So, from the seminar, before INTERWEBWARRIORS! started spouting questions about stuff you wouldn't really expect the Design Studio to know/be able to influence, some questions were raised regarding these one off releases.

Essentially, they are pitched by the members of the Design Studio. You come up with a cool idea, and make your case for it. If it's as cool to others as it is to you, there's a chance it will see light of day.

Single runs mean that they can pretty much guarantee a profit on it, as with everything in one box, you work out how much it cost to get it to that point, divvy up the price per unit, and whack your profit margin on top. Biggedy biggedy bong, more or less guaranteed success.

I did ask how they settle on it, and Jes seemed rather keen on my suggestion of a Pit Fight to decide which is the next project.

plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

You know, a pit fighting game would be a good next project. Bonus points if the miniatures were made to look like the design team.

Ravenous D wrote:All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

I don't think it can fail. They produced a game in such limited numbers that it is likely to sell out. Great success!

Ravenous D wrote:plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

And all because it doesn't interest you? Wow, that's a pretty strong reaction...

One can hope.

Considering I bought space hulk 3 months after its release I am expecting to Dreadfleet still on shelves 6 months from now, and thats even considering it probably has half(max) the production run of space hulk.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

And all because it doesn't interest you? Wow, that's a pretty strong reaction...

Not because it doesnt interest me, I already own an Eldar fleet for BFG that I havent used in ages, thus I have no need for it. Mostly just have an issue that it could have been anything else more important that needs updating, so watching it fail would send a message.

So I stick with my saying of "dont support stupid *crap* or you just get more stupid *crap*".

65,000 copies world wide.... So about 80%ish of Space Hulk, if the numbers bandied about are to be believed.

I have to say dude, I really don't get your vitriol against Dreadfleet. Sure, nobody is expecting/demanding you be enthused about it, but every time I see you post, it's as if it's existence is some kind of calculated insult against you.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

And all because it doesn't interest you? Wow, that's a pretty strong reaction...

Yeah... I'm not interested in Infinity, but I wish it every success in the world.

htj wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

And all because it doesn't interest you? Wow, that's a pretty strong reaction...

Yeah... I'm not interested in Infinity, but I wish it every success in the world.

Ditto for me and PP stuff. I get a bit sick of it being declared the messiah of gaming, sure, but I have no wish to see the company go under, or their games snuff it?

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

And all because it doesn't interest you? Wow, that's a pretty strong reaction...

Seriously. Dreadfleet doing well means we have a better chance of seeing other specialist games or new boardgames.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ravenous D wrote:

Norsehawk wrote:no. A one off, game like this doesn't interest me. It looks like it has a whopping 1 ship per force in there, and as such, has limited gameplay. The fact that it is a fire and forget release means that there will be no future releases or expansions to the game. Which means that it's pretty much dead on release.

Huh I didnt even think of that, with only one ship per faction that means there is probably one faction thats broken that everyone will want to use, thus making the game even less interesting over a span of time.

You don't play a faction, you play one entire side. It's a two player game. Each side has a fleet of ships with various strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Mystery wrote:65,000 copies world wide.... So about 80%ish of Space Hulk, if the numbers bandied about are to be believed.

I have to say dude, I really don't get your vitriol against Dreadfleet. Sure, nobody is expecting/demanding you be enthused about it, but every time I see you post, it's as if it's existence is some kind of calculated insult against you.

Maybe it is!

Nah, I just dont like having my time wasted, and I see it as a waste of GWs time when there is so many other cooler and more sellable things that they could have done.

With space hulk you could at least use the models in 40k and it was actually a pretty sweet deal, 10 termies, 1 termiantor librarian, 22 genestealers and a broodlord for $100? Hellz yeah thats a great idea! But dreadfleet... its got nothing. I mean does any here really truely believe it'll still be played in a month from now?

Ravenous D wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:65,000 copies world wide.... So about 80%ish of Space Hulk, if the numbers bandied about are to be believed.

I have to say dude, I really don't get your vitriol against Dreadfleet. Sure, nobody is expecting/demanding you be enthused about it, but every time I see you post, it's as if it's existence is some kind of calculated insult against you.

Maybe it is!

Nah, I just dont like having my time wasted, and I see it as a waste of GWs time when there is so many other cooler and more sellable things that they could have done.

With space hulk you could at least use the models in 40k and it was actually a pretty sweet deal, 10 termies, 1 termiantor librarian, 22 genestealers and a broodlord for $100? Hellz yeah thats a great idea! But dreadfleet... its got nothing. I mean does any here really truely believe it'll still be played in a month from now?

Of course it will... I've not spent £70.00 based on ooohshinyitis. It will make it's money back, it will sell out Ergo, it is by definition NOT a waste of time and resources.

And it's not wasting your time. You don't want to buy it, that's cool. It's not as if all other GW and indeed Wargaming products in general are suddenly not available whilst Dreadfleet is around

I've not spent £70.00 based on ooohshinyitis

I have, I'm afraid to say. I just wanted the ships. But I've always been more of a collector than a gamer.

Eh... Pirates of the Warhammer isn't going to fail.. limited run = game sells out = surefire way to bring in cash and make the shareholders happy in the end.

The game ain't for me, and I hate that it's limited, but I do hope it sells out and does so quickly, so GW will be inclined to do other side projects. Who knows, it could lead to Insert_Specialist_Game_Here coming back in full force one day...

I really can't get on board with the idea that if I buy Dreadfleet it may encourage them to make a game I really want.

Seems silly to me. Buy something that is "Limited" in the hopes that someday, just maybe, they make something else I do want.
How does that correlate?
If it sells out, it should be on its own merits, not because of future hopes.

I am not buying it because it does not hold enough value to me as a game.
It may not have a delineated board, but it is effectively a boardgame.
I judge it on that.
With boardgames like Descent, D&D Castle Ravenloft, Risk, etc, I open it, pull off some packaging, punch out card, and its playable in an hour or 2.
Dreadfleet is $115+tax. Then approx. 6-20 hours of assembly to get something on the table. Add in some priming time to differentiate the 2 fleets.
I am using my recent assembly of some large GW monsters as baseline for assembly time.

Seriously. Dreadfleet doing well means we have a better chance of seeing other specialist games or new boardgames.

I am also wondering if this is such a good thing. Looking at posts of what might be popular atm, MLP Friends in the Grimdark: The Board Game.
Not a direction I would want to see GW take tbh

skrulnik wrote:I really can't get on board with the idea that if I buy Dreadfleet it may encourage them to make a game I really want.

Seems silly to me. Buy something that is "Limited" in the hopes that someday, just maybe, they make something else I do want.
How does that correlate?...

Precisely! I think Ravenous D is right on the money, support stupid crap, get more stupid crap, if a little brutally colorful, lets say.

That's exactly how I feel.

I would have rather seen a Necron codex for example...

or plastic roughriders
or an expansion for Spacehulk
or plastic stuff for EPIC
or pretty much anything for an EXISTING system or game I already have...

Heaven forbid, something that MIGHT show up at my local retailer, not be direct only drivel.

Augustus wrote:

skrulnik wrote:I really can't get on board with the idea that if I buy Dreadfleet it may encourage them to make a game I really want.

Seems silly to me. Buy something that is "Limited" in the hopes that someday, just maybe, they make something else I do want.
How does that correlate?...

Precisely! I think Ravenous D is right on the money, support stupid crap, get more stupid crap, if a little brutally colorful, lets say.

That's exactly how I feel.

I would have rather seen a Necron codex for example...

or plastic roughriders
or an expansion for Spacehulk
or plastic stuff for EPIC
or pretty much anything for an EXISTING system or game I already have...

Heaven forbid, something that MIGHT show up at my local retailer, not be direct only drivel.

I wasn't advocating anyone buy DF just in the hopes GW makes something else. It was in reply to someone hoping the whole thing fails. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But hoping something fails? Fairly silly. Lets all hope the next Space Marine release fails so we can get some Eldar models.

But please, lets get back to complaints that something coming isn't what we we want. Need a bit more scowling, stamping our feet, and holding our breath, to make the daily quota.

Yeah, I'm all for fun new games... but we currently have one 40K army still using a 3rd edition codex, another 3rd edition codex only just made obsolete with a White Dwarf List replacement, and a whole bunch of codexes that are still missing models for various units.

As a result, I can't help wondering if the development time and resources that are going into fun new games couldn't be better spent on existing ranges.

Get your gak sorted, GW, then look at doing new stuff. Don't keep leaving everything else half done because you got distracted by the new hotness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:But please, lets get back to complaints that something coming isn't what we we want. Need a bit more scowling, stamping our feet, and holding our breath, to make the daily quota.

Can we not try to imply that complaints against a product are just people throwing temper tantrums? That never goes anywhere productive.

insaniak wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:But please, lets get back to complaints that something coming isn't what we we want. Need a bit more scowling, stamping our feet, and holding our breath, to make the daily quota.

Can we not try to imply that complaints against a product are just people throwing temper tantrums? That never goes anywhere productive.

Apologies. Every once in a while the constant complaining about things for page after page gets a bit old, and IMHO, does sound quite childish. Are you implying that the complaining is productive? or just that complaing about complaining is unproductive?

mikhaila wrote: Are you implying that the complaining is productive? or just that complaing about complaining is unproductive?

Both.

People will air their opinions. That's what forums are for. The complaints about the complaints just encourage people to complain about the fact that they can't complain without people complaining about them complaining, and before you know it the whole thing is spiraling down the gurgler.

And complaints can encourage change. Sure, I'm not holding my breath... but it's nice to dream that maybe one day, when enough people have complained about it, GW might finally decide to properly support their existing range rather than just constantly updating and creating new holes that sit unfilled for years on end.

insaniak wrote:And complaints can encourage change. Sure, I'm not holding my breath... but it's nice to dream that maybe one day, when enough people have complained about it, GW might finally decide to properly support their existing range rather than just constantly updating and creating new holes that sit unfilled for years on end.

For one thing, GW seems to have listened to the complaints that they only do 3 core game systems and how everything was better back when they had minor projects such as specialist games and board games. Of course, all they get for their trouble is complaints that they should focus on their 3 core systems, not bother with minor projects.

mikhaila wrote:

insaniak wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:But please, lets get back to complaints that something coming isn't what we we want. Need a bit more scowling, stamping our feet, and holding our breath, to make the daily quota.

Can we not try to imply that complaints against a product are just people throwing temper tantrums? That never goes anywhere productive.

Apologies. Every once in a while the constant complaining about things for page after page gets a bit old, and IMHO, does sound quite childish. Are you implying that the complaining is productive? or just that complaing about complaining is unproductive?

Certainly, complaining about the complaining is productive though, so carry on...

lord_blackfang wrote:For one thing, GW seems to have listened to the complaints that they only do 3 core game systems and how everything was better back when they had minor projects such as specialist games and board games. Of course, all they get for their trouble is complaints that they should focus on their 3 core systems, not bother with minor projects.

That's a rather incredible over-simplification of the issue.

I'm not complaining about them working on off-shoot projects. I'm complaining about them working on those projects before finishing what they started. If you're going to add new units to a revised codex, release models for those units before moving on to the next project. If you're going to update your core rules, update all of your now out-of-date codexes before moving on to the next project.

By all means, give us new stuff. But do what you're doing properly. Doing a half-assed job may be the Simpsons way, but it just irks people in the business world.

Ordered from my local game store. My main decision was that it will not be supported. Game companies seem to define "support" as mercilessly butchering a game beyond all recognition. Stand alones rock.

insaniak wrote:Yeah, I'm all for fun new games... but we currently have one 40K army still using a 3rd edition codex, another 3rd edition codex only just made obsolete with a White Dwarf List replacement, and a whole bunch of codexes that are still missing models for various units.

As a result, I can't help wondering if the development time and resources that are going into fun new games couldn't be better spent on existing ranges.

Get your gak sorted, GW, then look at doing new stuff. Don't keep leaving everything else half done because you got distracted by the new hotness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:But please, lets get back to complaints that something coming isn't what we we want. Need a bit more scowling, stamping our feet, and holding our breath, to make the daily quota.

Can we not try to imply that complaints against a product are just people throwing temper tantrums? That never goes anywhere productive.

I think from a business perspective it probably breaks down like this:

Dread Fleet uses X resources and they will print and believe they will sell Y copies. They know if they estimated correctly that Y printed = Y sold they WILL make Z dollars.

If they spread those X resources to a couple of the things above, I'm guessing they believe Y1 and Y2 sold would not have gotten as large a Z.

The limited/one time release gives them predictabilty (less risk) for the Z which aids in planning the next fiscal year. The profit can then be turned to fund redo of codexes/expanding core games/initial development of a new 'one off' project. GW MUST make money to continue to exist. Projects like this give them a Z they can live with, and it is predictable enough they can use it as a basis to plan.

Jake


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I got a notice from GW my copy shipped yesterday. Hooah!

As others have mentioned, I like the stand alone game aspect. Last GW stufff I bought was a few tyranids a couple of years ago that I use with another rule system (I don't play 40k or Warhamemr) and the recent Space Hulk (because it is a stand alone game).

Jake

Augustus wrote:

skrulnik wrote:I really can't get on board with the idea that if I buy Dreadfleet it may encourage them to make a game I really want.

Seems silly to me. Buy something that is "Limited" in the hopes that someday, just maybe, they make something else I do want.
How does that correlate?...

Precisely! I think Ravenous D is right on the money, support stupid crap, get more stupid crap, if a little brutally colorful, lets say.

That's exactly how I feel.

I would have rather seen a Necron codex for example...

or plastic roughriders
or an expansion for Spacehulk
or plastic stuff for EPIC
or pretty much anything for an EXISTING system or game I already have...

Heaven forbid, something that MIGHT show up at my local retailer, not be direct only drivel.

YEAH! Let's invest inherently limited resource in stuff only a niche of a niche of a niche will buy over something which is deliberaltely printed and priced to ensure a profit! What are they? Monetary monkies? Surely you make more money from the minority than the majority! YEAH! YEAH! SMASH THE STATE WITHOUT PROVISO TO HAVING WAITING IN THE WINGS THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTUE! YEAH! YEAH! SMASH! BREAK! FAIIL!

Not sure how true the rumour but someone mentioned GW having cash flow problems.

The amount of plastic in the Dread Fleet box looks plentiful. That is a fair amount of expensive tooling to make the moulds. And all for a limited production run?
Those moulds presumably will sit in storage until the last trump earning GW not one more phennig once the last box has been sold.

Designers, sculptors and games designers including Phil Kelly have spent time on the game that could have been spent on developing something else. Instead they have been paid to work on a one shot product.

On the other hand a quick profit might be made which would outstrip the returns on a Necron update for example.

Personally the game could have been a DE fleet against some other and allowed to be sold on the high street other than GW stores.
A full production run would have made more of tooling costs and potentially allowed the game to sell a tad cheaper.

It would have made the GW brand more widely known and potentially drawn new players into WHFB via IoB

I sense a complete lack of synergy as the strategists would say.

Im kind of optimistic, call me naive but if this game ( that I really don't like) goes well with the shareholders profit balance sheet we may see other games ( that I may like) in the future... some of you say if you buy crap you will get crap and I say I invested on a pearl (spacehulk) and a few years later got a floating turd ( dreadfleet) So yes Im optimistic because if this sells good and fast maybe in a couple year I get something I like... I rather take 50/50 chance than no chance at all if this proves to be a fiasco.

Another positive outcome might be that quick profits allow Messrs. Wells and Kirby to feather their nests more quickly so they can bugger off and retire sooner!

Think I might get Dread Fleet with that thought in mind!

mikhaila wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:plus they are pimping it hard, the local GW store here will usually mention stuff once and leave it be, but over the weekend every other sentence was "dreadfleet".

All the more reason I wish to see it fail.

And all because it doesn't interest you? Wow, that's a pretty strong reaction...

Seriously. Dreadfleet doing well means we have a better chance of seeing other specialist games or new boardgames.

I agree with you on this point. There is a possibility that if Dreadfleet bombs (although I don't think it will) that GW will say 'OK, our new venture failed, core games, 40k version 3.7 it is then for the next ten years', which I think is absolutely the worst thing the company can do.

Focusing on core games has let other game manufacturers fill the voids left open by them, and let those companies gain market share as a result. If GW sales continue to fall then they need to start making more games like Dreadfleet. Even if it isn't everyone's cup of tea, I'm actually happy that GW is genuinely trying to do something new, to make use of its design talent, rather than just regurgitating the same old material for year after year as it has been doing since their specialist games got canned.

Success of Dreadfleet means it will be more likely that we will get a Blood Bowl anniversary set next year, which I am all for. I think there are masses of young hobbyists who are probably not even aware of that system, which is a dreadful shame.

mikhaila wrote:Seriously. Dreadfleet doing well means we have a better chance of seeing other specialist games or new boardgames.

Mediocrity should not be rewarded.

"Forget if it's bad - buy it anyway so there's a better chance of getting something good later on" is not a good way to make purchasing decisions. Now I'm not making judgements on the quality of Dreadfleet (it may be a fantastic game - who knows?), but 'buy it so they might make more' isn't a compelling argument.

