First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.
And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.
And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.
And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.
I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.
BUT, and it's a big but...
These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?
Honestly I believe people buy these games off nostalgia (the older gamers) and the young gamers just because he heard the 40 year olds talking about it. My buddies ( all of us are 40+) bought into BB and I did not. I though B.B. sucked back in the 90’s and after a few games my buddies stopped playing because they forgot how bad they hated it before. But just like anything, cloths, games, styles, etc etc everything seems to come back around.
Chute82 wrote: Honestly I believe people buy these games off nostalgia (the older gamers) and the young gamers just because he heard the 40 year olds talking about it. My buddies ( all of us are 40+) bought into BB and I did not. I though B.B. sucked back in the 90’s and after a few games my buddies stopped playing because they forgot how bad they hated it before. But just like anything, cloths, games, styles, etc etc everything seems to come back around.
No disrespect to Shadespire fans, but I had a good look at it, and it doesn't look much to write home about. The Skeletons are fantastic, but the gameplay sounds like it's being done better elsewhere.
For example, Osprey Games do a lot of this kinda stuff.
I don't think GW lacks innovation, but I think that they have a large fanbase that remembers a lot of great legacy games. They'd be fools not to bring those games back and make good on the market and marketing that's already there.
Don't forget many of these games are re-releases that the fanbase has been after for years so it makes good business sense to go after them first. They don't have to invest as much nor take as big a risk in bringing them to the market.
I think that coupled with their new focus on tighter rules will make for some great times ahead for gamers.
Yes several of them "trade off of", so to speak, the warhammer quest name from yore but mechanics wise they're certainly different.
.... do any games really use d12s anymore ..? Got a player with a great axe in a p'finder campaign but I don't think we use them for owt else these days ?
Overread wrote: I don't think GW lacks innovation, but I think that they have a large fanbase that remembers a lot of great legacy games. They'd be fools not to bring those games back and make good on the market and marketing that's already there.
Don't forget many of these games are re-releases that the fanbase has been after for years so it makes good business sense to go after them first. They don't have to invest as much nor take as big a risk in bringing them to the market.
I think that coupled with their new focus on tighter rules will make for some great times ahead for gamers.
Don't get me wrong - chasing the nostalgia dollar is a good short-term move, but it's just that. Short term.
Dreadfleet was and is a favourite of mine, but the reaction to it seem to be muted, especially on dakka.
Perhaps they're afraid of getting their fingers burned again?
Yes several of them "trade off of", so to speak, the warhammer quest name from yore but mechanics wise they're certainly different.
.... do any games really use d12s anymore ..? Got a player with a great axe in a p'finder campaign but I don't think we use them for owt else these days ?
Several of those games you list look fantastic, but for want of a better expression, they feel a bit 'samey.'
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of them have alternative activation, do they?
It's a more common feature in games these days, and it's one I like
Frankly, games like Epic (or in this case Titanicus), Blood Bowl and Necromunda might as well count as new games. I mean come on, just because some old grognards have ancient collections doesn't mean games like that should never be able to be bought ever again. I am 35 and have been with GW products for 20 years, and I don't even have a collection of Epic stuff.
So who am I to complain if I can 'soon' play a version of Epic 40k that doesn't need to be bought from either Ebay or have every new purchase shipped to me from England (i.e. from Vanguard, who has the best selection to play Epic other than Onslaught minis here in the US).
Many of the games GW is cashing in nostalgia with are older than half the gamers buying them nowadays, so I'm actually happy to see them again, even if they are 'retreads'.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to Shadespire fans, but I had a good look at it, and it doesn't look much to write home about. The Skeletons are fantastic, but the gameplay sounds like it's being done better elsewhere.
For example, Osprey Games do a lot of this kinda stuff.
Have you actually played it? Shadespire has a lot of stuff in it that's clearly pinched from other games (how many truly unique mechanics are there?), but it does not play exactly like any game I've played yet. the deck building aspect, the board creation aspect, and the limited activations all lead to a lot of interesting choices. I wouldn't dismiss it until you play it. Yeah, the actual combat mechanics are lifted from x-wing, but that's not a bad thing!
There's a whiff of "no true Scotsman" in this thread. GW has released plenty of new games, mostly notably Age of Sigmar. Most of their box games didn't take off, but people do play them.
It sounds like your questioning if GW can still make super original games that you will love and will be popular. That's a tough question, and the answer is probably "not likely." They haven't created a game not tied to a prior world since LotR, and shadespire is one of the few games they've made that don't clearly mine the Talisman/Warhammer quest vein, or the specialist games vein.
Don't get me wrong - chasing the nostalgia dollar is a good short-term move, but it's just that. Short term.
Dreadfleet was and is a favourite of mine, but the reaction to it seem to be muted, especially on dakka.
Perhaps they're afraid of getting their fingers burned again?
It's only short term if GW design it as short term. Under the old CEO Dreadfleet was short term by design. It was a one off "all in one box" game designed to not require any further support after release from GW. It made some waves, but because of its design and the market its aimed at it was going to die off, esp once GW stopped selling the boxed sets and thus any semblance of long term support was gone.
These more recent releases are at least aimed at being medium to long term games. GW is putting dedicated teams behind them which means continued support; this in turn means more fanbase support. Gamers HATE buying into a game franchise that will die off - that is stop getting new releases, stop getting updates, stop getting marketing and thus steadily dry up in sales and new gamers.
I think GW is instead seeing the value in medium to long term game support and community interaction. Blood Bowl and Shadspire are both getting releases and Necromunda also has more releases on the table planned out.
And yes as said these might as well be near new releases; the market has indeed moved on and its been many years since these older games were around. Furthermore GW is revising the rules and systems so even for long term fans there are changes to get into.
Silver Tower / Battle for Calth / Burning of Prospero / Shadows over Hammerhal / Assassinorum: Execution Force / Gore Chosen / Lost Patrol / Stormcloud Attack ?
In fairness, Lost Patrol is also a re-release, but its original release was so quiet I missed it and know no-one who bought it first time round, so I'm happy for it to stay in the list. It's also good fun, where the tile placement is a key dynamic of the game. It's different, and it's fun.
Stormcloud attack was different. I hated it, but it was different.
Gangs of Comorragh is great fun, and plays not SO different from X-WIng (feel free to disagree). Again, a different game dynamic.
Gore Chosen also feels different, and again has been great fun.
I'm still building Calth & Prospero, so haven't played these yet.
Assassinorum didn't grab me. I grabbed it for the miniatures, but I don't rule out a beer and "Let's give it a go".
Nor have I played Silver Tower or Hammerhal, so can't comment on these.
