that could be valid, but at the same time a pretty bad idea to focus on.
That would be a BRILLIANT idea if it was some sort of custom rules/scenario/mission maker like GURPS and marketed as such, but they're marketing them as the rules and that's the issue. You expect to have working rules based on that but they seem more half-finished.
So with that in mind is a failure of framing/marketing really.
It isn't half-finished, though -- it was a conscious decision on their part to appeal to a segment of the community that wants to play or build/play scenarios, rather than army list based competitive games. Of course, that segment may not even exist.
We're scraping together some fantasy models for tomorrow, and we'll give the game a go before 40k. A bunch of people in the N&R forum seem to think it's pretty fun, so who knows. Unfortunately, our Fantasy models are pretty scattered. Maybe I'll use some LoTR elves and such as proxies
agnosto wrote: I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.
Is that Kirby in the meme?
Yep.
I am surprised no one has attempted to talk with him when the community members knows what he looks like.
Marlov wrote: I despise Games Workshop. They couldn't go out of business fast enough for me. They suck all the air out of the room: people are talking about this ridiculous game and some will be spending money on this mockery of miniature wargaming, when they could be putting money into REAL wargames.
All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."
I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS. Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.
The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.
The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.
You know what also ruins wargaming? When people forget that it's a game. It's a hobby. It's fun. When you act like its not, you ruin it for everyone around you.
But yes, please continue to tell us how to play our wargaming games.
CrashGordon94 wrote: With regards to the last page with it being up to the players being relied on to balance it and make it fun for both of them, that's valid point in both directions. That's to say that it is indeed good for that and that could be valid, but at the same time a pretty bad idea to focus on.
That would be a BRILLIANT idea if it was some sort of custom rules/scenario/mission maker like GURPS and marketed as such, but they're marketing them as the rules and that's the issue. You expect to have working rules based on that but they seem more half-finished.
So with that in mind is a failure of framing/marketing really.
I think its less about 'telling crashgordonhow exactly to play' and more 'giving crashgordon the freedom to make the game he wants to play'. at least in their minds. whatever they do, the internets will rip it to shreds. sothey say,'do nothing. let them build the games out of it that they want to play'. GW seem to want to put the game in your hands, and leave the responsibility for what kind of games get played up to the players. this isnt bad. (maybe there is a better mechanism or toolset, but thats another debate).
too many people dont want the responsibility for ensuring their opponent has a good time, and that the game is 'fun'.
you say its half finished? Well, i certainly dont disagree with you. it seems really shallow to me. but maybe that is the intent. there are plenty custom rules/scenarios and mission makers out there.use them, or make up your own. be assertive and take control of your own gaming. at least thats how id push it.
agnosto wrote: I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.
Is that Kirby in the meme?
Yep.
I am surprised no one has attempted to talk with him when the community members knows what he looks like.
He doesn't even talk to media when they request interviews; what makes you think he'll talk to customers? Based upon his public statements in financial releases, I would assume that he'd find communication with customers as needless since the GW hobby is buying GW products according to his hand-picked maangement team. What need have they to actually talk to the people whom they depend upon for their livelihood?
agnosto wrote: I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.
Is that Kirby in the meme?
Yep.
I am surprised no one has attempted to talk with him when the community members knows what he looks like.
He doesn't even talk to media when they request interviews; what makes you think he'll talk to customers? Based upon his public statements in financial releases, I would assume that he'd find communication with customers as needless since the GW hobby is buying GW products according to his hand-picked maangement team. What need have they to actually talk to the people whom they depend upon for their livelihood?
He obviously has his reasons for not wanting to do the above and has motives to his attitude towards the community. However the chances of meeting him and having a conversation can be done, depending on how resourceful and driven you are.
His motives are pretty obviously to drive at least a part of his company into the ground and sell out. Or something similarly.
And I doubt that anyone without a large checkbook could meet with him now, unless you were meeting to talk about the buyout.
So I'm calling BS on that statement in terms of scale. No one posting on these forums are doing to have the resources and drive, and not because they lack, more because it's out of anyone's league.
I understand the want to cast a more positive light on businessmen since you're a businessman, but businessmen are still just men.
Deadnight wrote: at least in their minds. whatever they do, the internets will rip it to shreds.
IOW, GW sucks at writing rules so they'd rather ragequit and publish obvious garbage instead. Why are you defending this behavior?
GW seem to want to put the game in your hands, and leave the responsibility for what kind of games get played up to the players. this isnt bad.
Of course it's bad. GW isn't encouraging customization, they're just publishing a half-finished product and saying "do the rest yourself". A good open-ended game provides a solid foundation of careful balance and well-functioning rules so that you can devote all of your time and effort to building the game experience you want instead of trying to fix basic things like "how many knights equal one dragon" or "WTF do I do if my models are on 1" bases". With AoSGW has abandoned this responsibility entirely. It's garbage for competitive play, it's garbage for pickup gaming, and it's garbage for "casual" scenario gaming.
too many people dont want the responsibility for ensuring their opponent has a good time, and that the game is 'fun'.
Well yes, because it's a pain to deal with. Why should I have to spend a bunch of time carefully analyzing our respective armies just to have a basic pickup game? If I'm going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game I think I'm justified in expecting it to work "out of the box" without having to be an amateur game designer just to ensure that both players have fun.
but maybe that is the intent.
