Did you even read the ToS? The whole idea behind the CID forum is to give feedback, good and/or bad, to PP so that they can release a more balanced model or group of models. They want to stop people from insulting each other and be respectful to each others ideas and viewpoints.

I'm sure they'll miss your obviously open mindedness.

PP has had issues listening to any sort of criticism of, or even questions about, their decisions. When they rolled out their anti-online retailer policy they'd lock any thread even asking for clarification. And that's just one example, there's also the whole history of all the calls to fix various models that have gone unheeded, etc.

But I'm sure none of that will effect the new PP fan-friend only forums.

I'm sure there's going to be some witty rejoinder after this but I'm not going to play the get the last word in game. Whatever floats your boat.

 ScarletRose wrote:


PP has had issues listening to any sort of criticism of, or even questions about, their decisions. When they rolled out their anti-online retailer policy they'd lock any thread even asking for clarification. And that's just one example, there's also the whole history of all the calls to fix various models that have gone unheeded, etc.

But I'm sure none of that will effect the new PP fan-friend only forums.

I've been on the pp forums since mk1 scarlet. I do appreciate where you are coming from, but i disagree. And I don't begrudge the guys at pp their jobs. It really is quite thankless. think the community at large can come across with a very smug and conceited sense of entitlement in that it seems folks want the guys at pp to be at their constant beck and call. And that's neither fair nor realistic.

There is a lot of things where they can't answer, often for very tedious legal reasons.

Regarding the calls to fix various models, they're really in a position where they can't win. Stay silent, and fans go crazy that pp aren't listening to them (even though they're aware of the issues in all likelihood), answer and fans go through them (the fix is too far, nor far enough, the wrong fix, not needed. Why aren't they needing/buffing my faction instead-and probably all at once too) , examine every word under a microscope and hold thst against them for ever more. Or else maybe they quietly get on with it and fix things at the next errata, and there's still loads of people that complain. And that's even assuming the grievances are legitimate. Sometimes it can be. And sometimes, it's just some entitled jerk lashing out because his favourite crutch just got answered by the meta, and now he has to adjust or git good. And quite often, the attitude towards pp is nothing short of juvenile. hostile, antagonistic and nasty. Back at the mk2 beta, they got death threats from people. You don't need that, not for a bloody day job!

And This creates a very toxic atmosphere very quickly, which isn't very welcoming to new people, or to those who just want a friendly community.
Pp do listen to criticism and do adjust, within the confines of what's possible. What they didn't do, and what they don't want to do is listen to and respond to all of the white noise that the fanbase is capable of. This is not helpful. And I can't blame them.

 ScarletRose wrote:
PP has had issues listening to any sort of criticism of, or even questions about, their decisions. When they rolled out their anti-online retailer policy they'd lock any thread even asking for clarification. And that's just one example, there's also the whole history of all the calls to fix various models that have gone unheeded, etc.

But I'm sure none of that will effect the new PP fan-friend only forums.

I'm sure there's going to be some witty rejoinder after this but I'm not going to play the get the last word in game. Whatever floats your boat.

Then the Skorne forums would have been completely shut down within two months of Mk3's launch.

Sorry you feel like you or a friend got burned at one point or another on their forums, but there is a way to be respectful and disagree with someone, but I don't see people being that disrespectful of PP on their forums. I saw the GW forums shut down for a significant portion of the population not being respectful, so I know what that looks like. I have seen posts shut down there because people were being disrespectful to other people or consistently making crude comments after warnings (such as Morghul3's release post on the Skorne forum). I have seen posts shut down here and at BoLS for the same reason, and for less leniency on Bolter and Chainsword.

The vibe in the Minions forum was great, as I mentioned earlier - no need to paint all posters with the same brush!

 RiTides wrote:
The vibe in the Minions forum was great, as I mentioned earlier - no need to paint all posters with the same brush!

I lurked in the Merc forum quite heavily and I found it to be good as well.

I wonder if the so called less competitive armies had less problems because of the fact they were not top tier and everyone knew it .

They've been very wiling to listen to criticism about models in the game, so much so that it's become whine to win. "Oh, oh nerf this model next please PP" has become a large part of the discussion on the boards. However cracking down on discussion is not the way to fix that type of "toxicity" instead they should look at their own behavior that causes such reactions. Where they have been unwilling to handle criticism is anything outside of game rules, including polite request for clarification on this very topic, how many threads were locked that just wanted to know if the faction forums were being deleted with the response "you've been told all you're going to be told." That is what creates toxicity, callous treatment of your customers/fans. Since someone else brought it up from a root cause perspective GW's forums were shut down because they were acting like bleep towards their fans/customers, interesting someone defending PP would use that as a comparison.

The recent FAQs showed that PP has serious problems with mk3. So issues have not been fixed, or they might not fix them at all.
I have no confidence in PP atm.

PP may have started out with a reputation as the anti-GW, but from a few steps back the line gets very blurry. I'd propose that WMH's popularity wasn't based on doing things wildly differently to GW, but from PP doing the same thing as GW, with a couple of balance and tactical tweaks.

I don't know if it gives me sorrow or schadenfreude to see them toddle further down the path.

Based on the terms of service, I'm pretty sure the original page 5 from the Warmachine rulebook could get someone banned from the new Privateer Press forums. The times sure have changed.

Any word when these are coming back online today? It's already afternoon here...

Edit: Just tried a few minutes after posting this and it seems to be up! Huge new rules text that showed up first, then I got to the index.........

No faction forums

 RiTides wrote:
Any word when these are coming back online today? It's already afternoon here...

Seem to be up again.

Yeah, seems to have just happened? I was actually in the middle of editing the above post.

But no faction forums

Looks different.
One forum for army lists and one for game tactics. No longer faction wise.

New PP forum guidelines are posted..........

Yikes:

Forums Behavioral Guidelines

Online communities are notoriously toxic and nasty to deal with. This is partially because humans are naturally more motivated to complain about things they don’t like than they are to praise the things that they enjoy. It is further compounded by what is known as the online disinhibition effect ( the abandonment of social restrictions and inhibitions found in normal face-to-face communication when using remote electronic communications). The anonymity provided by the Internet makes it very easy to dehumanize and disrespect people who are not in the room with you. It is easy to forget that the “they”—often used in a condescending manner—is actually referring to real people, most of whom are sharing an office while we read your feedback. For the protection and the overall health of the community, there is a zero tolerance policy regarding toxic behavior on the forums. You may be entitled to an opinion but you do not have the right to verbally abuse other people. On these forums you are required to be respectful and constructive. Acceptable behavior on the Privateer Press forums is strictly moderated and anyone who breaks the Terms of Service can be banned without warning.

Civil Discourse
The nature of discussing a complex game like WARMACHINE and HORDES means there will be disagreements. The first step for engaging in a healthy discussion is to acknowledge that your own opinions can be proven wrong. Only by working together and exposing ourselves to a large variety of perspectives can we truly come to the best conclusions. How you say something is just as important as what you say. Taking an aggressive tone with others will immediately put them on the defensive and makes them less receptive to your feedback. So think before you post—take a few moments to reread what you have written and be sure that you are treating everyone in a positive and civil manner.

Constructive Criticism
NOUN: criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions.

Whether you’re at work, dealing with personal relationships, practicing for an upcoming tournament, or posting on the forums, giving and receiving constructive criticism is essential for improvement. When giving criticism, it is important to remember that you are trying to help someone. Condescending or offensive language will undermine your efforts by putting the other person in a defensive position. If you legitimately want to help someone, your words should carry that message. If you find yourself merely venting or trying to boost your own ego, stop immediately and consider whether or not you actually have anything helpful to say. Constructive criticism must be detailed. You need to explain the reasoning behind your opinions if you want someone to understand your critiques. It is often easy to be snarky and vague, and people often try to disguise their passive-aggressive insults as intelligent commentary. Unfortunately, these kinds of comments are never useful. No one will learn anything from your criticism if you don’t explain why you think that way.

Don’t Vent
There is a common misconception that “blowing off steam” by freely expressing negative feelings to other people will reduce one’s anger through catharsis. This concept is very old, and modern research has found plenty of evidence to the contrary. Venting can feel good for the individual in the short term, but those feelings are fleeting and are usually replaced with guilt and anxiety after the fact. While you might feel some temporary relief, expressing negative emotions toward other people will actually make the subject of your venting feel worse. It is also likely to lower the other person’s inhibitions against expressing anger, which can provoke retaliation. Venting is a lose-lose endeavor. Nobody benefits from the verbal abuse and negative feelings being expressed. This does not mean you can never express your feelings. Holding in all your emotions is certainly not a healthy or viable solution. Instead, you simply need to express yourself without hostility, blame, or entitlement.

Pretty negative view of forums for the opening line of rules... for a forum

Looks like the penalties are: first offense, mod approval required for subsequent posts. Second offense, 3 week ban minimum. Third offense, permanent ban.

Not really rolling out the welcome mat are they lol...

 wuestenfux wrote:
Looks different.
One forum for army lists and one for game tactics. No longer faction wise.

The lack of any sort of faction-specific discussion is depressing. I guess those were too useful and convenient to make the cut.

Also, I'm noticing an absence of anything resembling a 'general discussion' area.