Dreadfleet & Sigmar are both of course original. I enjoyed Dreadfleet and dig it out from time to time. I've toyed with Sigmar, but still have healthy local Fantasy 7, so haven't played it much.
All told, there ARE some new games, and some of them play well. I am happy to find the OP's comment unfounded, in my experience.
I think that right now, GW is trying to regain some of what it lost.
Innovative?
Maybe not.
But they do seem to actually be trying to bring back some of the old veterans they did such a good job of losing over the past decade.
Some may never fully come back - I sold off my Dark Angels and have no intention of ever getting into 40K again.
In part, I made a choice - I could repurpose my Warhammer Fantasy armies for Kings of War, but had no use for the Dark Angels, outside of a game that I had not played since... well, meeting the girl I am now married to - who also plays Kings of War.
And I have always been a bigger player of fantasy than Grim Dark SF.
A friend of mine that has jumped with both feet into the new 40K tells me that it was a bit like going back to 2nd edition. He preferred 2nd edition to everything that came after, while I liked 3e better than anything before or after.
I liked 3e 40k better than 2e for the same reasons that he liked 2e more than 3e.... It was more of a wargame.
I am not as offended by not liking the next to most recent editions of 40K, like I was for the last gasps of Warhammer Fantasy - Age of Sigmar is not what killed Fantasy - it was just GW admitting that they had killed it.
Age of Sigmar just catches the anger that the slow death of WHFB left behind.(Plus, the original free rules really did suck.)
On the other hand... I am kind of embarrassed to admit that I have already pre-ordered Underhive.
Innovation is not all that some people think it's cracked up to be - 4e D&D was innovative, Pathfinder was not. Pathfinder is still around, 4e has been replaced by a less innovative 5e.
An engineer will tell you that innovation fails nine times out of ten. A biologist will tell you that engineers are optimists.
I will take a less innovative game that I enjoy over an innovative game that I loathe.
If Newcromunda is as good as I hope - or even fairly close, I may even give up on grousing about AoS....
Necromunda is a new game. It shares a setting with the old editions, but it's not simply a reprint of the rules.
And to add to Grotsnik's list, Betrayal at Calth, Burning of Prospero, Imperial Knight Renegade, Officio Assassinorum: Execution Force, two kinds of Warhammer Quest and Stormcloud Attack. I've not played the Horus Heresy games, but all the rest are fun games.
Yes, GW has lost the talent, if they ever had any in the first place. They can technically create new games (something anyone can do), but the only ones that are at all worth playing are just reboxings of GW's existing IP. Spending a few minutes writing some rules to pretend that your flyer discount box set is not just a discount box, rules that hardly anyone will ever play and most people will have completely forgotten about within a few months, is not something worthy of praise. And half of them don't even have new models, just literal repackaging of GW's existing kits for a clear minimum-effort product. GW hasn't managed to put out a truly new and innovative success in decades.
In fact, I'd go beyond your comments about the secondary games and argue that GW doesn't even have the talent to maintain its core IP anymore. 8th edition 40k is a dumpster fire of bad game design, following the dumpster fire of bad game design that was 6th and 7th editions. Sure, it managed to fix some of the most obvious flaws with 7th edition, but people give GW way too much credit for that. Most 40k players could have fixed things like invisibility and formations with a few minutes of effort, and nothing about GW's solutions to those problems is particularly innovative or elegant. And in every part of the game where GW has gone beyond applying the obvious solution, into designing new mechanics, the new work is utter . It's the work of talentless cash cow milkers who should have been fired 10+ years ago. They'd arguably have been better off reprinting 5th edition and pretending that the entire recent history of the game never happened.
Yeah. Look by now everyone and their mother knows my feelings about AoS as a setting, but there's no denying it was a substantial departure in terms of rules and plenty of people seem to like them so I assume they're not drastically more flawed on the whole than any other game, and despite having zero desire to play it Shadespire is a total departure from the norm for GW, even old "more creative" GW of the 80's and 90's - not only a game focused nigh-exclusively on short-form competitive play but also designed from the off with an organised play system in mind and obviously intended as a direct challenge to a segment of the market presently dominated by a competitor(I mean gak, old-GW wouldn't even admit they had competition). The boardgames they've been coming out with, while sometimes a bit thin since they've largely been used as vehicles for flogging big boxes of models, aren't bad by any stretch.
I can't say I like every decision GW have made recently, even after their wee internal revolution, but these days they're not even close to the ossified, creaking, hidebound entity that shut down every avenue of creative output possible in order to focus on their two "core games" and then still managed those so badly that one was taken out the back and shot.
AoS is just a very watered down version of warhammer, there was nothing innovative or new about it. Part of what really annoys me about it is the half assed nature of the game,. it and 8th 40k to me seem to be a massive step backward in game design.
thekingofkings wrote: AoS is just a very watered down version of warhammer, there was nothing innovative or new about it. Part of what really annoys me about it is the half assed nature of the game,. it and 8th 40k to me seem to be a massive step backward in game design.
And let's not forget that AoS on release day was a complete disaster that nearly killed off GW's entire fantasy line. It's only after a couple of years of work to salvage the mess that AoS is even remotely playable. So let's not give GW too much credit for game development with AoS.
I could see that complaint at AoS' beginning but it's come a pretty long way from it's humble start as a simple game set-up with the 4 pages of rules. (That and piling-in, wound allocation as well as warscrolls for quick rule references are pretty innovative for a GW game.)
To each his own though.
.
It's only after a couple of years of work to salvage the mess that AoS
Really just a little over one year, if that, as Facebook feedback,quick faqs and the Ghb fixed the worst competitive problems.
Betrayal at Calth and Deathwatch Overkill are actually pretty decent self-contained games. I picked both up and have played through the campaign for each. Everyone who I've played them with thought the games themselves were engaging and they liked them enough to play full campaigns.
Betrayal @ Calth uses alternating activation.
Also, Newcromunda looks to be an adaptation of 40k8 which is, itself, an adaptation of AoS---both fine rule sets for doing what every war game pretty much does:
Move. Shoot. Close Combat. Morale (with possible addition of psionics, magic or ECM as another add-on activity).
Baron Klatz wrote: (That and piling-in, wound allocation as well as warscrolls for quick rule references are pretty innovative for a GW game.)
Those aren't innovative at all.
Pile-in moves are just a copy of what 40k has already been doing for decades. Changing the timing of it slightly (because initiative doesn't exist anymore) is not an innovative mechanic, it's just the most straightforward implementation of an existing mechanic.
Wound allocation is just the simplest possible method: the owner removes models until there are no wounds left. You might as well claim that rolling a D6 is an innovative mechanic by that standard.