I would like the idea of the design team having pet projects, if I had any faith in the game design skills of the design team. Sadly I fear this one, possibly like Spulk, is driven by a sculptor or artist saying "wouldn't it be cool if..." -- which is fine if you then get a decent game design team in, and playtest the game thoroughly, but GW don't generally do either of those things.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Another positive outcome might be that quick profits allow Messrs. Wells and Kirby to feather their nests more quickly so they can bugger off and retire sooner!

Think I might get Dread Fleet with that thought in mind!

to be honest not even that would make me spend 90 euros on the game...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Seriously. Dreadfleet doing well means we have a better chance of seeing other specialist games or new boardgames.

Mediocrity should not be rewarded.

"Forget if it's bad - buy it anyway so there's a better chance of getting something good later on" is not a good way to make purchasing decisions. Now I'm not making judgements on the quality of Dreadfleet (it may be a fantastic game - who knows?), but 'buy it so they might make more' isn't a compelling argument.

There's a big difference with me with my money rewarding and buying this game to wishing it to fail. I mean I understand many may like that GW and its games would crash and burn but I just don't share that line of reasoning... The day GW goes totally nuts and stops making anything I like is the day I will not buy a thing from them yet I wish them best of luck on whatever they are doing.
Mind that that day is not that far... I mostly buy plastic and metal minis but since they canned metal and went finecast I'm reduced to plastic kits, they day they make crappy plastic kits its game over for me.

I didn't really saying anything about 'wishing' the game to fail, more about not buying it simply in the hope that its success would spur GW to action on remaking other games.

It's the same line of thinking I take with the Ultramarines movie. I bought it because I wanted to see what it was, and I would say that anyone who wants to buy it should but they should avoid it if they're only buying it in the hope that it is 'successful' and that they'll make more.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I didn't really saying anything about 'wishing' the game to fail, more about not buying it simply in the hope that its success would spur GW to action on remaking other games.

It's the same line of thinking I take with the Ultramarines movie. I bought it because I wanted to see what it was, and I would say that anyone who wants to buy it should but they should avoid it if they're only buying it in the hope that it is 'successful' and that they'll make more.

I know you didn't say specifically that you wished that, I was just continuing the chat of the topic and addressing the overall position of some members... I only used your quote as a conversation starter and was not replying only to you... sorry for not making that clear.

I will never buy something I do not want just to support a hypothetic idea of the future at GW, but I hope there's enough fans of this game that will... I'm really not that invested in GW as I was 10 years ago... I look at things at a very big distance and doesn't make much sense to support something Im not that much involved with... I still like my nids and my gobbos but they are really fading away in the sea of minis from other manufacturers...

I pre-ordered as soon as the announcement was made.

It's not surprising that there are a lot of strongly negative opinions of Dread Fleet when so many of us would love to see new editions of some great games like WQ and Epic. I certainly agree with H.B.M.C. and would never buy something to try to convince GW to release more non-core games.

I bought Dread Fleet because I personally like the look of it & the idea of a complete game in a box fits what I have time for at the moment.

Now, will I regret spending the money once the next 40K army is announced? Possibly, but that's for another thread...

insaniak wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:For one thing, GW seems to have listened to the complaints that they only do 3 core game systems and how everything was better back when they had minor projects such as specialist games and board games. Of course, all they get for their trouble is complaints that they should focus on their 3 core systems, not bother with minor projects.

That's a rather incredible over-simplification of the issue.

I'm not complaining about them working on off-shoot projects. I'm complaining about them working on those projects before finishing what they started. If you're going to add new units to a revised codex, release models for those units before moving on to the next project. If you're going to update your core rules, update all of your now out-of-date codexes before moving on to the next project.

By all means, give us new stuff. But do what you're doing properly. Doing a half-assed job may be the Simpsons way, but it just irks people in the business world.

It wasn't 5 years ago that people complained incessantly how armies get all their models at once when the Codex is released and then nothing for 6+ years until the next Codex. Now it's suddenly wrong to stagger the releases. It doesn't matter what they do, they can't win.

lord_blackfang wrote:

insaniak wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:For one thing, GW seems to have listened to the complaints that they only do 3 core game systems and how everything was better back when they had minor projects such as specialist games and board games. Of course, all they get for their trouble is complaints that they should focus on their 3 core systems, not bother with minor projects.

That's a rather incredible over-simplification of the issue.

I'm not complaining about them working on off-shoot projects. I'm complaining about them working on those projects before finishing what they started. If you're going to add new units to a revised codex, release models for those units before moving on to the next project. If you're going to update your core rules, update all of your now out-of-date codexes before moving on to the next project.

By all means, give us new stuff. But do what you're doing properly. Doing a half-assed job may be the Simpsons way, but it just irks people in the business world.

It wasn't 5 years ago that people complained incessantly how armies get all their models at once when the Codex is released and then nothing for 6+ years until the next Codex. Now it's suddenly wrong to stagger the releases. It doesn't matter what they do, they can't win.

I've been playing GW games for over 15 years now and I haven't seen a single instance of them releasing all the models that are available in a Codex, either at once or stagered...

But keep grasping at straws to make confrontational posts, those are at least mildly entertaining.

H.B.M.C. wrote:"Forget if it's bad - buy it anyway so there's a better chance of getting something good later on" is not a good way to make purchasing decisions. Now I'm not making judgements on the quality of Dreadfleet (it may be a fantastic game - who knows?), but 'buy it so they might make more' isn't a compelling argument.

You can still find Pirates of the Spanish Main in some CCG stores. That'll provide you with just as much fun, will be a hell of a lot cheaper and will take up a lot less space on your shelf. I promise.

I just got the email telling me that my pre-order has been dispatched.
Quite looking forward to it now.

marv335 wrote:I just got the email telling me that my pre-order has been dispatched.
Quite looking forward to it now.

Bad news is it gets delivered according to the game mechanics and depends on the Wind cards, sea monsters etc etc
Just hope it arrives in one piece



if at all!

I'm kind of envious of the whole "opening a new box" experience which I haven't had since Space Hulk now, but that's nowhere near enough of a reason to buy

I genuinely hope that the people who have picked it up enjoy it anyway.

Just to throw in my thoughts as a newbie... I don't know enough about the game to judge it one way or another, but the look of the models and the setting don't interest me, and therefore I'm not really interested.

Flashman wrote:I'm kind of envious of the whole "opening a new box" experience which I haven't had since Space Hulk now, but that's nowhere near enough of a reason to buy

http://www.boardgamegeek.com

You're welcome

lord_blackfang wrote:It wasn't 5 years ago that people complained incessantly how armies get all their models at once when the Codex is released and then nothing for 6+ years until the next Codex.

Yes, you're right... that didn't happen 5 years ago.

But it's also not the only alternative to releasing a codex with units that don't have existing models and then dribbling those models out over the following decade or two (The 3rd edition Ork codex was in print for 8 or 9 years, and still had 8 units with no existing model when it was phased out. Codex: Space Marines went through an entire edition with no Drop Pod model. Likewise for Chaos and the Defiler...)

If they released just the new stuff with the codex release, it would leave them free to dribble out model updates, apocalypse formations, new option kits, etc over the life of the codex. People would still be getting new stuff, but they would also have a fully playable codex on release.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Seriously. Dreadfleet doing well means we have a better chance of seeing other specialist games or new boardgames.

Mediocrity should not be rewarded.

"Forget if it's bad - buy it anyway so there's a better chance of getting something good later on" is not a good way to make purchasing decisions. Now I'm not making judgements on the quality of Dreadfleet (it may be a fantastic game - who knows?), but 'buy it so they might make more' isn't a compelling argument.

And I wasn't advising anyone at all to buy it for that reason. I was replying to someone who said he hoped it would fail. I simply see no reason for that line of reasoning. Don't want the game - Don't buy it. Easy enough. But some people are acting like the meer existance of the game is some horrible insult to them.

insaniak wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:It wasn't 5 years ago that people complained incessantly how armies get all their models at once when the Codex is released and then nothing for 6+ years until the next Codex.

Yes, you're right... that didn't happen 5 years ago.

But it's also not the only alternative to releasing a codex with units that don't have existing models and then dribbling those models out over the following decade or two (The 3rd edition Ork codex was in print for 8 or 9 years, and still had 8 units with no existing model when it was phased out. Codex: Space Marines went through an entire edition with no Drop Pod model. Likewise for Chaos and the Defiler...)

If they released just the new stuff with the codex release, it would leave them free to dribble out model updates, apocalypse formations, new option kits, etc over the life of the codex. People would still be getting new stuff, but they would also have a fully playable codex on release.

Yes, yes it did. Much whinging about 'well that's me for x years blah blah blah', Which is I suppose fairly valid in it's own right. But it has switched to the modern 'gumph! Just release it all at once blah blah blah'. Which again, has a certain validity to it.

Also, regarding the Defiler, IIRC that came out erm...6 months after the Codex was released. I was working for GW then, and I remember because I ordered 4 for my Iron Warriors on Staff Pre-Order (ahh, them was the days).

See, when it comes to a project, I'm sure the design team would absolutely love to make everything they want, and have it released at the same time. But that's not exactly practical nor practicable. Lots of other ongoing products, and resources are inherently limited. They can't please all of the people all of the time!

With regards to side projects like Dreadfleet et al, I'm pretty sure it's going to sell out, and will have been priced to make a profit in doing so. And there is always the chance it will get a lapsed gamer back at the table. But I highly doubt the games existence will cause anyone (well, perhaps the odd person with severe mental issues) to rage quit!

Mr Mystery wrote: But I highly doubt the games existence will cause anyone (well, perhaps the odd person with severe mental issues) to rage quit!

Sometimes a drop o water is all it takes to spill a full glass of water, don't you agree? But yes, all people that do things you are not inclined to agree with, for reasons you seem not be willing to understand are persons with mental issues...

NAVARRO wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote: But I highly doubt the games existence will cause anyone (well, perhaps the odd person with severe mental issues) to rage quit!

Sometimes a drop o water is all it takes to spill a full glass of water, don't you agree? But yes, all people that do things you are not inclined to agree with, for reasons you seem not be willing to understand are persons with mental issues...

If people rage quit because a company release a product not of interest to them, they seriously, seriously need their bumps felt.

Mr Mystery wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote: But I highly doubt the games existence will cause anyone (well, perhaps the odd person with severe mental issues) to rage quit!

Sometimes a drop o water is all it takes to spill a full glass of water, don't you agree? But yes, all people that do things you are not inclined to agree with, for reasons you seem not be willing to understand are persons with mental issues...

If people rage quit because a company release a product not of interest to them, they seriously, seriously need their bumps felt.

Actually that happens everyday at any company... people have their reasons and they are as valid as the clients that buys every single thing of a determined company just because, for any reason, they love the company... its called client fidelity. For a number of reasons people prefer brand x or y and when that brand makes something not OK according to client vision, its material to rage quit...

For example small things like outsourcing some production to China for some is more than enough to rage quit... In this case for example a long time 40k player simply closes the door because hes done waiting for that forsaken unit thats never released for his army and instead they release this game...etc

You can call them mental but they are as mental as a you for recriminating a perfect common emotional response to a company behavior.

People have their reasons and thats it.

Every month GW release stuff that doesn't interest me, mostly 40k bits as I'm a Fantasy bloke.

But the whole 'BLARG I R QUIT!' thing...yeah, reallly really don't get that. Ever.

Mr Mystery wrote:Yes, yes it did. Much whinging about 'well that's me for x years blah blah blah', Which is I suppose fairly valid in it's own right. But it has switched to the modern 'gumph! Just release it all at once blah blah blah'. Which again, has a certain validity to it.

No, there was 'whinging' along that vein because people at that point were used to GW's established sales method, which was to release whatever new models they were releasing when a codex was released, and then ignore that army until the next time its codex was revised.

That was nothing to do with GW actually releasing everything for that codex, though. That has very rarely, if ever, happened.

Also, regarding the Defiler, IIRC that came out erm...6 months after the Codex was released. I was working for GW then, and I remember because I ordered 4 for my Iron Warriors on Staff Pre-Order (ahh, them was the days).

I'm sure that makes all the Marine players who waited an entire edition for their Drop Pod feel much better. As, I'm sure, do all the Tyranid players still waiting on, you know, a great chuck of their codex.

See, when it comes to a project, I'm sure the design team would absolutely love to make everything they want, and have it released at the same time. But that's not exactly practical nor practicable.

So save it for the next revision of the codex. Make rules for what you actually can release, and move on. Then you don't have to listen to people complain about not having models for certain units for the next 5 years.

If GW had focused on what they actually had the budget to release and as a result left out 2 or 3 of the new gribblies from the current Tyranid codex, nobody would have missed them. Instead, they threw in a whole bunch of new stuff and, thanks to the wonderful new 'get them excited about upcoming new releases by not telling anybody about them' policy, left people wondering if and when that new stuff will ever actually see the table top.

If they at least released stuff for each army on any sort of regular basis, they wouldn't see as many complaints about not knowing what is coming up. Instead, we're left in the dark about what they're working on, so you might see new models next week, or next decade. Is it really any wonder that people aren't happy about that arrangement.

Mr Mystery wrote:Every month GW release stuff that doesn't interest me, mostly 40k bits as I'm a Fantasy bloke.

But the whole 'BLARG I R QUIT!' thing...yeah, reallly really don't get that. Ever.

Well some are more emotional than others. For example I personally don't do rage quits, I just quit buying and thats it... YET I raged quit rackham confrontation, it was totally unecessary but I falled into that trap and let my emotions go a bit beserk for amoment, so yes even the most cold bugger at any point can go wild

Well, I didnt think I would want it buuuuut having just seen the BoW unboxing of the dreaded Dreadfleet, it made me want to come up with the required moolah....

Damn you GW, Damn you all to hell!

insaniak wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Yes, yes it did. Much whinging about 'well that's me for x years blah blah blah', Which is I suppose fairly valid in it's own right. But it has switched to the modern 'gumph! Just release it all at once blah blah blah'. Which again, has a certain validity to it.

No, there was 'whinging' along that vein because people at that point were used to GW's established sales method, which was to release whatever new models they were releasing when a codex was released, and then ignore that army until the next time its codex was revised.

That was nothing to do with GW actually releasing everything for that codex, though. That has very rarely, if ever, happened.

Also, regarding the Defiler, IIRC that came out erm...6 months after the Codex was released. I was working for GW then, and I remember because I ordered 4 for my Iron Warriors on Staff Pre-Order (ahh, them was the days).

I'm sure that makes all the Marine players who waited an entire edition for their Drop Pod feel much better. As, I'm sure, do all the Tyranid players still waiting on, you know, a great chuck of their codex.

See, when it comes to a project, I'm sure the design team would absolutely love to make everything they want, and have it released at the same time. But that's not exactly practical nor practicable.

So save it for the next revision of the codex. Make rules for what you actually can release, and move on. Then you don't have to listen to people complain about not having models for certain units for the next 5 years.

If GW had focused on what they actually had the budget to release and as a result left out 2 or 3 of the new gribblies from the current Tyranid codex, nobody would have missed them. Instead, they threw in a whole bunch of new stuff and, thanks to the wonderful new 'get them excited about upcoming new releases by not telling anybody about them' policy, left people wondering if and when that new stuff will ever actually see the table top.

If they at least released stuff for each army on any sort of regular basis, they wouldn't see as many complaints about not knowing what is coming up. Instead, we're left in the dark about what they're working on, so you might see new models next week, or next decade. Is it really any wonder that people aren't happy about that arrangement.

Dude, I play Nids. I've converted up the missing bits I wanted. Namely two Tervigons.

I really find these Dreadfleet models horrible. How is this game relevant at all?

over 100 bucks? No thanks.

Warchylde wrote:I really find these Dreadfleet models horrible. How is this game relevant at all?

over 100 bucks? No thanks.

How is any game relevant?

Kilkrazy wrote:

I just saw this, that makes me LOL. I would have ragequit over this, but uh, I already did after the Dark Eldar codex! Neener!

Putting my copy together tonite. So far, the ships have been snapping together far easier than Pirates of the caribean. One little clue is that each ship has a letter, find all the parts for that letter. Most are grouped pretty well on the sprues. The outside of the box also has some diagrams, and WD has some stuff in the margins. I found it odd there wasn't an instruction sheet in the box, but once I got started, I found one wasn't needed at all.

The matt is a silky material that I've seen before. Wears well and will not crease easily. Hoping to get it all put together tonite and maybe primer up some of the ships and start painting my set for demos tomorrow. I'm liking the fluff. Each ship has some very distinct history to it.

People don't like Dreadfleet because it wasn't the pet project they wanted it to be, pure a simple. I thought the last thing people would hate is a new specialist game.

I mean, anytime GW goes a does something that doesn't involve SPACE MARINES has to be a good thing, right?

Just picked up a copy after midnight, gotta say I really like the models, the "mat", everything about it is extremely detailed and crisp looking. I can't wait to get it tossed together and primed so I can have a go at it.

Although I was hoping for a complete game TBH, building DE for 40 right now is really eating up all of my snipping/gluing time. not to mention painting/detailing

evilsponge wrote:People don't like Dreadfleet because it wasn't the pet project they wanted it to be, pure a simple. I thought the last thing people would hate is a new specialist game.

I mean, anytime GW goes a does something that doesn't involve SPACE MARINES has to be a good thing, right?