Yeah, apparently there isn't one. My local PG (also a forum mod, apparently) is pretty bummed, too...

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, apparently there isn't one. My local PG (also a forum mod, apparently) is pretty bummed, too...

Just saw that someone asked about it on the forum, this was PP's response:

"Hey, thanks for posting here. There is no longer a general discussion forum or faction-specific forums on the official forums. We encourage you to visit the myriad unofficial, player-run sites and pages that exist online outside of our official forums."

The thread was then closed so that no one could comment on this. I think that sums it up really.

Yeah, these new forums are awful.

Like God awful.

Like seriously seriously ungood.


Like they just completely ripped the heart out of the community awful.

Like, you can't even discuss the bloody game on the bloody forum awful.

I need a cup of tea.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeah, these new forums are awful.

Like God awful.

Like seriously seriously ungood.


Like they just completely ripped the heart out of the community awful.

Like, you can't even discuss the bloody game on the bloody forum awful.

I'm surprised they even bothered keeping them. I mean, why even have a forum for a product if your response to people wanting to discuss said product is 'bugger off and find a different forum'?

I posted a question about the decision to remove these portions. My post just got deleted.

Wow. I remember getting occasionally notified that stuff I didn't think was a problem was an offense. And that was when there were parts I liked. Well, not touching those forums with a 10' pole.

Gone are the days of the overzealous mod, now some sort of wasteland ruled by an iron fist.

Agreed. my post was a respectful critic and question of concern regardimg the new forum structure. they didnt even watn me before deletion or even have the courtesy to leave it so that the community could either agree or disagree.

When Tom Kirby stepped down as GW CEO, was there any mention of taking over somewhere else?

You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.

It's funny how how things come full circle.

Serious discussion point: With GW improving recently I wonder how other companies such as PP will do in the coming months/years. It seemed in my area that PP really caught on as many disenfranchised GW players moved on to a better rule set. It seemed like many folks were unhappy with Mk3 and the freeloader policy and now this forum changes may not be well received either.

On the flip side I've hear a lot of people praising GW recent changes and with some older players are starting to return. I wonder if there could be a reverse migration as people who may not be satisfied with the current offerings by PP and migrate back to the new friendlier GW they first left from.

I was very excited about the upcoming Grymkin faction but I don't feel I will have a place to talk about that particular faction in one specific c place which is disappointing.

 Vermis wrote:
When Tom Kirby stepped down as GW CEO, was there any mention of taking over somewhere else?

Lol, that's exactly what I was thinking... the problem is, PP isn't GW and don't have the IP / store network / etc to bring in new players and carry sales through a period of being overtly hostile to their playerbase. A lot of their growth is driven by their community and network of volunteers... and they pretty much just spat on that whole network. It's honestly pretty shocking!

Edit: MrFlutterPie you're right, to do it now when GW has drastically softened their approach, and there are a ton of smaller games nipping at their heels, just seems crazy...

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Wow. I remember getting occasionally notified that stuff I didn't think was a problem was an offense. And that was when there were parts I liked. Well, not touching those forums with a 10' pole.

Gone are the days of the overzealous mod, now some sort of wasteland ruled by an iron fist.

Yeah, I was looking at their new guidelines and they wee just depressing. Might as well just say "You can't post anything that anyone might ever construe or misinterpret as being even remotely offensive to anyone. Or anything that we personally don't like."

Now, this would be bad enough if Warmachine didn't have the motto "Play like you got a pair". I guess 'read other posts like you got a pair' would be expecting too much of people.

I still have faith in PP that they are doing what is best for the game. However, this is a boneheaded decision. They seem to have made a few of those lately.

They should remember that the reason they are more than a footnote in history is because they were doing things right when GW was killing their forum (okay PP came after that technically), stopped retailers from selling at discounts, and pretending everything was great with the game. In about the past year and a half, PP has:

* Curbed online retailers offering heavy discounts (the "Free Rider Policy")

* Took criticism of Mk3 balance harshly with this arrogant attitude that everything was fine (#3yearsoftesting and #designspace)

* Decided to remove the key aspects of their forum due to not wanting to hear negative feedback (the forums debacle). On top of that, they seem to still have the policy against linking to third-party sites; so not only do they not have any place to discuss, and tell you to go to one of the many third-party unofficial sites, you aren't allowed to post links to any of those sites!

Now, let me state I still feel they are doing this out of a misguided thought it's the right way to encourage the game, and not like the old GW that was blatantly "We don't care, buy our stuff". But it makes for bad press and a bad taste in people's mouths, and as GW learned to their detriment if you piss off enough people, they will tell others to avoid you. GW might have enough revenue to ignore that, but I don't think PP would if it got out of hand (note: I don't think it will, I'm being hypothetical). However, they still seem devoted to the game and improving it, and so I feel they are still on the right track, even if they are making some bad decisions.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

They might as well have got rid of them entirely. There are no places to post anything remotely resembling a discussion.

 MrFlutterPie wrote:
With GW improving recently I wonder how other companies such as PP will do in the coming months/years.

Yeah... I was definitely one of that early wave burning out on GW and flocking to PP. And, after years away, I'm not in whole-hog, but I'm cheerfully painting Marines, and their board game line has been pretty good. Not, like super-exciting, but a decent chunk of my trades and gaming budget are getting converted to GW for the first time in a decade-plus.

Wayniac wrote:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

Nice

Spiralingcadaver, I'm the same. Recently picked up a 30k army and am extremely interested in Adeltus Titanicus.

I'll still play Casualmachine with my friend, but definitely won't be as into the game/world with the way they're headed now, and have been for the last few years - but this is really a scorched earth move!

Sad day. There is little reason to visit the main forum now what with the lack of faction forums and a general discussion. They really do want everything to go off site.

http://lormahordes.freeforums.net/

community led new discussions. not mine. just got it from a poster in the PP forums asking about legalities of 3rd party forums.

Don't You Dare Post Like You've Got A Pair!

I'm a fan of forums - not sure if PP is, or really wants to be hosting one!

Wayniac wrote:
I still have faith in PP that they are doing what is best for the game. However, this is a boneheaded decision. They seem to have made a few of those lately.

They should remember that the reason they are more than a footnote in history is because they were doing things right when GW was killing their forum (okay PP came after that technically), stopped retailers from selling at discounts, and pretending everything was great with the game. In about the past year and a half, PP has:

* Curbed online retailers offering heavy discounts (the "Free Rider Policy")

* Took criticism of Mk3 balance harshly with this arrogant attitude that everything was fine (#3yearsoftesting and #designspace)

* Decided to remove the key aspects of their forum due to not wanting to hear negative feedback (the forums debacle). On top of that, they seem to still have the policy against linking to third-party sites; so not only do they not have any place to discuss, and tell you to go to one of the many third-party unofficial sites, you aren't allowed to post links to any of those sites!

Now, let me state I still feel they are doing this out of a misguided thought it's the right way to encourage the game, and not like the old GW that was blatantly "We don't care, buy our stuff". But it makes for bad press and a bad taste in people's mouths, and as GW learned to their detriment if you piss off enough people, they will tell others to avoid you. GW might have enough revenue to ignore that, but I don't think PP would if it got out of hand (note: I don't think it will, I'm being hypothetical). However, they still seem devoted to the game and improving it, and so I feel they are still on the right track, even if they are making some bad decisions.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

Finally, someone else who noticed the similarities! PP has been acting in the past two years almost identically to GW from five to six years ago, but the elitist attitude of some fans wouldn't see the comparisons!

This sucks though. While I have more criticisms about Warmahordes and PP now than I did before getting into the game a couple years back, I don't like to see a company make poor decisions and withdraw into their own little hole. But GW did that, and they turned themselves around after a couple years. With any luck, PP will swing back from this, and hopefully in less time.

GW needs competition to keep them on their toes, and PP is the next biggest competitor in the market of miniature wargames companies (by my estimates) that makes rules, fluff, and un-painted & un-assembled miniatures in various factions.

Oh well. I wish PP the best of luck. Maybe this purge/cleanse will get the "play like you've got a pair" mentality out of the game (I never cared for that).

To be fair, I think that was more along the lines of "Play Aggressively, Don't Waste Time, Go Kill That Caster!" and not "Act like a Complete Douchebag and Curbstomp Newbies!" though...

Which is true.

War machine doesn't have defensive stats like warhammer does. Getting hit first does you no favours.

It took GW way more than a couple years to adjust their trajectory! It's awesome now that they have, but that was a long road (really, it took the stock finally stalling and getting rid of Kirby to change direction). I don't think PP can afford to take that long, though...

 Alpharius wrote:
To be fair, I think that was more along the lines of "Play Aggressively, Don't Waste Time, Go Kill That Caster!" and not "Act like a Complete Douchebag and Curbstomp Newbies!" though...

Then they take away a huge resource for newbies to gain insight from vets.

 RiTides wrote:
It took GW way more than a couple years to adjust their trajectory! It's awesome now that they have, but that was a long road (really, it took the stock finally stalling and getting rid of Kirby to change direction). I don't think PP can afford to take that long, though...