Warscrolls are not a game mechanic, they're just a slight change in how the rules are presented. Consolidating (almost) everything onto a single page is not a new idea, and arguably it's not even a good idea because it replaces USRs with each unit having its own special snowflake rules.
Really just a little over one year, if that, as Facebook feedback,quick faqs and the Ghb fixed the worst competitive problems.
Ok, a little shorter than I remember, but the basic point stands: the game as GW originally created it, with all of its "innovation", was an unplayable mess on release day that nearly killed off GW's entire presence in the fantasy market. The fact that they averted a complete loss at some later point doesn't change the fact that AoS is not an example of good game design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: Also, Newcromunda looks to be an adaptation of 40k8 which is, itself, an adaptation of AoS---both fine rule sets for doing what every war game pretty much does:
Move. Shoot. Close Combat. Morale (with possible addition of psionics, magic or ECM as another add-on activity).
Disagree. 8th edition 40k is absolute that only looks good because 7th edition was borderline unplayable by the end. It's full of incredibly stupid design choices, poorly balanced, very limited in strategic depth, and generally another edition where the rules are the masochistic endurance test you slog through as the price of using the models and fluff you love.
On wound allocation the fact that your opponent decides where the wounds go and what models are removed seems more impressive an idea than you're giving it credit for as it causes a shift in tactics and how a unit to unit battle can go as your opponent can still control the fight even on the defensive.
Warscrolls also allow " special snowflake" rules as well. Remember all the instant win special rules that were proven false at AoS' beginning? Those couldn't have happened if everything was bland.
the game as GW originally created it, with all of its "innovation",
Really I think it was less a case of wanting to be innovative and more GW wanting to start from basic scratch and build a game anew over time as they added to it. Which certainly has worked out. (Though the start and Kirby's lingering influence was a undeniably rocky start)
Also, "unplayable" is incorrect as the game today is the same just with much more bells and whistles. You mean it was uncompetitive and a poor tournament game. Otherwise it worked fine as Open play which is still supported and used by players.
Baron Klatz wrote: On wound allocation the fact that your opponent decides where the wounds go and what models are removed seems more impressive an idea than you're giving it credit for as it causes a shift in tactics and how a unit to unit battle can go as your opponent can still control the fight even on the defensive.
The fact that a mechanic has strategy involved does not make it innovative. "The owner of the unit removes casualties of their choice" is the simplest wound allocation mechanic possible, an obvious option that is regularly used elsewhere and was often suggested by the players. GW's own games have even used it in the past.
And, to be clear, I like the mechanic. I think it's an improvement over the more complicated mechanics that GW has used in the past, and have advocated for it in previous editions of 40k. But it isn't innovative.
Warscrolls also allow " special snowflake" rules as well. Remember all the instant win special rules that were proven false at AoS' beginning? Those couldn't have happened if everything was bland.
What? You're missing the point here. It's not about bland vs. interesting, it's having each unit have literally identical rules with different names. Unit A has "hateful rage" and re-rolls 1s to hit, Unit B has "ultrasmurf tactics" and re-rolls 1s to hit, etc. The warscroll mechanic, by removing USRs out of a desire to put everything on a single page for each unit, makes this problem considerably worse.
Also, "unplayable" is incorrect as the game today is the same just with much more bells and whistles. You mean it was uncompetitive and a poor tournament game. Otherwise it worked fine as Open play which is still supported and used by players.
It only works "fine" in open play because you don't play the game as-written, you play a custom version of the game with self-imposed limits on army construction. If you play strict RAW and choose the optimum strategy at all points the winner of every game is the player with the most money to spend on GW models.
(And that's on top of idiotic stuff like models on sufficiently large bases being unable to be engaged in melee combat because the rules require contact between the models, not between the bases.)
it's having each unit have literally identical rules with different names. Unit A has "hateful rage" and re-rolls 1s to hit, Unit B has "ultrasmurf tactics" and re-rolls 1s to hit, etc.
That's exactly what I meant. AoS does have cases of what you mean but that's mostly with the standard soldiers where as heroes, monsters and the flavorful units can do things like zombies turning enemy slain units, giants falling down, steamtanks performing self repairs, Overlords grappling hooking to a new position, Fyreslayer heroes staring down an enemy to bring down their bravery, etc.
It only works "fine" in open play because you don't play the game as-written, you play a custom version of the game with self-imposed limits on army construction. If you play strict RAW and choose the optimum strategy at all points the winner of every game is the player with the most money to spend on GW models.
Also exactly what I meant, it was bad for tourneys but fine for friendly games and gentlemen agreements. Definitely not a bad way to play in my book when among friends.
Yes several of them "trade off of", so to speak, the warhammer quest name from yore but mechanics wise they're certainly different.
.... do any games really use d12s anymore ..? Got a player with a great axe in a p'finder campaign but I don't think we use them for owt else these days ?
Several of those games you list look fantastic, but for want of a better expression, they feel a bit 'samey.'
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of them have alternative activation, do they?
It's a more common feature in games these days, and it's one I like
So it's not that GW can't create new games, it's that you don't like the new games
You should listen to the interview James Hewitt did for Necromunda with drive thru fm. It goes into a lot of this stuff. For many years even under the new management GW boardgames were explicitly pitched as a miniature delivery system with designers explicitly being told not to slave over these projects too much.
It has been easy to see the Hewitt games which had more put into them: betrayal at Calth, Gorechosen and silver tower being three classic examples. Compare them to stormcloud attack, the knight game and gangs of commoragh and you can easily see the difference. While those games are fun enough the Hewitt designed games are clearly a step above. The reason is that Hewitt refused to do half arsed game design.
According to him the ethos has changed (perhaps as a result of the success of silver tower and bloodbowl) The first game that has been built under this new ethos is Shadespire.
I am sure that most will agree that Shadespire is a big improvement for GW. I am looking forward to seeing what Dave Sanders (that game's designer) does next.
We also have one more original Hewitt game coming next year for GW as well as the revamped adeptus Titanicus.
So essentially the answer will come in the next couple of years.
Is Shadespire the first step on the path to greater things or is it a fluke and we will go back to games that are ok but never remarkable?
In a rare display of me not blaming GW for their general malaise I think the problem lies with players
There is no reason for GW to make an effort if people keep buying subpar products (not the mini's as swirly gak aside they are solid) from them rather than looking elsewhere but for reasons unknown people seem GW brand loyal to fault
Might be useful to stop and think about why they would not want to make new games for a minute.
When I say "new games," I mean something original with it's own models, rules, etc. Not an offshoot of an existing game.
GW has an interest in expanding the market for their existing games. There is a finite amount of money in the current market for playing tabletop games, as demonstrated by what the company earns each year. If they were to create a new game, one that really appeals to people - would compete for that money. They don't have an interest in competing with themselves.