Great post. Let's go over what you said:

1. You made a blanket assumption about everyone who dislikes a particular product, in this case Dreadfleet. Way to start off with a hasty generalisation.
2. You make the assumption that this is a new 'specialist game' when it is far from that. There are a few specialist games - you can buy them direct from GW. Space Hulk, and Dreadfleet after it, are not specialist games. They are one-off's.
3. Some added 'Space Marine hate' nonsense, finishing off your fine post with a poorly-crafted strawman.

As I said, what a great post.

I thought about doing a midnight release, but way too much going on tomorrow, and just knew we'd end up playing the game until 4am.)

Frankly underwhelmed by the game and the price

We had a midnight release, in a way. The store was actually open late for the new MTG set release party, which meant there was no room for anyone else there and so we played BSG at a friend's place, but I was able to stop by on my way home to pick up Dreadfleet.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

evilsponge wrote:People don't like Dreadfleet because it wasn't the pet project they wanted it to be, pure a simple. I thought the last thing people would hate is a new specialist game.

I mean, anytime GW goes a does something that doesn't involve SPACE MARINES has to be a good thing, right?

Great post. Let's go over what you said:

1. You made a blanket assumption about everyone who dislikes a particular product, in this case Dreadfleet. Way to start off with a hasty generalisation.
2. You make the assumption that this is a new 'specialist game' when it is far from that. There are a few specialist games - you can buy them direct from GW. Space Hulk, and Dreadfleet after it, are not specialist games. They are one-off's.
3. Some added 'Space Marine hate' nonsense, finishing off your fine post with a poorly-crafted strawman.

As I said, what a great post.

1) Thanks captain obvious, I guess hyperbole is a foreign concept on the internet.

2) Says who? How do you know they'll never expand upon it?

3) You got me Professor, so whats my final grade?

I was under the impression that Dread Fleet won't be expanded

They have already made a big investrment for only 65000 units
Assuming they all sell, they will then have to make another investment for the expansion. There is no guaranteeing everyone that has bought Dread Fleet will want an expansion

All things being equal I don't see it happening tbh
Would not rule out a future 2nd edition of Dread DFleet first though. Then an Expansion may be plausible, but who knows.

GW don't seem to know what they are doing half the time, so second guessing them is a tricky business

evilsponge wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

evilsponge wrote:People don't like Dreadfleet because it wasn't the pet project they wanted it to be, pure a simple. I thought the last thing people would hate is a new specialist game.

I mean, anytime GW goes a does something that doesn't involve SPACE MARINES has to be a good thing, right?

Great post. Let's go over what you said:

1. You made a blanket assumption about everyone who dislikes a particular product, in this case Dreadfleet. Way to start off with a hasty generalisation.
2. You make the assumption that this is a new 'specialist game' when it is far from that. There are a few specialist games - you can buy them direct from GW. Space Hulk, and Dreadfleet after it, are not specialist games. They are one-off's.
3. Some added 'Space Marine hate' nonsense, finishing off your fine post with a poorly-crafted strawman.

As I said, what a great post.

1) Thanks captain obvious, I guess hyperbole is a foreign concept on the internet.

2) Says who? How do you know they'll never expand upon it?

3) You got me Professor, so whats my final grade?

3) I could give you a grade but first your points have to make errr... sense.

Something interesting that I think has been overlooked...

Considering the self-contained nature of the game and the fact that each ship is essentially a "character", there is actually a way for expandability in the form of Forge World or Games Workshop proper doing a resin line of character vessels.

Guys, for those of you who were asking, it is Definitely worth picking up the White Dwarf if you got Dreadfleet. A whole page devoted to each ship's painting scheme, etc etc. Will be very helpful when I start painting it!

The liquid greenstuff is also fantastic-looking

Kanluwen wrote:Something interesting that I think has been overlooked...

Considering the self-contained nature of the game and the fact that each ship is essentially a "character", there is actually a way for expandability in the form of Forge World or Games Workshop proper doing a resin line of character vessels.

Would have been greate if they did this, 3 - 5 ships more/side for added variation.
This is the main reason why i'm a little hesitant on getting Dreadfleet since i often get bored with stuff that lacks variation, where i end up doing the same thing over and over and over again with no variation in what i can use.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
As I said, what a great post.

However, he has a point in that most of the dislike seems to come from that GW didn't re-release <insert old game here>.

Whereas many old-time fans undoubtely would like to see their old, sentimental favourite redone in awesome fashion like Space Hulk was, is this really a direction a company wants to take? You can ride nostalgia only for so long. I'm not personally interested about Dreadfleet one bit, but I think it's great they release something, you know, NEW.

I mean, it's like if say, Manowar would re-record their 30 year old debut album with all the old classics and market it to the fans hyping up its slick modern production, instead of composing and recording actual new material. Regardless of how good the album would sound, I would be left pretty worried about the creative state of the band. Thankfully however, ... hey, now, wait a minute...

Oh, no...

Kanluwen wrote:Considering the self-contained nature of the game and the fact that each ship is essentially a "character", there is actually a way for expandability in the form of Forge World or Games Workshop proper doing a resin line of character vessels.

Yeah... 'cept they won't.

If GW even considered the Forge World route for expanding upon Dreadfleet, they would have done so for Space Hulk. Hell, even the original Space Hulk had a Deathwing expansion with many missions, Genestealer Cultists, Harlequins, etc. Space Hulk's reveal was met with much much praise compared to Dreadfleet.

Dreadfleet, in its limited print run, is quite unlikely to get any expansions.

Absolutionis wrote:If GW even considered the Forge World route for expanding upon Dreadfleet, they would have done so for Space Hulk.

Says who? Doing X for Y does not necessarily mean they won't do W for Z.

Hell, even the original Space Hulk had a Deathwing expansion with many missions, Genestealer Cultists, Harlequins, etc. Space Hulk's reveal was met with much much praise compared to Dreadfleet.

Which really doesn't mean anything in the long run.

Space Hulk has plenty of models that can be subbed in by players who want to expand it. Dreadfleet does not. If they really, really wanted to--or if Forge World decided they really liked the idea of it--then there's nothing to stop them from doing it.

Dreadfleet, in its limited print run, is quite unlikely to get any expansions.

Being unlikely to does not mean there's no avenue for it.

Stop kidding yourself Kan. It is a 'fire and forget' release made to boost the profit outlook for a specific quarter.

Not buying this, if I wanted a naval tabletop game, I know I could find a better one out there. The'fleets' look cobbled together and an attempt to include every race, personally I would have preferred a more uniform look than the mish-mash GW have put together.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Stop kidding yourself Kan. It is a 'fire and forget' release made to boost the profit outlook for a specific quarter.

For it to 'boost profits' doesn't that mean people have to buy it? If people are buying it then what's the problem except for people who are sad their pet game didn't get to be re-released?

If they are going to do yearly regurgitations of old stuff, someone will always be pissed 'their favorite' didn't get re-released. I love BB and am looking forward to that... But Necromunda fans and Epic fans will cry because they didn't get the 2012 release.

Commander Cain wrote:Not buying this, if I wanted a naval tabletop game, I know I could find a better one out there. The'fleets' look cobbled together and an attempt to include every race, personally I would have preferred a more uniform look than the mish-mash GW have put together.

They have a full, really nice fluff look to explain the "cobbling together."

Personally, I like it a lot more than a bunch of ships from the same fleet. Each ship certainly has the 'feel' of the race from which it is derived.

I knew it was a worthwhile purchase when my wife picked up the Empire Flagship and said, "This look pretty cool; when are you gonna teach me?"

Perhaps I worded my post wrong, I am sure if I read the fluff I would enjoy it thoroughly, each ship certainly fits in with their respective race very well, however I feel that when the ships are all put together there is just too much going on visually for me.

Also when I said that I could find a better naval game, I was referring to one that is a more two sided fight ie; Royal Navy vs Pirates etc

Someone explain to me why you think GW would produce an expansion for a game that was a limited release? What would the point be? The only people who would get any use out of the expansion are the ones who were able to get a copy of the original game while it was still available. It makes no sense to make an expansion for a game like that, not unless Dreadfleet becomes a permanent addition to their game library and it obviously isn't.

I wouldn't even call that wishful thinking.

Is it supposed to be released already? I see it in a hobby store for sale.

Kurgash wrote:Is it supposed to be released already? I see it in a hobby store for sale.

Came out today. Got mine put together and a few ships painted. Playing all day tomorrow.

If they are going to do yearly regurgitations of old stuff, someone will always be pissed 'their favorite' didn't get re-released. I love BB and am looking forward to that... But Necromunda fans and Epic fans will cry because they didn't get the 2012 release.

Am a Necromunda fan yet I sob not. In fact, don't care a scabby Scavvy's arse if GW never release any Necro stuff ever again
Nor indeed am I in any way upset, miffed or peeved that GW decided to release Dread Fleet.

Doesn't mean to say that I cannot have an opinion on how things may have been done differently.
May be proved wrong in the long run, but that is okay. As I see it HBMC is correct that Dreadfleet is a one shot wonder.

For the record I wish those that have purchased the game every joy from it.

nkelsch wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Stop kidding yourself Kan. It is a 'fire and forget' release made to boost the profit outlook for a specific quarter.

For it to 'boost profits' doesn't that mean people have to buy it? If people are buying it then what's the problem except for people who are sad their pet game didn't get to be re-released?

If they are going to do yearly regurgitations of old stuff, someone will always be pissed 'their favorite' didn't get re-released. I love BB and am looking forward to that... But Necromunda fans and Epic fans will cry because they didn't get the 2012 release.

Perhaps some will , but many don't... but some of you do seem to know everything about other peoples reasons

Me I'm happy they take the time to invest in re-editions of very successful and appreciated old games, its one step in the right direction and when they figure out that with little continuous support to those games they will make a BIG difference in therms of pumping peoples interest in GW products, then that would be a good comeback to specialist games ( that should never have been unsupported for so many years).

nkelsch wrote:For it to 'boost profits' doesn't that mean people have to buy it? If people are buying it then what's the problem except for people who are sad their pet game didn't get to be re-released?

If they are going to do yearly regurgitations of old stuff, someone will always be pissed 'their favorite' didn't get re-released. I love BB and am looking forward to that... But Necromunda fans and Epic fans will cry because they didn't get the 2012 release.

Seriously - what the feth do you want? Both here and in the FW thread - aggressive posts directed at me for seemingly no reason. Are you trying to pick a fight with me, is that what this, above (^^^^^) is? 'Cause it's gettin' kinda silly.

And what has this 'pet game' bs got to do with anything I said about this being a one-shot wonder game?

evilsponge wrote:People don't like Dreadfleet because it wasn't the pet project they wanted it to be, pure a simple. I thought the last thing people would hate is a new specialist game.

People can have multiple reasons for not liking something - I don't like Dreadfleet as I am not interested in sea based naval warfare, I don't like how most of the ships look, I don't like the look of the "fleets" (as they look like a mish-mash of ships, rather than fleets that would actually be siding with one another), I don't want to get yet another gaming system, I don't want to get a gaming system that is not related to anything I play (as I do not play WHFB) and it is too expensive for me.

This is aside from the fact that I would much rather it have been a re-release of Space Hulk, WHQ, HQ, or Necromunda - all games that I have previous editions (and expansions) of, or have played and enjoyed, or would enjoy playing.

SilverMK2 wrote:People can have multiple reasons for not liking something

Apparently not. If you dislike Dreadfleet it's because your 'pet game' didn't get a release. Or, if you're like me, and you're indifferent to the whole thing, it's also just because your 'pet game' didn't get a release.

Weird, eh?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:People can have multiple reasons for not liking something

Apparently not. If you dislike Dreadfleet it's because your 'pet game' didn't get a release. Or, if you're like me, and you're indifferent to the whole thing, it's also just because your 'pet game' didn't get a release.

Weird, eh?

Pft, hator.

I have mine already. I ordered 3 of them.

Sidstyler wrote:Someone explain to me why you think GW would produce an expansion for a game that was a limited release? What would the point be? The only people who would get any use out of the expansion are the ones who were able to get a copy of the original game while it was still available. It makes no sense to make an expansion for a game like that, not unless Dreadfleet becomes a permanent addition to their game library and it obviously isn't.

I wouldn't even call that wishful thinking.

Shht! You are trying to use reason and logic in a discussion with GW fanboys, those two things are kind of mutually exclusive...

Ultramarinescout wrote:I have mine already. I ordered 3 of them.

Quelle que porquoi?

PhantomViper wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Someone explain to me why you think GW would produce an expansion for a game that was a limited release? What would the point be? The only people who would get any use out of the expansion are the ones who were able to get a copy of the original game while it was still available. It makes no sense to make an expansion for a game like that, not unless Dreadfleet becomes a permanent addition to their game library and it obviously isn't.

I wouldn't even call that wishful thinking.

Shht! You are trying to use reason and logic in a discussion with GW fanboys, those two things are kind of mutually exclusive...

You seem to really enjoy those blanket statements, Viper.

Based on this Forum, GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. People have been clamouring for GW to release boxed games again. They are starting to, and because it isn't the boxed game you wanted, they "fail." My copy of Dreadfleet looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my first game in today after I finish with some meetings.

I also grabbed up 2 copies. I am not one to pay retail for GW to often, but I am very happy with my purchase. I havent gotten a chance to really dive into the contents yet, but just from my skim on the rules and a quick look at the models I think it's going to be a great game.

I don't often say this, but I think this one is a win for GW.

cincydooley wrote:Based on this Forum, GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. People have been clamouring for GW to release boxed games again. They are starting to, and because it isn't the boxed game you wanted, they "fail." My copy of Dreadfleet looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my first game in today after I finish with some meetings.

Take a look back at some of the old "boxed games" that GW have put out in the past - they are mostly extensions of the tabletop games; generally squad level games for WHFB, or 40K. Products that either lead new players into the "big two", or which players of the "big two" can get into to change the pace.

DF doesn't really fit that - it is kind of like BFG - it does relate to the core game universe (although not as strongly as BFG IMO), but being limited means it probably will not reach anyone outside the hobby, so will not be bringing in new players. Also means we are less likely to see any expansions in the future as there is an even more limited market than the standard games GW sells.

Having not played the game myself, I can't really speak about the gameplay, but again, looking at the other boxed games GW have released in the past, they are extensions of the main tabletop games, making them easier to pick up and play. Something that may count against you finding pick up games in your local gaming store (assuming they will let you play the game ).

cincydooley wrote:People have been clamouring for GW to release boxed games again. They are starting to, and because it isn't the boxed game you wanted, they "fail." My copy of Dreadfleet looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my first game in today after I finish with some meetings.

I can't comment for other people, but in my case, I love the fact that GW might release one-off games based on the fluff of WHF or 40k. I love the fluff for both systems. My problem with DF is the price. For me $115 is too much to invest for a one-off game, regardless of the quality of the components. Unlike Space Hulk, which included pieces that were compatable with another GW game, Dread Fleet pieces are pretty much exclusive to the box set. I would be all over this game if it was priced at around $60-$70, even if that means that the quality of the ships and mat were considerably lower.

Judging by what has been been posted, many people disagree with my viewpoint, and they are entitled to their view that the game is well worth the price. I imagine that if the price point wasn't so high, many more people would be of the same opinion.

Well, I picked up my copy and a friend and I spent the evening putting everything together. We ended up playing several games and we both enjoyed it.

So, whether it is worht $115 to you or not is your choice. But, for me, I have no regrets.

augustus5 wrote:

cincydooley wrote:People have been clamouring for GW to release boxed games again. They are starting to, and because it isn't the boxed game you wanted, they "fail." My copy of Dreadfleet looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my first game in today after I finish with some meetings.

I can't comment for other people, but in my case, I love the fact that GW might release one-off games based on the fluff of WHF or 40k. I love the fluff for both systems. My problem with DF is the price. For me $115 is too much to invest for a one-off game, regardless of the quality of the components. Unlike Space Hulk, which included pieces that were compatable with another GW game, Dread Fleet pieces are pretty much exclusive to the box set. I would be all over this game if it was priced at around $60-$70, even if that means that the quality of the ships and mat were considerably lower.

Judging by what has been been posted, many people disagree with my viewpoint, and they are entitled to their view that the game is well worth the price. I imagine that if the price point wasn't so high, many more people would be of the same opinion.

I don't begrudge you for that; however, you've gotta consider that the game, as is, is right there with the market standard for a stand-alone board game with components like that. The best comparison right now is, IMO, Dust Tactics from FFG. Very comparable components. The GW ones are (IMO) of higher quality, but only slightly. Contain about the same amount of plastic. DF has the really nice mat, where Dust has the game boards. You're looking at a MSRP of $115 for dreadfleet vs $100 for Dust Tactics. They're close.

Just play Battlefleet Gothic, cheaper and the rules are free.

BFG:

Space mat: About $35
10x cruisers @ 2 for 20: $100
Order dice: $10

Nope, not really cheaper.

cincydooley wrote:Based on this Forum, GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. People have been clamouring for GW to release boxed games again. They are starting to, and because it isn't the boxed game you wanted, they "fail." My copy of Dreadfleet looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my first game in today after I finish with some meetings.

No, they're damned in this case because they didn't really release a boxed game at all, they released a collectible.

