Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/16 18:35:21


Post by: Stormonu


We all have biases for our favorite game lines from GW, but what particular games - past or present - do you think GW should put effort into supporting, and most importantly - in what manner?

For me...

Spoiler:

Actually, I think 40K 8E would be a mistake if it continues to attempt to support a game that ranges from infantry units to titans. I think they should split the 28mm scale game out sort of like Bolt Action did. Kill Team/Necromunda and a "Tank War" scale game - lowest level would be a squad of bikes or a transport filled with AT models, up to just under Knight scale.

For the big stompy 28 mm Knights, Titans, Superheavies and the like, I think they should develop a separate, battletech-like game. Or an expanded version of Renegade Knight. Although honestly, I think reviving Epic would be a far better option for this - it's be far more affordable.

I would also like to see them bring back Battlefleet Gothic, with updated models and revise rules. I've really enjoyed the mobile version on computer and I think with the popularity of X-wing/Armada/Wings of Glory/Attack Wing/Sails of Glory/Firestorm Armada style games they could have a successful line and ruleset.

Also, I think they have enough flyer kits that if they put real effort into an "Advanced/Revised" Stormcloud Attack game, it could actually be fun - though a revitalized Aeronautical Imperialis would be a far more affordable scale.

On Fantasy side, I believe they should continue with AoS, though consider rewriting the rules - I think the 28mm scale works best with skirmish sort of games - and a Warhammer Quest adventure game series. If there is interest to bring back a mass battle game, I think they should do it in 10/15mm scale, NOT 28mm.

Lastly, I think GW should keep doing the boxed games, but there should be a shared ruleset between them where possible. Having a version of Shadow War, Burning of Prospero, Betrayal at Calth, Space Hulk and Advanced Space Crusade with interchangable units would give more legs to those games.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/16 19:37:57


Post by: Hellfury


They need to stop doing limited releases.

They need to keep pumping out board games, since a lot of those have a high margin of quality in design.

Along with board games, fringe lifestyle games like their specialist range should be looked into more closely. Bfg, shadow wars/necromunda, Gorkamorka, mordheim, etc all give what GW want, which is people buying citadel models, and what the consumers want, an engaging game that doesn't require years worth of hobby effort and a lot of cash.

Mass battle should be their last concern, not their first.

I think they realize that now, or at least that they have been concentrating too much on mass battles and not enough on what the demographic they do not have would love to buy, and that certainly isn't mass battles.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 09:22:25


Post by: Peregrine


IMO:

Dump AoS, replace it with proper support for the LOTR games. The models are much nicer, the rules seem better, and why not make money off the IP?

Forget the impending debacle of 8th edition 40k, go back to a 5th edition design philosophy with rules based primarily on 5th edition.

Bring back support for Epic (with new models that take advantage of modern technology), with Aeronautica Imperialis coming along as a side effect. The 40k universe needs a game for those massive battles, and a 28mm game is not it.

Stop making random one-time board games to milk the cash cow of existing models. It's ok to make something that is going to be a core product (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl, etc), but stop making all the minor side games that are forgotten a month after they're released.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 10:04:03


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Peregrine wrote:
IMO:

Dump AoS, replace it with proper support for the LOTR games. The models are much nicer, the rules seem better, and why not make money off the IP?

Forget the impending debacle of 8th edition 40k, go back to a 5th edition design philosophy with rules based primarily on 5th edition.

Bring back support for Epic (with new models that take advantage of modern technology), with Aeronautica Imperialis coming along as a side effect. The 40k universe needs a game for those massive battles, and a 28mm game is not it.

Stop making random one-time board games to milk the cash cow of existing models. It's ok to make something that is going to be a core product (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl, etc), but stop making all the minor side games that are forgotten a month after they're released.


Because no one's interested in the LOTR. It was a fad by and large, which shows on the crash they had on their stocks back in 2005. I'd comment on the AoS part but there's not much to add beyond that's: your opinion.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 10:49:03


Post by: Ruin


Lord Kragan wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
IMO:

Dump AoS, replace it with proper support for the LOTR games. The models are much nicer, the rules seem better, and why not make money off the IP?

Forget the impending debacle of 8th edition 40k, go back to a 5th edition design philosophy with rules based primarily on 5th edition.

Bring back support for Epic (with new models that take advantage of modern technology), with Aeronautica Imperialis coming along as a side effect. The 40k universe needs a game for those massive battles, and a 28mm game is not it.

Stop making random one-time board games to milk the cash cow of existing models. It's ok to make something that is going to be a core product (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl, etc), but stop making all the minor side games that are forgotten a month after they're released.


Because no one's interested in the LOTR. It was a fad by and large, which shows on the crash they had on their stocks back in 2005. I'd comment on the AoS part but there's not much to add beyond that's: your opinion.


And what you wrote in your first sentence isn't? Double standards FTW!

I can't be arsed here. Perri, go nuts.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 16:20:26


Post by: Rayvon


More rank and file stuff, less big fancy models with lots of swirly crap on them.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 17:16:33


Post by: Lord Kragan


Ruin wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
IMO:

Dump AoS, replace it with proper support for the LOTR games. The models are much nicer, the rules seem better, and why not make money off the IP?

Forget the impending debacle of 8th edition 40k, go back to a 5th edition design philosophy with rules based primarily on 5th edition.

Bring back support for Epic (with new models that take advantage of modern technology), with Aeronautica Imperialis coming along as a side effect. The 40k universe needs a game for those massive battles, and a 28mm game is not it.

Stop making random one-time board games to milk the cash cow of existing models. It's ok to make something that is going to be a core product (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl, etc), but stop making all the minor side games that are forgotten a month after they're released.


Because no one's interested in the LOTR. It was a fad by and large, which shows on the crash they had on their stocks back in 2005. I'd comment on the AoS part but there's not much to add beyond that's: your opinion.


And what you wrote in your first sentence isn't? Double standards FTW!

I can't be arsed here. Perri, go nuts.


And how many people play LOTR? In these last three years I think I've seen a grand total of one game being played across a seventeen LGS and 3 "states". There's communities still playing it? Yes, but the point stands that the interest is minimal comparitively speaking to what it was/GW currently has in other wargames. The main issue is that there's already plenty of skirmish games for LOTR on computer, so that fills a lot of wargamers. It's existance as a wargame was largely due to the films, and the fact that a lot of people stopped buying them when they started to fade from the collective memory just drives the point home. The minis were nice and the ruleset decently solid but it still couldn't build a significant playerbase that held the test of time.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 20:00:22


Post by: supreme overlord


I would LOVE to see BFG re-released and a 3 part campaign incorporating 40k, shadow war, and BFG where you fight for resources, strategic assets, and planets.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/17 20:04:40


Post by: rmeister0


The base rules for Lord of the Rings SBG would have been a great start for Age of Sigmar.

LotR could still have a bigger player base except for a) The Hobbit really ramped up the prices beyond all reason and eliminated one of the reasons people played it, b) support was very tepid; just try finding a book with stats and point costs for models that came out before Hobbit, and c) it got a lot of vitriol from the 40K and WHFB players for drawing resources away from their games, so there was not much of an incentive to play in stores and take the sour grapes.

I really agree with earlier comments, that the "28mm" scale models should be used for skirmish and squad level games, and a smaller scale used for the company scale and bigger games. Epic was faster to paint and you could really make some big armies, and now GW has the capabilities to make some nice scaled terrain to go with it.

Why can we not have three scales of game? Take Armageddon: play Shadow Wars for kill team skirmishes, 40K for some squad level engagements, and Epic for Titans, tank formations, flyers...the whole bag.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 04:04:29


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


I think GW should focus on the their big selling games (40K, AoS and potentially Blood Bowl). Maybe even a 40K skrimish game to bridge the gap for new players (Kill Team isn't good enough but I don't know about Shadow War, or whatever it is called).

I also think they should figure out a way to allow new players to put together a reasonable (not complete junk units and ancient models) starting army (say 1500 points though 1850 would be better) for a reasonable price. Under $300 American but less than $250 would be better (I still kinda consider those prices insane too, but baby steps I guess).

I don't really get GW's insistence with models sets with little side games included. I kinda doubt that even a quarter of the customers played a single game in these sets. So why not cut to the chase, save a couple of trees and just put out discounted boxed sets. The Get Started and a couple of the other sets were okay (could still be more reasonably priced).

However, as new player to 40K from other much more affordable similar quality models miniatures games, I can't help to want to have more than barely 1850 points of Frankensteined Dark Vengeance stuff set of models with huge holes in a cohesive army list because, 'stuff be too expensive yo.'

I want to buy more stuff, but I can't make by desire to have those models meet the price that they are sold for.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 09:06:43


Post by: Peregrine


Lord Kragan wrote:
The main issue is that there's already plenty of skirmish games for LOTR on computer, so that fills a lot of wargamers. It's existance as a wargame was largely due to the films, and the fact that a lot of people stopped buying them when they started to fade from the collective memory just drives the point home.