That's why we see so many new releases that are strongly related to existing properties. Battle for Calth / Burning of Prospero, for example, sell more Space Marine models to people who already identify with the brand. They don't increase what people have to spend, so much as make sure people are not spending it elsewhere.
Finding new channels to sell games is how they would expand the market. Bringing younger players in, creating more ways to appeal to women, tying releases to other brands & forms of entertainment, reducing the cost to produce to remove barriers to entry, advertising to groups the company doesn't currently reach - this is how a company would increase the money available to be spent on gaming. New products and systems are the way that company would ensure it's being spent.
You can see an example of this with the current Hasbro / Mattel acquisition talks. The value of each company would grow by reducing competition and appealing to each other's market. While it's likely there is a lot of overlap in who they consider their customers, a combined entity would be able to market new products / ideas by reducing competition and risk associated with doing so. They can retire brands that exist but are not performing very well, which frees up dollars to be spent on the new things coming out.
Other than international releases (like the Japanese Space Marines we saw earlier this year,) I don't see GW as a company taking big steps to expand the market. Sure, there will eventually be a plastic Sisters release, and that will earn them some points with new customers who might not ordinarily buy their product. But their business is designed to be comfortably profitable, they pay dividends to shareholders. They don't use their cash to expand the brand beyond what it is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It means we will enjoy existing games for a long time to come.
At least, until the new Hasbro / Mattel entity scoops up GW and retires the grimdark in favor of a tactical My Little Pony line of miniatures / tabletop game. They have the market power to do that.
There is no reason for GW to make an effort if people keep buying subpar products (not the mini's as swirly gak aside they are solid) from them rather than looking elsewhere but for reasons unknown people seem GW brand loyal to fault
Except this doesn't seem to have been the case.
Any good franchise is going to have a loyal core of fans; however it seems that GW could recruit new fans and keep them for a while, but they were bleeding out and losing most of their long term fanbase. That's a problem in a hobby like wargaming because the long term ones are often those who organise and keep game clubs/groups going and provide players for the new players to play against.
They also nearly lost fantasy to continued reduction in sales and fanbase.
The fact that they've started to turn things around in a big way and thus had a huge supply problem to meet the massive rise in demand over the last half a year or so kind of shows that GW did have problems and that addressing them has started to have a positive effect. Sure they still don't have the tightest rules system out there; but they've done a lot to push closer toward it.
IMO, part of the problem also lies with the exodus of talent that GW has lost over the years: Andy Chambers, Paul Sawyer, God AKA Rick Priestly, that Space Hulk guy who's name escapes me and even Jervis Johnson. Jervis Johnson seems to get stick for some strange reason, but when he's allowed free reign away from GW top brass i.e Kirby, his historics were pretty damn good
Still, GW's loss is Warlord's gain, so I really shouldn't complain.
techsoldaten wrote: GW has an interest in expanding the market for their existing games. There is a finite amount of money in the current market for playing tabletop games, as demonstrated by what the company earns each year. If they were to create a new game, one that really appeals to people - would compete for that money. They don't have an interest in competing with themselves.
This is a really mistaken way of looking at things. There is a finite amount of money in the current market, but GW doesn't have anywhere near 100% of that money. Large amounts of money are going to companies that are selling games in various genres that GW doesn't compete in. For example, where's GW's competition for X-Wing now that Aeronautica Imperialis is OOP? All the money from customers who want to buy an air combat game is going to FFG. They might be avoiding competition with their own games, but they're also avoiding competition with other companies and conceding those sales without a fight.
That's why we see so many new releases that are strongly related to existing properties. Battle for Calth / Burning of Prospero, for example, sell more Space Marine models to people who already identify with the brand. They don't increase what people have to spend, so much as make sure people are not spending it elsewhere.
But this directly contradicts what you said previously, about not competing with themselves. Making a new space marine game competes with GW's existing space marine sales. As you say, those sales are going to people who already identify with the brand, people who are likely going to buy some other space marines if the alternate game didn't exist. They do very little to bring in money that GW doesn't already have. So if that's not competing with themselves then I don't know what is.
Other than international releases (like the Japanese Space Marines we saw earlier this year,) I don't see GW as a company taking big steps to expand the market. Sure, there will eventually be a plastic Sisters release, and that will earn them some points with new customers who might not ordinarily buy their product. But their business is designed to be comfortably profitable, they pay dividends to shareholders. They don't use their cash to expand the brand beyond what it is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It means we will enjoy existing games for a long time to come.
IOW, GW is a badly-run business. A business that is not looking to expand its market and increase its long-term profits is failing on a very basic level. GW is settling for mediocrity, and we should not praise them for it.
Yeah, FFG, as an example, ain't perfect, but it's a favourite company of mine, and seems to be doing a hell of a lot more with the tools at its disposal than GW seems to be doing.
GW ceded a lot of ground to smaller, niche companies during the Kirby years, and for people like me, there is no reason to go back.
I get better and cheaper paints from Vallejo and Tamiya
And I have a wealth of new games choices at my disposal, many of which are first class. And I'm not just talking historics here.
I've learned to live without GW these days, but to be fair, some of their new minis look amazing, but I prefer a good ruleset over a good mini.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: IMO, part of the problem also lies with the exodus of talent that GW has lost over the years: Andy Chambers, Paul Sawyer, God AKA Rick Priestly, that Space Hulk guy who's name escapes me and even Jervis Johnson. Jervis Johnson seems to get stick for some strange reason, but when he's allowed free reign away from GW top brass i.e Kirby, his historics were pretty damn good
Still, GW's loss is Warlord's gain, so I really shouldn't complain.
As I said before, as GW has been around for 30 years, I see nothing wrong with releasing a game that has the same theme and even partial shared ruleset with games that have been off the market for nearly 20 of those 30 years.
Think about it guys.....there are a vast number of GW gamers that were barely alive when the last of the Specialist Games assortment stopped being sold. I'm 35 and Necromunda came out over half my lifetime ago.
AegisGrimm wrote: As I said before, as GW has been around for 30 years, I see nothing wrong with releasing a game that has the same theme and even partial shared ruleset with games that have been off the market for nearly 20 of those 30 years.
Think about it guys.....there are a vast number of GW gamers that were barely alive when the last of the Specialist Games assortment stopped being sold. I'm 35 and Necromunda came out over half my lifetime ago.
Two questions arise from this comment:
1. Why did they stop producing specialist games in the first place?
2. Why can't they come up with something just as good as Space Hulk, or Mordheim or Epic or whatever.
People bang on about Calth and Assassins, or whatever its called, but I've yet to see anybody on dakka speak of those new games in the same revered tones as they would Space Hulk or Necromunda.