Right. GW started some of that like 15 years ago (the forums, I remember the GW forums and when it closed, and it was like the very early 2000s). The online policy was somewhere around there as well. So GW operated for probably at least 10 years with that move and only recently decided to turn around. If PP were to take that long, I think they'd collapse long before it. That's what sort of hurts me about these decisions, starting with the end of Mk2: It's very ominously like what GW did, when PP made its name on being the anti-GW (even to the point, which they long since went back on, of being 100% "heavy metal" without using "cheap" plastic). So it's worrisome to see the similarities, although again I feel that they have the best interest of the game and for that I'm at least hopeful that this isn't an arrogant GW-esque attitude but perhaps a misguided attempt at controlling the game better. Given this is PP and not GW, who historically have cared about their game even if they make some bad decisions, I'm remaining hopefully optimistic and putting trust in them to do the right things in the end, even if right now we are all bitter over the loss of the faction/general forums.

For those who like the various quotes I use to refer to the similarities, here is another:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

I think they dont' want to really run forums. They want a way to interact with players, but they're not interested in creating a space for players to really interact with each other.

I think that's a good thing, in the long run. Official forums reflect the company, and as the company grows, they probably want more constructive positivity, and less toxic flaming. Instead of trying to figure out that balance, I think they want to encourage the growth of new discussion venues, and get out of that business.

In some ways, it's like when there's a kickstarter with a small company (or even just an individual) and they include US shipping, with huge international shipping. Are they going to come out and say "no international backers, please?" No, because that's a dumb thing to say, and appearances matter. Still, that's a pretty clear message that only those international backers that are true believers should bother, because there's no deals to be had.

The problem is, PP's rules are complicated enough that without faction forums to explain how the basics of a faction work to newer players, there's going to be a Lot of misplayed rules... not to mention that comparing lists/tactics was a big part of the fun for many players.

Echoes of GW and WHFB are pretty strong here, too, the reception of which ironically seemed to be one of the things that finally got GW to change direction. But PP doesn't have the strength of GW, and aren't adding anything to replace what they're taking away...

I could have sworn that the Privateer Press forums had a 'No petitions' policy during MkI.
If that had been brought back, and applied to all of the nerf request threads, what threads would have been left in the general discussion forum?

The internet is a big place. I'm sure the faction talk will move elsewhere. I am surprised the online store thread has gone since that was pretty useful.

I was slightly surprised by the way that PP released V3, especially compared to the way it released V2 with its beta test and feedback. Having to rewrite one (or more) faction(s) since has maybe shown PP that they needed to be more cautious.

Battlefront lately also seem to have caught 'GW-itis' with their V4 release. We've yet to see how that pans out.

Up until the big change I was checking the faction forums many times a day; sometimes it was the first thing I did after waking up in the morning (I might have had a problem...). I'm very sad to see them go, and annoyed with PP for how they are handling this.

I'd love it if a single forum gained the userbase from the old ones; I think the problem right now is people aren't sure where to go, and so we've fragmented. This probably wouldn't have been such a problem if PP gave people more time to figure out where the new hub would be and told people for certain that the faction forums would be gone, but they simple gave a rather vague statement about changes and refused to answer any questions, so people weren't sure if the faction forums were going away or not and only had a couple of days to deal with it.

I'm on the Tabletop Gaming Forum, but it's pretty much completely dead so far. I'll try the Lormahordes forum, it looks promising. Of course I would love it if Dakka added faction forums; I don't suppose anyone knows if that's a realistic possibility or if there's a way to "petition" it or something?

Soul Samurai wrote:
Up until the big change I was checking the faction forums many times a day; sometimes it was the first thing I did after waking up in the morning (I might have had a problem...). I'm very sad to see them go, and annoyed with PP for how they are handling this.

I'd love it if a single forum gained the userbase from the old ones; I think the problem right now is people aren't sure where to go, and so we've fragmented. This probably wouldn't have been such a problem if PP gave people more time to figure out where the new hub would be and told people for certain that the faction forums would be gone, but they simple gave a rather vague statement about changes and refused to answer any questions, so people weren't sure if the faction forums were going away or not and only had a couple of days to deal with it.

I'm on the Tabletop Gaming Forum, but it's pretty much completely dead so far. I'll try the Lormahordes forum, it looks promising. Of course I would love it if Dakka added faction forums; I don't suppose anyone knows if that's a realistic possibility or if there's a way to "petition" it or something?

Well maybe if PP had given us MORE THAN A FETHING FEW DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the proper information on HOW THE FACTION FORUMS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM (and seemingly general discussion in general) WERE GOING TO BE PURGED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH! then maybe we could have had more time to gather the troops in one place. Reddit seems to have caught a lot of them (I even signed up too) and hopefully one of the newer ones will rise up and take the place of the old forums. Rather than having to go several different places just to have a decent discussion.

If it was just about reducing the toxicity of the environment, one might think PP could simply have kept the forum, instate these stricter rules and allow Mods to wield their ban-hammers rather freely.

It looks rather obvious that PP simply don't want fan-interaction to be hosted under their own umbrella at all.

I think the faction based forums are an absolute must have in a world of about ten factions to interact and compete.
When posting an army list or some sort of rule or tactical question related to a specific faction, one needs dedicated answers from ''experts' of the faction and not would-be answers like ''I don't play this faction, but ...''.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Soul Samurai wrote:
Up until the big change I was checking the faction forums many times a day; sometimes it was the first thing I did after waking up in the morning (I might have had a problem...). I'm very sad to see them go, and annoyed with PP for how they are handling this.

I'd love it if a single forum gained the userbase from the old ones; I think the problem right now is people aren't sure where to go, and so we've fragmented. This probably wouldn't have been such a problem if PP gave people more time to figure out where the new hub would be and told people for certain that the faction forums would be gone, but they simple gave a rather vague statement about changes and refused to answer any questions, so people weren't sure if the faction forums were going away or not and only had a couple of days to deal with it.

I'm on the Tabletop Gaming Forum, but it's pretty much completely dead so far. I'll try the Lormahordes forum, it looks promising. Of course I would love it if Dakka added faction forums; I don't suppose anyone knows if that's a realistic possibility or if there's a way to "petition" it or something?

Well maybe if PP had given us MORE THAN A FETHING FEW DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the proper information on HOW THE FACTION FORUMS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM (and seemingly general discussion in general) WERE GOING TO BE PURGED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH! then maybe we could have had more time to gather the troops in one place. Reddit seems to have caught a lot of them (I even signed up too) and hopefully one of the newer ones will rise up and take the place of the old forums. Rather than having to go several different places just to have a decent discussion.

Yeah... after the announcement there were a few threads about where to go if the forum was removed which I dismissed as doomsaying. Seems the doom sayers were right though - the Forums as a place to discuss the game and community happenings (Modelling stuff is still there) are essentially gone. Dick move, especially as the announcement made it sound like the forums were changing, not being gutted. A heads up would not have gone astray.

I suppose it is what it is, but after bringing about a lot of positive changes just in the last few months that showed a real responsiveness to and care for their player base, to see this sort of move is very disappointing.

Personally, I'm not all that bothered. In my experience, very little discussion or progress of any real value occurred on the forums. And what little was there was often overshadowed by a massive amount of toxicity, nastiness and bad natured vitriol. They were a hive of group think, echo chambers and list-by-rote, with very little creativity in terms of 'how' to play, and little appreciation for alternative viewpoints.

No, I didn't like them. They were more trouble than they were worth. In my experience, all they did was stifle players own creativity. A lot of the top players I know also felt the same, in that the best approach towards the forums was to avoid them completely.

CID forums look interesting. Need to dig into the grymkin a bit more.

This is the final nail in the coffin for me. PP can go to hell, Mk 3 ruined the factions I enjoyed, the retailer thing was bs, and now the forums. The models were never great, GW has always been better and cheaper and now I can just concentrate on playing games where the minis are fun to assemble and paint, not 3 unique sculpts in a box of 10 at twice the.price and half the quality of competitors. My meta has gone to gak since the end of mk2 so anything and everything I liked about the game is dead.

I remember when the old GW forums shut down, I was very disappointed (I even sent a strongly worded email to GW customer service) and thought GW was making a stupid move shutting out the community. Years later it doesn't seem like that big a deal and frankly shutting down their official forum pushed my to places like a warseer and Dakka and helped expand my war gaming world.

It seems like a huge loss now but the internet is a big space. You'll find a home.

Davout wrote:
I remember when the old GW forums shut down, I was very disappointed (I even sent a strongly worded email to GW customer service) and thought GW was making a stupid move shutting out the community. Years later it doesn't seem like that big a deal and frankly shutting down their official forum pushed my to places like a warseer and Dakka and helped expand my war gaming world.

It seems like a huge loss now but the internet is a big space. You'll find a home.

I think the bigger loss is the lack of any direct contact with the PP design team. It smacks of them wanting to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that, since the negativity has gone elsewhere, it no longer exists.

PP could well end up circling the same drain that GW has been monopolising for the last decade or so.

Davout wrote:I remember when the old GW forums shut down, I was very disappointed (I even sent a strongly worded email to GW customer service) and thought GW was making a stupid move shutting out the community. Years later it doesn't seem like that big a deal and frankly shutting down their official forum pushed my to places like a warseer and Dakka and helped expand my war gaming world.

It seems like a huge loss now but the internet is a big space. You'll find a home.