But you could say the same kind of thing about AoS: there are plenty of similar games in the market already, and AoS has very little in its favor besides "it's the GW fantasy game". If the GW fantasy game was LOTR instead of AoS it probably would have been popular, and nobody would miss AoS. But what killed LOTR was that it was treated as a second-tier game, while WHFB/AoS and their inferior models and awful rules got the more prominent position.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 11:17:48


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Peregrine wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
The main issue is that there's already plenty of skirmish games for LOTR on computer, so that fills a lot of wargamers. It's existance as a wargame was largely due to the films, and the fact that a lot of people stopped buying them when they started to fade from the collective memory just drives the point home.


But you could say the same kind of thing about AoS: there are plenty of similar games in the market already, and AoS has very little in its favor besides "it's the GW fantasy game". If the GW fantasy game was LOTR instead of AoS it probably would have been popular, and nobody would miss AoS. But what killed LOTR was that it was treated as a second-tier game, while WHFB/AoS and their inferior models and awful rules got the more prominent position.


Because it was a second tier game to them since they had virtually no lee-way on what to do in comparison to WHFB/AOS, nor the financial utility that is a game where you mustn't pay a penny or meet yourself a certain set of quotas and requirements. And again, model/rules quality is your opinion.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 11:47:35


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


Lord Kragan wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
The main issue is that there's already plenty of skirmish games for LOTR on computer, so that fills a lot of wargamers. It's existance as a wargame was largely due to the films, and the fact that a lot of people stopped buying them when they started to fade from the collective memory just drives the point home.


But you could say the same kind of thing about AoS: there are plenty of similar games in the market already, and AoS has very little in its favor besides "it's the GW fantasy game". If the GW fantasy game was LOTR instead of AoS it probably would have been popular, and nobody would miss AoS. But what killed LOTR was that it was treated as a second-tier game, while WHFB/AoS and their inferior models and awful rules got the more prominent position.


Because it was a second tier game to them since they had virtually no lee-way on what to do in comparison to WHFB/AOS, nor the financial utility that is a game where you mustn't pay a penny or meet yourself a certain set of quotas and requirements. And again, model/rules quality is your opinion.


I disagree with Peregrine about AoS (as I enjoy it immensely) but I have to agree with him 100% with LotR. The rule set was and still is fantastic as well as a good 90% of the range. The reason it fell into purgatory was neglect, not lack of sales. It had supplements and releases coming out the backside for years after the movies finished. With Forge World taking it over it has seen hell of a new revival, with most products released shooting through the roof of their targets. The audience has always been there, it just has to be catered too. Like any game that gets released.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 11:53:32


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Pretty sure lowered sales did wallop LotR.

Plus, GW didn't have the same free hand to come up with new stuff - and character models have to be approved by their actors (apparently, and I can in no way back this up, so file it under A for Apocrypha, Liv Tyler was an absolute nightmare when it came to the first Arwen model)

The game is solid though - and I particularly enjoyed War of The Ring as a system.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 12:29:55


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


I think the current balance is about right,

Focusing too heavily on 40K was one of the problems of the late Kirby era, it generated most of the sales so got most of the releases so got more of the sales etc

more 2nd main system (AOS),

more specialist games.... one or two that get some post release support,

but most generally one and done as they shouldn't need ongoing releases all the time (although expanding them via WD is fine just not big model release slots)


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 12:41:36


Post by: kronk


Focus on 40k. Gut that fething game and come up with something where I don't need 3 supplements and a rule book to fething play a game!


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 13:17:30


Post by: Ruin


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure lowered sales did wallop LotR.

Plus, GW didn't have the same free hand to come up with new stuff - and character models have to be approved by their actors (apparently, and I can in no way back this up, so file it under A for Apocrypha, Liv Tyler was an absolute nightmare when it came to the first Arwen model)

The game is solid though - and I particularly enjoyed War of The Ring as a system.


Not saying you're wrong, but Arwen was one of the first models released for LOTR way back when. Either they released that without her permission or it was in by the skin of their teeth for release deadline.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 13:27:11


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


If memory serves she was delayed.

However, it may well be entirely apocryphal.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 15:27:39


Post by: Ruin


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If memory serves she was delayed.

However, it may well be entirely apocryphal.


Looking back, I think she was delayed. I distinctly remember the mini being on the flyer you got given at Games Day. This was all 15 years ago so maybe someone with a better memory can fill in the blanks here.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 15:50:46


Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape


40k and AoS, forget everything else.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 18:00:47


Post by: Stormonu


Would the LotR game work for a more general fantasy ruleset, say, with AoS figures or would it falter when trying to handle such high-fantasy fare?

As a devil's advocate to Wolf_in_Human_Shape, I sometimes also wonder if GW would have any success if they dipped their toes in an alternate modern "magical" world, a sort of grimdark model line of modern wizards, supernatural foes (werewolves, slendermen, area 54 aliens, men in black, etc.). GW has done only fantasy and far-flung sci-fi for so long now, I wonder if they could a decent job stretching out of the comfort zone of the two IPs they've relied upon for so long.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 18:53:36


Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape


It's certainly possible. Catering to anything other than my own preferences, any number of games could/should/may exist. My interests are purely limited to those two games, though. Moreso 40k than AoS, but now that Blades of Khorne is out I'm gonna give it a shot with my daemons.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 20:32:53


Post by: Blacksails


I've got a personal love of BFG, so of course I'd love to see as a full fledged game with all factions updated in plastic and minor updates to the rules (the work has already been done by many lovely people at the specialist arms forums for FAQs and player made errata/balance tweaks).

While I can't say I'm a fan of balkanizing the 40k fan base anymore than it already is, I like the way 40k seems to be handled. The new Necromunda looks like a decent game (though mixed reviews on balance and lacking certain campaign focused depth) and then we have Kill Team for slightly larger, small scale 40k proper, then we could have 40k normal (restricted superheavies and formations/detachments), and then finally Apoc, which would be a little more streamlined.

I don't much care for their fantasy offerings, or derivative games. I'd likely try Aeronautica if it came back in plastic, but not really my jam.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 23:03:52


Post by: ph34r


 Peregrine wrote:
IMO:

Dump AoS, replace it with proper support for the LOTR games. The models are much nicer, the rules seem better, and why not make money off the IP?

Forget the impending debacle of 8th edition 40k, go back to a 5th edition design philosophy with rules based primarily on 5th edition.
Your second point here seems nice and reasonable, but your first point seems like an obviously terrible business decision. Do you really dislike/hate AoS, or you honestly think GW would survive if tomorrow they decided AoS would no longer exist?


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 23:24:00


Post by: frozenwastes


Age of Sigmar is totally working for them, so they should definitely continue doing that.

40k should be brought in line with that approach. You'll get more out of your game designer's time if any project experience for one game can be instantly transferred to the other. As well, accessibility for new players is at an all time high for Age of Sigmar and 40k could use that as well.

Both games should get low model count skirmish entry points. Like Shadow War Armageddon from GW and Bottle's excellent Hinterlands rule for Age of Sigmar. But both should use the same rules as the larger game as a base. So while SWA being a necromunda type game hit some nostalgia buttons, having something like that being based on new40k rather than 2nd edition 40k is probably a good idea.

Then they should keep doing board game type releases a few times a year. This new Shadespire series is probably a good place to start if they're going to do multiple releases for the same sort of board game.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2022/03/23 02:49:57


Post by: Chikout


They need to continue to diversify the aos range to keep it growing. The need to have ongoing support for shadow war and Shadespire. They need to release a bestiary book for warhammer Quest.
As much as I would love to see more specialist games stuff, they should only do one game every 18 months until they have built up that studio. This will give them time to meaningfully support each range. They should continue with lotr and heresy as they are.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/18 23:50:15


Post by: timetowaste85


I'd love to see Gorechosen get supplements to allow for a hero vs crowds of gribblies or a big monster (I know Skaar and Valkia exist). I'd also love to see more critters exist for Renegade. More big gribblies!!


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/19 00:23:42


Post by: Baron Klatz


An AoS rpg line, would drop a lot of cash for supplements taking me through the wilds and tribal lands of the beast realms to the ancient castles and undead cathedrals of the realm of death.

Wouldn't mind some more support for LotR either.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/19 01:02:02


Post by: Grot 6


The 300 lb gorilla in the room is the price.

GW can drop a few notes and make it attainable for new players again....


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/02/19 02:12:09


Post by: Galas


I play AoS and I like it, but I aggre with Peregrin in the part of supporting LOTR.


Saddly, I think that his time has pass. The time to go full ahead with LOTR to make it stand the test of time after the movies fade away was 10 years ago.

They can revive it, yes. LOTR is still a big name out there, no more can compete with Star Wars, but thats just because it has been abandoned. Start Collecting! Boxes for LOTR could be a first thing to do to try to revive the game, but as now is really competing with AoS I don't see them pushing it, really.