They didn’t feel they were profitable enough. For all we actually know, they could’ve been loss making at that point.
You not liking a given game doesn’t mean they’re not achieving point 2.
As for the last one? For the same reason I’ll never be able to hold the new Star Wars films in the same reverence as the original trilogy. I’m not a kid anymore, and as a result I’m simply not as impressionable.
I don’t hold any games in as high esteem as I do Space Marine/Titan Legions, 2nd Ed or Necromunda, because those formative years are long gone.
The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.
I think its rather insulting to suggest that fans of a franchise are only fans because of some kind of "fault" in their personal mental state/character/etc....
At that point you're not just saying that a game system has faults (honestly show me any game that hasn't got any); but actually turning around and insulting the fanbase directly.
Also many of the skirmish games GW has done are either very new or were one-off releases*. Of course they haven't got the same legacy fanbase as a game which was out with support for many years previously. It's kind of nuts to compare (heck new Necromunda isn't even out yet) .
* Honestly I think under Kirby GW wasn't looking at side games being major releases; they were short term products designed to be a one investment one return affair for GW; rather than being dedicated games supported long term with their own internal team. Considering how they are making big news of the internal teams it might also be that those games were previously a sort of "fill in" job in that staff were drafted in from other teams to do bits here and there.
Overread wrote: I think its rather insulting to suggest that fans of a franchise are only fans because of some kind of "fault" in their personal mental state/character/etc....
At that point you're not just saying that a game system has faults (honestly show me any game that hasn't got any); but actually turning around and insulting the fanbase directly.
Stockholm syndrome was maybe too strong a term. Let's just say attachment to the IP, decades of investing in GW minis, and the size of the gamer ecosystem. But definitely all laurels of past glory. The current rules have no redeeming value and wouldn't get a second look from anyone if they weren't GW rules.
Although, thinking back to ETC discussions when AoS first came out, UK gamers definitely made an irrational amount of effort pushing AoS for the sole reason it was a GW game. Other areas were able to switch to 9th age (or the vague idea of an 9th age at the time) or KoW but the UK team would hear none of it and campaigned to make AoS the flagship tournament game when it was still just the 4 pages with no points.
To be fair I think the UKAoS was pushing hard because they could see that if Sigma failed fantasy was going to die without question. Basically even though it destroyed the lore gameplay and almost everything of fantasy - Sigma was its last ditch attempt at being saved.
Right now we are even in the fortunate position where GW has released new armies and models for it and we cean hope that with the big success that 40K has had; we'll see Sigma get a tighter better rules system released for it. A repair fix that might be a few years coming though.
The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.
I don't think the facts on the ground support this assertion. 8th edition is bringing people back to 40k after long absences, and also new players continue to join. 8th edition 40k or AOS aren't going to win any awards for best miniature game ever, but people are having gun and are excited, which is very different from the mood in 6ht/7th.
If you're arguing that GW simply has the advatnage of being well established and in every shop, with a rich lore and massive model range, then of course, yes, GW's rules are not it's strength. But the inertia you describe is built on far more than personality quirks, but on the very real advantages of playing GW games.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
Churning out brilliant games for the competition.
A lot of the new games fit the same theme of being designed to sell a minis bundle. I've heard people talk about the minis but not the games. Last time I checked you could get the game part of Calthwaite (no minis) on ebay for peanuts.
I really liked lost patrol, but I fear for its longevity. By the 2nd game we were already talking about house rules to add depth. We could have probably come up with a better game in an afternoon.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
Churning out brilliant games for the competition.
A lot of the new games fit the same theme of being designed to sell a minis bundle. I've heard people talk about the minis but not the games. Last time I checked you could get the game part of Calthwaite (no minis) on ebay for peanuts.
I really liked lost patrol, but I fear for its longevity. By the 2nd game we were already talking about house rules to add depth. We could have probably come up with a better game in an afternoon.
This is actually something that was commented upon, dunno remember WHERE, recently: up until very recently, even with the Roundtree directive, the side-games were seen as just glorified bundles of models. With recent successes from BB and ST, they decided to change the ethos. SoH has a bit of that but in truth, as far as Hewitt is concerned, only Shadespire has yet been released properly under the new ethos.
The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.
I've gone back to 8th edition after giving up 40K at the advent of 6th.
The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.
I've gone back to 8th edition after giving up 40K at the advent of 6th.
Sure, but was it because you wanted to play 40k and it looked less unplayable than previous editions, or would you have started this game up if it were a random independent ruleset you found on freewargamerules.com?
Also Reddit's Warhammer sections are usually a stream of "new to the hobby and jumping in with AoS" or "been gone for 5/10 years and getting back into it with AoS" posts.
If AoS/40k 8th didn't have their own game merits and relied mostly on devoted fans I don't think we'd see those kinds of players appearing with such frequency.
Baron Klatz wrote: Also Reddit's Warhammer sections are usually a stream of "new to the hobby and jumping in with AoS" or "been gone for 5/10 years and getting back into it with AoS" posts.
If AoS/40k 8th didn't have their own game merits and relied mostly on devoted fans I don't think we'd see those kinds of players appearing with such frequency.
It depends on why the new players are coming; because friends play? Because they found a gw store? Because they researched the hobby and decided it was the best?
The thing that a lot of people that hate simple games fail to realize is that simpler "watered down" versions of complex games simply appeal to a wider audience and sell more.
It is true to me that if AOS or 40k 8th had been released by Joe Bob Games in Mobile Alabama or whatever that few if any would be playing them... but what that is is simply player psychology in motion.
People have a large investment in their existing collections for them to simply set fire to them on youtube and walk away. And people will play what others are playing no matter the quality of the game.
The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.
I've gone back to 8th edition after giving up 40K at the advent of 6th.
Sure, but was it because you wanted to play 40k and it looked less unplayable than previous editions, or would you have started this game up if it were a random independent ruleset you found on freewargamerules.com?
I see what you are trying to show with this question, but the fact remain that IP, brand and the "flavour" of a setting are legitimate reasons of why someone plays a game, or reads a book, or watchs a movie or TV series.
Yes. I wanted to play Warhammer 40k, and many other people do. I like the settings, the feeling of the universe and the models. And if the rules are just good enough, its enough for me.
I'll have three times more fun playing in the 40k universe with mediocre rules than playing a game with a bland setting that doesn't appelas to me but with much better rules. (Now I'll say that I have actually use my GW and warhammer miniatures in many other game systems that I have been using trought the years: Kings of War, Frostgrave, Deadzone, Warmachine, etc...)