You brought up Dust Tactics and compared it to Dreadfleet, but there's a few differences. I can still buy Dust Tactics, long after it was first released. What happens a few months from now when I get a chance to play Dreadfleet with someone and decide I want my own copy? Oh yeah, I'm fethed, because GW doesn't want customers like me, they want people who freak out over "limited quantities" and buy like 3 fething copies before even trying the game out, people who I know for a fact have no intention of actually using all three copies and plan on selling them later for a little profit. It's almost like the game itself doesn't really matter, they're trying to sell it based purely on the fact that it has pretty ship models (not in my opinion, there's a few ships in the box I like [the Swordfysh or whatever it's called], but all in all I'm not floored by any of them) and that it's a limited time only thing. It's less of a board game and more of an investment, you'd have to be an idiot to buy a copy and actually crack it open because you're going to ruin the resale value.

Dust Tactics also has expansions, because FFG actually wants people to enjoy the game and keep playing it. GW could care less if you like Dreadfleet or not because once it's gone it's gone and they don't have to feth with it anymore.

CptJake wrote:BFG:

Space mat: About $35
10x cruisers @ 2 for 20: $100
Order dice: $10

Nope, not really cheaper.

Black felt, $5
printed markers for the orders, free.

Cheaper, and if you want more ships or different fleets, they're out there.

Yep, you can also use sticks from your back yard instead of buying ships at all.

That doesn't change the fact that to play BFG with GW ships in the same quantity that Dread Fleet comes with and a mat close to the quality of what is included in Dread Fleet you are going to pay at least as much as Dread Fleet.

The Mad Tanker said "Just play Battlefleet Gothic, cheaper and the rules are free " which is clearly not the case.

Wanna build up another strawman?

I'm just going to stop in here and say, the Dreadfleet models are awesome. It sounds like everybody is being a negative Nancy about it. If it doesn't float your boat, don't buy it. But for me, who cares a lot more about the painting and modelling aspect, I'm going to say that these boats are just totally awesome. It was worth all the money I spent. And hey, it's not meant to be the biggest and baddest thing ever, it's just a cool side game with cool models and interesting stories. I'm diggin it, it was definitely worth the wait.

CptJake wrote:Yep, you can also use sticks from your back yard instead of buying ships at all.

That doesn't change the fact that to play BFG with GW ships in the same quantity that Dread Fleet comes with and a mat close to the quality of what is included in Dread Fleet you are going to pay at least as much as Dread Fleet.

The Mad Tanker said "Just play Battlefleet Gothic, cheaper and the rules are free " which is clearly not the case.

Wanna build up another strawman?

I didn't build up a strawman. I accepted your point about the ships and the mat arguement you made is a strawman since BFG has never needed one. At that, a starfield map is vastly simple to make and look good if you just have to have a chubber for one. Buying the dice is about silly when all they are is a marker for the order.

Sidstyler wrote:

cincydooley wrote:Based on this Forum, GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. People have been clamouring for GW to release boxed games again. They are starting to, and because it isn't the boxed game you wanted, they "fail." My copy of Dreadfleet looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my first game in today after I finish with some meetings.

No, they're damned in this case because they didn't really release a boxed game at all, they released a collectible.

You brought up Dust Tactics and compared it to Dreadfleet, but there's a few differences. I can still buy Dust Tactics, long after it was first released. What happens a few months from now when I get a chance to play Dreadfleet with someone and decide I want my own copy? Oh yeah, I'm fethed, because GW doesn't want customers like me, they want people who freak out over "limited quantities" and buy like 3 fething copies before even trying the game out, people who I know for a fact have no intention of actually using all three copies and plan on selling them later for a little profit. It's almost like the game itself doesn't really matter, they're trying to sell it based purely on the fact that it has pretty ship models (not in my opinion, there's a few ships in the box I like [the Swordfysh or whatever it's called], but all in all I'm not floored by any of them) and that it's a limited time only thing. It's less of a board game and more of an investment, you'd have to be an idiot to buy a copy and actually crack it open because you're going to ruin the resale value.
Dust Tactics also has expansions, because FFG actually wants people to enjoy the game and keep playing it. GW could care less if you like Dreadfleet or not because once it's gone it's gone and they don't have to feth with it anymore.

I see feth a lot on these forums. What does it mean and what does it come from?

I used Dust Tactics as a pricing comparison. I never said they were comparable games. They're not intended to be. FWIW dust tactics is plenty playable out of the box without a single expansion. I don't quite understand this sentiment that something has to be expanded upon to make it better, or because it is expanded on it is better. Hell, there are 5 Twilight movies; I think we can all agree that expanding on the first does not make it better.

cincydooley wrote:I see feth a lot on these forums. What does it mean and what does it come from?

It's how Dakka censors the "F-word". I have no control over it. :(

Anyway, I'm not saying expansions necessarily make a game any better, but people do like it and it's kinda cool to see a game continue to get support after it's initial release. It makes me think the company actually cares about the product, as opposed to the "fire and forget"-style release of Dreadfleet which makes me think GW put in just enough effort to make the game look good, but doesn't really give a damn about it and can't wait for it to sell out so they can focus on the next big cash grab (and stop talking and dressing like pirates).

CptJake wrote:Yep, you can also use sticks from your back yard instead of buying ships at all.

That doesn't change the fact that to play BFG with GW ships in the same quantity that Dread Fleet comes with and a mat close to the quality of what is included in Dread Fleet you are going to pay at least as much as Dread Fleet.

The Mad Tanker said "Just play Battlefleet Gothic, cheaper and the rules are free " which is clearly not the case.

Wanna build up another strawman?

Strawman? Don't you mean STICKFLEET, the next greatest game known to man!

The thing about BFG though, it might cost about the same if you want to play on a fancy mat and with a large number of models, but it doesn't require that you spend all that money at once if you don't want to. You can buy into BFG any time you want, you can start small and add to your fleet later when you want to, and black felt works just fine until you feel like getting a fancier printed mat. That alone makes it better than Dreadfleet in my opinion, which GW purposely didn't give me time to make my mind up on.

LadyGray wrote:I'm just going to stop in here and say, the Dreadfleet models are awesome. It sounds like everybody is being a negative Nancy about it. If it doesn't float your boat, don't buy it. But for me, who cares a lot more about the painting and modelling aspect, I'm going to say that these boats are just totally awesome. It was worth all the money I spent. And hey, it's not meant to be the biggest and baddest thing ever, it's just a cool side game with cool models and interesting stories. I'm diggin it, it was definitely worth the wait.

I drove an hour to the "local" store today to see it in person, and the models do look much better in person than I thought. Very nicely detailed, even if most of the ship designs don't really "wow" me. Still love the Swordfysh and the Black Kraken, but not enough to pay $115 for the game. The store only has four copies, not sure I see them lasting long in case I change my mind later.

The "durr hurr skulls" islands are still stupid though. Like seriously, you can't think of anything else? You couldn't just do something cool like rocky spires sticking up out of the water or something a little more otherworldly or alien, it's gotta be as stupid and cheesy as possible because they want you to be embarrassed with yourself for having spent $115 on it, apparently. One island in the shape of a skull would have been enough to satisfy their fetish and make you think "Ahh, yeah, there's a skull, lol that's funny, that's so GW...", but no...

cincydooley wrote:I see feth a lot on these forums. What does it mean and what does it come from?

It's a 40K swear-word, coined in the Gaunt's Ghosts books, IIRC.

LadyGray wrote:I'm just going to stop in here and say, the Dreadfleet models are awesome. It sounds like everybody is being a negative Nancy about it. If it doesn't float your boat, don't buy it. But for me, who cares a lot more about the painting and modelling aspect, I'm going to say that these boats are just totally awesome. It was worth all the money I spent. And hey, it's not meant to be the biggest and baddest thing ever, it's just a cool side game with cool models and interesting stories. I'm diggin it, it was definitely worth the wait.

Agreed. I have started assembling the ships and I think they are great. If you enjoy assembling, and painting you can count that in the entertainment value (I do). Now add the hours of game play just on the standard missions. Now swap sides with your buddy and add that as well. If the game is really good start making your own missions (I am sure at least one gaming group in the world will do so, and the missions will probably make it to the internet). I would think all of that is good for at least 200 hours.

Now lets go to the movies. 10 dollars goes for my ticket (maybe a bit less for a matinee). I decide to buy popcorn and a soda. 8 dollars sounds about right for that. I am now out 18 dollars for an hour and a half. 7 movies is going to cost you 126 dollars. You have gotten 11 hours of entertainment at most.

IMO everyone should go see less movies and try Dreadfleet.

No

insaniak wrote:

cincydooley wrote:I see feth a lot on these forums. What does it mean and what does it come from?

It's a 40K swear-word, coined in the Gaunt's Ghosts books, IIRC.

You are almost right!

'Feth'/'fething' and 'gak' are common swearwords from the comic book '2000AD' (along with 'Grud' and 'drokk/drakk' although those aren't used here)
And of course, Dan Abnett used to write for Judge Dredd and 2000AD, I'm not sure if he coined the phrases though or just adopted them for use in Gaunts Ghosts and other books he has written.

I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

Kurgash wrote:I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

Really? As a game matt I think it looks great. I sold a ton of them over the weekend. Some of the sales were just from people seeing the mostly unpainted plastic ships on the game matt. General consensus was that the matt was well made, and I didn't hear anyone complaining about it.

Kurgash wrote:I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

lol, why, does the mat not look so good in person? I didn't get a chance to take a good look at it myself.

LadyGray wrote:I'm just going to stop in here and say, the Dreadfleet models are awesome. It sounds like everybody is being a negative Nancy about it. If it doesn't float your boat, don't buy it. But for me, who cares a lot more about the painting and modelling aspect, I'm going to say that these boats are just totally awesome. It was worth all the money I spent. And hey, it's not meant to be the biggest and baddest thing ever, it's just a cool side game with cool models and interesting stories. I'm diggin it, it was definitely worth the wait.

Think you are missing the point of the negative reactions

The issue is less about whether the models are awesome or not, which is a matter of personal opinion, and more about GW's marketing decisions.

I also like the modelling aspects of the hobby but won't stump up £70 for a bunch of random boats that are specific to a limited edition game.
If it had not have been a one shot system it would have appealed more to me.
If I wanted £70 worth of plastic to model there are quite a few Airfix kits that would fit the bill. Alternatively, as I have already done I can get something like Freebooters which will also allow me to use the figures for other Pirate games.

Finally please don't suggest that people do not buy if they don't like.
You will find that we have already sussed that out for ourselves.

Good post Sidster btw

Sidstyler wrote:

Kurgash wrote:I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

lol, why, does the mat not look so good in person? I didn't get a chance to take a good look at it myself.

It's so thin that she thought it wouldn't hold up to having a bunch of sharp plastic ships on it and would tear the off chance an edge caught the mat. $115 for the product, 30 in plastic, 10 in cardboard and 75 for the silk table cloth!

Kurgash wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Kurgash wrote:I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

lol, why, does the mat not look so good in person? I didn't get a chance to take a good look at it myself.

It's so thin that she thought it wouldn't hold up to having a bunch of sharp plastic ships on it and would tear the off chance an edge caught the mat. $115 for the product, 30 in plastic, 10 in cardboard and 75 for the silk table cloth!

Yeah, I'm not surprised if the non-model components in the box feel kinda cheap. And I really doubt the mat is actually "crinkle/crease free" like they claim, too.

I am considering filing the sharp edges on the ship bases slightly as the mat in all honesty does snag on the bases a lot. Maybe I could even get some adhesive blue felt for the bottoms. I don't think it'll tear with normal use, however.

Sidstyler wrote:
Yeah, I'm not surprised if the non-model components in the box feel kinda cheap. And I really doubt the mat is actually "crinkle/crease free" like they claim, too.

Haven't seen it in person, but if it is, at it looks, similar to what is used in for example, cleaning wipes, then it is very crease resistent. Of course if it's very light, it might be problematic to keep it in place.

Cool
When you have finished playing you can use the mat to clean the house!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Cool
When you have finished playing you can use the mat to clean the house!

The wife will be happy with that.

If the mat does tear in normal use, GW will replace it for you anyway -- whatever other faults they may have, they're very good at customer service, including after-sales customer service. I had no problems getting replacement Space Hulk board sections from them when mine warped.

Ian Sturrock wrote:If the mat does tear in normal use, GW will replace it for you anyway -- whatever other faults they may have, they're very good at customer service, including after-sales customer service. I had no problems getting replacement Space Hulk board sections from them when mine warped.

Oh gak, that reminds me, I haven't checked my SH board sections in a while.

Popped into GW during my lunch time jaunt.

No demo games up and running and nothing from Dreadfleet on display (not even unpainted models).

There are however 25 copies still available to buy, so if anybody desperately wanted Dreadfleet and has missed out, there are still some around if you know where to look.

Sidstyler wrote:
Yeah, I'm not surprised if the non-model components in the box feel kinda cheap. And I really doubt the mat is actually "crinkle/crease free" like they claim, too.

I realize that it's apparent I'm happy with the product, so this may appear to be a biased opinion, but this simply isn't true. Every component in the box really is top notch.

All of the cards look fantastic. They are on par with anything Fantasy Flight releases.

The rulebook is GORGEOUS. It's bound like a paperback codex and is 100% full color with tons of great art. Really nice.

I don't understand the complaints about the mat. It looks lovely, has a lot of durability to it (it stretches some and doesn't seem to wrinkle), and is a very nice addition to the box.

People may not like the aesthetic, or may be disenchanted with the style of the release (a one-off boxed game), but I think anyone that claims they've seen the components and states they are sub-par is lying. No one would argue that the components on Space Hulk were sup par. The Dreadfleet components are right there with the Space Hulk ones.

It's bound like a paperback codex

That might not be seen as a good thing!

Kurgash wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Kurgash wrote:I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

lol, why, does the mat not look so good in person? I didn't get a chance to take a good look at it myself.

It's so thin that she thought it wouldn't hold up to having a bunch of sharp plastic ships on it and would tear the off chance an edge caught the mat. $115 for the product, 30 in plastic, 10 in cardboard and 75 for the silk table cloth!

Tell her the matt goes on the table, and the flat side of the ships go on the clothe.

On second thought, no, don't let her buy it! Anyone that could tear up the matt somehow while moving the 'sharp' plastic ships, is going to rip out an artery while rolling dice.

Yeah she must be really stupid to not figure out that the base goes on the mat. But then she is a woman so what can we expect!? Just tell her to iron the cloth and shut up

Looks a decent product to me, and plenty of people who bought it saying it was excellent quality. So no doubt it is. People who havent bought it are complaining though yes? Ive not seen a single person who bought it say it was garbage. As I said a long while back, people seem to just moan incessantly, and its pure nerd rage.

If you merely "like" something, you don't get this bizarre rage that you see on dakka. This is a website devoted pretty much to warhammer, the fact that people frequent it means they are big fans of the product, and therein lies the problem. Only nerds love and despise something this much, they remind me of a wife who loves her husband but cant bring herself to leave him even though he beats her up.

Its fething childish.

GW are out to make a profit, every single games company in the world is, so who gives a gak? Where on earth does this bizarre rage come from? You love warhammer yet you hate they want to sell it to you for cash? Do you want them to give you models for free? Even if you think they suck at marketing (they surely could be better and yes they charge a fair whack) that's their business, why the hate?

DF looks decent, but I have a hard enough time getting my 40k stuff painted, I never finished SH, and im just starting dwarves for WHFB, so there is no point in me buying another one. And I dislike playing with unpainted stuff, I'm a perfectionist! Plus, I hated being on ship when I was embarked forces in the marines, so i have no interest in nautical adventures.

That aside, I'm sure its a decent product, and if people (like me) aren't buying it, they should do just go ahead and do that and stop whinging incessantly like irate school girls.

Vote with your wallet, talk less and go do it, never buy GW again. Crack on.

And stop making me and the other people that have a logical producer/consumer relationship with this multi national corporation from having to sift through your gak.

Hippy!

notprop wrote:Hippy!

Ive been called many things, never a hippy though!

Surely someone sticking up for a multi national cant be a hipp....

Hey!

YOUR the hippy!

mattyrm wrote: Pure nerd rage.

Its fething childish.

So who gives a gak? Where on earth does this bizarre rage come from? why the hate?

I'm a perfectionist!
irate school girls.

And stop making me and the other people that have a logical producer/consumer relationship with this multi national corporation from having to sift through your gak.

And the worst post of the year at dakka goes to you sir... good job. Keep it up.

Edit: glad to see you at least edited all the swearing...

mattyrm wrote:
Its fething childish.

GW are out to make a profit, every single games company in the world is, so who gives a gak? Where on earth does this bizarre rage come from? You love warhammer yet you hate they want to sell it to you for cash? Do you want them to give you models for free? Even if you think they suck at marketing (they surely could be better and yes they charge a fair whack) that's their business, why the hate?

DF looks decent, but I have a hard enough time getting my 40k stuff painted, I never finished SH, and im just starting dwarves for WHFB, so there is no point in me buying another one. And I dislike playing with unpainted stuff, I'm a perfectionist! Plus, I hated being on ship when I was embarked forces in the marines, so i have no interest in nautical adventures.

That aside, I'm sure its a decent product, and if people (like me) aren't buying it, they should do just go ahead and do that and stop whinging incessantly like irate school girls.

