Cincydooley wrote:There’s been a lot said about Games Workshop’s most recent limited release, Dreadfleet, of both the good and bad variety. Internet forums have been raging about a few major points, most notably whether or not the production of Dreadfleet took valuable time away from other development, whether or not Dreadfleet is simply a half-assed attempt at a money grab, or whether or not Dreadfleet is too expensive for what the boxed set includes. I don’t think any of these are the most important matter to discuss; rather, I think it’s more prudent to explore why the release of Dreadfleet is important.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m500575a_Phil_(Gribbly)_Kelly

While it’s obvious Dreadfleet can claim it’s origins with GWs defunct Specialist Game Man-O-War, it is unique in enough ways to be divorced from that product. Sure, they’re both naval combat games set in the Warhammer universe, but that’s about it. Where Man-O-War was about fleets of ships, Dreadfleet is implicitly about unique ‘character’ ships with very distinct captains. They’re different beasts, to be sure. Why is that important? Why does it matter? It shows us that Games Workshop isn’t simply relying on past Specialist Games and rehashing them (as was one of the ‘complaints’ in regards to Space Hulk); rather, they’re allowing folks like Phil Kelly an avenue to explore new designs outside of their core product line. Fostering the creativity of their development teams with pet projects like this was previously relegated to Forge World. The sheer existence of Dreadfleet shows us that GW is now encouraging this within their main hobby development departments. This is a big deal. Why? By fostering these pet projects, it is more likely that GW is going to be able to retain their quality developers like Phil Kelly for the future. Creativity is a the crux of what makes this hobby flourish, and this new-found leeway by GW Corporate can only help to grow that internal creativity.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W6OAvCF9_YE/ToeUiiGAYqI/AAAAAAAAABA/sOztGXAvpD4/s1600/PA010303.JPG

Dreadfleet also shows us that Games Workshop continues to push the envelope when it comes to injection molded plastic models. Anyone that has put hands on the Dreadfleet spures can attest to the obscene amount of detail on each ship. Even more impressive is the fact that the ships can feasibly stay together without glue. And this isn’t the stiff, denser plastic that was used to achieve the detail in the Space Hulk set. It’s standard, grey, run-of-the-mill GW plastic. Are the Dreadfleet ships more detailed than those released by Spartan Games in their Dystopian Wars line? They might be. Why is that matter? The Dystopian Wars minis are in metal and resin, materials that allow for deeper undercuts and traditionally greater detailed miniatures. The fact that GW has been able to achieve a similar level of detail in injected molded plastic shows us that GW is pushing those boundaries as far as they can.

http://www.clanfork.co.uk/Trev/A/images/AhrqAll.jpg

With both of the aforementioned points comes the biggest benefit for many: the proof that Games Workshop is dedicated to producing these one-off boxed games. I read so often from longbeards online that they miss the days when GW released boxed games and that they miss their Specialist Games like Warhammer Quest. The release and subsequent success of Dreadfleet will only encourage GW to revisit some of these older Specialist Games. With the 25th Anniversary of Blood Bowl looming next year, this can only be a good thing. I expect we’ll see some sort of Blood Bowl anniversary box next year, stuffed with plastic sprues overflowing with miniatures that are chock full of detail.

Despite whether or not you consider the “limited” nature of the product a “money grab” or not is irrelevant. You can think Dreadfleet is too expensive, or that it simply isn’t your thing. That’s fine. But seeing new products from GW that deviate from their core three product lines should be the focus, and THAT should garner your support. We clamour for more creativity from GW. We beg them for releases that don’t involved Space Marines. The release of Dreadfleet has shown us that they’re willing to try these new products out. For our hobby, that’s a good thing.

Medium of Death wrote:

Cincydooley wrote:There’s been a lot said about Games Workshop’s most recent limited release, Dreadfleet, of both the good and bad variety.

cincydooley wrote:So should I not link the article, but rather cut and paste it?

Kilkrazy wrote:Expansions for one-shots are not always a good thing.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW used to do a lot of one-shots, including Dark Future, Space Hulk, Judge Dredd, Blok Wars, and Talisman.

cincydooley wrote:
The release and subsequent success of Dreadfleet will only encourage GW to revisit some of these older Specialist Games

cincydooley wrote:So should I not link the article, but rather cut and paste it?

Zarren Wevon wrote:

If this were true, space hulk's insane success would have also caused them to revisit some older SGs rather than this odd new product.