This is very similar to the discussion about WoW-killers: "Look guys, all those other MMORPG are much better, they offer new content, fresh, and innovative! Why aren't you playing them!". Because at the end of the day, what is fun for someone isn't objetive: People can have more fun playing a worse game than a better one you prefer. Yes, it is how it works. People doesn't have any obligation to play, use, see, read, the BEST product in the market. And no one has a right to insult them. One has his right to give his opinion about the objetive values of a product, of course, but many, many times you have just straight attacked the playerbase, like another Sean Drake, and thats not good
Peregrine wrote: It only works "fine" in open play because you don't play the game as-written, you play a custom version of the game with self-imposed limits on army construction. If you play strict RAW and choose the optimum strategy at all points the winner of every game is the player with the most money to spend on GW models.
(And that's on top of idiotic stuff like models on sufficiently large bases being unable to be engaged in melee combat because the rules require contact between the models, not between the bases.)
Very few games work out of the box with "game-as-written", house ruling/adhoc has always been a part of wargaming since it first dawned. Also by this logic, isn't matched play itself a custom version of the game with imposed (perhaps not "self-imposed") limits on army construction? You seem to be implying that Open is badwrongfun because you can't use it "out of the box" but matched play isn't out of the box anyways.
It depends on why the new players are coming; because friends play? Because they found a gw store? Because they researched the hobby and decided it was the best?
Likely a mix of those and several other factors but the fact remains AoS and 40k 8th aren't just playerbases of stubborn fans. They're a big mix of gamers that love the IPs and the fun game systems.
AegisGrimm wrote: As I said before, as GW has been around for 30 years, I see nothing wrong with releasing a game that has the same theme and even partial shared ruleset with games that have been off the market for nearly 20 of those 30 years.
Think about it guys.....there are a vast number of GW gamers that were barely alive when the last of the Specialist Games assortment stopped being sold. I'm 35 and Necromunda came out over half my lifetime ago.
Two questions arise from this comment:
1. Why did they stop producing specialist games in the first place?
2. Why can't they come up with something just as good as Space Hulk, or Mordheim or Epic or whatever.
People bang on about Calth and Assassins, or whatever its called, but I've yet to see anybody on dakka speak of those new games in the same revered tones as they would Space Hulk or Necromunda.
I'll fix that for ya. I speak of those games with the same revered tones.
Execution Force has only one mission and once you beat it (many folks only ever play the first mission of Space Hulk over and over btw) you can try it at higher challenge.
Don't lose any assassins next time. Infiltrate without alerting guards, at all. Kill the chaos sorcerer in fewer turns. Etc.
B@Calth was my hope for the new 40k until they adapted AoS ( a game I also like for its streamlined approach) to 40k.
Chikout wrote: You should listen to the interview James Hewitt did for Necromunda with drive thru fm. It goes into a lot of this stuff. For many years even under the new management GW boardgames were explicitly pitched as a miniature delivery system with designers explicitly being told not to slave over these projects too much.
It has been easy to see the Hewitt games which had more put into them: betrayal at Calth, Gorechosen and silver tower being three classic examples. Compare them to stormcloud attack, the knight game and gangs of commoragh and you can easily see the difference. While those games are fun enough the Hewitt designed games are clearly a step above. The reason is that Hewitt refused to do half arsed game design.
According to him the ethos has changed (perhaps as a result of the success of silver tower and bloodbowl) The first game that has been built under this new ethos is Shadespire.
I am sure that most will agree that Shadespire is a big improvement for GW. I am looking forward to seeing what Dave Sanders (that game's designer) does next.
We also have one more original Hewitt game coming next year for GW as well as the revamped adeptus Titanicus.
So essentially the answer will come in the next couple of years.
Is Shadespire the first step on the path to greater things or is it a fluke and we will go back to games that are ok but never remarkable?
Have you more info about the new game designed by Hewitt?
This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?
Its more that it is not innovation, all the mechanics pre-existed in either warhammer or 40k already, AoS merely stripped them down to the most base it could.
Stripped em down as a mish-mash of Warhammer, 40k, LotR bits and pieces for a easy access game then added on to them with tons of content and feedback which will continue far into the future to keep the game fresh and add more depth to it while having a stable core still open for beginners.
This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?
Its more that it is not innovation, all the mechanics pre-existed in either warhammer or 40k already, AoS merely stripped them down to the most base it could.
I think that limiting the idea of innovation to new game mechanics is limiting, if only because very few game mechanics are clearly new.
You can argue that AOS simply recasts the Roll to hit/Roll to save mechanic that Warhammer has been using for 30+ years, dropping the roll to wound. Obviously changing from regimental blocks to skirmish squads is a big change, but nothing new. So yes, AOS doesn't have any completely fresh ideas in it.
So what? Innovation isn't just about new mechanics, it's also about how to combine them. both division of labor and the idea of progressive assembly existed, but I think that Ford was pretty innovative when he developed his assembly line so that low skilled workers could quickly assemble cars. Likewise, if you look at a game like bolt action, which is widely praised, I'm not sure which if it's mechanics, if any, is purely new. (Given how ideas work, i'd guess you could find a predeccesor to every mechanic somewhere.) Still, the way that those mechanics are combined to create a very compelling game experience really is innovative.
Finally, creating a new version of something successful is always dificult, because you want to keep old users and gain new ones. I think that the risks that GW have taken with their flag ship games was ambitious and creative, if not innovative by the strictest definition.
This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?
Its more that it is not innovation, all the mechanics pre-existed in either warhammer or 40k already, AoS merely stripped them down to the most base it could.
I think that limiting the idea of innovation to new game mechanics is limiting, if only because very few game mechanics are clearly new.
You can argue that AOS simply recasts the Roll to hit/Roll to save mechanic that Warhammer has been using for 30+ years, dropping the roll to wound. Obviously changing from regimental blocks to skirmish squads is a big change, but nothing new. So yes, AOS doesn't have any completely fresh ideas in it.
So what? Innovation isn't just about new mechanics, it's also about how to combine them. both division of labor and the idea of progressive assembly existed, but I think that Ford was pretty innovative when he developed his assembly line so that low skilled workers could quickly assemble cars. Likewise, if you look at a game like bolt action, which is widely praised, I'm not sure which if it's mechanics, if any, is purely new. (Given how ideas work, i'd guess you could find a predeccesor to every mechanic somewhere.) Still, the way that those mechanics are combined to create a very compelling game experience really is innovative.
Finally, creating a new version of something successful is always dificult, because you want to keep old users and gain new ones. I think that the risks that GW have taken with their flag ship games was ambitious and creative, if not innovative by the strictest definition.