Vote with your wallet, talk less and go do it, never buy GW again. Crack on.

And stop making me and the other people that have a logical producer/consumer relationship with this multi national corporation from having to sift through your gak.

Best post of the year on Dakka. You're right, it's childish logic to state that because I don't want to buy a product, no-one will want to buy a product and the people who make that product are morons. Especially when the evidence points in the opposite direction...

I have the old wizkids pirates game to use any time I want to play a naval combat game. The $115 price tag didn't help it any either, I can get 2-4 Avalon hill board games for that price.

Holdenstein wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Its fething childish.

GW are out to make a profit, every single games company in the world is, so who gives a gak? Where on earth does this bizarre rage come from? You love warhammer yet you hate they want to sell it to you for cash? Do you want them to give you models for free? Even if you think they suck at marketing (they surely could be better and yes they charge a fair whack) that's their business, why the hate?

DF looks decent, but I have a hard enough time getting my 40k stuff painted, I never finished SH, and im just starting dwarves for WHFB, so there is no point in me buying another one. And I dislike playing with unpainted stuff, I'm a perfectionist! Plus, I hated being on ship when I was embarked forces in the marines, so i have no interest in nautical adventures.

That aside, I'm sure its a decent product, and if people (like me) aren't buying it, they should do just go ahead and do that and stop whinging incessantly like irate school girls.

Vote with your wallet, talk less and go do it, never buy GW again. Crack on.

And stop making me and the other people that have a logical producer/consumer relationship with this multi national corporation from having to sift through your gak.

Best post of the year on Dakka. You're right, it's childish logic to state that because I don't want to buy a product, no-one will want to buy a product and the people who make that product are morons. Especially when the evidence points in the opposite direction...

Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

megatrons2nd wrote:I have the old wizkids pirates game to use any time I want to play a naval combat game. The $115 price tag didn't help it any either, I can get 2-4 Avalon hill board games for that price.

I think comparing the WizKids Pirates game to Dreadfleet is a bit silly. The products, despite both being naval combat games, are fairly different, and the production values really can't be compared.

Does Avalon Hill still produce games?

NAVARRO wrote:
Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

I'm 36. You?

I have to say that Dreadfleet is the first game I've seen which has earned criticism not because of its gameplay, not because of its models, but because it was released at all.

That is really puzzling. Dreadfleet doesn't take anything away from people who play other GW games. No model or army or Specialist Game has been discontinued because of it. Nobody has to buy it to stay competive on Tournament circuit. Everyone who isn't interested about buying the game - like me - can simply, you know, not buy it. I didn't buy Space Hulk either. Neither game is my cup of tea. But I sure as heck don't go on ranting about GW publishing game which doesn't interest me. Maybe someone else wants to buy it, that's great, everybody's a winner. Why on Terra I'd want to complain about the situation?

NAVARRO wrote:Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

Looking at it objectively, there are almost always reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides, but every participant feels like all the unreasonable ones are on the opposite side.

Love and hate always cloud opinions, and there are plenty of people with a predetermined opinion of GW that will always be on the fanboy side, or the hater side. There seems to be much more of the latter, though. Personally I would put more stock in the opinions of people who judge every product on its own merit, and there are certainly plenty of legitimate reasons not to like Dreadfleet. But there is also a slew of people here who seem to hate it just because it's from big bad GW and make up completely ridiculous excuses to complain about it.

Backfire wrote:I have to say that Dreadfleet is the first game I've seen which has earned criticism not because of its gameplay, not because of its models, but because it was released at all.

Finally, someone put it into words. I completely agree. I have no idea what the total staff working at GW is, but I cannot imagine that the people who worked on DF actually took away any significant time from other other GW product lines. I like to think that GW has some semblance of a business plan for all of their products (sometimes, that is a stretch). It is hard to gauge since everything does tend to be hush hush with them. But, my suspicion is that whatever GW is planning to release for 40k this year / next year is not impacted by this project at all.

cincydooley wrote:

megatrons2nd wrote:I have the old wizkids pirates game to use any time I want to play a naval combat game. The $115 price tag didn't help it any either, I can get 2-4 Avalon hill board games for that price.

I think comparing the WizKids Pirates game to Dreadfleet is a bit silly. The products, despite both being naval combat games, are fairly different, and the production values really can't be compared.

Does Avalon Hill still produce games?

Yes, as an imprint of Milton Bradley. There is a surprising number of traditional boxed wargames still being published by companies such as GMT.

UK prices tend to be between £30 and £60 per game.

played my first game of this sunday, shopowner gave it to a friend to teach people how to play and teach him how to play. the minis look really nice, they were impressive, though require a delicate yet stong touch to line up correctly (assuming you snap together and don't glue) they look liek they will be fun to paint as well.

the gameplay itself is fun, thogh i have no basis to compare it to beyond battleship if that counts. I enjoyed it, I may one day pick it up, but that'll likely be at the soonest toward the latter part of 6 months, have to much to pain and build already

Green is Best! wrote:I have no idea what the total staff working at GW is, but I cannot imagine that the people who worked on DF actually took away any significant time from other other GW product lines. I like to think that GW has some semblance of a business plan for all of their products (sometimes, that is a stretch). It is hard to gauge since everything does tend to be hush hush with them. But, my suspicion is that whatever GW is planning to release for 40k this year / next year is not impacted by this project at all.

Time is a limited resource, and any time spent developing the rules, art, miniatures, or backstory of DreadFleet is time that could have been spent on something else. For GW, that something else would be (usually) 40k or WHFB.

While I have no problem with GW putting out this product, I also didn't purchase it for a number of reasons unrelated to what I think GW should have been spending their time on (despite some of the broad assertions made above). However, comments like this one are particularly fanboy-ish..

mikhaila wrote:

Kurgash wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Kurgash wrote:I watched a person buy dreadfleet with a face full of excitement and anticipation. The moment she found the silken 'table cloth' sea map her face contorted and immediately she was doubting why she bought said product. It was the most beautiful thing I'd seen in a long time.

lol, why, does the mat not look so good in person? I didn't get a chance to take a good look at it myself.

It's so thin that she thought it wouldn't hold up to having a bunch of sharp plastic ships on it and would tear the off chance an edge caught the mat. $115 for the product, 30 in plastic, 10 in cardboard and 75 for the silk table cloth!

Tell her the matt goes on the table, and the flat side of the ships go on the clothe.

On second thought, no, don't let her buy it! Anyone that could tear up the matt somehow while moving the 'sharp' plastic ships, is going to rip out an artery while rolling dice.

its comments like this that make me want to visit your shop one day sir!

but having played it I can say at no point was anythign catching on the mat I played on, we pulled the mat tight, put small weights on the corners and everythign slip without even a hint of catching the cloth

Kilkrazy wrote:

cincydooley wrote:

megatrons2nd wrote:I have the old wizkids pirates game to use any time I want to play a naval combat game. The $115 price tag didn't help it any either, I can get 2-4 Avalon hill board games for that price.

I think comparing the WizKids Pirates game to Dreadfleet is a bit silly. The products, despite both being naval combat games, are fairly different, and the production values really can't be compared.

Does Avalon Hill still produce games?

Yes, as an imprint of Milton Bradley. There is a surprising number of traditional boxed wargames still being published by companies such as GMT.

UK prices tend to be between £30 and £60 per game.

Yeah, I know GMT, Lock n Load, etc are still making traditional boxed wargames. I'd forgotten that Axis & Allies and Battle Cry still had the Avalon Hill logo on them I always associate Avalon Hill with their older counter and chit boxed wargames, I suppose.

Personally I can't justify spending that amount of money on a board game that nobody else around me will play. I made that mistake with Space Hulk (even purchased the BF foam inserts for it), and years later I still have only played it twice.

biccat wrote:Time is a limited resource, and any time spent developing the rules, art, miniatures, or backstory of DreadFleet is time that could have been spent on something else. For GW, that something else would be (usually) 40k or WHFB.

True, but that is also making the assumption that GW would have used those resources towards the next 40k or WHFB project. My point being that if GW planned on releasing 3 new codexes next year, this project would have no bearing on that. Not doing DF would not make them do a 4th nor would it improve the quality of the 3 coming out.

Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

From a playability standpoint, I like the way DF plays. Its fun. Fairly easy to learn, and looks like you can do several different scenarios to keep it fresh. While I think it is a bit pricy, I don't think it is overcosted. I have wasted way more than a $115 on a night of drinking at the bar and / or strip joint.

Green is Best! wrote:True, but that is also making the assumption that GW would have used those resources towards the next 40k or WHFB project. My point being that if GW planned on releasing 3 new codexes next year, this project would have no bearing on that. Not doing DF would not make them do a 4th nor would it improve the quality of the 3 coming out.

They had to use those resources towards something. If they had dedicated those resources towards a Warhams project, they would have produced more/better product.

I have to say that Dreadfleet is the first game I've seen which has earned criticism not because of its gameplay, not because of its models, but because it was released at all.

People have stated why they are not interested.
Like Biccat my reasons are purely to do with what the game is and not what it isn't.
I am not obliged to pee myself in excitement just because GW have released a game.

Again for the record, may those that have the game get much joy of it. Hope I am not speaking out of turn, but am sure I speak not only for myself here but for many others too.

Backfire wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

I'm 36. You?

I have to say that Dreadfleet is the first game I've seen which has earned criticism not because of its gameplay, not because of its models, but because it was released at all.

That is really puzzling. Dreadfleet doesn't take anything away from people who play other GW games. No model or army or Specialist Game has been discontinued because of it. Nobody has to buy it to stay competive on Tournament circuit. Everyone who isn't interested about buying the game - like me - can simply, you know, not buy it. I didn't buy Space Hulk either. Neither game is my cup of tea. But I sure as heck don't go on ranting about GW publishing game which doesn't interest me. Maybe someone else wants to buy it, that's great, everybody's a winner. Why on Terra I'd want to complain about the situation?

As a 36 old fella you should have understood it was a totally rhetoric question But as Im a curious 37 year old fart its fun to know your age.

Wait you never seen critics on LOTR for the exact same reasons for so many years?

People complain and people praise its a common human behavior is it not? As long as they don't enter in a mindless war against others that have a different opinion I think all its legit.

lord_blackfang wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

Looking at it objectively, there are almost always reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides, but every participant feels like all the unreasonable ones are on the opposite side.

Love and hate always cloud opinions, and there are plenty of people with a predetermined opinion of GW that will always be on the fanboy side, or the hater side. There seems to be much more of the latter, though. Personally I would put more stock in the opinions of people who judge every product on its own merit, and there are certainly plenty of legitimate reasons not to like Dreadfleet. But there is also a slew of people here who seem to hate it just because it's from big bad GW and make up completely ridiculous excuses to complain about it.

A completely ridiculous excuse for me may be a strong reason for others hey? I find interesting the debate about those reasons without resorting to cursing and trying to be offensive...
I agree with you that some do think this is a sides thing but those are probably the extreme and minority of the vast majority that is the middle ground opinions at dakka.

One thing I have been noticing is a huge influx of 2010, 2011 members behaving really really strangely.

In short all reasons to buy or not Dfleet are equally important even if you disagree with them, can we debate them without the drama and without kicking the testicles of the guy you disagree with?

One of my friends will get the game and I hope he plays and paints and has a good time with it, I will check it out. To bad the boats and islands do nothing for me design wise.

I'm looking forward to recieving mine..
Some guys on internet forums, if GW gave them $100 bills, they'd complain they were folded wrong...

Of course they wouldn't

They would be to astonished at GW giving anything away to bother with the origami

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

12thRonin wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

What is is with this obsession with expansion?

Seems noone is happy with a simple, boxed game.

The way I see it, less expansions = less money spent....

cincydooley wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

What is is with this obsession with expansion?

Seems noone is happy with a simple, boxed game.

The way I see it, less expansions = less money spent....

depends on the game, some expantions add balance or mroe fun to a game.

one of the funnest games I've played to date is battlestar gallactica (you'll make cylon jokes to peopel you play with for the next month) and the expantion only added to it

I could see them releasing a few ships as options, btu as is the game seems pretty interesting, I'd have to play more to decide if more ships would be worth it, maybe add faction packs for other races or ship types... but as is I enjoyed it

is it possible to play Space Mutiny with that game lol

It isn't an obsession but would make the initial outlay more worthwhile.

ATM it looks as though you run through the scenarios
then you run through the same scenarios again
and then you run through the same scenarios again...
and.. well you get the picture.

It just doesn't seem to have the repeat playability.

there's actually several mission types. if you played the starting game where its just kill a ship it'd be boring soon, but some of the effects and missions are neat where you have to go onto islands and such all while fighiting off ships and protecting others

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It isn't an obsession but would make the initial outlay more worthwhile.

ATM it looks as though you run through the scenarios
then you run through the same scenarios again
and then you run through the same scenarios again...
and.. well you get the picture.

It just doesn't seem to have the repeat playability.

I never understood that way of thinking with any game. Take Steve Jackson's OGRE for example. It didn't come with too many scenarios, but we made our own. I see no reason why you couldn't do that with this game very easily. I don't think I've ever bought a wargame, miniatures or board, that I felt limited to included scenarios. I've always been able to come up with my own. I do it with Spacehulk, I'll do it with Dread Fleet.

Yeah but you are still stuck with the same ten ships and the same ten crew
and the same improbable alliances
and the same Skullz Islands

You might be happy with that and fair do's but there is no compunction for everyone to want the game.

The point is not that GW should not have released
Dread Fleet imho, but that they could have made it a general release and allowed for expansions.

Hyperthetically, would you have refused to invest in such a game because it was expandable?
My bet is that many of the people that have bought Dread Fleet would also have got such a system, and a lot more people would have bought into it besides.

Apart from a quick turnover there is no advantage for GW to have gone about things the way they have.


Can only assume that it is for the benefit of Kirby so he can get in another divi payout before he tootles of into the sunset!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Apart from a quick turnover there is no advantage for GW to have gone about things the way they have.

Quick turnover with finite use of resources, vs the possibility of more money from an open ended game, but also an ongoing drain on resources such as staffing, printing, sculpting, etc without knowing the amount of profit vs. resources committed.

Which is it? A) Should never have made DF because it takes resources away from other projects or B) it sucks because it's not expandable and ongoing with more drain on GW's resources?

Funny as hell how the arguements go back and forth.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with how they are doing it. There's nothing at all wrong with a quick turnover and profit. It also leaves them open to an expansion if they want. Most boardgame companies don't automatically dump out expansions, they wait for the initial sales of the game and decide after that. If they think it's profitable, I expect we may see additional ships and scenarios.

cincydooley wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

What is is with this obsession with expansion?

Seems noone is happy with a simple, boxed game.

The way I see it, less expansions = less money spent....

Wasn't talking about Dreadfleet. HH is only a two player game, period. There's no way to alter the rules realistically to make it play more than that. Most of the time when you go to a store for a board game night, if it's only two player it doesn't get played.

I have my copy and the game is great. Too many people think of it like a table top game such as Warhammer or 40k. It is a board game that just happens to use a ruler instead of spaces. Moving your ships, shooting, and boarding are simple take just a few games to get used to the rules. The scenarios are fun and add random elements to prevent too much planning ahead. The fate deck has some interesting things. Wind, while not normally a big deal has on a few occasions provided someone with the means to escape when they should have been destroyed or thwarted someones plans when victory seemed in sight. All the random elements combined with the simple mechanics provides a fun game.

It is not a competitive game where you can min/max your way to victory. It is a fun, fast, and random game where you can sit down for an hour or two and have some fun and a few laughs when your ships drift into islands and burst into flames.

Which is it? A) Should never have made DF because it takes resources away from other projects or B) it sucks because it's not expandable and ongoing with more drain on GW's resources?

Well it takes two to tango baby which is why the argument goes on

I never said that Dread Fleet ought not to have been made, I said quite categorically that it COULD have been done differently.
It is a negative for a lot of people that there is no expansion judging by the comments on these threads. Those are lost sales and less coffers in the copper coffer pot.

The reason why the game has not been made expandable is most likely that it would take up resources and divert capital away from other projects. Which is understandable.
The game could have been made under licence, which would have alleviated the burden on GW, who are rumoured to be having cash flow problems.

As it stands only fans will get to buy the game. A different strategy would have been to put out a general release (which still could be done as presumably expensive plastic injection moulds will be sitting around doing nothing for evermore) and get the GW brand more publicly noticed. But I guess there is something wrong with my thinking as usual.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Yeah but you are still stuck with the same ten ships and the same ten crew
and the same improbable alliances and the same Skullz Islands

The terain is not set in place, can be added to or taken away from (it is not a limiting factr at all), and 10 different ships is still more variety than say Chess, which seems to have at least a little replay value. Sorry, I'm pretty sure I can come up with more scenarios. You, noit knowing me, are gonna have a hard time refuting that. I make sceanrios for all the wargames, both miniatures and board, that I have. I have no problem doing so and again I have trouble understanding why anyone would limit themselves to provided scenarios.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The point is not that GW should not have released
Dread Fleet imho, but that they could have made it a general release and allowed for expansions.

Hyperthetically, would you have refused to invest in such a game because it was expandable?