Just look at Star Wars with Disney spamming movies. The interest of the universe has revive and sky rocket.


LOTR miniatures in 28mm scale or 32mm, will be lovely. Those pieces of art that are the Peter Jackson movie desings deserve a good representation on the tabletop. Not saying that the actual ones are ugly, I love them, but in many cases you can see how the details are pushed away by limitations on the scale.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/20 01:52:21


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


LotR obviously had an over inflated popularity due to the movies, but it could have remained as popular as GW's main games if GW had of treated it right instead of acting like it was going to be an endless cash cow that would sell itself.

That said, I don't think GW should have pursued LotR as a main game simply because of licensing. LotR isn't their universe, they can't do whatever they want with it.

Also wasn't the LotR stuff (pre-Hobbit) sculpted purely by the Perry brothers? I wonder if there was some agreement in place.

As much as I personally like LotR and prefer LotR humanoid figures to the bobble-headed ones in GW's main games, I don't think it would have been a good move for GW to focus fully on it. If anything GW should have been pushing WHFB more to try and keep their own universe appealing against LotR, I know a lot of my WHFB friends moved to LotR and never came back to WHFB even after LotR died in the arse.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/20 08:49:44


Post by: Peregrine


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
LotR obviously had an over inflated popularity due to the movies


Honestly, I think LOTR never reached its full potential even with the movies to help it. I mean, where does this "LOTR won't be popular without the movies" assumption come from? Even without that marketing spike we're still talking about a genre-defining work with immense popularity and cultural significance. Everyone who knows anything at all about the fantasy genre is familiar with the books, and usually with a favorable opinion. Compare that to the fluff of WHFB/AoS, which seem like nothing more than generic fantasy settings that wouldn't merit a second glance without the games attached to them. And from an aesthetic point of view the LOTR models are far superior to most of WHFB/AoS, especially at the time the LOTR games were first released. The only real argument for the success of WHFB/AoS seems to be the fact that they're the primary GW fantasy game, and everyone wants to play the primary GW fantasy game because it's what everyone else is playing. That's nothing more than inertia, not a superior product. It's very easy to imagine an alternate history, where GW never released WHFB/AoS, and their LOTR miniatures are dominating the market.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/20 11:18:40


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Yeah I can agree with that, I think LotR's popularity was over inflated by the movies but that doesn't necessarily mean more potential wasn't there, it's just all other things being equal the movies obviously boosted sales.

But my thought with LotR... isn't the licensing a nightmare?

From what I understood GW licensed the movie content from New Line/Warner Bros/Time Warner, not a generic Middle Earth license, with Peter Jackson being buds with the Perry brothers (PJ's WW1 exhibition includes 54mm Anzac models sculpted by the Perry brothers via "Perry Miniatures" rather than "GW/Citadel").

BUT, on the flip side, doesn't the Tolkien Estate hate everything to do with the movies? With the movie rights being sold specifically back in the 60's by JRR.

Surely that must make the whole situation awkward. GW wouldn't have be able to license video games like Total War that has recently made them some good profits, other companies could swoop in to make non-movie related Middle Earth miniatures and if GW wanted to branch out more they could find themselves fighting against the Tolkien Estate to do so.

GW could bend and twist the WHFB world to become whatever they needed it to be to sell what they think will sell (of course like dumbarses they just killed it ), they have rights to not only the miniatures but any other products that may come out of the world and they don't have to deal with the Tolkien Estate vs New Line/WB issue that comes with doing a LotR line.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/20 16:08:27


Post by: frozenwastes


Peregrine wrote:Honestly, I think LOTR never reached its full potential even with the movies to help it. I mean, where does this "LOTR won't be popular without the movies" assumption come from?


The nature of media in our society? How things come and go in fads? The lack of a major LOTR miniature game before the movies other than what Mithril Miniatures small range of stuff? That even during the height of D&D in the 80s into the 90s, Middle Earth Roleplay was never more than a third tier product? That the novels are written in a style that isn't very popular today and before the movies were (and now area again) largely only read by the most nerdy among us? The fact that the fantasy genre owes so much to LOTR that LOTR has largely become generic?

I'd say the odds of LOTR being popular without the movies is almost zero. And now that the movies have come and gone, LOTR themed stuff has faded back to its pre-movies levels of popularity. It's still around, of course, but now it's around like it was in 1999. Only the truly devoted really care about it.

It's very easy to imagine an alternate history, where GW never released WHFB/AoS, and their LOTR miniatures are dominating the market.


Had GW taken up the LOTR license in 1983 and came out with an LOTR game instead of WHFB, they would have had the same third tier success with he game in the 80s that Iron Crown Enterprises did with the license. And without the success of Warhammer, it's entirely possible that 4 years later Warhammer 40,000 would never be made and GW might not even exist today as another other than a tiny company in the UK.

I imagine many LOTR fans looked around in the early 2000s and were like "finally the rest of you see how great this is!" to the rest of society. But the truth is, the rest of us were simply impressed by a series of movies and shiny marketing and like every other media event, it ebbed in popularity to the point that it's now largely once again the domain of only the die hard fans.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/20 16:34:27


Post by: Lord Kragan


 frozenwastes wrote:
Peregrine wrote:Honestly, I think LOTR never reached its full potential even with the movies to help it. I mean, where does this "LOTR won't be popular without the movies" assumption come from?


The nature of media in our society? How things come and go in fads? The lack of a major LOTR miniature game before the movies other than what Mithril Miniatures small range of stuff? That even during the height of D&D in the 80s into the 90s, Middle Earth Roleplay was never more than a third tier product? That the novels are written in a style that isn't very popular today and before the movies were (and now area again) largely only read by the most nerdy among us? The fact that the fantasy genre owes so much to LOTR that LOTR has largely become generic?

I'd say the odds of LOTR being popular without the movies is almost zero. And now that the movies have come and gone, LOTR themed stuff has faded back to its pre-movies levels of popularity. It's still around, of course, but now it's around like it was in 1999. Only the truly devoted really care about it.

It's very easy to imagine an alternate history, where GW never released WHFB/AoS, and their LOTR miniatures are dominating the market.


Had GW taken up the LOTR license in 1983 and came out with an LOTR game instead of WHFB, they would have had the same third tier success with he game in the 80s that Iron Crown Enterprises did with the license. And without the success of Warhammer, it's entirely possible that 4 years later Warhammer 40,000 would never be made and GW might not even exist today as another other than a tiny company in the UK.

I imagine many LOTR fans looked around in the early 2000s and were like "finally the rest of you see how great this is!" to the rest of society. But the truth is, the rest of us were simply impressed by a series of movies and shiny marketing and like every other media event, it ebbed in popularity to the point that it's now largely once again the domain of only the die hard fans.


I'd say it's higher than it was before. They still pump games for LoTR not focused on the hobbit.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/20 17:05:01


Post by: frozenwastes


Lord Kragan wrote:
I'd say it's higher than it was before. They still pump games for LoTR not focused on the hobbit.


Yeah, there are still video games being made and whatnot. Ones with solid, but not amazing sales. Don't think an LOTR video game ever made it onto any best selling list though.

Had GW fought against the fading of the fad in the mid 2000s, they would have poured money into a declining product. Had they made LOTR instead of Warhammer, they might have missed out on the massively popular 40k product line.

In terms of the question "What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On?" the answer can't really be LOTR at this point. The video games based on the title aren't even breaking out in sales terms. They're doing fine and all.. GW would be far, far better off concentrating on their own worlds. Certainly better than putting money into promoting someone else's brand.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 04:50:06


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


frozenwastes wrote:I'd say the odds of LOTR being popular without the movies is almost zero. And now that the movies have come and gone, LOTR themed stuff has faded back to its pre-movies levels of popularity. It's still around, of course, but now it's around like it was in 1999. Only the truly devoted really care about it.
I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration. There's a bunch of people who barely knew about LotR before but are still in to it now thanks to the movies.... I know because I'm one of them

Warhammer Fantasy/40k are just another generic fantasy/sci-fi worlds, the reason Warhammer is so popular is largely thanks to how GW expanded their operations and introduced people to those worlds rather than because those worlds are actually tremendously appealing above and beyond other options. Through the LotR days 40k's popularity was probably helped by LotR, with people coming in because of LotR but getting drawn in to 40k as well.

Where GW lost their way was around the LotR boom where they seemed to think the world just so desperately wanted to buy anything labelled GW that they could do no wrong, when the movie hype wore off their profits dropped like a rock and they're just slowly coming to learn plastic doesn't just sell itself because it has a GW logo on the sprues. I'd suggest the weak start to AoS probably helped drive that message home.

frozenwastes wrote:Yeah, there are still video games being made and whatnot. Ones with solid, but not amazing sales. Don't think an LOTR video game ever made it onto any best selling list though.
Most of them haven't been that good and games that aren't good don't tend to sell well regardless of the label on them, Shadow of Mordor was decent and sold (according to VGChartz) 5.4 million copies on consoles, Steamspy estimates another 2.8 million copies on PC. That's not far behind The Witcher 3's Steam sales and frankly TW3 is classes above Shadow of Mordor in quality, so the LotR license is obviously doing something.