On the up side, I'm pretty sure DF is a one-off miss for GW big box games

biccat wrote:Well you're obviously trying to draw traffic to your blog, so I went ahead and went there to read the article. I thought it was an interesting subject, so I followed your link. However, a brief blurb would've been helpful.

I think you raise some valid points, but I don't think they're particularly persuasive. GW has had a history of attracting talent, and Phil Kelly has been at GW for quite a few years (he worked on the 3rd edition Tyrannids codex IIRC). There hasn't been any outward sign of him departing or losing interest, so I don't think this is particularly important.

On a broader note, GW shouldn't be in the business of attracting people to pursue their own games. Instead, GW should be attracting developers to design and work on their already existing games. GW isn't a board-game manufacturer, there are other companies that will make board games that are better and more appealing to board game developers, they're a miniatures company that produces a wargame. Their efforts then should be directed towards producing a wargame, not designing board games.

Finally, while GW has been able to sell a number of copies of Dread Fleet (good for them), they're not trading on the success of the game, but rather they are trading on the success of their brand. Dread Fleet is successful not because buyers are interested in the game, but because it's a GW product and they're fans of GW. As has been mentioned many times before, there are better naval board and wargames available on the market. GW is simply filling a very narrow niche - a naval battle set in the Warhammer Fantasy world - that there doesn't appear to be a market for outside of existing customers.

In addition to providing a good for an existing market they already largely control, the rules for Dread Fleet have not (from the reviews I've read) had the strategic angle that wargamers are interested in. While it's probably not going to have an effect, continued release of disappointing products will eventually drive away (if it hasn't already) some of the market that they're trying to appeal to.

Therefore, I disagree that Dread Fleet was a good idea.

cincydooley wrote:

biccat wrote:Well you're obviously trying to draw traffic to your blog, so I went ahead and went there to read the article. I thought it was an interesting subject, so I followed your link. However, a brief blurb would've been helpful.

Entirely fair, and you're right. We created that blog site anyway to provide content. It isn't nearly a forum site like Dakka is. Do I happen to think our content is, as a whole, above average or better than most other sites. I do. But it is what it is.

12thRonin wrote:

cincydooley wrote:

biccat wrote:Well you're obviously trying to draw traffic to your blog, so I went ahead and went there to read the article. I thought it was an interesting subject, so I followed your link. However, a brief blurb would've been helpful.

Entirely fair, and you're right. We created that blog site anyway to provide content. It isn't nearly a forum site like Dakka is. Do I happen to think our content is, as a whole, above average or better than most other sites. I do. But it is what it is.

So you're trolling for hits to your site that has superior content...

cincydooley wrote:
And I really wouldn't consider it trolling, as I enter the discussions and contribute to other discussions on the board. Further, the main hobby article writer for our site does the same.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Meh, BoLs is considerably more miss than hit IMO...Although your mini article raises a lot of good points and I did actually enjoy reading it....

And I really wouldn't consider it trolling, as I enter the discussions and contribute to other discussions on the board. Further, the main hobby article writer for our site does the same.

And ignore the people saying that you are trolling for hits. What's wrong with a bit of free advertising anyway?

Aus-Rotten wrote:I don't know if this is a good thing but I could not order necromunda models from my lgs because they are changing them to finecast. So that might be a sign of soon to come revitalization in the specialist games.

cincydooley wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

cincydooley wrote:

biccat wrote:Well you're obviously trying to draw traffic to your blog, so I went ahead and went there to read the article. I thought it was an interesting subject, so I followed your link. However, a brief blurb would've been helpful.

Entirely fair, and you're right. We created that blog site anyway to provide content. It isn't nearly a forum site like Dakka is. Do I happen to think our content is, as a whole, above average or better than most other sites. I do. But it is what it is.

So you're trolling for hits to your site that has superior content...

Does Dakka really do articles? In the articles section here it has always seemed to me to be more of a wiki-type thing. I was under the impression that Dakka was more of a forum/discussion site.

Anyways, I do think much of what we produce outstripes, say, BoLS. I like GentleBen's articles a lot. I usually like Brent's. I think BoLS is incredibly hit-or-miss on original content, with more misses than hits. That's all.

And I really wouldn't consider it trolling, as I enter the discussions and contribute to other discussions on the board. Further, the main hobby article writer for our site does the same.