No hypothetical about it for me. I liked the Battlelore game concept a whole lot, because I saw the endless stream of expansions I did not buy it. I liked the look of Uncharted Seas, but again, didn't feel like buying into a system that would keep tempting me to buy more to keep up. So I can very honestly say, the Game in a Box concept is a big part of what sold me on this.

I play several historical and sci-fi game systems, most of which let me choose what figures and even what scales of those figures to play. That is one of the main reasons I stay away from GW games in general, though I do have some space marines and tyranids I use with other systems. I got Space Hulk because for a limited amount of storage space and a one time investment I got a cool game. Dread Fleet fits that category for me, so I got it too.

That is a good point Cpt.

But if Dread Fleet was expandable you would not have bought it because you maybe seduced into buying expansions? Just a matter of willpower to resist the siren song

Easy for me to say being a tightwad! Can turn a deaf ear in the blink of an eye

FWIW Am also preferring systems that allow flexibility and use of models which is why I have got into Ganesha Games lately

I have and play Flying Lead and Fear and Faith.

lord_blackfang wrote:But there is also a slew of people here who seem to hate it just because it's from big bad GW and make up completely ridiculous excuses to complain about it.

Honestly my only real complaint about Dreadfleet is the fact that it's a limited release, and that I currently can't afford to lose $115 after all the rampant spending I've been doing the past month. Maybe if GW didn't keep everything super fething secret now and I knew about it two weeks earlier than they told us I could have managed it, but right now I'm all out of cash and it'll be gone by the time I can get more. So that's why I'm pissed about it, I have a legitimate interest in the game but I'm not gonna get a copy before it sells out, and I'll be damned if I pay a dime more buying it from some fething knob on eBay who had more money than I did trying to take advantage of me.

And the worst thing is GW doesn't even give a gak, because it's going to sell out anyway and they'll make their money no matter what. And they'll use that fact as yet more "proof" that the "super secret" style of releases works brilliantly, which means this crap will never end and if you ever think you might be even remotely interested in a future board game they might or might not release then you need to keep a damn credit card free or start an "emergency hobby savings" just in case.

Green is Best! wrote:Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

Honestly, I was never really that interested in the Horus Heresy game. It was also kinda pricey IIRC, and the game itself didn't really interest me that much. Not sure why but I was just kinda "meh" about the whole thing and didn't really say anything about it one way or the other.

mikhaila wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with how they are doing it. There's nothing at all wrong with a quick turnover and profit. It also leaves them open to an expansion if they want. Most boardgame companies don't automatically dump out expansions, they wait for the initial sales of the game and decide after that. If they think it's profitable, I expect we may see additional ships and scenarios.

I would be happy if they never made an expansion for it, but simply just printed more copies after this run sold out. They don't need to keep adding more gak to it to make me happy, just make it possible for me to buy the god-damned game when I have the money for it.

But since they haven't done that with Space Hulk yet, which was way more popular, I doubt that'll happen here.

I've read the explanation for why they're doing it this way, but I still don't get it. FFG and other board game manufacturers can afford to keep producing their games, even years after the fact, but Games Workshop can't afford to print more than a few thousand copies? Yeah, whatever.

Lord Poison wrote:is it possible to play Space Mutiny with that game lol

RRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!

*dives head first out of the thread and rolls across the ground*

I definitely prefer standalone games. Most boardgames, if the basic game is decent, are not significantly improved with expansions.

I am quite tempted by Dreadfleet now... it has had some really good reviews and ratings on boardgamegeek.com. That was always my big concern -- is the game any good -- rather than price & component quality (which are both clearly high, which seems kinda fair).

The expansion for Pandemic is awesome because you get petri dishes to store the components in.

True, but you have to supply your own agar.

Pandemic is awesome.

Dreadfleet, well read the rules and had a lil tester, seems too simple and gorkamorka like i.e. ram ships together, shoot the crap out of each other if you can't ram. You might enjoy that style of game, but I'd prefer some alternate tactics.

I'll just play man'o'war...

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The game could have been made under licence, which would have alleviated the burden on GW, who are rumoured to be having cash flow problems.

Umm, BS. I read the same post you did where the OP said that, then said he had no idea but was hoping to start the rumor. I understand the game people may be having fun playing, but I object to spreading information that isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly my only real complaint about Dreadfleet is the fact that it's a limited release, and that I currently can't afford to lose $115 after all the rampant spending I've been doing the past month. Maybe if GW didn't keep everything super fething secret now and I knew about it two weeks earlier than they told us I could have managed it, but right now I'm all out of cash and it'll be gone by the time I can get more. So that's why I'm pissed about it, I have a legitimate interest in the game but I'm not gonna get a copy before it sells out, and I'll be damned if I pay a dime more buying it from some fething knob on eBay who had more money than I did trying to take advantage of me.

In that case just send me a PM with your name and address. I'll set one aside for you. I picked up about 50 for my stores, so I'd have it for the Christmas season.

I've played and enjoyed Pandemic, but as co-op games go, you just can't beat Death Angel, just because flamers and genestealers are more interesting than vaccines and germs.

Sidstyler wrote:
Honestly my only real complaint about Dreadfleet is the fact that it's a limited release, and that I currently can't afford to lose $115 after all the rampant spending I've been doing the past month. Maybe if GW didn't keep everything super fething secret now and I knew about it two weeks earlier than they told us I could have managed it, but right now I'm all out of cash and it'll be gone by the time I can get more. So that's why I'm pissed about it, I have a legitimate interest in the game but I'm not gonna get a copy before it sells out, and I'll be damned if I pay a dime more buying it from some fething knob on eBay who had more money than I did trying to take advantage of me.

Your lack of funds is hardly GWs fault.

And the worst thing is GW doesn't even give a gak,

And why should they?

Green is Best! wrote:Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

It was given a pass IMO because, despite being a GW property, it was released by Fantasy Flight. Don't you know that GW is the baby-eating villain you see in all the worst movies?

I've read the explanation for why they're doing it this way, but I still don't get it. FFG and other board game manufacturers can afford to keep producing their games, even years after the fact, but Games Workshop can't afford to print more than a few thousand copies? Yeah, whatever.

This isn't even remotely true. FFG has stuff go out of print ALL THE TIME. Often times they remain out of print until some reason drums up enough interest to warrant a reprinting. See the Game of Thrones boardgame as a perfect example. It was out of print for around 4 years until the HBO show became successful. Even then, FFG waited until a full season was over to announce a reprint. As a result, a $40 board game was pushing $200 on eBay. That of course has tapered off since they announced a reprint, but had they not the eBay price would remain inflated. GMT doesn't even reprint something until they can gurantee 500 sold copies that are pre-paid for. People much more in the know than you or I determine for GW how many copies they think they can sell, and then the print them accordingly. In order to maintain the same profits, they'd need to do a reprint of roughly the same size; for GMT, that number is 500. For GW, one can presume that number is much higher (and justifyably so; there is so much more production value in Dreadfleet or Space Hulk than any GMT game).

Simply - It is not GWs problem that you can't afford a product. As you stated: They're going to sell out of it regardless. They're a for-profit company with shareholders, and not a charity. I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

cincydooley wrote: I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

I can save tons of money and I can do that for a long time since I'm very patient, but as long as I know what the heck Im saving to... I mean saving for "something" is really odd if you ask me. This game was released as a Lted thing as a splash release it has nothing to do with savings but rather impulse buy... today under the economic storm even some of the guys that can burn money will think twice before spending 100+ usd in a impulse buy... Just saying.

So the way you planned and saved for this is not the way this product was planned and marketed.

NAVARRO wrote:

cincydooley wrote: I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

I can save tons of money and I can do that for a long time since I'm very patient, but as long as I know what the heck Im saving to... I mean saving for "something" is really odd if you ask me. This game was released as a Lted thing as a splash release it has nothing to do with savings but rather impulse buy... today under the economic storm even some of the guys that can burn money will think twice before spending 100+ usd in a impulse buy... Just saying.

So the way you planned and saved for this is not the way this product was planned and marketed.

Are we really considering $115 tons of money? They gave you two weeks notice for preorders until the day the game released. I'm just saying, that perhaps if you can't budget $100 over two weeks (a standard pay period in the US) then maybe you can't afford it anyway...

$100 is:

Two dinners out with your spouse
3 Cartons of smokes (this is an estimate, because I don't smoke)
Not eating out for lunch or getting that Starbucks in the morning for two weeks. (@$10 a day)

I'm simply saying that, while $115 is no slouch for the average joe, nor is it an obscene amount of money...

cincydooley wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

cincydooley wrote: I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

I can save tons of money and I can do that for a long time since I'm very patient, but as long as I know what the heck Im saving to... I mean saving for "something" is really odd if you ask me. This game was released as a Lted thing as a splash release it has nothing to do with savings but rather impulse buy... today under the economic storm even some of the guys that can burn money will think twice before spending 100+ usd in a impulse buy... Just saying.

So the way you planned and saved for this is not the way this product was planned and marketed.

Are we really considering $115 tons of money? They gave you two weeks notice for preorders until the day the game released. I'm just saying, that perhaps if you can't budget $100 over two weeks (a standard pay period in the US) then maybe you can't afford it anyway...

$100 is:

Two dinners out with your spouse
3 Cartons of smokes (this is an estimate, because I don't smoke)
Not eating out for lunch or getting that Starbucks in the morning for two weeks. (@$10 a day)

I'm simply saying that, while $115 is no slouch for the average joe, nor is it an obscene amount of money...

No one saying that 100 is a ton of money, read again please... missed the point? (Besides US is NOT world wide standart)

I will repeat in topics to be more clear.

-I can save tons of money to buy anything I want for a long period of time.
-Its odd to save money to buy something you have no idea what is.
-This product was not about saving and planned conscient shopping habbits it was about impulse buy.
-Impulse buys of something you never heard before are risky at 100+usd since you know, there's a recession V.2 coming so people in general, rich or poor are more aware of the money and how to spend it.

Clearer?

Having a two week period in which to pre-order a product hardly qualifies DF as an impulse purchase?

If it was sited next to a till with the gummy bears it might be an impulse buy, Not really the same thing IMO.

A limited run (of 65,000 copies ffs!*) hardly hastens you into an impulse buy.

* - I would be suprised if FFG made that many initial copies of its most Boardgame popular lines.

No one saying that 100 is a ton of money,

Actually a ton = one hundred, so 100 is a ton of money!


Am not entirely convinced Notprop
Not everyone going into the stores on release would be aware of how many boxes have been produced
The "Limited edition" tag will have focused the mind for a fair few purchases imho. Whether it is admitted to or not is another matter.

It would be interesting to know what a standard production run is, and if you are correct about FFG then GW a being canny with calling Dread Fleet "limited run".
GW is not alone in this tactic and the effect usually helps sales along as people are concerned about missing out.

notprop wrote:Having a two week period in which to pre-order a product hardly qualifies DF as an impulse purchase?

If it was sited next to a till with the gummy bears it might be an impulse buy, Not really the same thing IMO.

A limited run (of 65,000 copies ffs!*) hardly hastens you into an impulse buy.

* - I would be suprised if FFG made that many initial copies of its most Boardgame popular lines.

I disagree on most points sorry... hehe

You know nothing about a game and never heard a word about it and suddenly you have a couple weeks window on a item that has a sales pitch limited quantities and one shot etc etc, that is not a planned purchase in any way shape or form. Add to that that in some countries you only have independent stores and that ridiculous tiny action window will be so small it hurts... Man I can be stuck at work for months without knowing whats going on about my hobby so 2 weeks is silly short.
I'm completely clueless if 65k is to much or to less but if I was positively surprised with this game I WOULD NOT wait to find that out... so yeah I would be pressed to buy now and think about it later ( impulse buy)

Impulse buy is not only the small cheap item near the gummy bears and at GW impulse buys ussually means spending some respectable money

NAVARRO wrote:
No one saying that 100 is a ton of money, read again please... missed the point? (Besides US is NOT world wide standart)

I will repeat in topics to be more clear.

-I can save tons of money to buy anything I want for a long period of time.

Fantastic. My point here is that $100 is not a lot of money and that most reasonable working adults not living below the poverty line should be able to "save" $100 in two weeks.

-Its odd to save money to buy something you have no idea what is.

Really? I knew a new Kindle would be coming out eventually. I put some money away for one. Turns our they're cheaper than the $150 I saved for it. I'm $50 up here, unless I decide to get the Fire instead. You say it's odd to save money to buy something you have no idea what it is; however, PEOPLE ARE THROWING DOWN $250 pre-orders for the Mantic set and have NO IDEA WHAT IS IN THE BOX. And guess what happens if you put the money away knowing "something" is coming from GW and you decide not to buy it? You're up $100 bucks. Woo hoo!

-This product was not about saving and planned conscient shopping habbits it was about impulse buy

I can't tell if that's supposed to be consistent or conscious, but either way: for most people $115 isn't an impulse buy. A magazine at the drugstore is an impulse buy. Some gum at the grocery store is an impulse buy.

-Impulse buys of something you never heard before are risky at 100+usd since you know, there's a recession V.2 coming so people in general, rich or poor are more aware of the money and how to spend it.

No condescension needed. I wouldn't ever describe purchasing a hobby product as "risky." The fact that people are aware of how they spend their money only substantiates what I've previously said.

And FWIW, and this has nothing to do with xenophobia, but yes, the US is the closest thing we have to a worldwide standard.

Guess what? I can't afford an M-Class. Probably won't be able to for a while. But I don't bitch about BMW because my finanace don't allow me to drive one of their luxury cars.

Good for you if a ton is small change in your pocket

Impulse buys are not restricted to drug stores and sweeties by the cash till. Especially for people with loadsa manny

In what is the USA a worldwide standard?

I can't afford a BMW either so if I saw one that I didn't like the look of I am not allowed to express my disaproval.
Apparently

And FWIW, and this has nothing to do with xenophobia, but yes, the US is the closest thing we have to a worldwide standard.

Guess what I'm done wasting my time with you cincydooley Want to deliberately miss the points? good have fun with that.

notprop wrote:If it was sited next to a till with the gummy bears it might be an impulse buy

In my GW, Dreadfleet is right next to the till. And what's worse, there are NO gummy bears in sight (hmm... gummy orks? methinks you're missing an opportunity there, Mr Wells)

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Good for you if a ton is small change in your pocket

I pretty clearly said it wasn't. I said I planned my purchase and had the money set aside.

Impulse buys are not restricted to drug stores and sweeties by the cash till. Especially for people with loadsa manny

You're right here. It isn't limited to those things, only is often limited to small ticket items more rather than big ticket items. And you're right, branding it as "Limited Run" is a marketing technique to encourage people to purchase the game. However, we had TWO WEEKS of adverts and GW information to plan the purchase, if you hadn't begun planning for it before they "officially" announced it. Clearly if you're on Dakka Dakka, you've had a good idea it was coming for longer than two weeks.

In what is the USA a worldwide standard?

English being the "business language" (and yes, I know this is much due to the UK's expansionist past as it is the USs) and business standards.

The US's impact on the economy, either through the massive imports or the fact that every other currency is compared to the USD.

THe fact that the USD is accepted in more countries than any other currency.

There are plenty other ways.

It wasn't intended as a slight, it's simple a truth. I imagine our future will be very much like the world of Firefly, where both American English and Chinese are the standards.

I can't afford a BMW either so if I saw one that I didn't like the look of I am not allowed to express my disaproval.
Apparently

When its about the price, then yes, yes it does. That was the context in which I presented the argument. Being pissy because you can't afford something isn't the manufacturers fault, nor should it be. The brunt of the "disapproval" I'm reading from you in regards to Dreadfleet is you being pissy because they made a game that you don't like rather than one you do, then you belittle people for A: purchasing said product, and B: appreciating a different aesthetic than you.

Also, the print run of a standard boardgame company is FAR below 65k. It isn't even close.

@Navarro - Congrats on completely ignoring my points. Heaven forbid someone present reasoned arguments that counter yours.

Far be it for me to be pissy about a game I haven't played.
Please show me where I have said anything that would remotely suggest that I have.

I have merely suggested that there could have been other ways of releasing a game, which as we are on a gaming forum, I thought was a legitimate discussion point.

There is no disapproval and I am on record as saying that if I did have the cash to spare, I would have bought Dread Fleet for the kids to play at our local library.

Yet again for your benefit I will say as I have said before, may those that have the game derive much pleasure of it.
This is disapproving and pissy how please?

I still fail to see the relevance of either the comments about xenophobia or the USA hegemony of standard English in this discussion. Maybe Navarro as a Portuguese and myself as an Englishman just don't match up to your exemplary American standards in the use of English. Hence the misunderstanding.

If the standard print run of a game is far below 65000 why has Dread Fleet been labelled as limited edition game?
This is deliberately misleading and presumably done so to induce quick sales.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If the standard print run of a game is far below 65000 why has Dread Fleet been labelled as limited edition game?
This is deliberately misleading and presumably done so to induce quick sales.

This is an outrage!!! A company is hyping something up to induce sales. How dare they!!!

And if you act now, not only do you get a copy of Dreadfleet, but we'll throw in ANOTHER dreadfleet for just half price. BUT THAT IS NOT ALL.......

Chibi - Your posts lead me to believe that you are far from stupid, and like to just start arguements for gaks and giggles.

For example: If the standard print run of a game is far below 65000 why has Dread Fleet been labelled as limited edition game?
This is deliberately misleading and presumably done so to induce quick sales.