That's also higher rated on Steam than Space Marine the video game (which was also a pretty good game IMO) and Dawn of War 2.

Had GW fought against the fading of the fad in the mid 2000s, they would have poured money into a declining product.
Sometimes it's best to ride the popularity wave and then settle in to normalcy rather than letting the bubble burst and end up flat at the end.

Had they made LOTR instead of Warhammer, they might have missed out on the massively popular 40k product line.
Yeah I doubt that. It just wouldn't have been called "Warhammer 40k", or it might have been but there would have been no "Warhammer Fantasy".

Certainly better than putting money into promoting someone else's brand.
At the end of the day I think this is why GW are better off sticking to their own licenses. Not because LotR can't be hugely popular, but lack of control.

If GW thinks a race of Lizardmen with Mesoamerican traits is a cool idea, they can do that in Warhammer, they can't do it in LotR. The world can be manipulated to what GW wants to sell rather trying to extract things from an existing world.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 07:33:07


Post by: Lord Kragan


I think we kind of are heading into a rabbit hole so I'll limit myself to point out that the witcher III didn't have as much of an intense marketing campaign as shadows of mordor.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 07:56:26


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Lord Kragan wrote:
I think we kind of are heading into a rabbit hole so I'll limit myself to point out that the witcher III didn't have as much of an intense marketing campaign as shadows of mordor.
I don't really pay enough attention to mainstream marketing to subjectively gauge them, but TW3 apparently had $35M spent on marketing and I can't find any details of how much was spent on Shadow of Mordor.

But either way, a lot of things go in to the popularity of a video game, from the quality of that specific game, the pedigree of the games that came before it, the marketing campaign... and crossover licenses (outside of sports games for some bizarre reason) aren't necessarily going to be a goldmine, if anything I reckon they can be a trap for publishers more than original IP.

I was just pointing out on the topic of LotR video games not doing great, it's not really surprising when for the most part they haven't been all that good, and the one that comes to mind as having gotten pretty good but not exceptional reviews (Shadow of Mordor) has also sold, well, pretty good but not exceptional


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 08:38:38


Post by: Lord Kragan


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
I think we kind of are heading into a rabbit hole so I'll limit myself to point out that the witcher III didn't have as much of an intense marketing campaign as shadows of mordor.
I don't really pay enough attention to mainstream marketing to subjectively gauge them, but TW3 apparently had $35M spent on marketing and I can't find any details of how much was spent on Shadow of Mordor.

But either way, a lot of things go in to the popularity of a video game, from the quality of that specific game, the pedigree of the games that came before it, the marketing campaign... and crossover licenses (outside of sports games for some bizarre reason) aren't necessarily going to be a goldmine, if anything I reckon they can be a trap for publishers more than original IP.

I was just pointing out on the topic of LotR video games not doing great, it's not really surprising when for the most part they haven't been all that good, and the one that comes to mind as having gotten pretty good but not exceptional reviews (Shadow of Mordor) has also sold, well, pretty good but not exceptional


It went as far as bribing a ton of youtubers, go figure how much they spent on both regular and irregular channels.

Plus it's heavily inspired in Assassin's creed's mechanics (it even use assets from II), so it didn't just draw from one crowd.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 08:54:05


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Lord Kragan wrote:
It went as far as bribing a ton of youtubers, go figure how much they spent on both regular and irregular channels.
That doesn't say much. Bribing a bunch of youtubers who are working out of makeshift studios in their parents' basement is a cheap form of advertising and not remotely indicative of the total marketing budget.

I remember seeing a bit of mainstream advertising for TW3 and a bit of mainstream advertising for SoM, no idea which had more marketing overall though.

Plus it's heavily inspired in Assassin's creed's mechanics (it even use assets from II), so it didn't just draw from one crowd.
Admittedly I only played it for a little while but it didn't remind me a hell of a lot of Assassin's Creed. Either way that's a rather tangential and insignificant point to make (especially from someone who didn't want to go down the rabbit hole ), obviously when you make a game in a certain genre it's going to appeal to people of that genre. Space Marine wasn't just supposed to appeal to fans of Space Marines, it's going to appeal to 3rd person shooter fans, Dawn of War isn't just going to appeal to 40k fans but RTS fans, Total War: Warhammer isn't just going to appeal to Warhammer fans but also Total War fans, The Witcher 3 isn't just going to appeal to Sapkowski fans but also action-role-play fans.... it's kind of stating the obvious that a game with a license in a given genre is going to draw both from the license's fans and also the genre's fans minus any overlap


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 09:47:58


Post by: Lord Kragan


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
It went as far as bribing a ton of youtubers, go figure how much they spent on both regular and irregular channels.
That doesn't say much. Bribing a bunch of youtubers who are working out of makeshift studios in their parents' basement is a cheap form of advertising and not remotely indicative of the total marketing budget.


Yeah, me thinks here we have an understatement. But we are indeed derailing too much and all.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 10:04:49


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Lord Kragan wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
It went as far as bribing a ton of youtubers, go figure how much they spent on both regular and irregular channels.
That doesn't say much. Bribing a bunch of youtubers who are working out of makeshift studios in their parents' basement is a cheap form of advertising and not remotely indicative of the total marketing budget.


Yeah, me thinks here we have an understatement.
Obviously I was being a bit hyperbolic but the point remains In the context of a marketing campaign that costs 10's of millions of dollars (as I said, TW3 supposedly had an advertising budget of 35 million), bribing a few reviewers is cheap. I doubt they were bribed with anything significant, and even if they were, do you really think it's a significant chunk of advertising costs??

It's not like companies go "well geeze, we've spent soooo much on advertising, I guess this next 10 million should go towards bribes"

I haven't been able to find anything related to the advertising budget of Shadow of Mordor, you're the one who brought it up and your only support is that they tried to bribe some youtubers, but bribing youtubers is hardly indicative of a large marketing budget, if anything it's something you do when you can't afford a proper marketing campaign and are willing to take a gamble on bribes instead.

But we are indeed derailing too much and all.
That's not how this works, you don't raise a point then say "but we are derailing". If you fear we are excessively derailing in a discussion on the value of the LotR IP, simply stop replying and stop raising more points which continues to draw on the discussion


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 11:06:31


Post by: Mordian2016


I am not a big fan of the 40K board game releases. Its enough to learn 1 or 2 sets of rules, not 5 or 6

I wouldn't want to see 40k return to a skirmish game. A lot of the current players like the game because of the epicness of it, and those that still play from 2nd edition must most likely still like it (or they would have quit for other skirmish games). Give the board games/Necomunda/Mordheim to the skirmish fans and keep 40K big.

Having said that most of the delay I find playing 40k is not the number of models, but the poor layout of the rules and bloatedness of it.


So in summary focus on 40K and AoS, just streamline the rules of 40K



What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 11:37:30


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


For now, they just need to keep on doing what they're doing - just perhaps with less Limited Items.

For what seems like a long time, they only really did 40k and Warhammer at their standard scales and upwards.

But now, they're playing around with the size of games much more, from traditional dungeon crawls to gang scale warfare. That they're doing so on a relative shoe string (very few have 'only useful in this game' pieces, which means expansion is done through the main range) is intriguing.

On the one hand, it's just good business sense. Take Quest. Rules for a plethora of additional characters are available, all using the models they already make for AoS. So that keeps the development costs down - which is sound practice even if the game is an absolute sales winner.

On the other hand, it's arguably restrictive, or been done a wee bit half arsed. To stick with Quest - sure I can pick up any character model and go get them horribly murdered in a dungeon - but what about the gribblies to go and do the murdering? So far we're stuck with what's in the boxes, plus the odd 'exotic adversary' stuck in WD or in the back of the books. It can't be too much development work (and therefore cost) to blow the Critter List wide open, surely? At the very bare minimum, just whack the rules on the instructions and online. You give us ability and opportunity - and of course temptation. And the more we can theme a dungeon (even just using the floor plans available) the more we're likely to buy - and the more we're likely to buy, the greater the chance a collection of Nasty Gribblers can be formed into an army, probably with just a couple of centre piece purchases.

Long live the revolution, I say. The greater the variety of games, the wider the audience you appeal to.

And here's my current Watchlist.

1. Shadespire. Very, very interesting. Card based and expandable, with the competitive spirit in mind. I think that's an outright first for GW, so I'm intrigued to see how it goes (early impressions from those who've played it seem quite enthusiastic)

2. Quest. Yes I love my Quest! Hammerhal was a pleasant surprised, but still work to do here. Bestiary would be warmly welcomed, as would dungeon expansion packs. The core rules are pretty solid for me.