I would give them "ambitious" but not so much on creative. AoS banked hard on the old lore. I would not call those 4 pages compelling game experience at all, this is a game that really needed its GHB to save it. GW gave me the impression that they really didn't care about AoS beyond "can it generate revenue" it was of similar quality to games like "carnage" very minimalist. There is also not a lot of attempt to keep the old players who were rank and file style players who loved a specific setting by offering them a completely different style of game and setting. That wouldnt be much different than offering bolt action players Star Wars Armada and then wondering why they are not all thrilled with it.
The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.
The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.
Very few games work out of the box with "game-as-written", house ruling/adhoc has always been a part of wargaming since it first dawned. Also by this logic, isn't matched play itself a custom version of the game with imposed (perhaps not "self-imposed") limits on army construction? You seem to be implying that Open is badwrongfun because you can't use it "out of the box" but matched play isn't out of the box anyways.
I honestly can't name another game I've had to house rule to play. I may have misinterpreted some rules but I've never actually has to deviate in thesame way I've always done with 40k
It depends on why the new players are coming; because friends play? Because they found a gw store? Because they researched the hobby and decided it was the best?
Likely a mix of those and several other factors but the fact remains AoS and 40k 8th aren't just playerbases of stubborn fans. They're a big mix of gamers that love the IPs and the fun game systems.
Definitely. But none of those factors point to the game being any good. I'm not knocking it's popularity, but popularity and quality don't always go hand in hand. I loved Sharknado but it's objectively terrible. I love 40k but it's objectively terrible.
Ventus wrote: The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.
The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.
Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote: Stripped em down as a mish-mash of Warhammer, 40k, LotR bits and pieces for a easy access game then added on to them with tons of content and feedback which will continue far into the future to keep the game fresh and add more depth to it while having a stable core still open for beginners.
That's awesome in my book.
I don't the AOS lore is up to much IMO.
Yeah, the old Warhammer was a mish-mash of Renaissance Europe, Medieval France, and other fantasy elements tacked on for good measure, but it still had more depth to it than this current version.
Ventus wrote: The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.
The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.
Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...
I'm sorry but I've got to raise my hand here. Gameplay wise Space Hulk is deficient. The Genestealers have very limited options and their player acts basically as a glorified AI. GW effectively acknowledged this when their suggested mode of play was to play 2 games, swapping sides to see who did best. Right there is an admission that playing one side *cough* Genestealers *cough* sucked.
I own the first re-release edition. I have played it a few times as I wanted to see what all the fuss was about as I believed there was so much player frothing about the game it must have been an event tantamount to the Second Coming. But after about 4 or 5 games, it has sat unloved in my loft. I played it with 3 different people in my gaming group and they all felt the same - playing Genestealers was boring as hell. The only person who did enjoy it was my son who actually wanted to play the Genestealers, but that was because as a kid he didn't understand the joy of tactics too well, and just running at the nearest model and trying to eat them seemed like fun. I enjoyed spending time with my son, but the game dragged.
Now, of course I am sure there are loads of people that love SH, and even enjoyed playing Genestealers and their opinions are valid. But I'm sorry, holding the game up as some exemplar of good game design doesn't hold water. As a one-player game versus AI maybe (I remember there used to be a little flash version of the game knocking about on the internet that was good for wasting a few minutes at work), but as a two-player game, not a chance. It does however prove the GW adage that it is all about the minis, not the rules.
Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through
Ventus wrote: The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.
The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.
Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...
I'm sorry but I've got to raise my hand here. Gameplay wise Space Hulk is deficient. The Genestealers have very limited options and their player acts basically as a glorified AI. GW effectively acknowledged this when their suggested mode of play was to play 2 games, swapping sides to see who did best. Right there is an admission that playing one side *cough* Genestealers *cough* sucked.
I own the first re-release edition. I have played it a few times as I wanted to see what all the fuss was about as I believed there was so much player frothing about the game it must have been an event tantamount to the Second Coming. But after about 4 or 5 games, it has sat unloved in my loft. I played it with 3 different people in my gaming group and they all felt the same - playing Genestealers was boring as hell. The only person who did enjoy it was my son who actually wanted to play the Genestealers, but that was because as a kid he didn't understand the joy of tactics too well, and just running at the nearest model and trying to eat them seemed like fun. I enjoyed spending time with my son, but the game dragged.
Now, of course I am sure there are loads of people that love SH, and even enjoyed playing Genestealers and their opinions are valid. But I'm sorry, holding the game up as some exemplar of good game design doesn't hold water. As a one-player game versus AI maybe (I remember there used to be a little flash version of the game knocking about on the internet that was good for wasting a few minutes at work), but as a two-player game, not a chance. It does however prove the GW adage that it is all about the minis, not the rules.
Fair points, but with the sands of time running out on your turn in Space Hulk, you experience a sort of 'pressure' that other games never offer.
When under pressure, daft mistakes are often made, which leads to a hugely enjoyable game.
Herzlos wrote: Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through
I really hope once GW is over the hump that is 8th edition 40K they turn back to fantasy and adjust it so that its more open. I do agree at present its a mess in the way they lumped whole factions together under a great alliance. Try to build a high-elf army as a new player and you can't even find most of the models easily within their website as they are listed under a halfdozen random names. I really hope they tighten things up and bring back the faction identities as a part of the game - considering the generals handbooks have generally done well and such I expect to see them do that.
AOS is messy at present, but lets not forget it was the last big Kirby era release that they were basically locked into performing; so I hope that now they've got some new direction and focus GW can bring fantasy back into line. I don't think we'll see them restore rank and file, but certainly hope they'll restore it a lot
(and heck they could bring back rank and file if they made some custom movement trays with round slots on them)
To answer the implied question here (and partially the one actually being asked), the problem with the AoS background is that it was initially terrible on just about every level. Part of the writer's responsibility, and GW's as a company too, is making me want to explore and discover more about this new world. They failed so spectacularly the original AoS background is almost shorthand for "terrible fantasy world". It may now be better but I have no desire to find out if that's the case given how bad a job they did trying to get me invested in the lore in the first place. The original WH background wasn't exactly breaking the mould but it was written competently enough to make me want to read more. Same goes for the 40k universe. The writing isn't always the best but it has some hook s to draw people in.
Don't want to go too far down the gameplay route here, but I suspect it's also the reason AoS flopped so hard where I am, and elsewhere. Regardless of how good it might be now you get one chance to make a first impression and, for a lot of gamers, GW blew it with AoS.
This writing problem may also end up sinking FFGs Runewars miniature game, or at least being partially responsible. The background is a non-entity for most people, not very well-known and not easy to access. That removes a possible route to getting in new players, which isn't a good thing.
For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.