I remember when the old GW forums shut down. While I was disappointed, I did understand why they did so. The amount of toxic vitriol that was present was incredible. The down side was, as you said, dropping out of the good feedback that was there. Unfortunately, it often got drowned out by the others.

vipoid wrote:I think the bigger loss is the lack of any direct contact with the PP design team. It smacks of them wanting to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that, since the negativity has gone elsewhere, it no longer exists.

PP could well end up circling the same drain that GW has been monopolising for the last decade or so.

If they truly wanted to drop out of any direct contact, they would have pulled a GW and dropped the forums all together. There are places to present feedback, they just aren't localized to one specific faction like before where people can attempt to wallow in discontent.

[Begin rant]

I got out of GW entirely (never to return, no matter WHAT their latest pitch may be) and moved to WMH and X-Wing. It's getting to the point where I'm ready to say "A pox on all your houses!" I'm about ready to give up on ALL table-top mini games and revert solely to board games. PP is clearly adopting all the worst practices of GW. Even Fantasy Flight seems to be doing the same with its constant power-creep and rules pile-up.

Maybe it's time to warn the gaming public about table-top mini games: "Warning: This game has a shelf life of X years. You will only be able to play this game for that long. But we want you to spend the mortgage money on it anyway, and then quit that game and buy our next one." Had I been so warned back in the day, I probably never would have started in any table-top mini game.

[End rant]

Personally, I'm not all that bothered. In my experience, very little discussion or progress of any real value occurred on the forums. And what little was there was often overshadowed by a massive amount of toxicity, nastiness and bad natured vitriol. They were a hive of group think, echo chambers and list-by-rote, with very little creativity in terms of 'how' to play, and little appreciation for alternative viewpoints.

No, I didn't like them. They were more trouble than they were worth. In my experience, all they did was stifle players own creativity. A lot of the top players I know also felt the same, in that the best approach towards the forums was to avoid them completely.

This is certainly not untrue.
I have been an all-time lurker with about 15 posts or so.
The whole environment there looked a bit strange, toxic you say. Maybe.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:[Begin rant]

I got out of GW entirely (never to return, no matter WHAT their latest pitch may be) and moved to WMH and X-Wing. It's getting to the point where I'm ready to say "A pox on all your houses!" I'm about ready to give up on ALL table-top mini games and revert solely to board games. PP is clearly adopting all the worst practices of GW. Even Fantasy Flight seems to be doing the same with its constant power-creep and rules pile-up.

Maybe it's time to warn the gaming public about table-top mini games: "Warning: This game has a shelf life of X years. You will only be able to play this game for that long. But we want you to spend the mortgage money on it anyway, and then quit that game and buy our next one." Had I been so warned back in the day, I probably never would have started in any table-top mini game.

[End rant]

The problem as I see it is - and this is how I imagine far too many GW and ex-GW gamers to think, rightly or wrongly - you're labouring under the assumption that wargaming consists of a handful of big-box, one-stop, high-production-value games. And even that narrow view is wider than the trio of GW, PP, and FF!

Games - while I'm at it - that have a vested interest in keeping you in their all-in-one culture and keeping you buying their stuff: an endless conveyor belt of new minis with killer (and eventually unbalancing) new rules to convince you to buy them; edition shakeups that create a new meta and demand extra purchases to fit in with it; the steady creep of force size and mini headcount; fancy presentation, the box-set convenience and the whole 'shiny things' effect that means you'll have a ready-made stream of opponents, and that few people play anything else...
The real metagame, in other words. I don't wonder that you're that you're sick of it - many are; I am - but that's not how it is for all wargames and wargaming. Or at least, it's not so pronounced as with those few of the biggest names.

End rant.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
[Begin rant]

I got out of GW entirely (never to return, no matter WHAT their latest pitch may be) and moved to WMH and X-Wing. It's getting to the point where I'm ready to say "A pox on all your houses!" I'm about ready to give up on ALL table-top mini games and revert solely to board games. PP is clearly adopting all the worst practices of GW. Even Fantasy Flight seems to be doing the same with its constant power-creep and rules pile-up.

Maybe it's time to warn the gaming public about table-top mini games: "Warning: This game has a shelf life of X years. You will only be able to play this game for that long. But we want you to spend the mortgage money on it anyway, and then quit that game and buy our next one." Had I been so warned back in the day, I probably never would have started in any table-top mini game.

[End rant]

This is why games like Magic forcibly remove older content from the standard game so newer content does not have to compete with it.

Pros and cons to that system, as you are keeping power creep under control BUT you are also invalidating people's purchases. Give and take.

Sloths, yep, I've been moving towards board games. They're starting to get infected with more and more "get the next mega expansion to stay current" thing, but at least if you show up without the latest... whatever thing, you're just missing out on content and it generally doesn't unbalance the game.

And they're full of cards and whatever, so tend to be much more conservative with new editions.

Like I said above wargaming opened up for me once I stopped thinking about it as GW only. There are a ton of rules sets that don't care what figs you use and a host of companies producing really nice minitures. Frankly there has never been a better time to get out of the GW/PP rat race then right now.

I feel like I'm in some kind of weird time-warp/alternate universe, where the once loved PP and the hated GW have switched places. It seems to this old grognard that PP is walking right down the path GW went in the late 90s, and is blissfully unaware of it, or too arrogant to think it will bite them in the same way.

 Valander wrote:
I feel like I'm in some kind of weird time-warp/alternate universe, where the once loved PP and the hated GW have switched places. It seems to this old grognard that PP is walking right down the path GW went in the late 90s, and is blissfully unaware of it, or too arrogant to think it will bite them in the same way.

We all need to remember that a business is there to make money. In GW's case, they are publicly traded, and have to appeal to their shareholders. Both both GW and PP are for-profit companies that exist to make money; every decision they make, every model they sell, and game they make, is to make money. These two companies, arguably the two largest in the miniature wargaming industry, are doing what they can to stay alive and keep supplying us, the customer, with product and fun times. Given that GW did turn themselves around, I have high hopes for PP in the long term.

Given that both these companies are reacting in the same way to similar situations is indicative of some other symptom of miniature wargaming? Reacting harshly to online discount retailers, silencing hyper-critical voices on in-house communities, and faulty army lists at release - perhaps these are growing pains that miniature gaming companies all will have to react to at some point when they grow to this size? I am legitimately curious about this, as I put together a business plan for starting up my own miniatures company last year as the capstone to my Master's degree work; I looked to GW and PP as examples for how companies should and shouldn't be run.

We shall see what happens in the long term. I have not seen any Facebook activity in my local groups regarding the latest PP announcements, but I don't imagine that it has slowed down their gaming at all.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

We all need to remember that a business is there to make money.

Of course. And both have done so.

Still, there's always the risk of becoming too hyper-focused on the bean counting, and sabotaging your customers' good will by doing things they don't like, which usually results in expression via their wallets. People "quit GW" because of those kinds of feelings. Will they "quit PP" for the same reasons? Only time will tell, but patterns are patterns.

Given that both these companies are reacting in the same way to similar situations is indicative of some other symptom of miniature wargaming? Reacting harshly to online discount retailers, silencing hyper-critical voices on in-house communities, and faulty army lists at release - perhaps these are growing pains that miniature gaming companies all will have to react to at some point when they grow to this size?

Maybe. But the warning sign in my mind is that GW went one way, had some fairly bad PR and earnings losses for a while, and is now changing away from some of those directions (not all of them, of course). IMO, just feels like PP is about to make some of the same mistakes. I got this feeling a few years ago, which is why I quit being so involved with it (that, and wanted to try to start my own thing, eventually). I don't think it's a "OMG DOOM" thing, just like all the cries over the years that "GW is going to fold!" were hyperbole. I do, however, know that for me, the shift in model quality (ugh, PVC) and increasing bloat and rules in the tail of Mk II, turned me off, at least for now. Will it turn around, and rekindle my interest? Like you said, we'll have to wait and see.

 Valander wrote:
I don't think it's a "OMG DOOM" thing, just like all the cries over the years that "GW is going to fold!" were hyperbole. I do, however, know that for me, the shift in model quality (ugh, PVC) and increasing bloat and rules in the tail of Mk II, turned me off, at least for now. Will it turn around, and rekindle my interest? Like you said, we'll have to wait and see.

I've been hearing "GW is going to fold!" cries for years and years now, and it hasn't happened yet. Over the past couple years, they've been taking what look like massive steps in the right direction, and my FLGS has seen a huge resurgence in the number of 40K players, and Age of Sigmar is starting to gain some pretty good traction as well. PP games have actually dropped off, due to a combination of things I think. Mk3 is one, and I know several top tier players that weren't happy with the heavier warjack emphasis in Mk3 over infantry spam, along with rules tweaks/changes.

PP is, I think, certainly making what appear to be missteps here and there; their communication with the customer base has been somewhat erratic lately I feel. Closing the majority of their forums with only a 2-day notice and zero communication about what will and what won't be removed doesn't generate any goodwill at all, and while there are "good riddance to that toxicity!" posters, more gamers are likely to complain to friends and fellow gamers about the drastic changes in a negative way. Personally, as someone who really values hobby and painting time, the decisions to keep producing new models in pvc plastic is not a good one; I was immediately turned off the new Grymkin faction when I read that the majority of the miniatures for it would be soft plastic. It's just not a great material to work with, and I'd happily pay more to get resin or pewter sculpts.