3. Shadow War. The name layout suggests Armageddon is the first of a variety of settings. To truly compete with Necromunda, they need to give me more Post Battle fun. It's one thing to kill an enemy trooper, but quite another to see the poor goon running around still missing his arm after Mental Dave, your combat specialist chopped it off.

4. Adeptus Titanicus. It was my first proper GW game, even if we didn't really understand it (I was 10, ok!) so it has a special place in my heart. And any return to Epic is most welcome.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 15:00:35


Post by: frozenwastes


Mordian2016 wrote:I wouldn't want to see 40k return to a skirmish game. A lot of the current players like the game because of the epicness of it, and those that still play from 2nd edition must most likely still like it (or they would have quit for other skirmish games). Give the board games/Necomunda/Mordheim to the skirmish fans and keep 40K big.


I think a separate Necromunda/Mordheim game is not a great idea compared to having the 40k rules support both the smaller games and larger games like AoS does. There are all sorts of giant characters and monsters in AoS and people manage to play very small games and enjoy them. There are even transport vehicles in AoS now.



What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 17:31:23


Post by: Galas


Well, Necromunda and Mordheim are much more that just Warhammer and Warhammer40k litte.

The campaing system, skirmish system with individual models representing individual units, etc, etc... you can't have a good Skirmish-Campaing game and a Good mass battles game.

Its just imposible.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 18:09:55


Post by: frozenwastes


Compare Necromunda to 2nd edition 40k. All the campaign stuff, figuring out how models are wounded and what happens after the game is all just bolted onto an edition of 40k.

Now take new40k and do the same thing. Shadow War Armageddon but where the core resolution system is new40k rather than 2nd edition.

Not impossible at all.

And just put it and the stats for all the start collecting boxes and any new starter set contents right in the new core rulebook. Or Warmaster's Handbook or whatever they call it. So anyone starting out can just take stuff from their start collecting box and get playing a skirmish game and as they expand their collection, the full 40k game uses the same core resolution mechancs, turn structure, etc., with the only real difference being the larger variety of models you can take and you start activating units instead of individual models.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 18:12:47


Post by: HunterEste


I'd really appreciate if they would make their own version of the FFG RPG systems (Dark Heresy, Only War, Death Watch, etc etc). Those were really fun systems and it was sad to see them discontinued the way they were. You cannot get the core rulebook anymore for under $200+ (originally was a $50 book....).


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 18:21:41


Post by: Galas


 frozenwastes wrote:
Compare Necromunda to 2nd edition 40k. All the campaign stuff, figuring out how models are wounded and what happens after the game is all just bolted onto an edition of 40k.

Now take new40k and do the same thing. Shadow War Armageddon but where the core resolution system is new40k rather than 2nd edition.

Not impossible at all.

And just put it and the stats for all the start collecting boxes and any new starter set contents right in the new core rulebook. Or Warmaster's Handbook or whatever they call it. So anyone starting out can just take stuff from their start collecting box and get playing a skirmish game and as they expand their collection, the full 40k game uses the same core resolution mechancs, turn structure, etc., with the only real difference being the larger variety of models you can take and you start activating units instead of individual models.


And you can't play a game of 2nd 40k edition with more than 80 models and Wraitknights and Titans and Knights if you don't want to die before ending it.

Mass scale battles games need a more straitforward rules. They don't need to be Epic-level but you can't have the level of detail that you need to have in a Skirmish game to made the game interesting. Just look at Killteam. It really failed as a good Skirmish game because it was basically W40K litte.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 18:53:54


Post by: frozenwastes


 Galas wrote:


And you can't play a game of 2nd 40k edition with more than 80 models and Wraitknights and Titans and Knights if you don't want to die before ending it.

Mass scale battles games need a more straitforward rules. They don't need to be Epic-level but you can't have the level of detail that you need to have in a Skirmish game to made the game interesting. Just look at Killteam. It really failed as a good Skirmish game because it was basically W40K litte.


The rules that differentiate things more in Necromunda/SWA are just bolted on. What happens after the save is failed? It's just a substitute procedure. Killteam was missing it, SWA is not. So new40k Skirmish needs it. As well as all the other little bolt on elements. When it comes time to play a larger game, you just don't use those. You don't roll to see what happens after a model goes down, it just gets removed. You don't roll at the end of the game to see the fate of the downed models. You attack units with units rather than individual models with models. The skirmish game also needs some rules to get back into battle. And most importantly of all, scenarios and some pre-game and post game decision making to make a simple campaign system. They already have proven versions of these mechanics and nothing about them is married to the edition of 40k or fantasy that made up the base game. They can be easily applied to a new version.

Kill team just didn't add enough of the stuff that made Necro/SWA and Mordheim work. There's nothing preventing that from being done in a future product though. Hopefully the massive popularity of SWA compared to Kill Team will clue in GW's design team a bit and they'll make a new40k version a priority. It's probably too late for it to get into the new40k rulebook, but it might be a great candidate for a chapter in a follow up Warmaster's Handbook. Or as a pamplet they put into the start collecting boxes and as a pdf.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 19:26:02


Post by: Galas


Well, I differ here. To me a good skirmish ruleset should had a deep rules for ingame actions to individual models. Supression fire, KO, jumping, taking cover, "overwatch", hiding, and a great personalization for individuals.

A good Great Battle games where you have squads and dozens of models, tanks, robots, flyers, and giant beast, you can't have all of that because the game just slow downs to the infinite.

Is not only that the difference between Skirmish and Big Battle games is about the pre and post battle phase.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 19:45:09


Post by: frozenwastes


I don't think it needs to be your idea of a good skirmish game. I think that goes too far and I don' think a 40k core rulebook would go full on skirmish. It still needs to transition players to the full size game. So they might want more rules than Kill Team, but not quite as many extra rules as Necro/SWA.

I also think the over personalization and all sorts of random equipment that doesn't exist in the full game is also a bad idea. Making a model for a smaller skirmish game shouldn't end up making it not be viable in a normal army sized game. LIke you probably shouldn't be able to give a guy a plasma bolter combo and then the squad entry in the army game doesn't have the plasma option. That sort of thing. Limit things to the normal game entry for options. Or even the model kits.

Basically I'm thinking not a deep skirmish game, but a skirmish game aimed at new players. More individual model specific rules than kill team, but not necessarily a full on Mordheim or Infinity type game. It's also probably not a good idea to start off asking new players to customize miniatures and convert models and do weapon swaps and green stuff work and all that. And it should probably start off aiming at the contents of the start collecting boxes.

Take the 4 page AOS rules. Take the parts of necromunda/SWA that deal with individual models and with what happens after models drop and then have the rules for the start collecting boxes that spell out how they work as individuals as notes on the dataslates for the full size game. 4 page rules + 2-4 page skirmish changes + data slate notes.

It's entirely possible though that the AoS approach is already good enough for smaller games and transitioning players to larger games and that once new40k is more like AoS, the demand for something like Shadow War Armageddon will transfer to new40k.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/04/21 20:02:57


Post by: Sentinel1


1) Have continued dedicated support for the many ways to play the game. Kill Team is a big one, next step combat patrol-1000pts, 1001 - upwards games etc.

2) Keep up the board games if anything for good bundles with that added special character etc

3) Expand Age of Sigmar. Not necessarily by pumping out more Sigmar Marines or Blood-Khorne-Mc-Bloodface's but with fluff that fills in the gaps and makes it seem realistic and less vague. Change the policy on battlefield scenery too. Make it worth fighting over rather than that ruin or realmgate in the dead wasteland left by Chaos. It needs some ordinary free-peoples guys to balance the drab setting and hyped up goodies and baddies.

4) Keep testing the water with specialist games for variety.

I could go on, but these points are to me the most important.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/13 02:04:02


Post by: BuFFo


40k.

AoS

Shadow War / Necromunda

Battlefleet Gothic

Epic


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/16 15:15:32


Post by: TheAuldGrump


I think that focusing on two, then one, game was part of what was causing GW to fail.

They need to broaden, rather than focus, their offerings. (Which, to be fair, the new CEO seems to be making some real headway on.)

How long is Rountree going to be the 'new' CEO, anyway?

The Auld Grump


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/17 16:14:44


Post by: supreme overlord


well, after playing a few matches of Shadow War I can honestly say GW knocked it out of the park with this release. That being said, I'd love to see a little more support including more in-depth rules (separate itself from how 40k plays completely) a re-release of the old gangs would be awesome and maybe multiple campaign supplements. Overall our group is really enjoying it though.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/17 16:38:01


Post by: Lord Kragan


 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I think that focusing on two, then one, game was part of what was causing GW to fail.

They need to broaden, rather than focus, their offerings. (Which, to be fair, the new CEO seems to be making some real headway on.)

How long is Rountree going to be the 'new' CEO, anyway?