You take bits of info other people say, make a statement, then make a claim about what GW did, lableing it as misleading.

Standard Print run? There isn't a standard print run. Each company sets it's own run based on their finances and how well the game may sell. First run of Last Night on Earth was about 5k I think I was told. Other times I've been told print runs of some board games in the 10-30k range. A reprint of settlers could be 50k at a time, especially if a vendor like Amazon asks for 10k for Christmas. There really isn't a Standard Print Run.

And certainly GW isn't looking at other companies numbers, or even knowing them. From my experience 65k probably is more than the average game has for a first printing. 65k is still a Limited Print Run. When it's gone, it's gone. 75k for Space Hulk was limited. It sold out.

Calling it a Limited print run is not misleading. It's the truth. Was it done to get quicker sales? Probably. It's an ancient tactic in advertising. Anyone who hasn't encountered it is pretty naive.

So there is no standard print run. The game is Limited. It's not misleading at all. You're presumption is probably true, but so what? GW wants to sell more stuff quicker? That needs to be said?

It is not hyping up the game, it is telling porky pies old fruit.
That might be okay by your standards.
Call me old fashioned but it is not cricket and disappointing to see such practice.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Far be it for me to be pissy about a game I haven't played.
Please show me where I have said anything that would remotely suggest that I have.

Chibi, seems like I confused you with another poster. Apologies!

I have I still fail to see the relevance of either the comments about xenophobia or the USA hegemony of standard English in this discussion. Maybe Navarro as a Portuguese and myself as an Englishman just don't match up to your exemplary American standards in the use of English. Hence the misunderstanding.

This is a miscommunication I'll blame on the internet. I used an example using the USD. Navarro said (and I'll paraphrase) that using the USD is hardly standard. I elaborated on how the US influences those world standards. I included the comment about xenophobia to try and disclude any presumptions that I was being a 'holier-than-thou' American; that wasn't my intention at all. And as a point, I don't ever point out English/writing mistakes to people on the internet. It's completely douchey. I envy all of our European friends and am embarrassed that I can only speak one language well. Truly.

If the standard print run of a game is far below 65000 why has Dread Fleet been labelled as limited edition game?
This is deliberately misleading and presumably done so to induce quick sales.

It's limited because they're only doing one print run. Whereas FFG, GMT, Rio Grande, etc do multiple smaller print runs of games. You may have to wait for FFG to reprint Dungeonquest, but they'll eventually do it (though not always in the exact same iteration. See: Descent 2nd Ed, etc)

Ah I see, Thanks for the clarifications.

From what I have heard in scale modelling, where a limited edition is claimed the same model crops up again in a new boxing. Which makes a lot of sense, as it makes better use of expensive moulds. But this type of marketing does raise hackles in some quarters and is seen as rather cynical.

The production runs do tend to be much smaller than Dread Fleet It does guarantee that the run sells, but is a pain if you want one and miss out and have to wait for the next run, same as you infer re FFG et al

Good of course for businesses not having surplus on the shelves.

Flashman wrote:

notprop wrote:If it was sited next to a till with the gummy bears it might be an impulse buy

In my GW, Dreadfleet is right next to the till. And what's worse, there are NO gummy bears in sight (hmm... gummy orks? methinks you're missing an opportunity there, Mr Wells)

Somehow I thought that this would be the case somewhere!

That's it, GW Southampton you on the list. And not the Christmas card one either!

cincydooley wrote:
@Navarro - Congrats on completely ignoring my points. Heaven forbid someone present reasoned arguments that counter yours.

Sorry about that I always try to answer but reading the way you addressed things it was clear for me that repeating myself the same arguments for the 3rd time would only fuel more misunderstandings, you know when on a chat you really have to feel that the other side is also building the bridge with you.


As for the debate " What's wrong with GW trying to make a quick buck? " Its totally OK but please don't tell me you could have saved some money and planned this ahead and that its not a totally impulse buy marketed product.

Do I mind? errr not really I didn't like the figs but if I was lucky enough to find out about this release and liked the minis and had to buy it all in 2 weeks window I would feel the product itself does not justify so much hassle. And yes its a totally legit critic from people who mind these stunts.

This box will probably take more time to be totally sold out and maybe people will still be able to get it a bit later, but would you risk that if you liked the game? I don't think anyone would.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Ah I see, Thanks for the clarifications.

From what I have heard in scale modelling, where a limited edition is claimed the same model crops up again in a new boxing. Which makes a lot of sense, as it makes better use of expensive moulds. But this type of marketing does raise hackles in some quarters and is seen as rather cynical.

The production runs do tend to be much smaller than Dread Fleet It does guarantee that the run sells, but is a pain if you want one and miss out and have to wait for the next run, same as you infer re FFG et al

Good of course for businesses not having surplus on the shelves.

After a discussion on a retailer forum about trying to keep in the good selling boardgames, most of us have started keeping a half dozen squirreled away, for when they go OOP and we can't order them. Especially Arkham Horror, Settlers of Cataan, Pandemic, Munkin, Zombies, Last Night on Earth, and similar top selling games. It happens on such a regular basis that we have come up with strategies to keep the games in stock, although it costs us extra to carry the extra inventory. Especially a pain at Christmas.

mikhaila wrote:After a discussion on a retailer forum about trying to keep in the good selling boardgames, most of us have started keeping a half dozen squirreled away, for when they go OOP and we can't order them. Especially Arkham Horror, Settlers of Cataan, Pandemic, Munkin, Zombies, Last Night on Earth, and similar top selling games. It happens on such a regular basis that we have come up with strategies to keep the games in stock, although it costs us extra to carry the extra inventory. Especially a pain at Christmas.

...huh. Didn't really know that. Either my store is also good at keeping them in stock or they just don't sell a lot of board games, because I was under the impression that FFG and other companies kept printing them and that there weren't long periods where the games were just unavailable like that.

mikhaila wrote:In that case just send me a PM with your name and address. I'll set one aside for you. I picked up about 50 for my stores, so I'd have it for the Christmas season.

lol, 50? Good god.

I dunno, I might take you up on that. It depends on how long my store has their copies and/or how long it takes GW's web allotment to sell out I guess. I'll keep you in mind in case I get desperate.

No. I don't know the fluff and I'll avoid it simply because I like having money: Why give myself desire to buy something when I don't want it originally?

I really doesn't hold any interest in Dreadfleet but I asked my local store how it was doing for them. He said the dozen copies that he initially ordered were sold out on the first day and he's getting in six more (one of which is spoken for). It's doing better based on that feedback than I thought it would.

I wont be buying it because, I have been watching one piece recently and the temptation to paint the sails like the Straw Hat Pirates would be too great. :(

I got mine today.
I have to say I'm impressed.
The cloth playing surface looks good (and is going to be used for Dystopian Wars too). and the box is stuffed with sprues of ships and terrain.
with the amount and quality of stuff in the box, I have to say I'm not upset at the price. It seems like decent value.

For what it's worth I had a blast playing my first battle yesterday. We didn't even use a scenario just flubbed our way though a generic battle. My opponent ran one of his ships aground and still almost won. Good times.

NAVARRO wrote:
As for the debate " What's wrong with GW trying to make a quick buck? " Its totally OK but please don't tell me you could have saved some money and planned this ahead and that its not a totally impulse buy marketed product.

I think this is where GW's new secretive marketing strategy actually works, assuming they make these "autumn boxes" a bi-annual tradition, as it seems and as is rumoured. If people know that GW is going to release "something" at a fixed date, they will build up the anticipation even if very little is actually known beforehand. With such a scarce release schedule, combined with known high quality of the components, GW manages to build up somewhat of a brand image: people know that the components will be top-notch and higher quality compared to what most other companies produce, even if the cost of the game is high. One-time large print run is probably more economical for them than several smaller print runs. They can sell a large amount of these games without diluting down the "limited edition" aspect of the marketing hype.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If the standard print run of a game is far below 65000 why has Dread Fleet been labelled as limited edition game?
This is deliberately misleading and presumably done so to induce quick sales.

Be reasonable man - that's standard marketing. Calling something 'limited' is the same reason why things cost 59.99 rather than 60. It's about perception, and it's basic marketing 101. And if anyone says "But HBDVD - you always say GW sucks at marketing!" I shall respond with "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".


Unless it's a digital clock. Then you're fethed.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unless it's a digital clock. Then you're fethed.

That's why analog technology is superior to digital!

Backfire wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
As for the debate " What's wrong with GW trying to make a quick buck? " Its totally OK but please don't tell me you could have saved some money and planned this ahead and that its not a totally impulse buy marketed product.

I think this is where GW's new secretive marketing strategy actually works, assuming they make these "autumn boxes" a bi-annual tradition, as it seems and as is rumoured. If people know that GW is going to release "something" at a fixed date, they will build up the anticipation even if very little is actually known beforehand. With such a scarce release schedule, combined with known high quality of the components, GW manages to build up somewhat of a brand image: people know that the components will be top-notch and higher quality compared to what most other companies produce, even if the cost of the game is high. One-time large print run is probably more economical for them than several smaller print runs. They can sell a large amount of these games without diluting down the "limited edition" aspect of the marketing hype.

It will work for some people and it won't work for everyone.

There are loads of really good games on the market already. Most new ones get announced in advance, so you know what to look forwards to. This autumn we have Gears Of War and Super Dungeon Explore on their way, both featuring super components.

Compare that with the idea that every two years GW may release a game you might be interested in, but you won't know until the week before.

It wouldn't float my boat!

Got my copy of WD a day or so ago, kinda glad that I didn't pre-order a copy of Dreadfleet, as this is the first issue that I really haven't been bothered about reading which is, I guess, an adequate indication as to my enthusiasm for the game.

Yet to play it mind, so I could be swayed on this.

I thought about getting it for the Sea Matt and some Islands for my own Aquanautica Imperialis game, but the price tag scared me off.

Plus, all the secrecy actually "Decreased" my interest in the game. The secrecy aroudn the release is a bit like when you hear a film won't be screened for critics. Not a good sign in my book.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Backfire wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
As for the debate " What's wrong with GW trying to make a quick buck? " Its totally OK but please don't tell me you could have saved some money and planned this ahead and that its not a totally impulse buy marketed product.

I think this is where GW's new secretive marketing strategy actually works, assuming they make these "autumn boxes" a bi-annual tradition, as it seems and as is rumoured. If people know that GW is going to release "something" at a fixed date, they will build up the anticipation even if very little is actually known beforehand. With such a scarce release schedule, combined with known high quality of the components, GW manages to build up somewhat of a brand image: people know that the components will be top-notch and higher quality compared to what most other companies produce, even if the cost of the game is high. One-time large print run is probably more economical for them than several smaller print runs. They can sell a large amount of these games without diluting down the "limited edition" aspect of the marketing hype.

It will work for some people and it won't work for everyone.

There are loads of really good games on the market already. Most new ones get announced in advance, so you know what to look forwards to. This autumn we have Gears Of War and Super Dungeon Explore on their way, both featuring super components.

Compare that with the idea that every two years GW may release a game you might be interested in, but you won't know until the week before.

It wouldn't float my boat!

Indeed... and lets not forget that this secrecy is completely out of touch with their prime clientele, the young ones... The old farts like us some more dedicated fans may be patient or cold enough to wait for something they may or may not like but for kids that get loads of hobbies super aggressive publicity stunts, newsletters, videogames betas etc? No chance!

IMO the secrecy is no good for no one in todays society it only saves some coins of publicity but your product will not reach effectively your clients.

I picked up my two copies and am happy with my purchase.

Why 2 copies?

Kilkrazy wrote:
It will work for some people and it won't work for everyone.

There are loads of really good games on the market already. Most new ones get announced in advance, so you know what to look forwards to. This autumn we have Gears Of War and Super Dungeon Explore on their way, both featuring super components.

Compare that with the idea that every two years GW may release a game you might be interested in, but you won't know until the week before.

I think that's the entire point: GW wants their releases stand out somehow from a large number of boardgames out there. One can argue about relative merits of the strategy, but to at least some degree, it seems to be working.

kitch102 wrote:Why 2 copies?

Conversions? Resale? If I could, I'd get four.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

kitch102 wrote:Why 2 copies?

Conversions? Resale? If I could, I'd get four.

Same here.

kitch102 wrote:Why 2 copies?

I got money to burn I guess. jk.

Actually, I still consider Man o War one of the best games GW ever produced. While Dreadfleet is not Man o War. The components in Dreadfleet are really well done. From my read of the rules it looks good and feedback from friends that have played it enjoyed it. So I didn't want to find myself wanting additional components and not having them.

Additionally, I strongly think one of the worst decisions GW has made in the last decade is to cease the "seasonal games". With Space Hulk and now Dreadfleet I'm willing to support my conviction with my pocket book so we might see a few more.

-Hank

No interest in naval and/or fantasy games. I would like to dabble in Battlefleet Gothic, though. I like the tie-in to 40K.

I'm afraid I haven't read much of this thread, so maybe this has been said before: I don't like the models. I'm amazed that so many people seem to find them impressive. I'm sure the level of detail and such is all terrific, I just think the designs are awful. Admittedly I know a fair bit about sailing and the historical development of warships, I'm probably being very boring by the standard of someone who just wants to play a magic naval game. But come on, they couldn't have included a couple warships that look like they could actually exist? They're all castles and buildings built on odd-shaped hulls, mechanical squids and steam barges and an undead whale.
See, that last one would be cool, IF most of the other ships were conventional. It's the same thing as many new releases for WHFB. When every army has some huge howdah-bearing monster, it makes it less special and less effective. When every ship is a gothic castle with mechanical arms floating on a sea creature, why should we be impressed? The designs look more like kids action figures than models for grownups IMO.

Maybe I'm just becoming more of a realism-nazi as I age, and soon I will be installing new weapons onto scale tank kits to make them exactly accurate representations of those used for one month in 1943. It's not that I mind fantastical elements in such a game, but I think they went way over the top.

Yes, I often paraphrase from The Incredibles, "When everything is fantastical, nothing is."

On second thought, I may get it for Christmas or something.

After seeing how smallish and cheapish the boats look at the store I am happy with my decision not to fall for this one.

The game could be lots of fun of course, maybe, but the miniatures definitely aren't anywhere near worth the price GW asks for this box, Imo.

Flashman wrote:Yes, I often paraphrase from The Incredibles, "When everything is fantastical, nothing is."

Precisely. I get a bit of a chuckle from the idea of each pirate captain ploughing the ocean wave in his impossible vessel, just thinking he's the coolest thing afloat. Then another even more insane ship hoves into view . . . and another . . . and another . . . and another . . . oh what's the use? he thinks to himself.

Another thing that bugs me a bit is where warhammer navies stand cannon-wise. Because each nation draws on different historical periods and tropes, you'd logically get age of sail warships fighting viking longboats and arabic xebecs/dhows, it just doesn't make much sense.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:I'm afraid I haven't read much of this thread, so maybe this has been said before: I don't like the models. I'm amazed that so many people seem to find them impressive. I'm sure the level of detail and such is all terrific, I just think the designs are awful. Admittedly I know a fair bit about sailing and the historical development of warships, I'm probably being very boring by the standard of someone who just wants to play a magic naval game. But come on, they couldn't have included a couple warships that look like they could actually exist? They're all castles and buildings built on odd-shaped hulls, mechanical squids and steam barges and an undead whale.

Yeah, I think the ships are quite over-the-top myself, too. Though, some real-life Carracks and Holks were nearly as extreme as 'Heldenhammer'. Must have been horrible to sail.

Ironically, the ghost ship is the most realistic looking vessel.

What I've seen old Man'o'War ship models, they were in fact even more silly than DF ships...

Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

Kilkrazy wrote:Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

Reality



Man O War - Some basis in reality



Dreadfleet - Screw reality

I guess it depends on what appeals to your sensibilties, but I would have preferred Man O War style (with Dreadfleet's sculpting detail obviously)

Backfire wrote:Though, some real-life Carracks and Holks were nearly as extreme as 'Heldenhammer'.

Probably not as big, though.
When you consider that the Cogs represent massive warships...

Sometimes it is hard to remember how grounded in reality Man-O-War was.

Sidstyler wrote: FFG and other board game manufacturers can afford to keep producing their games, even years after the fact, but Games Workshop can't afford to print more than a few thousand copies?

The fact that you still see a game on store shelves doesn't actually mean that the company that made it is still producing it. It can take years to sell the initial print run.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:I'm afraid I haven't read much of this thread, so maybe this has been said before: I don't like the models. I'm amazed that so many people seem to find them impressive. I'm sure the level of detail and such is all terrific, I just think the designs are awful. Admittedly I know a fair bit about sailing and the historical development of warships, I'm probably being very boring by the standard of someone who just wants to play a magic naval game. But come on, they couldn't have included a couple warships that look like they could actually exist? They're all castles and buildings built on odd-shaped hulls, mechanical squids and steam barges and an undead whale.
See, that last one would be cool, IF most of the other ships were conventional. It's the same thing as many new releases for WHFB. When every army has some huge howdah-bearing monster, it makes it less special and less effective. When every ship is a gothic castle with mechanical arms floating on a sea creature, why should we be impressed? The designs look more like kids action figures than models for grownups IMO.