Where was it confirmed that the Grymkin was going to have a lot of PVC?

Uggh if true that really puts a damper on things.

I would rather deal with Resin and metal, than PP's restic/plesin. I don't think it holds the same sharpness that GW style plastic does, let alone Resin and Metal.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Given that both these companies are reacting in the same way to similar situations is indicative of some other symptom of miniature wargaming? Reacting harshly to online discount retailers, silencing hyper-critical voices on in-house communities, and faulty army lists at release - perhaps these are growing pains that miniature gaming companies all will have to react to at some point when they grow to this size? I am legitimately curious about this, as I put together a business plan for starting up my own miniatures company last year as the capstone to my Master's degree work; I looked to GW and PP as examples for how companies should and shouldn't be run.

Don't forget that FFG did the same thing as well - curb online discount retailers in the name of brick and mortar stores while simultaneously increasing the prominence of their own web store.

They want to cut the small middle men out of the picture because they do not have the market reach of sales volume of Amazon, while at the same time not offering places to play or the maintenance of local communities like FLGSs do.

As much as we the consumer loves online discount retailers, they really add nothing to the industry as a whole. This is why I think all of the major game companies are pushing hard against them. The companies would rather directly sell to the consumer or have the consumer buy at a Local Store. If they have to go to a discount retailer, better it be Amazon who buys tons of product than a discount retailer who buys far less.

Getting rid of forums, I think, is a general trend, since it is easier for companies to manage things on Social Media. Posts are not archived and are buried by a deludge of new posts within a few days. It is very easy to permanently ban someone from posting on your page. Most social media sites are more surface level than forums, which means praise and criticism is help to a paragraph at most, often times. The audience is already built in, all people have to do is click like to start seeing posts in their feed (so your reach is far greater than on a self-selected community forum).

Also, if I am going to be 100% honest, there is less meaningful and less spiteful criticism on social media. Most of it is single sentence, "this sucks. You guys should make better games! god!" kind of posts, rather than a hate filled rants we see on forums. Conversely, you also lose out on introspective and illuminating criticism seen on Forums as well but I think most companies weigh the options and decide that those posts are worth losing.

As for faulty army lists, this has been a thing since the beginning of the hobby. What's different today is level of access people have to game designers. The danger of this is the squeaky wheel syndrome. If someone complains and the designers fix the problem, then everyone and their monkey's uncle is going to complain so their pet problem can be resolved/fixed. Beyond that, I am sure it is also difficult for designers to sift through the vitriol, blind anger and furious, mean spirited debate to find the constructive/meaningful posts.

This is why PP's CID forum has a strict code of conduct and emphasizes battle reports and actual play experiences over theory crafting. Without that, I can say X, Y or Z is broken but no one really knows if X, Y and Z are truly broken OR perhaps I am simply not finding a work around solution to mitigate X, Y and Z's advantages.

Again, the problem is that people do not have an outlet for units that are currently suffering and/or are currently broken, since the CID forum only deals with playtest material and the forums have removed any means of discussing armies and/or units.

Would PP have fixed as much of Mark 3 as they had had the forums not been pushing PP to correct its errors?

Who knows. Only time will tell.

Wow, what great timing on my part...
I left the PP forums nearly 5 years ago because of the overall attitude - not of the members but of the moderators. If you held someone accountable to their opinion or misinformation, mods perceived it as "negative". So people had free reign to contribute negative value to the community and the game, but it was a punishable offense to act against it.
I once got a second warning in a private message discussion for trying to appeal an unjust warning. I wasn't challenging them in public but it made me feel like their idea of "community" and mine were different.
So, I left the forums. And not long thereafter, the game. I stopped playing because the community that maintained my interest was policed by admins who only showed up in the aftermath of a problem and then punished the victims rather than the perpetrators.

Fast forward to last week. I notice a Khador BattleBox in an FLGS I've just started visiting. I had overlooked them before because I no longer play, and so I hadn't noticed the new 'caster in it. come to discover that Mk3 is out (yeah, it's been out for months and I'm late to the party). I stop out to the forums and they're down until the next morning... and then the Khador forum is gone completely.

The faction forum is the main reason I had for being in the community - to discuss the rules, tactics and fluff of the faction, and to share photos of our work. Now, that's gone.
For all the talk about the signal-to-noise ratio of the old forum, in the new format anything useful for a Khador player is lost amid the "noise" of everyone all in one place. Not sure how it will build community when someone can't even find other like-minded players who identify with the same interests.

I'm still interested in re-learning the game (Mk3 BattleBox will be here in the next day or two) but I'm saddened to see that PP still hasn't learned how to manage a community. Actively squashing disagreement and subjective interpretation of what is "offensive" has been proven to have a dampening effect on discussion. Rather than encouraging it, people become reluctant to say anything for fear of sanction at the whim of someone who has no accountability or concrete guideline for use of their authority.

Glad to see that there are other places where one can go to talk about the game. I've registered on the Tabletop Gaming Forum and hoping it will become a more ideal version of what PP could have made.

 Red_Five wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
[Begin rant]

I got out of GW entirely (never to return, no matter WHAT their latest pitch may be) and moved to WMH and X-Wing. It's getting to the point where I'm ready to say "A pox on all your houses!" I'm about ready to give up on ALL table-top mini games and revert solely to board games. PP is clearly adopting all the worst practices of GW. Even Fantasy Flight seems to be doing the same with its constant power-creep and rules pile-up.

Maybe it's time to warn the gaming public about table-top mini games: "Warning: This game has a shelf life of X years. You will only be able to play this game for that long. But we want you to spend the mortgage money on it anyway, and then quit that game and buy our next one." Had I been so warned back in the day, I probably never would have started in any table-top mini game.

[End rant]

This is why games like Magic forcibly remove older content from the standard game so newer content does not have to compete with it.

Pros and cons to that system, as you are keeping power creep under control BUT you are also invalidating people's purchases. Give and take.

It's even worse than that. M:tG (which I used to play quite a lot of) at least has multiple tiers, and things like EDH, so that you can always play with what you bought (with the exception of a very small number of cards that are banned or errata'd). With far too many table-top mini games, not only are there no tiers, but each revision destroys the value--to YOU--of some, if not all, of your investment up to that point.

 HeadHunter67 wrote:
I left the PP forums nearly 5 years ago because of the overall attitude - not of the members but of the moderators. If you held someone accountable to their opinion or misinformation, mods perceived it as "negative". So people had free reign to contribute negative value to the community and the game, but it was a punishable offense to act against it.

Just wanted to say that I've experienced this too, albeit on a different forum.

 HeadHunter67 wrote:

Fast forward to last week. I notice a Khador BattleBox in an FLGS I've just started visiting. I had overlooked them before because I no longer play, and so I hadn't noticed the new 'caster in it. come to discover that Mk3 is out (yeah, it's been out for months and I'm late to the party). I stop out to the forums and they're down until the next morning... and then the Khador forum is gone completely.

The faction forum is the main reason I had for being in the community - to discuss the rules, tactics and fluff of the faction, and to share photos of our work. Now, that's gone.
For all the talk about the signal-to-noise ratio of the old forum, in the new format anything useful for a Khador player is lost amid the "noise" of everyone all in one place. Not sure how it will build community when someone can't even find other like-minded players who identify with the same interests.

Yeah, I really loved the faction forums. It just made it so much easier to find relevant topics and talk to people playing the same faction as you.

The thing is, that applied even when I was a new player. In fact, the faction forums were great for helping me look at the different armies and deciding which appealed to me the most. Certainly far more helpful than anything in the new player area.

What's more, even if new players find the new player sections more helpful, it seems really weird to basically boot them off the forum as soon as they've learned the game.

 Red_Five wrote:
I would rather deal with Resin and metal, than PP's restic/plesin. I don't think it holds the same sharpness that GW style plastic does, let alone Resin and Metal.

Indeed! Especially when the mold lines go down the face of the model or somewhere that you can't really clean them off.

 Red_Five wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Given that both these companies are reacting in the same way to similar situations is indicative of some other symptom of miniature wargaming? Reacting harshly to online discount retailers, silencing hyper-critical voices on in-house communities, and faulty army lists at release - perhaps these are growing pains that miniature gaming companies all will have to react to at some point when they grow to this size? I am legitimately curious about this, as I put together a business plan for starting up my own miniatures company last year as the capstone to my Master's degree work; I looked to GW and PP as examples for how companies should and shouldn't be run.

Don't forget that FFG did the same thing as well - curb online discount retailers in the name of brick and mortar stores while simultaneously increasing the prominence of their own web store.

They want to cut the small middle men out of the picture because they do not have the market reach of sales volume of Amazon, while at the same time not offering places to play or the maintenance of local communities like FLGSs do.

As much as we the consumer loves online discount retailers, they really add nothing to the industry as a whole. This is why I think all of the major game companies are pushing hard against them. The companies would rather directly sell to the consumer or have the consumer buy at a Local Store. If they have to go to a discount retailer, better it be Amazon who buys tons of product than a discount retailer who buys far less.

I had not heard that FFG did that. I haven't kept up with them at all, so that is news to me.