The Auld Grump


I'm honestly considering him just the CEO by now. And they already do focus, if not as much, in more than 2 games: AOS 40k and Bloodbowl. Talisman is coming back this year and there's the additional specialist games that are still in progress. They are expanding alright.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/17 17:48:21


Post by: Easy E


I want 4 tiers of games in both fantasy and sci-fi.

Tier 1- 1:1 skirmish campaign gamesuch as Shadow War: Armageddon

Tier 2- Platoon Plus wargame where the main unit is a squad.

Tier 3- Army/Company scale Games- Big units fighting big battles.

Tier 4- Support games that focus on supporting warfare elements in the game world. I.e. BFG for sci-fi and Man O' War for fantasy Naval.

That way, I would never need to leave the worlds creted by GW to get a gaming fix. Everything a gamer could want would be catered to.

They had it.... and then squandered it. It may be too late to get it back.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/18 23:49:46


Post by: Azazelx


 TheAuldGrump wrote:

How long is Rountree going to be the 'new' CEO, anyway?


Until the taste of Kirby (and Bligh) is gone from our collective?


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/22 16:50:36


Post by: Strg Alt


Imperial Knights Renegade Rebooted[u]

I would like to see a game system in which you control only superheavy units like Stompas, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, etc. All these units come with hit locations for front, side and rear. Each hit location has a number of structure or hit points which are crossed off when the particular area is damaged like it is done in Battletech. It could be a terrific wargame. This would give me the necessary incentive to start building & painting my Imperial Knights. Just using these units in regular 40K is in my opinion just not appropriate.
I am well aware that GW already sold this kind of a game but it was very lacklustre. It had only a front hit location for the units involved and it´s sole purpose was to push sales for the Imperial Knights. GW, you can do better than that.


Other game lines that should be focused on:
- 40K

- Space Hulk & Deathwatch Overkill:
New scenarios & characters presented regularly in White Dwarf magazine would be highly appreciated.

- Necromunda:
This skirmish game should include lowlifes with high-tech (e.g.: hive gangers). SWA is severely lacking in this regard.

- Battlefleet Gothic

- Epic (Adeptus Titanicus)

- Blood Bowl:
Where are the team booster packs? I want to collect 16 team members and not just 12.


Game lines that should be neglected:
- AOS


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/22 18:25:04


Post by: ProtoClone


I think they are doing the right thing by focusing on their image and updating it.

The two main games should be their focus, that being 40k and AoS. Right now I feel like 40k got some major working and should be left to cool a bit before they start working it again.
Aos needs some guidance through some choppy waters. As of right now, IMHO, AoS feels fleeting at best.

Large/smaller scale versions of these games should be peripheral to the main games.

RPGs should still be kept to third party developers.

Specialist games should be left to FW to handle.



What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/22 19:32:59


Post by: Lanrak


Last time I looked GW just had minature lines with a few rules scribbled down ad hoc as they go along.(in the last few years at least.)


So if they actually wanted well defined game range with properly defined and developed rules with a clear game play and scale at the start.
It would make a refreshing change to the current publications .


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 08:44:11


Post by: smaxx


Moneywise : Space Marines, and occationally some opponents for them.

Personally I like GW washes. Their games - except LotR - are useless junk. Some AoS models are nice, but as theres no game behind that interests me the washes are all I'm buying. So : more washes is my suggestion !


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 09:05:21


Post by: Spiky Norman


smaxx wrote:
Moneywise : Space Marines, and occationally some opponents for them.

Personally I like GW washes. Their games - except LotR - are useless junk. Some AoS models are nice, but as theres no game behind that interests me the washes are all I'm buying. So : more washes is my suggestion !

3 posts total. All anti-GW.
Are you sure you're new here? :-)


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 10:32:46


Post by: -Loki-


Spiky Norman wrote:
smaxx wrote:
Moneywise : Space Marines, and occationally some opponents for them.

Personally I like GW washes. Their games - except LotR - are useless junk. Some AoS models are nice, but as theres no game behind that interests me the washes are all I'm buying. So : more washes is my suggestion !

3 posts total. All anti-GW.
Are you sure you're new here? :-)


Not everyone joins this site right when they begin their hobby journey.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 11:51:44


Post by: Mangod


I've actually gotten to wondering, since reading the earlier posts by Peregrine, OrlandotheTechnicoloured, Stormonu, ph34r, and frozenwastes:

would GW be better served by dropping AoS, and focusing the resources from that on 40k instead? I have no proof either way, but I wonder if they'd be making more money if they didn't have to split studio time and resources between two different product lines, instead of putting all their support behind one and pushing that.

Like... I love Warmachine/Hordes, but I suspect that if PP released a sci-fi wargame on the same scale as their steampunk fantasy, it'd harm the latter more than they'd profit from the former.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 15:32:41


Post by: TheAuldGrump


Spiky Norman wrote:
smaxx wrote:
Moneywise : Space Marines, and occationally some opponents for them.

Personally I like GW washes. Their games - except LotR - are useless junk. Some AoS models are nice, but as theres no game behind that interests me the washes are all I'm buying. So : more washes is my suggestion !

3 posts total. All anti-GW.
Are you sure you're new here? :-)
Hey, I'm pretty sure that my first three posts here were anti-GW. (This was during a period where GW seemed to be doing their damnedest to lose what audience they had left. Right now, GW... seems to be trying to turn things around, so I am not nearly as vocal about how much GW sucks these days - they aren't suing third parties, they aren't shutting down charity books on Amazon, and, while they currently don't have much I am interested in, at least they are seeking customer feedback, rather than boasting that they do not.)

The Auld Grump - it helped that I had already switched to Kings of War before Age of Sigmar came out....


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 16:34:02


Post by: hobojebus


Dropping prices because seriously what parent is buying their kid a starter at £95.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 17:01:08


Post by: frozenwastes


 Mangod wrote:
I've actually gotten to wondering, since reading the earlier posts by Peregrine, OrlandotheTechnicoloured, Stormonu, ph34r, and frozenwastes:

would GW be better served by dropping AoS, and focusing the resources from that on 40k instead? I have no proof either way, but I wonder if they'd be making more money if they didn't have to split studio time and resources between two different product lines, instead of putting all their support behind one and pushing that.

Like... I love Warmachine/Hordes, but I suspect that if PP released a sci-fi wargame on the same scale as their steampunk fantasy, it'd harm the latter more than they'd profit from the former.


I think there's something​ about the life cycle of a customer where interest in a game can wane so it's a good idea to have another game to sell them. For example, I think a lot of AoS players right now started because of boredom with 7h edition 40k. So AoS (post GHB) probably kept GW some customers they might have lost had 40k been all there is. Genres also go in trends and there will be years when fantasy is on the up swing.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 17:42:57


Post by: smaxx


Spiky Norman wrote:

3 posts total. All anti-GW.
Are you sure you're new here? :-)

Sorry... Yeah, got hit hard by AoS and won't buy anything else than washes from that company any more.

But, on a more positive note, the new Bloodbowl looked like a great release that probably sells well if continued to be supported.
Also Hobbit has got some nice, though ridiculously priced models. AoS looks like doing better nowadays after initial negativity and is probably worth keeping as an alternative for 40k players. Because as said, it's good to have some variety in offering.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 17:51:04


Post by: Lord Kragan


Yeah. While having a ton of games isn't good because you will half-ass their support, putting all your eggs in one basket isn't really a wise decision. Personally, I think they should either a) Kick up a notch on bloodbowl's support or b) Make another game from newcloth as a mainstay. 3 in my opinion is the magic number.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 17:52:57


Post by: KommissarKiln


Once 8e 40k drops, I'd be rather pleased if GW focused a little more of their attention into Blood Bowl. There are already a decent number of rebooted teams, Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Skaven, and Gobbos, but with well over a dozen others, it'd be nice if newcomers to the game felt like they had more options without buying super old models or doing heavy conversion work.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 19:04:13


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 frozenwastes wrote:
 Mangod wrote:
I've actually gotten to wondering, since reading the earlier posts by Peregrine, OrlandotheTechnicoloured, Stormonu, ph34r, and frozenwastes:

would GW be better served by dropping AoS, and focusing the resources from that on 40k instead? I have no proof either way, but I wonder if they'd be making more money if they didn't have to split studio time and resources between two different product lines, instead of putting all their support behind one and pushing that.

Like... I love Warmachine/Hordes, but I suspect that if PP released a sci-fi wargame on the same scale as their steampunk fantasy, it'd harm the latter more than they'd profit from the former.


I think there's something​ about the life cycle of a customer where interest in a game can wane so it's a good idea to have another game to sell them. For example, I think a lot of AoS players right now started because of boredom with 7h edition 40k. So AoS (post GHB) probably kept GW some customers they might have lost had 40k been all there is. Genres also go in trends and there will be years when fantasy is on the up swing.
I would not be surprised if GW lost more WHFB players from the roll out of AoS than WH40K players that they held onto. *EDIT* Let us say, going from local observation only, that they lost 3 WHFB fans for every two WH40K fans that switched to AoS rather than leaving GW entirely. Not pretending that these are realistic numbers, just clarifying what I was trying to say. And this does not count the folks that just switched to AoS from WHFB.