Maybe I'm just becoming more of a realism-nazi as I age, and soon I will be installing new weapons onto scale tank kits to make them exactly accurate representations of those used for one month in 1943. It's not that I mind fantastical elements in such a game, but I think they went way over the top.

Yeah that was what I have been saying on this thread... The Model design on this game is something you would see on a kids box at toysrus but with more details and its the biggest reason why I don't like this dreadfleet box.

As for WFB armies getting all a big kit that doubles into 2 OTT beasties its also so damn predictable and boring that like you said it ruins the experience for me to.

Its a GW thing I guess and started with the skull spam... one skull here and there its cool but a swimming pool of skulls or islands of skulls is errr childish.

Flashman wrote:
I guess it depends on what appeals to your sensibilties, but I would have preferred Man O War style (with Dreadfleet's sculpting detail obviously)

Historical Carrack:



Some of the Mediterranean ships and Baltic Holks had even higher forecastles.

As for the Dreadfleet ships, I think all are passable (though some just barely) except Tomb King ship - I mean, pyramid in the middle of the ship? That's the best way you could imagine to make the ship feel 'Egyptian'?

Plenty of historical examples of over the top ship designs.

http://www.abc.se/~pa/mar/nemships.htm

http://www.pixelparadox.com/pic/images/Nemi_ship_color.jpg

Backfire wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It will work for some people and it won't work for everyone.

There are loads of really good games on the market already. Most new ones get announced in advance, so you know what to look forwards to. This autumn we have Gears Of War and Super Dungeon Explore on their way, both featuring super components.

Compare that with the idea that every two years GW may release a game you might be interested in, but you won't know until the week before.

I think that's the entire point: GW wants their releases stand out somehow from a large number of boardgames out there. One can argue about relative merits of the strategy, but to at least some degree, it seems to be working.

Seen the game. Played the game. Overall it is not a bad game, but at my local GW store, there were still plenty of them there. I still say that they will eventually sell but not as quick as anyone had thought, at least in my region that is.

Dread Fleet needs more Space Mariens.

Kilkrazy wrote:Dread Fleet needs more Space Mariens.

I concur.

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my view. Toys'r'Us is exactly what these models seem like to me.

Kilkrazy wrote:Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

What are you actually saying here? I'm not talking about exciting, improbable or volatile situations. I'm saying these are supposed to be ships with brick-and-mortar buildings on top of them! The only even remotely comparable thing I can recall is the ancients did once or twice mount siege equipment on galleys to attack various fortified ports. (Tyre, Syracause, Rhodes) but most any sea battle followed some sort of logic based on the technology of the time - both sides tried to board, or ram, or fire broadsides, etc. I know warhammer has wizards and magic and so forth, but it is pretty stupid that every single ship on the seas has a magic gun(s) or dragons or zeppelins or mechanical arms or flies.

The comparison of cogs, carracks, and some very heavy ancient galleys (the example posted was not a practical warship, but some very high-sided and heavy galleys were used in combat - they did not often do well, and eventually died out) is not valid. I am not talking about high stern-and-forecastles or tubby hulls. I'm talking about how every single ship is some magical gimmicky superweapon.

Bought it, love it - very impressed with the models and production values. No, they don't look realistic. I'm glad - I don't look to GW games to get a fix of "realistic" gaming or models. If I really wanted to play a realistic looking naval game I'm sure one could be tracked down (or maybe there's a video game for that?). This is in the Warhammer world and I think it's really "fun" (I havent even had a chance to play yet, I'm just painting so far).

Flashman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

Reality



Man O War - Some basis in reality



Dreadfleet - Screw reality

I guess it depends on what appeals to your sensibilties, but I would have preferred Man O War style (with Dreadfleet's sculpting detail obviously)

What the feth is wrong with you people? this is a FANTASY board game.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT REALISTIC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why does it need any basing on realism, whatsoever? I quite like the look of the helden hammer. I'm a history centric student.,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orangecoke wrote:Bought it, love it - very impressed with the models and production values. No, they don't look realistic. I'm glad - I don't look to GW games to get a fix of "realistic" gaming or models. If I really wanted to play a realistic looking naval game I'm sure one could be tracked down (or maybe there's a video game for that?). This is in the Warhammer world and I think it's really "fun" (I havent even had a chance to play yet, I'm just painting so far).

@ Scipio - Fantasy is great and all, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But everything has a breaking point before it gets ridiculous. Allow me to illustrate using blockbuster films as a metaphor.

Raiders of the Lost Ark involves a magical box for communicating with God, yet for most of the film, the characters act within the boundaries of reality whilst they hunt for it. The truck chase is one of the most exciting action scenes in cinema, yet at no point does Indy do anything that is physically impossible. The only real moment of fantasy is the payoff when they finally open the Ark, yet because they haven't overplayed the fantasy elements, it doesn't spoil the feel of the film.

In modern blockbusters, they tend to overcook the pudding as it were and just throw as much as they can at the screen just because they can. The extreme example is Transformers where none of the "action" scenes are particularly exciting because they're not believable and there's too much going on to take in.

This is kind of where I think Warhammer has gone or is going. Basically, it's become a fantasy blockbuster directed by Michael Bay.

Flashman wrote:

This is kind of where I think Warhammer has gone or is going. Basically, it's become a fantasy blockbuster directed by Michael Bay.

More a Mickey mouse movie by Disney Or a masters of the universe episode


As for the eternal argument "its fantasy"... well there are diferent levels of fantasy but most are supported with a good pinch of realism, thats what differentiates believable fantasy to pure nonsense... And in this case thats what differentiates tabletop war game from toysrus stuff.

Flashman wrote:@ Scipio - Fantasy is great and all, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But everything has a breaking point before it gets ridiculous. Allow me to illustrate using blockbuster films as a metaphor.

Raiders of the Lost Ark involves a magical box for communicating with God, yet for most of the film, the characters act within the boundaries of reality whilst they hunt for it. The truck chase is one of the most exciting action scenes in cinema, yet at no point does Indy do anything that is physically impossible. The only real moment of fantasy is the payoff when they finally open the Ark, yet because they haven't overplayed the fantasy elements, it doesn't spoil the feel of the film.

In modern blockbusters, they tend to overcook the pudding as it were and just throw as much as they can at the screen just because they can. The extreme example is Transformers where none of the "action" scenes are particularly exciting because they're not believable and there's too much going on to take in.

This is kind of where I think Warhammer has gone or is going. Basically, it's become a fantasy blockbuster directed by Michael Bay.

Has it ever been really different? Old models and miniatures had lots of silly stuff too.

Funny you brought out Lost Ark: the Nazi aircraft portrayed in the film was utterly impractical. What's wrong with good old Ju-52?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frankly mate I think you're trying to be pithy and just coming off as a bit of an ass. I did mention the use of siege engines on galleys in classical sieges in my post. It's not some sort of devestating rebuttal to show a picture of one. How about actually replying to some of what was said instead of trying to show that history is fantastical (which is only true up to a certain point) with one-line replies?

Scipio, calm down there. I'm not trying to make it realistic, if the game is your cup of tea then feel free to play it and I hope you have a good time. I genuinely mean that, different strokes for different folks. I (and everyone else here) is just arguing the toss - its what the internet is for.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frankly mate I think you're trying to be pithy and just coming off as a bit of an ass. I did mention the use of siege engines on galleys in classical sieges in my post. It's not some sort of devestating rebuttal to show a picture of one. How about actually replying to some of what was said instead of trying to show that history is fantastical (which is only true up to a certain point) with one-line replies?

Scipio, calm down there. I'm not trying to make it realistic, if the game is your cup of tea then feel free to play it and I hope you have a good time. I genuinely mean that, different strokes for different folks. I (and everyone else here) is just arguing the toss - its what the internet is for.

Re-read your own post, then take the following advice given to others: 1) don't be an ass, 2) calm down,

Dreadfleet and Man o War (I own both) have very similar ship deisgns in terms of many ships that could only work in a world with plenty of magic. If you go back and look at the Sjkaven and Orc designs, or the Dark Elf lets build a fortress on top of a sea serpent, even the human ships had cannons almost the same size of the ship (good luck firing that and stull having a ship after) etc - the only thing that has really changed is the size and quality of the sculpts.

They are supposed to be ofer the top with each ship as a Character so when you get five or six people together they all can feel they have a special ship and abilities.

I for one love the Tomb Kings ship - very very cool, many of them will go very nice with my Uncharted Seas fleets.

Mr Morden wrote: If you go back and look at the Sjkaven and Orc designs, or the Dark Elf lets build a fortress on top of a sea serpent, even the human ships had cannons almost the same size of the ship (good luck firing that and stull having a ship after)

Italian WW1 era monitors get pretty close to this...

Cool - most interesting - thank you, would also make great 40K models! How effective were these ships? Guessing mainly used for coastal work?

I was thinking that the recoil would be too much for wooden warships as it might shake the ship to pieces but I oculd be very wrong as I know there were Napolonic mortor monitors etc - also punt guns for duck shooting are very large in comparison to the size of the rowing boat. I guess that often reality is stranger!

They were built because Italians had surplus 15" battleship turrets from cancelled battleships, and the turrets were bolted to smallest imaginable hull. They were for coastal bombardment, just like (slightly more sensible) British monitors. IIRC their top speed was around 3 knots.

mikhaila wrote:
Re-read your own post, then take the following advice given to others: 1) don't be an ass, 2) calm down,

Well I'm obviously gutted that you don't agree with me, but I don't think I am being an ass. I'd just prefer it if someone who disagreed with me actually replied to what I was saying, rather than posting one-liners and pictures. I am also as calm as can be - I don't think I come off as very excited, I say specifically that we're just arguing opinions and it doesn't matter to me whether other people like the game or not.

On the subject of siege engines and massive guns on monitors and such, yes, all of these things were mounted on fairly slow-moving platforms meant to put out in calm weather and attack some coastal location. The siege tower on 2 triremes pictured - that would be in real trouble the second it got a little rough. Even without such a huge construction on top the ancients tried to avoid being caught in storms, and taking a galley of that era into the atlantic was extremely dangerous. Monitors, same sort of thing, you wouldn't want to be out too long in case the weather turned (even if it got a bit choppy those guns wouldn't be able to fire accurately). My point is that these sort of inventions are amazing achievements of engineering, but they have to accept big drawbacks in logistics and the situations they are suitable for use in. It takes the whole thing past any point of sense or for me, interest, to have every single ship in the game ignore the laws of physics. I repeat, if one or two ships were supernatural I would be fine with it, but every ship is more outlandish than the last. I think this decision (and the accompanying visual style) is a step away from what I'd like to see in a warhammer naval game.

My point is that various fantastical looking ships have been built in history, which of course had practical limitations due to excessive top hamper and other such factors. Nonetheless they did exist, did take the sea, and sometimes were used in combat within their practical limitations.

The fantastic ships in Dread Fleet draw on a variety of historical ideas and exaggerate them

It seems a bit pointless to make a fantasy naval game and not to include genuinely fantastic elements.

In historicals there are many good rule sets available, covering almost every period of history, supported by many ranges of ship models.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems a bit pointless to make a fantasy naval game and not to include genuinely fantastic elements.
.

It seems a bit pointless to make every inch covered with skulls and call it fantasy The problem here is NOT including fantasy elements the problem here is spamming fantasy to such a degree that crosses the boundaries of believable... its more like please include a bit of credibility to those bubbles of nonsense you call ships.

You know what my 4 year old kid said when he saw the pictures of the boats? - Are they pirates sinking ships?
Maybe because Im from a country with a big history of caravelas and Naus these models do strike me as silly... Much like a small child kind of fantasy, mind its ok... Just not for me.

Looks like a fad to me.

I would have preferred something more in the line of Space Hulk or Necromunda but hey, it's always nice to see something different. I quite like the models and fancy this sort of toned down game that I can play with my little kid.

90€ is a bit overpriced but it's biggest drawback IMO is that the models are in a different scale than the other game systems. How often I've seen Space Hulk termies in Blood Angels armies and thought hey that's a really cool mini

Read a couple of awful reviews for DF's rules from Quirkworthy and some other website. Pretty happy with my decision to buy Earth Reborn instead even though I've had the game since DF was released and I still haven't learned all the rules.

Zarren Wevon wrote:Read a couple of awful reviews for DF's rules from Quirkworthy and some other website. Pretty happy with my decision to buy Earth Reborn instead even though I've had the game since DF was released and I still haven't learned all the rules.

Well, I have had a chance to play the game now from both sides (Dreadfleet and Grand Alliance). There are a few minor issues that could be cleared up, but overall, I enjoy the game very much. It plays well. It is a nice changeup from 40k. Yes, there are only 12 scenarios and I am sure they will get old. But, to be honest, what game doesn't? I have probably close to $1,500 in xbox and PS3 games sitting at my house that I no longer play either. But, for the most part, I enjoyed them. I think DF will be the same way.

While I was initially turned off by the "alliance of races" for each side, I have quickly come around. Each boat has its own abilities and I find that it adds to the game rather than subtracts. I agree the models may be a little "over the top," but so is pretty much everything in GW. WHFB and WH40k are not exactly noted for their realism, are they? I can understand why a historical buff may not like them, but that is their opinion. I have mine. I will agree that the castles on the ship are a little much, but this is a "fantasy" based theme so I just went with it.

NAVARRO wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems a bit pointless to make a fantasy naval game and not to include genuinely fantastic elements.
.

It seems a bit pointless to make every inch covered with skulls and call it fantasy The problem here is NOT including fantasy elements the problem here is spamming fantasy to such a degree that crosses the boundaries of believable... its more like please include a bit of credibility to those bubbles of nonsense you call ships.

You know what my 4 year old kid said when he saw the pictures of the boats? - Are they pirates sinking ships?
Maybe because Im from a country with a big history of caravelas and Naus these models do strike me as silly... Much like a small child kind of fantasy, mind its ok... Just not for me.

Yeah, Killkrazy, I see your point, but I prefer fantasy to be a relatively realistic setting (or at least sort-of-obeying-internal-logic) and then when some magic or such happens it has a much greater effect and is very impressive. It would be interesting to see if they could create some sort of logical power balance of all these different cod-historical navies (Norse longships, early age of sail empire, medieval european brettonians and vaguely middle eastern elves) and then all the important magical characters had options to mix things up and create chaos. Too much magic makes the whole exercise pointless. Why do they have ships with castles on at all, instead of just magicing the castles about? In the same way, on the historical note, the enormous trouble and difficulty in using the discussed creations is what makes them interesting. If such things are standard fare on every single pirate vessel as it sails the seas, it's silly. The style and design just seem so crowded.

Navarro puts his finger on it - everything is just covered in skulls. If there was a gigantic skull rock in the ocean, I imagine it would be an unmistakeable landmark and the object of superstitious dread. In the world Dreadfleet conjures up, I imagine the captains just get confused "hang on, is this the skull rock off of point murder? Or Skull Island? That skull-encrusted temple over there looks just like the one we sailed past a week ago . . " There's no sense of restraint at all, they've just decided that everything in this creation has to be as insane as possible. Anyway, I'll leave it alone now.

How many of the ships have skulls?

Hint: Less than half.

Hey, a game about pirates fighting. Lets take a google image search of pirate flags:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=672&q=pirate+flag&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1314l3829l0l4512l11l5l0l0l0l0l922l2183l0.2.4-1.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&wrapid=tlif131827424487510&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

Oh Noze! Skullz!

If you are gonna criticize, you ought to at least be accurate. Not everything is covered in skulls.

NAVARRO wrote:
You know what my 4 year old kid said when he saw the pictures of the boats? - Are they pirates sinking ships?
Maybe because Im from a country with a big history of caravelas and Naus these models do strike me as silly... Much like a small child kind of fantasy, mind its ok... Just not for me.

I think that you're onto something here NAVARRO. I have also noticed that GW skeletons and zombies look like people that have already died.

Alternatively it could be that GW decided that a ship golem was one of four possible answers to the question what would an undead ship look like? Along with floating tomb, zombie fish and ghost ship.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Navarro puts his finger on it - everything is just covered in skulls. If there was a gigantic skull rock in the ocean, I imagine it would be an unmistakeable landmark and the object of superstitious dread. In the world Dreadfleet conjures up, I imagine the captains just get confused "hang on, is this the skull rock off of point murder? Or Skull Island? That skull-encrusted temple over there looks just like the one we sailed past a week ago . . " There's no sense of restraint at all, they've just decided that everything in this creation has to be as insane as possible. Anyway, I'll leave it alone now.

Well, it wouldn't be GW if there weren't some skulls, wouldn't it? And I reckon it has been that way for long time: my 2nd Edition Terminator Sergeant has total of 23 skulls around him (might have missed some). Terminator Captain of the same era is probably even worse, his belt is made of skulls. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green is Best! wrote:
Well, I have had a chance to play the game now from both sides (Dreadfleet and Grand Alliance). There are a few minor issues that could be cleared up, but overall, I enjoy the game very much. It plays well. It is a nice changeup from 40k. Yes, there are only 12 scenarios and I am sure they will get old. But, to be honest, what game doesn't?

How many board games get played even 12 times? My cousin and I used to buy those Avalon Hills etc. strategy games and played them like twice each, at most. Nothing in those games can be used in another setting, none of the components make even display pieces.