Really, I don't have any problems with limiting and otherwise restricting retail policies to support certain stores. In fact, I am glad that they are doing it. I try to support my local store if I am playing at them, since that is how they make money.

My issue is with the PP snobs who hailed PP as a company superior to GW because it didn't follow these same practices, only to later actually do the exact same things later. The elitist, hypocritical hyperbole spouted off by some of the local Warmahordes players (including one who eventually went off to work for PP a few years back) just grates on my nerves. I bought it for a few months, and then realized that these guys were jerks and not deserving of my time.

 Red_Five wrote:
As for faulty army lists, this has been a thing since the beginning of the hobby. What's different today is level of access people have to game designers. The danger of this is the squeaky wheel syndrome. If someone complains and the designers fix the problem, then everyone and their monkey's uncle is going to complain so their pet problem can be resolved/fixed. Beyond that, I am sure it is also difficult for designers to sift through the vitriol, blind anger and furious, mean spirited debate to find the constructive/meaningful posts.

This is why PP's CID forum has a strict code of conduct and emphasizes battle reports and actual play experiences over theory crafting. Without that, I can say X, Y or Z is broken but no one really knows if X, Y and Z are truly broken OR perhaps I am simply not finding a work around solution to mitigate X, Y and Z's advantages.

Again, the problem is that people do not have an outlet for units that are currently suffering and/or are currently broken, since the CID forum only deals with playtest material and the forums have removed any means of discussing armies and/or units.

Would PP have fixed as much of Mark 3 as they had had the forums not been pushing PP to correct its errors?

Who knows. Only time will tell.

I just hope that PP knows what they are doing. Certainly, the Internet can be used to abuse and spout vitriol (we all have seen it). But communication is key in making customers happy. The trick is figuring out the right amount of access. The game designers make their game, and there will be people who don't like it no matter how balanced or perfected or fun it is, that is the nature of people; some of them will criticize things no matter what. Maybe something like what GW is doing with its Facebook team is the answer?

I wish they hadn't eliminated their faction specific forums and instead implemented a more strict policy, but that would have been met with additional resistance and criticism. In this case, I am afraid there are no winners except for the forums that receive growth from this action.

Red_Five wrote:
This is why games like Magic forcibly remove older content from the standard game so newer content does not have to compete with it.

Pros and cons to that system, as you are keeping power creep under control BUT you are also invalidating people's purchases. Give and take.

Isn't either option invalidating people's purchases?

Businesses have to make money, sure, but the particular model of making money by making people buy more by constantly making new products (and invalidating old ones) perhaps benefits the business more than the customer. In the gaming world, at least. Not to go all Wolfie Smith, but it seems more exploitative than it should be. Ditto when we try to analyse why gaming businesses can this game, or shake up that set of rules, or muck about with those forums. It benefits the business - in the short term, at least - but does it benefit us, the gamers?

As much as we the consumer loves online discount retailers, they really add nothing to the industry as a whole. This is why I think all of the major game companies are pushing hard against them.

The online retailer thing was actually the biggest point of contention for me on this - because it shows the same dinosaur like lack of thinking that seems to haunt most industries (and the world at large if I want to be cynical). I'm sure a lot of farriers wanted the sale of cars restricted too, but advancement only comes through adaptation.

To me it's a huge red flag when an industry (or especially a single company) tries to impose restriction through economic strong arming. That's no something I'm going to encourage with my dollars.

And I would point out online retailers significantly expand gaming to those who are without easy LGS access. And it exposes people to a variety of games, especially smaller games, that might not be carried in a store. Would I have heard of Achtung Cthulu if it hadn't been on Miniature's Market front page one day? Would I have heard of Heavy Gear if FRP Games hadn't been advertising a sale? Etc.

In addition some of the significant online retailers I know are just the net side of an an actual LGS, if the mantra is "my poor LGS!" then why hurt the stores that are trying to adapt to the new world?

As I said, newspaper printers didn't try to squash online news, big box stores didn't try to squash Amazon, the idea that an industry (that is a private group that you don't have representation in) can or should try to quash online activity is disturbing to say the least and sets a dangerous precedent however small it might be.

The other thing I find truly disappointing and annoying about PP shutting down the faction forums is that it removed all of the posts showcasing wonderfully painted miniatures and color schemes.

I'm sure PP would justify this by saying that they still have a forum section for posts about finished models, but the fact is all of the people who did post theirs in the faction forum (sensibly so, as that's where they will appeal to interest) are GONE. I tried doing a search today to see some good examples of 5th Border Legion color schemes and even though some of the pages are cached by Google, the images are not.

So, if I'm looking for that sort of content, where am I going to go? PP expects I'd spend hours drilling down in their general forum to find it. Truth is, I have to look elsewhere - and "look elsewhere" sounds line the opposite of "community".

 Vermis wrote:

Red_Five wrote:
This is why games like Magic forcibly remove older content from the standard game so newer content does not have to compete with it.

Pros and cons to that system, as you are keeping power creep under control BUT you are also invalidating people's purchases. Give and take.

Isn't either option invalidating people's purchases?

Businesses have to make money, sure, but the particular model of making money by making people buy more by constantly making new products (and invalidating old ones) perhaps benefits the business more than the customer. In the gaming world, at least. Not to go all Wolfie Smith, but it seems more exploitative than it should be. Ditto when we try to analyse why gaming businesses can this game, or shake up that set of rules, or muck about with those forums. It benefits the business - in the short term, at least - but does it benefit us, the gamers?

With Magic Type 2/Standard, your previous purchases are completely invalidated because you can no longer use the cards. Power creep just means your older units are less effective relative to new models/units.

PP, GW and FFG each deal with this problem in a different way.

GW will make a formation which will include sub-par units and give them bonus rules to make them more appealing.

PP will just errata the unit to make it better.

FFG will release new upgrade cards that make old units better.

PP's method is the cleanest but it

This bums me and worries me. I JUST bought into this game and im having a blast. I even got a Storm Raptor for my B-day.
I dont want this game to fail, the factions are cool. Miniatures have gotten better since when I played
I just feel like, a company doesnt NEED forums.
but im bummed the faction forums didnt need to go. Where can I go to see a comprehensive guide of many units in my faction? Yeah I can go here and say "How best do I use a Woldwyrd" But i will be most likely not much

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This bums me and worries me. I JUST bought into this game and im having a blast. I even got a Storm Raptor for my B-day.
I dont want this game to fail, the factions are cool. Miniatures have gotten better since when I played
I just feel like, a company doesnt NEED forums.
but im bummed the faction forums didnt need to go. Where can I go to see a comprehensive guide of many units in my faction? Yeah I can go here and say "How best do I use a Woldwyrd" But i will be most likely not much

Just have a look into battlecollege.org. Its the mk3 version of the famous battlecollege.com.
Unfortunately, the entries are not all complete, not yet.
I've written some parts for the Cryx faction.

 Red_Five wrote:
With Magic Type 2/Standard, your previous purchases are completely invalidated because you can no longer use the cards.

You can still use those earlier cards in other formats, which many players play. Especially EDH. Unlike GW/PP, where looking for individuals (let alone groups) who play earlier editions is only slightly easier than looking for a virgin in a maternity ward.

 Red_Five wrote:
Power creep just means your older units are less effective relative to new models/units.

Which means you win less with them, so you stop using the old things that you bought, and buy more new things that are more effective, until the next new things are ready to buy.

PP, GW and FFG each deal with this problem in a different way.

I think you're missing my point. All those methods are sticking-plasters, covering over the cracks caused by the bigger problem: the constant churn of new models (or cards) and their attendant new rules. The thing that keeps money flowing into the businesses but frustrates gamers with power creep, imbalance, edition churn (as much or more about making gamers buy more minis as about 'fixing things') and so on.
To quote Frozenwaste's sig, "If you are dissatisfied with the rules it could be that you have mistaken a miniatures marketing tool for a game." It honestly bothers me that so many do. I won't say 'stop playing those games', but at least realise what GW, PP, WotC et al are trying to do with them, and that it's not the way all games are, or should be. To quote another guy's sig, from elsewhere, "Free your hobby! Be creative and stop slavishly following the damn Book."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Unlike GW/PP, where looking for individuals (let alone groups) who play earlier editions is only slightly easier than looking for a virgin in a maternity ward.

Yup. Delicately put. This is just one aspect of what I mean when I talk about gamers viewing the product churn as normal. "Uuurgh... must buy new edishun... it are new... that mean better... they no sell old edishun no more... no sell no buy mean dead... must buy new... they sell new so must buy... must buy... buy... buy... buy..."

There is a simple solution to avoiding power creep. Play historicals. Find a period that interest you, a figure scale that you like to paint and a rule set that you enjoy playing.

You have the entirety of human conflict to choose from (we've spent a lot of time killing each other, your choices are broad) and no rule set can dictate what figs you use. Plus the factions are fixed. Napoleons Imperial Guard are not all of a sudden going to get a shiny new type of cannon or an upgraded commander that makes them more competitive. A pike block is always going to work in the same way and can't be needed by an edition change. GW and PP are minitures companies that happen to publish a set of rules that that's us push their stuff around the table. Warlord is also a minitures company but you don't have to use their rules if you don't like them or buy their figs if you like their rules but don't like their sculpt style. It's a nice change.