But that WHFB 8 had already done enough damage that those same WHFB fans that they had lost were already not playing the newest version of the game, and were just holding onto their older armies, in the hopes that WHFB 9 would be better.

Instead, GW went haring off in a completely different direction with AoS, and so those players gave up on WH, and rather noisily.

From what I could see, this had been a continuing process, with the major competitor for each new edition of Warhammer being the previous editions of the same game.

But that those same fans that were still playing the previous editions were also hoping that Warhammer would recover, and come out with a well tested and balanced edition.

Instead... AoS - which had the same effect on the Warhammer community that D&D 4e had on the D&D community.

The Auld Grump - I honestly think that GW would have profited more by marketing AoS as a separate, but miniatures compatible, game from WHFB.

*EDIT* To clarify, again, I had already made the switch to Kings of War when WHFB 8 came out - but the number of local folks that were interested in KoW started climbing when 8 rolled out, then skyrocketed when AoS came out. It just does not scratch the same itch. Some folks, myself included, like having a rank and file fantasy battle - be it Warhammer, Battle System, or Kings of War. AoS may be a fine game, but it is also a game that I have zero interest in playing again - I tried it with the first free version, and loathed it. I has gotten better, I gather, but that initial exposure was not something that made me at all interested, at least in any positive fashion.

By the same token, I do think that Forge World could regain some of those lost WH players by releasing a Heritage Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/28 23:49:50


Post by: frozenwastes


 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I honestly think that GW would have profited more by marketing AoS as a separate, but miniatures compatible, game from WHFB.


I don't. I don't think very many people were actually buying WHFB stuff during the end of 8th. Like way less than what GW needed to keep it going.

The only real thing wrong with AoS is how they launched it. The damage was already done by 7th and 8th.

And they seem to be avoiding every pitfall they fell into with AoS with the new version of 40k. Had they

a) advanced the timeline without definitely destroying the world (making the age of the empire a historical epoch that just concluded)
b) came out with serious army books for each of the grand allainces at launch
c) had the three ways to play and points nailed down at launch

AoS would have been a great move. New 40k is basically AoS modified for the sci-fantasy setting and then launched properly.

AoS likely has more players than 8th edition WHFB but still less than 7th (only real source are icv2 numbers) so it's definitely a move in the right direction for GW, but that probably has more to do with their recovery with the General's Handbook than the launch.

Some folks, myself included, like having a rank and file fantasy battle


I think this is a dying market fractured among many different games. It's cool and I'm glad people have games they enjoy, but I think GW was smart to get out of it. It peaked in late 6th edition in terms of people playing those kinds of fantasy games and it is largely better served by historical rules anyway.

By the same token, I do think that Forge World could regain some of those lost WH players by releasing a Heritage Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle.


I totally agree. That is exactly how GW should continue games set in the Old World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JzGcnSTe6s&t=1m29s


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 00:41:23


Post by: Baron Klatz


I agree with most of that except:

A) I preferred that they moved the setting on to a new one instead of just making an "Aold Wyrld" where they corrupt the old setting for copyright and stuff more and more things into it that purists don't want.

Better they gave it a ending and moved on like they did, IMO.

I can also make a new Bretonnia in AoS as any number of hidden or lost kingdoms but if it got killed off in the Old World then it's gone for good.

B) FW could pick up the Old World but with the expense of rank and file models and how generic many Old World soldiers are I don't see them making much of a profit to justify it.

As for dropping AoS? Absolutely not.

That'd be like Nintendo dropping everything but Mario or Blizzard just having Warcraft.

The loss of customers who enjoyed the variety and the reduction of the "net" being cast out for new customers would do far more harm than good.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 00:53:35


Post by: Korinov


FW picking up the Old World setting would be hilarious considering how many models are needed to play a rank&file game and how much FW models tend to cost.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 01:05:32


Post by: Baron Klatz


Indeed, unless they make every soldier a work of art (easier to do with skirmish) it's hard to see people not using not-Warhammer models instead.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 04:31:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Lord Kragan wrote:
Personally, I think they should either a) Kick up a notch on bloodbowl's support or b) Make another game from newcloth as a mainstay. 3 in my opinion is the magic number.


If reports out of Warhammerfest are correct, that is exactly what's happening. BB proved so popular that they're hiring more people for plastics production, and doing more plastics. That sounds like more support to me.

As far as new games are concerned, Adeptus Titanicus is coming after being delayed because* of the great feedback it got (so they went to make it better). People are lapping up the specialist game stuff, and as long as they stop doing idiotic things like making Shadow War a limited release, they should only grow their business with these sorts of things.



*I imagine that a lot of current FW delays are also because of the bad news with Alan Bligh, so the above is probably not the only reason for the delay.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 07:14:28


Post by: Dysartes


 Azazelx wrote:
 TheAuldGrump wrote:

How long is Rountree going to be the 'new' CEO, anyway?


Until the taste of Kirby (and Bligh) is gone from our collective?


Did you really mean Bligh there, Azazelx, or were you thinking Merrett?


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 07:40:43


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 Strg Alt wrote:
Imperial Knights Renegade Rebooted[u]

I would like to see a game system in which you control only superheavy units like Stompas, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, etc. All these units come with hit locations for front, side and rear. Each hit location has a number of structure or hit points which are crossed off when the particular area is damaged like it is done in Battletech. It could be a terrific wargame. This would give me the necessary incentive to start building & painting my Imperial Knights. Just using these units in regular 40K is in my opinion just not appropriate.
I am well aware that GW already sold this kind of a game but it was very lacklustre. It had only a front hit location for the units involved and it´s sole purpose was to push sales for the Imperial Knights. GW, you can do better than that.



And this is to be played on a 6x4? It's what Epic is for


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/29 08:01:56


Post by: Hollow


I think GW really needs to ramp up time, effort and energy regarding specialists games. I'd really like this to be the "4th section" of GW, There are just so many things they could do with the worlds they have.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/30 19:25:44


Post by: MagicJuggler


Bring back Mordheim. There, I said it.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/31 11:12:56


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


I don't think GW should be doubling down and hyper-focusing on just two core lines (40K and AOS). They tried that for a decade, and it simply didn't work and saw an explosion in competition with new competitors embracing the niche genres and gamers that GW ignored (Mordheim/Necromunda, Battlefleet Gothic, Epic/Warmaster, mass battle Fantasy/Kings of War, Bloodbowl etc).

They ought to be diversifying their ranges and re-engaging with those niches and communities, but keeping 40K as a strong backbone.

That means retaining The Hobbit SBG as a specialist Forgeworld line (it has a thriving if modest community with a very active tournament circuit), Bloodbowl, bringing back Necromunda and Mordheim, bringing back the Epic/Warmaster scale games.

All of which GW is doing in some form or another.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/31 17:14:16


Post by: Strg Alt


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
Imperial Knights Renegade Rebooted[u]

I would like to see a game system in which you control only superheavy units like Stompas, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, etc. All these units come with hit locations for front, side and rear. Each hit location has a number of structure or hit points which are crossed off when the particular area is damaged like it is done in Battletech. It could be a terrific wargame. This would give me the necessary incentive to start building & painting my Imperial Knights. Just using these units in regular 40K is in my opinion just not appropriate.
I am well aware that GW already sold this kind of a game but it was very lacklustre. It had only a front hit location for the units involved and it´s sole purpose was to push sales for the Imperial Knights. GW, you can do better than that.



And this is to be played on a 6x4? It's what Epic is for


I played Epic aka "Space Marine" myself in the nineties. In Epic you control a few Titans and a couple of infantry, bike or tank companies whereas in my proposed version of Imperial Knights: Renegade you just control a few superheavy units (1 to 5 models) like Imperial Knights or Baneblades. See the difference?

Table size would be the least of our problems. If your battlefield is small just do a 1 model vs. 1 model battle.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/05/31 22:34:02


Post by: Stormonu


I agree that GW focusing on only one game line (like 40K) would be a huge mistake. Putting your eggs in one basket rarely turns out well - just ask Radio Shack and Blockbuster, for example.

Thing is, even with their specialist line, they are still relying on past glories. They risk rendering themselves obsolete if they don't push outward and try brand new things once in a while - maybe they could have fun with a Wild West world, for example - instead of setting it in 40K or the Old World/nuRealms.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/02 02:44:18


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


 supreme overlord wrote:
I would LOVE to see BFG re-released and a 3 part campaign incorporating 40k, shadow war, and BFG where you fight for resources, strategic assets, and planets.


We did that years ago, Space Fleet for approaching the planet, epic for the initial landings, 40k when it got small enough then necromunda for the little guerilla wars that would pop up. It was most fantastic.