Of course that's the intent. GW wanted to reboot WHFB, and they wanted to do it in a way that minimized development costs. AoS is pretty obviously a minimal-effort "game" where GW published the first draft without any playtesting or editing. It accomplishes their goal of minimizing costs, but that doesn't mean it's a good game.
there are plenty custom rules/scenarios and mission makers out there.use them, or make up your own. be assertive and take control of your own gaming. at least thats how id push it.
I fail to see how "create your own game that is loosely based on AoS" is a reasonable idea.
Vertrucio wrote: His motives are pretty obviously to drive at least a part of his company into the ground and sell out. Or something similarly.
Maybe he is an ex GW gamer who had something happen to him within the hhhobby and ever since sought revenge to bring the demise of GW crashing down. Or maybe he is doing all this with a joint effort of someone he trust will take over GW and run it the way most of the community desires. We will wont know for quite some time.
Vertrucio wrote: I understand the want to cast a more positive light on businessmen since you're a businessman, but businessmen are still just men.
I understand gamers disdain, sorrow and anguish for what's happening to them and their game at the moment but we don't know if the other two expansions are on the way. As some have suggested AoS is the gateway followed by larger games, and finally advanced skirmish games (or competitive rule set). If this sequence is true then that makes good business sense and a great way to mend the damage done and continue to sell units but I digress.
From an objective stance I don't agree with a lot of what he does so I am not defending him but I am sure he is aware of the community reaction by his own efforts or informed by assistants. He obviously has a reason why they have no PR/community team to fix a lot of issues. I suspect he believes they don't need one yet because the figures reports show it's just a vocal minority is not an impairment to their earnings.
Vertrucio wrote: And I doubt that anyone without a large checkbook could meet with him now, unless you were meeting to talk about the buyout.
So I'm calling BS on that statement in terms of scale. No one posting on these forums are doing to have the resources and drive, and not because they lack, more because it's out of anyone's league.
You're looking at this the wrong way. You don't need a checkbook or a buyout offer to meet him. Everyone has a life outside of work for example, so there's many ways to meet someone. You just need to be resourceful and have the drive, I guess maybe some luck too depending on the situation but this applies if you want to meet most people.
On a personal note I believe those able to develop/fix the rules to use this community affliction and focus it into perfecting said rules. There's very few opportunities with this much community movement and it would be a big mistake to not use it.
It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.
Tyron wrote: It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.
And it could be a possibility that he's being mind controlled by aliens working for the black helicopters. Could we please limit the discussion here to theories that are plausible, not merely possible?
Tyron wrote: It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.
Yes, but we can at least try to speculate stuff that isn't mindnumbingly stupidly implausible and stick to ideas supported by facts and reason.
Tyron wrote: It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.
And it could be a possibility that he's being mind controlled by aliens working for the black helicopters. Could we please limit the discussion here to theories that are plausible, not merely possible?
If you could cite a confirmation of what his end goal is then all you have is speculation like the rest of us.
Tyron wrote: It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.
Yes, but we can at least try to speculate stuff that isn't mindnumbingly stupidly implausible and stick to ideas supported by facts and reason.
Please cite a quote by him revealing his stratagem.
Tyron wrote: If you could cite a confirmation of what his end goal is then all you have is speculation like the rest of us.
Do you understand the difference between speculating based on known information and doing your best to come up with a plausible explanation, and posting ridiculous tinfoil hat theories that no sane person would ever believe?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're making the assertions, so I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone would want to harm a company in an attempt at long term growth, and why someone who is the Chairman, on again off again CEO and largest private equity holder would do it.
Tyron wrote: If you could cite a confirmation of what his end goal is then all you have is speculation like the rest of us.
Do you understand the difference between speculating based on known information and doing your best to come up with a plausible explanation, and posting ridiculous tinfoil hat theories that no sane person would ever believe?
I understand you're using strawman arguments and not bringing anything objectively to the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're making the assertions, so I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone would want to harm a company in an attempt at long term growth, and why someone who is the Chairman, on again off again CEO and largest private equity holder would do it.
We're all making assertions, using the same information. That's all we have, assertions, nothing more.
No, some of us are making plausible ones backed up by facts, reason and logic.
Only one person is trying to argue that Kirby is somehow trying to feth GW over for the greater good, and if you're going to make an argument that far out from logical, you'd better have some grade A reasoning and evidence to back it up.
Azreal13 wrote: No, some of us are making plausible ones backed up by facts, reason and logic.
Only one person is trying to argue that Kirby is somehow trying to feth GW over for the greater good, and if you're going to make an argument that far out from logical, you'd better have some grade A reasoning and evidence to back it up.
You don't.
I wasn't arguing in his favor of weakening GW for the greater good. I was postulating it. He obviously knows his decisions are bringing the demise of GW, but why would he do this? What does he have to gain from it? That's the question, he wouldn't do it without a gain.
As mentioned before I don't agree with what's happening. We all have access to the same information and no one here can provide any facts to why he does what he does. So all we have are assertions until we get 100% of all the information which will be unlikely.
Yes, and your postulation was dismissed as ridiculous.
In order for your idea to hold any water, you need to
A) suggest a plausible reason why any company would deliberately and knowingly act in a way contrary to the way it thinks would gain it the most money
And
B) suggest a plausible reason why a man whose entire financial well being is currently very closely tied to that of GW would do it
If you can do that, then perhaps there will be a discussion to e had. As it stands, it is just a silly idea which isn't supported by any facts at all that I can see which aren't better interpreted as something entirely more straightforward.
Tyron wrote: Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?
Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.
. There is absolutely no way to defend the 