Davout wrote:
There is a simple solution to avoiding power creep. Play historicals. Find a period that interest you, a figure scale that you like to paint and a rule set that you enjoy playing.

You have the entirety of human conflict to choose from (we've spent a lot of time killing each other, your choices are broad) and no rule set can dictate what figs you use. Plus the factions are fixed. Napoleons Imperial Guard are not all of a sudden going to get a shiny new type of cannon or an upgraded commander that makes them more competitive. A pike block is always going to work in the same way and can't be needed by an edition change. GW and PP are minitures companies that happen to publish a set of rules that that's us push their stuff around the table. Warlord is also a minitures company but you don't have to use their rules if you don't like them or buy their figs if you like their rules but don't like their sculpt style. It's a nice change.

I appreciate the thought, but it's of little help to those of us who prefer fantasy or sci-fi settings to historical ones.

 Vermis wrote:

 Red_Five wrote:
Power creep just means your older units are less effective relative to new models/units.

Which means you win less with them, so you stop using the old things that you bought, and buy more new things that are more effective, until the next new things are ready to buy.

PP, GW and FFG each deal with this problem in a different way.

I think you're missing my point. All those methods are sticking-plasters, covering over the cracks caused by the bigger problem: the constant churn of new models (or cards) and their attendant new rules. The thing that keeps money flowing into the businesses but frustrates gamers with power creep, imbalance, edition churn (as much or more about making gamers buy more minis as about 'fixing things') and so on.
To quote Frozenwaste's sig, "If you are dissatisfied with the rules it could be that you have mistaken a miniatures marketing tool for a game." It honestly bothers me that so many do. I won't say 'stop playing those games', but at least realise what GW, PP, WotC et al are trying to do with them, and that it's not the way all games are, or should be. To quote another guy's sig, from elsewhere, "Free your hobby! Be creative and stop slavishly following the damn Book."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Unlike GW/PP, where looking for individuals (let alone groups) who play earlier editions is only slightly easier than looking for a virgin in a maternity ward.

Yup. Delicately put. This is just one aspect of what I mean when I talk about gamers viewing the product churn as normal. "Uuurgh... must buy new edishun... it are new... that mean better... they no sell old edishun no more... no sell no buy mean dead... must buy new... they sell new so must buy... must buy... buy... buy... buy..."

Reminds me of roleplaying games, and how some players and game masters have to follow the rules to the letter, with no room for anything else when figuring out the game. Hogwash, I say! In my experience in both wargaming and roleplaying, sometimes making up your own rules are the best way to enjoy the game, or even to better understand the game you are playing. Back in my dungeon master days in 4th edition D&D, the players would get creative and try to do something not handled by the rules, and I said "roll for it!", and that led us to some very memorable moments.

Sticking to just "the rules" is creatively stifling, and only perpetuates the problems already had in people's mindsets. If it wasn't for the fact that it is hard enough to learn one game, but asking people to learn a new game made of home-brewed rules can be a turn-off for many people ("if GW can't get it right, how can you?"). If I lived closer to more gamers and could get in more games, I probably would just re-write my own custom form of 40K rules that fit better with how I picture the fluff.

Davout wrote:
There is a simple solution to avoiding power creep. Play historicals. Find a period that interest you, a figure scale that you like to paint and a rule set that you enjoy playing.

You have the entirety of human conflict to choose from (we've spent a lot of time killing each other, your choices are broad) and no rule set can dictate what figs you use. Plus the factions are fixed. Napoleons Imperial Guard are not all of a sudden going to get a shiny new type of cannon or an upgraded commander that makes them more competitive. A pike block is always going to work in the same way and can't be needed by an edition change. GW and PP are minitures companies that happen to publish a set of rules that that's us push their stuff around the table. Warlord is also a minitures company but you don't have to use their rules if you don't like them or buy their figs if you like their rules but don't like their sculpt style. It's a nice change.

But how accepting are historical wargamers to inaccurate color schemes? I know of some people that get aggravated at Horus Heresy armies not being painted the "right" color, how do historical wargamers feel about it? I appreciate the comment though, I always feel that historical wargaming gets left out of the broader conversation of rules and miniatures. I dream of one day having a Roman army painted up in a unique color scheme, but there is no one in my area that plays historicals (unless you count Flames of War, but that's not the Classical period).

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Reminds me of roleplaying games, and how some players and game masters have to follow the rules to the letter, with no room for anything else when figuring out the game. Hogwash, I say! In my experience in both wargaming and roleplaying, sometimes making up your own rules are the best way to enjoy the game, or even to better understand the game you are playing. Back in my dungeon master days in 4th edition D&D, the players would get creative and try to do something not handled by the rules, and I said "roll for it!", and that led us to some very memorable moments.

I agree, but I think this is significantly easier to do with role playing games like D&D for a few reasons:

- First off, you have a closed group. Once you establish some rules, your group can continue using those rules for the entirety of the campaign. With a wargame, you're often battling against strangers - so you have to hope that they'll all be accommodating towards whatever rules you want to change. And that, if they want to change rules themselves, that the changes they propose will be as reasonable as your own.

- In RPGs, you're not really competing against anyone (DMs don't win by killing the players). So, even if the rule changes give one person an advantage, it makes little difference. However, asking for a potential advantage in a competitive game is going to be a very different matter. What's more, even if both players agree that a particular rule is bad and in need of changing, they may be unable to agree on what the change should be. Not to mention that seemingly simple changes can necessitate further changes. For example, let's say both players of a 40k game hate the wound-allocation mechanism and want to go back to 5th. Okay, great. Now what about all the units with bonuses to Loot Out Sir? Are those bonuses just ignored? Should they be changed so that they have an effect within the 5e wound allocation rules (which will get even harder when not all units have the same bonus)? Should these units just get a small point discount to compensate them? If so, what should the discount be, and should it vary based on the cost of the model or be a flat figure? You get the idea.

- Finally, in an RPG, you have a game master who literally has the job of being the arbiter of rules and house rules/improvisation. Hence, even if the players can't agree, they have a (more or less) independent party who can actually give a definitive ruling the change. With a competitive game, you don't have any such body. All you've got is two people, neither of whom has the authority to make a definitive decision.

I agree that it can be nice to mess around with the rules, but I think this is vastly easier to do in RPGs than it is in tabletop wargames.

 Vermis wrote:

 Red_Five wrote:
Power creep just means your older units are less effective relative to new models/units.

Which means you win less with them, so you stop using the old things that you bought, and buy more new things that are more effective, until the next new things are ready to buy.

PP, GW and FFG each deal with this problem in a different way.

I think you're missing my point. All those methods are sticking-plasters, covering over the cracks caused by the bigger problem: the constant churn of new models (or cards) and their attendant new rules. The thing that keeps money flowing into the businesses but frustrates gamers with power creep, imbalance, edition churn (as much or more about making gamers buy more minis as about 'fixing things') and so on.
To quote Frozenwaste's sig, "If you are dissatisfied with the rules it could be that you have mistaken a miniatures marketing tool for a game." It honestly bothers me that so many do. I won't say 'stop playing those games', but at least realise what GW, PP, WotC et al are trying to do with them, and that it's not the way all games are, or should be. To quote another guy's sig, from elsewhere, "Free your hobby! Be creative and stop slavishly following the damn Book."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Unlike GW/PP, where looking for individuals (let alone groups) who play earlier editions is only slightly easier than looking for a virgin in a maternity ward.

Yup. Delicately put. This is just one aspect of what I mean when I talk about gamers viewing the product churn as normal. "Uuurgh... must buy new edishun... it are new... that mean better... they no sell old edishun no more... no sell no buy mean dead... must buy new... they sell new so must buy... must buy... buy... buy... buy..."

I couldn't agree more. For years, before I finally cut off GW entirely, I used to advocate for divisional tournament play, with separate divisions for multiple editions and player choice of which division they wanted to play in. But GW (and now, sadly, PP) have been entirely too successful in creating that Pavlovian response to their marketing schemes. If divisional play were ever to be implemented, I would likely return to playing 40K in a New York minute -- I haven't sold off my SEVEN armies yet, nor all the 3/3.5/4/5 books I acquired over time.

Davout wrote:There is a simple solution to avoiding power creep. Play historicals. Find a period that interest you, a figure scale that you like to paint and a rule set that you enjoy playing.

Historicals are a great example. No-one can 'own' the background so immediately the closed rules-minis-fluff ecosystem is impossible. (Although at times it seemed like Warlord and Battlefront ["The home of WWII gaming"] were having a bleedin' good stab at it.) It's much more apparent that you can pick and choose the rules and minis you like best, after choosing the setting.

vipoid wrote:I appreciate the thought, but it's of little help to those of us who prefer fantasy or sci-fi settings to historical ones.

But it's not so difficult with sci-fi and fantasy either. There are SF/F rules and games that can be adapted for whatever setting and minis you like - that are designed to slot in any setting and minis. E.g. gamers have been playing LotR long before the films existed, let alone GW bringing out the licensed game based on them. Even using Warhammer rules, back when they were more generic (or, if you please, inclusive) and not locked into the Warhammer world background. (In fact, GW had a license for LotR minis back in the 80s. I don't think they bothered to make a specific game for them, just put them out for whatever game, but I could be wrong.)