I would LOVE to see epic back with real support same with Adeptus Titanicus ( god I can't wait for that to come out). If AT takes off ( and i'm sure it will) maybe they will do epic in 8mm scale ( it would suck for all of those who had the old epic scales but then they could just play with the new rules with the old models...win win win).


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/02 15:49:29


Post by: rmeister0


I am really getting tired of the drop AoS meme. They won't and they shoudn't. And if you really like 40k as a complex game, you don't want it to go away either.

AoS is a good alternative for people who look at the rule book and codex books for 40k and feel their eyes bleed.

AoS is simply aimed at a different crowd, and has great tie in opportunities with Skirmish and Quest. The more ways I can use their models, the more likely I am to buy them.

I don't want 40k to go away just because I don't play it.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/02 17:42:55


Post by: Iron_Captain


They should screw back support for AoS and instead focus on renewing the LotR range. LotR has always had the best ruleset of any GW game, and it has a huge, very well known IP that is much more popular than either AoS or 40k can ever hope to be. LotR has massive potential if GW handles it right (hint: not like they handled the Hobbit stuff, that was just sad)
They should still support AoS, and focus it on the more supernatural side of fantasy (wizards and magic creatures and such) so that it does not compete so much with LotR.
40k should of course remain GW's main line. They might want to make more board games for it, I think those sell well. They should also be really keen on further expanding 40k beyond miniatures.
Apart from that, I do not think they should overextend. Besides these three major lines and FW with the Heresy line, they should maybe do two or three smaller specialist games. For popular ones, I think Blood Bowl, Epic and either Mordheim or Battlefleet Gothic.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/02 23:54:28


Post by: Baron Klatz


The problem with LotR is they're shackled on the miniature content besides what the owners allow them to make.

AoS let's GW make anything they want and expand in any direction with the setting.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/03 05:16:01


Post by: -Loki-


Baron Klatz wrote:
The problem with LotR is they're shackled on the miniature content besides what the owners allow them to make.

AoS let's GW make anything they want and expand in any direction with the setting.


And with that freedom they made Warhammer Fantasy Space Marines and Big Orcs.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/03 06:59:00


Post by: Baron Klatz


Along with many other things like fire dwarfs on dragons that use rune steroids and tree-elf spirit hybrids lead by a nature goddess on top a war beetle which is only the tip of the iceburg in the waves of new model releases they'll do down the decades.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/03 14:30:48


Post by: Lord Kragan


 -Loki- wrote:
Baron Klatz wrote:
The problem with LotR is they're shackled on the miniature content besides what the owners allow them to make.

AoS let's GW make anything they want and expand in any direction with the setting.


And with that freedom they made Warhammer Fantasy Space Marines and Big Orcs.


And sylvaneth and Kharadron overlords and the disciples of tzeentch. And deep one elves.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/03 15:01:17


Post by: Iron_Captain


Baron Klatz wrote:
The problem with LotR is they're shackled on the miniature content besides what the owners allow them to make.

AoS let's GW make anything they want and expand in any direction with the setting.

That is not really a problem if said content is as popular as LotR. It is so popular in fact, that most stuff in AoS is directly derived from things in LotR. Same with all other fantasy.

But it is why I would like to see GW focus on more supernatural content for AoS, rather than orcs, elves and dwarves etc.


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/03 17:14:29


Post by: Baron Klatz


Well they're really the evolutions of the races of Wfb that were heavily derived from LotR. It helps to show the connections of the the old setting to the current one and makes a good transition for fans who want something familiar but also new.

No telling what GW's future releases will entail but the mortal realms are being explored again and this time Sigmar's pantheon is scattered and chaos has corrupted the lands before being driven back. Who knows what'll appear in time?


What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 07:38:40


Post by: ChazSexington


  • Re-release Mordheim and Necromunda (and re-work Shadow Wars to a balanced system).

  • Cease their limited runs and cut down severely on board games. They should stick to Silver Tower/Warhammer Quest and a few others.

  • Bring back bitz services and sell single sprues.

  • Less focus on the Space Marines model line - before bringing out more Space Marines, replace models that are more than a decade old. I get they're the poster boys and sell the most, but that's also partially because they actually have more models than the rest combined


  • As FW is a GW subsidiary, I'd say they need to bring out Prime Orks/the Beast/Urlakk Urg. Ork lists for 30k, with a view to go into the Scouring.

     Rayvon wrote:
    More rank and file stuff, less big fancy models with lots of swirly crap on them.


    This as well.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 09:08:35


    Post by: FrozenDwarf


    idc what they fokus on aslong as they finish something BEFORE they begin on something new.

    AoS is a bigg mess as all fokus is on making brand new armies instead of supporting and boosting the old that allready exists.

    they should have hold off aos release untill every single subfaction got their own new codex whit a ton of models.
    it that means it would be delayed by 4-6 years and their warehouses overflowing whit models then so be it.



    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 12:41:07


    Post by: Azazelx




    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 15:12:09


    Post by: Glasdir


    approach another company with a popular fantasy/sci-fi IP and offer to make a game for them
    a game based on a blizzard/bethesda IP for example would have the potential to attract a lot of customers from that IP, I personally would sell my soul for an elder scrolls miniature game.

    as for what they currently offer some more HH plastics would not go amiss, some jump pack assault squads and breachers as well as a damocles rhino would be nice to see. to echo what others have said cutting down to no limited release minis or boxed sets would be great, I would have loved a copy of SW:armageddon but GW really dropped the ball on that one. and the return of BFG would be nice to see as well as I think that the best of the boxed/specialist games are the ones that use their own rules such as space hulk and blood bowl, silver tower was okay but it could have been a lot better had it not used AoS' rules as a base.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 15:27:30


    Post by: Lord Kragan


     Glasdir wrote:
    approach another company with a popular fantasy/sci-fi IP and offer to make a game for them
    a game based on a blizzard/bethesda IP for example would have the potential to attract a lot of customers from that IP, I personally would sell my soul for an elder scrolls miniature game.

    as for what they currently offer some more HH plastics would not go amiss, some jump pack assault squads and breachers as well as a damocles rhino would be nice to see. to echo what others have said cutting down to no limited release minis or boxed sets would be great, I would have loved a copy of SW:armageddon but GW really dropped the ball on that one. and the return of BFG would be nice to see as well as I think that the best of the boxed/specialist games are the ones that use their own rules such as space hulk and blood bowl, silver tower was okay but it could have been a lot better had it not used AoS' rules as a base.


    Silver tower didn't use any of AoS' rules.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 16:07:40


    Post by: Glasdir


    Lord Kragan wrote:
    Silver tower didn't use any of AoS' rules.

    except that the hero cards bear more than a slight resemblance to the warscrolls used in AoS. fixed hit and damage were direct ports from AoS.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 16:38:36


    Post by: Lord Kragan


     Glasdir wrote:
    Lord Kragan wrote:
    Silver tower didn't use any of AoS' rules.

    except that the hero cards bear more than a slight resemblance to the warscrolls used in AoS. fixed hit and damage were direct ports from AoS.


    ...And you call that using the rules as a base? A ton of games use variable damage to begin with, old WHFB had it too, just for starters.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/13 22:25:30


    Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


     Glasdir wrote:
    approach another company with a popular fantasy/sci-fi IP and offer to make a game for them
    a game based on a blizzard/bethesda IP for example would have the potential to attract a lot of customers from that IP, I personally would sell my soul for an elder scrolls miniature game.

    as for what they currently offer some more HH plastics would not go amiss, some jump pack assault squads and breachers as well as a damocles rhino would be nice to see. to echo what others have said cutting down to no limited release minis or boxed sets would be great, I would have loved a copy of SW:armageddon but GW really dropped the ball on that one. and the return of BFG would be nice to see as well as I think that the best of the boxed/specialist games are the ones that use their own rules such as space hulk and blood bowl, silver tower was okay but it could have been a lot better had it not used AoS' rules as a base.


    Elder Scrolls. Elder fething Scrolls. I would love a licensed Elder Scrolls game of the same quality as the LOTR/Hobbit SBG range.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/14 16:11:34


    Post by: Glasdir


     Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
    Elder Scrolls. Elder fething Scrolls. I would love a licensed Elder Scrolls game of the same quality as the LOTR/Hobbit SBG range.

    that or something along the lines of classic warhammer quest would be amazing, although I would give up literally every other hobby I spend money on just to buy some elder scrolls minis. You hearing this GW???


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/14 18:34:22


    Post by: Aetare


    I would love some more support for LotR, especially in the same vein as WotR was, although I would also love to see a resurgence for BFG.


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/15 01:59:34


    Post by: Hollow


    I'd really like to see a fully supported return of BFG. Plastic minis , etc. I'm surprised it isn't on the agenda considering the popularity of other space-ship based games. *cough*Star Wars*cough*


    What Game Lines Do You Think GW Should Focus On? @ 2017/06/15 11:19:42


    Post by: Herzlos


    GW is the big player here, they should be able to bang out a release for each of the big 3 systems + a specialist game every month without breaking stride.