The problem is becoming entrenched in that view of rules being locked into a setting and minis. Not a difficult thing to happen if GW of the last few decades - and the businesses and games that follow their example - are your main frame of reference in gaming. And it's made harder to break away from thanks to the way these games pile on the - IMO - arbitrary rules and modifiers and dress them up as 'character' and 'tactics'.
I've mentioned in another topic about looking at my handful of MkI cards. I've been shaking my head at all the spells and powers Stryker got, and the sheer wall 'o' text to explain the Sentinel's chain gun rules. (That frankly, boils down to 'it shoots lots of bullets so it can hit lots of targets'.) Just as I've shaken my head at the walls 'o' text on Malifaux cards; the 'this unit does these special things 'cos we say so' rules in GW army books and codicies; the dead-tree breeze-block known as the Infinity rulebook, etc... And at the number of GW gamers, specifically, that I've seen in the process of giving up on 40K or WFB due to all the usual reasons; but who held a special horror for other games with more generic or streamlined rules - including those they could use their existing collections with - because they just don't have all those unique unit or character rules, all the fiddly processes and micromanagement, that they're used to, and that they think give their armies personality.

There was a lot of hooting at that guy who burned his dark elves when AoS was released, but in my eyes it was the same kind of mental block or conditioned thinking that prevents too many gamers from sticking to favoured editions, or moving their armies to other rules. It just involved a bit more heat.

And it's a pity because a lot of those, what you might call 'indy' rulesets, without a mini range to sell, are written to succeed on their own merits. A bit more abstracted, not so much with the specific named units of those rules=setting games, but with more clarity, fewer clashes and loopholes, practically no edition churn, and dare I say more balance. The only game I've seen from the rules-minis-fluff set that comes close is KoW, and I think that's because of it's beginning as an alternate ruleset for WFB armies. Like other indy games, it had to entice players with something other than fancy rules attached to specific models.

vipoid wrote:- First off, you have a closed group... With a wargame, you're often battling against strangers

This is another miscomprehension that's a result of GW's old dominance and peculiar system. Make the GW shop the gaming venue, or make 40K and FB the most popular SF/F games in the FLGS, where everyone's playing the same thing wherever you go, and PUGs start to feel natural, if not the most natural way to get a game in. Carry that over to other big-splash all-in-one games where you're pretty sure what rules are being used with those minis - WMH, Malifaux, FoW, and so on.
It's not the case everywhere, with these and other styles of game. I started out by hanging around in a Games Workshop, but most of my wargaming experience has been over kitchen tables and in small clubs - in 'closed' groups.

And to be frank, when I hear people talk about PUGs against strangers being the way of wargames, I think 'what - don't you talk to anyone?'

...

Can anyone remind me what the original topic of this thread was...?

 Vermis wrote:
But it's not so difficult with sci-fi and fantasy either. There are SF/F rules and games that can be adapted for whatever setting and minis you like - that are designed to slot in any setting and minis.

Could you maybe give some examples?

 Vermis wrote:

This is another miscomprehension that's a result of GW's old dominance and peculiar system. Make the GW shop the gaming venue, or make 40K and FB the most popular SF/F games in the FLGS, where everyone's playing the same thing wherever you go, and PUGs start to feel natural, if not the most natural way to get a game in. Carry that over to other big-splash all-in-one games where you're pretty sure what rules are being used with those minis - WMH, Malifaux, FoW, and so on.
It's not the case everywhere, with these and other styles of game. I started out by hanging around in a Games Workshop, but most of my wargaming experience has been over kitchen tables and in small clubs - in 'closed' groups.

I get what you're saying. However, even with a small group of friends, I've found getting everyone to agree on the most minor of rule changes akin to trying to herd cats.

 Vermis wrote:
And to be frank, when I hear people talk about PUGs against strangers being the way of wargames, I think 'what - don't you talk to anyone?'

I fear I'm not following the point you're trying to make with this.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
If it wasn't for the fact that it is hard enough to learn one game...

I've seen that used by disgruntled players to explain why they can't move on; but other rulesets don't have the sheer area-the-size-of-Wales volume of paper that 40K, WMH et al need to hold their rules. They can even be more intuitive, too. I won't say there's no chance of a misremembered subtlety or a transplanted rule (I've had those) but that's what reference cards are for.

("if GW can't get it right, how can you?"

Oh, I've seen that one used too. It assumes that GW want to get it right. Or at least, assumes they want to get it right for the gamer.

But how accepting are historical wargamers to inaccurate color schemes? I know of some people that get aggravated at Horus Heresy armies not being painted the "right" color, how do historical wargamers feel about it? I appreciate the comment though, I always feel that historical wargaming gets left out of the broader conversation of rules and miniatures. I dream of one day having a Roman army painted up in a unique color scheme, but there is no one in my area that plays historicals (unless you count Flames of War, but that's not the Classical period).

I'll bet that HH gamers have nothing on Napoleonic players! I understand the appeal of replicating historic (or inverted comma 'historic') regiments and such, but sometimes I catch myself. I have a big, almost 2" thick book here, 'The Napoleonic Sourcebook', detailing the composition of Napoleonic armies and precise colours of their uniforms. And that was just for a five-minute diversion into a Waterloo anniversary project that didn't go anywhere.

Otherwise, I think you want to do a search for the term 'imagi-nations'. As far as I can tell, it's fantasy for historical players who don't want to admit they're playing fantasy.

There are plenty of historical gamers who can get salty over percieved inaccuracies (the button counters) from uniforms to orders of battle. What I've noticed though is that most historical players know that they are simulating history at best and playing out historical fiction for the most part and are just looking for a good game. A good rules set with smooth mechanics is highly prized as s vehicle to get existing collections to the table or as inspiration for starting a new period. Don't get me wrong, there are still conflicts (the amount of digital ink spilled over basing for the new ancient/medieval game Swordpoint was hilarious) but much less so then I've noticed for GW or PP games.

As for generic fantasy/si fi rule sets you've got Dragon Rampant (osprey) and Horizon Wars (also osprey I think). Rogue stars for small scale si fi skirmish and all the various Song of Blades editions. Hordes of the Things is a generic mass battle rule set. Frostgrave is a great fantasy skirmish game with no set minitures and the background is vague enough for you to tell any story you want. The rules are out there.

18th and 19th-century gamers are paradoxically often quite open to fictional colour schemes. You're going to get laughed at if you field French grenadiers in yellow jackets with green tunics, but "imagi-nations" is a thing, so those are now Baron Harkonnen's Ruritanan regiment".

As far as sci-fi and fantasy rules go, I'm mot familiar with skirmish-level rules - for sci fi there's Rogue Stars from Osprey and Blasters and Bulkheads from Four-Color Studios. Both of those will handily cover a 40k Kill Team, Necromunda, Gorkamorka or Inquisimunda-style game.

For something larger-scale, there's Tomorrow's War or Dirtside II (the latter having the advantage of being free), although those seem to fall into the idea that sci-fi warfafre will look like the 80s US military with better special effects, so I'm not sure how well they'll handle non-human armies (specifically from the point of view of morale and psychology).

Or take the rules you already play and adapt them. Is there something about 40k or Warmachine that everyone in your group complains about, but still follows because "it's what the rules say"? Or a model that;s universally agreed to be undercosted? No need to wait for GW or PP to do something about it, just make your own changes.

Old- and Middle-hammer are things, too. At the moment I'm not sure how much focus there is on gaming (as opposed to painting or collecting), but if you ask around, there might be more people than you'd think who wouldn't mind going to an earlier edition.

Vermis, I've still got the Warmachine playtest rules - four pages of rules and two pages to cover the stats, spells, weapons and special rules for Kreoss' and Stryker's battlegroups. I'm still not entirely sure all the hundreds pf pages of rules for mk 3 make it significantly more fun for me.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Or take the rules you already play and adapt them. Is there something about 40k or Warmachine that everyone in your group complains about, but still follows because "it's what the rules say"? Or a model that;s universally agreed to be undercosted? No need to wait for GW or PP to do something about it, just make your own changes.

If you're talking to me, then clearly you clearly haven't read anything I actually wrote.

If you're not talking to me, then please ignore the above.

That was a generic "you", not directed at anyone in particular.

I would chime in for Frostgrave being a lot of fun too. In fact, the last time I saw Khador models on the table was playing that, and they looked very nice!

I am pretty grumpy with PP lately, and have pretty much decided I will play CasualMachine with RiTides and some buddies while building fun models and scratch builds for counts as. We have been enjoying Kings of War along with Frostgrave, and while there isn't anything that matches Warmachine/Hordes for complicated machine type fun, it will be a while before I decide to spend money on it again. I have Warroom with all the cards, so every new thing just needs a model from the stash. The longest part is finding where that damned model is among the thousands of others.

 Vermis wrote:

And to be frank, when I hear people talk about PUGs against strangers being the way of wargames, I think 'what - don't you talk to anyone?'

If pugging were easy and people were willing to talk about the game before they sit down to play, then Age of Sigmar never would have required points.

Pugging without a core ruleset also means every game is going to be different, which turns lots of people off.

Again, not really what I was talking about.