They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.
AoS lorewise is a huge mix of everything from Norse mythology, Dark Souls to Steampunk and Lovecraft. Also big points in my book.
So you've read and digested the entirety of the AoS lore, yes?
To be fair someone shouldn't have to read that much to be enamored with a universe's lore but on the otherhand good luck finding anything but a very small group of AoS haters that bothered to even read the wiki.
Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through
I can see the rename problem (easily solved by the app or getting a grand alliance book) but to say a Norse mythology-like setting that so many genres have taken after from Marvel's Thor to Planescape is beyond anyone interested in it and that they can't dive into a fantasy paladin, dryads, demons, ghouls or steampunk dwarves army(for the basic examples GW displays on the site) seems to massively under-credit a fantasy player of any calibre.
. Try to build a high-elf army as a new player and you can't even find most of the models easily within their website as they are listed under a halfdozen random names. I really hope they tighten things up and bring back the faction identities as a part of the game - considering the generals handbooks have generally done well and such I expect to see them do that.
The Aelven sub-factions do need cleaning up with a proper Battletome, right now the app is the best beginners tool to finding them on GW's site if not a grand alliance book.
Besides that though I don't really see it as all that messy besides some sub-factions needing to be tidied up. The four alliances also seem necessary for keeping future global campaigns in a sense of balance for player results and war time allegiance boosts.
auticus wrote: For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.
They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.
We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.
I'm all in favour of streamlined rules, but streamlining rules is no excuse for a poor end product.
Look at Chess as an example. Not a lot of rules, but a legendary game that's been with us for centuries.
auticus wrote: For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.
They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.
We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.
I'm all in favour of streamlined rules, but streamlining rules is no excuse for a poor end product.
Look at Chess as an example. Not a lot of rules, but a legendary game that's been with us for centuries.
But thats exactly the chestnut.
What is and is not "good rules" is subjective.
If AOS is making them more money than WHFB they see that as a positive, and attribute that to AOS simple ruleset. I was banned from the tga forums (one of the more popular AOS forums) because I criticized AOS' rules and that was deemed negative and they didn't want that kind of thing on their forum. There are a lot of folks on that forum that LOVE AOS ruleset and get very agitated at talking about changing them.
The AOS facebook pages are similar. If you criticize AOS rules, you will get jumped on and beat down because there are a lot of people that LOVE the AOS ruleset and how easy it is.
auticus wrote: For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.
They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.
We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.
I'm all in favour of streamlined rules, but streamlining rules is no excuse for a poor end product.
Look at Chess as an example. Not a lot of rules, but a legendary game that's been with us for centuries.
I'd honestly be interested in what makes it a poor product.
Specific examples of why moving, shooting, close combatting, and morale checking are substandard in AoS or 40k8th, would be great.
Also curious what you've played that does a much better job of doing these standard wargame functions.
privateer4hire wrote: I'd honestly be interested in what makes it a poor product.
Specific examples of why moving, shooting, close combatting, and morale checking are substandard in AoS or 40k8th, would be great.
Also curious what you've played that does a much better job of doing these standard wargame functions.
Moving is ok, I guess, nothing really changed besides standardizing all the various movement special rules into a movement stat. It's pretty hard to screw up "move your models X inches". The main issue is flyers, but that's an inherent problem of aircraft in a 28mm game that has existed since at least 4th edition.
Shooting is a disaster. The penalty for "bad" shots (moving with heavy weapons, shooting at aircraft, etc) is way too generous and minimizes the difference between bad strategies and good ones. Random everything makes it harder to make informed decisions about what to do, and encourages a mindset of "just throw dice and see what happens". Likewise for the new wound table, just throw some dice at whatever because any weapon can hurt any unit. Or just take plasma, because plasma is the best at everything. Removing blast weapons was a bad idea, and the idiocy of rolling to see how many shots you get, then rolling to see if you hit, then rolling to see if you wound, then rolling to see if you save, then rolling to see how many wounds you do is just plain ridiculous and crippled the old blast weapon units that GW had to errata LRBTs to have literally double their firepower just to make them remotely viable. And on top of it all, alpha strikes are far too easy to deliver and reduce the game to a question of who wins the roll to go first.
Close combat has similar problems, plus others. Fixed to-hit rolls make very little sense, and over-buff weak units like conscript hordes. Consolidation is a mess RAW, and allows you to bypass overwatch and lock units in combat without facing overwatch. Overwatch is still an awkward mechanic that is usually a waste of time. Units with long charge distances make melee alpha strikes too mindlessly easy. Removing initiative order over-buffs weak units again.
Morale is a rule that seems to be bad for every situation. Horde units are crippled by it, unless they have abilities that bypass it entirely. MSU units don't care about it at all. Elite armies get barely any bonus to morale compared to conscripts. So it's either "WTF, that's stupid" or skipping the entire phase because none of the dice you roll matter.
Power level is an idiotic mechanic that only "works" because people acknowledge that balance is nonexistent, the rules suck, and there's no reason to bother adding up detailed points. Characters being invulnerable is stupid, and way too easy to exploit. The "everyone in the Imperium is one giant army" faction rules are hilariously terrible. Etc.
In short, 8th edition 40k is a mindless, over-homogenized dumpster fire that only looks good because 7th edition somehow managed to be worse.
In all honesty dude, why do you play? I mean, i've followed your posts for a long time, some I even agree with (a lot I don't as it wants to break the game down to the "most optimal" all the time) but I think you're always slagging GW and/or 40k (sometimes it's well deserved).
privateer4hire wrote: I'd honestly be interested in what makes it a poor product.
Specific examples of why moving, shooting, close combatting, and morale checking are substandard in AoS or 40k8th, would be great.
Also curious what you've played that does a much better job of doing these standard wargame functions.
Moving is ok, I guess, nothing really changed besides standardizing all the various movement special rules into a movement stat. It's pretty hard to screw up "move your models X inches". The main issue is flyers, but that's an inherent problem of aircraft in a 28mm game that has existed since at least 4th edition.
Shooting is a disaster. The penalty for "bad" shots (moving with heavy weapons, shooting at aircraft, etc) is way too generous and minimizes the difference between bad strategies and good ones. Random everything makes it harder to make informed decisions about what to do, and encourages a mindset of "just throw dice and see what happens". Likewise for the new wound table, just throw some dice at whatever because any weapon can hurt any unit. Or just take plasma, because plasma is the best at everything. Removing blast weapons was a bad idea, and the idiocy of rolling to see how many shots you get, then rolling to see if you hit, then rolling to see if you wound, then rolling to see if you save, then rolling to see how many wounds you do is just plain ridiculous and crippled the old blast weapon units that GW had to errata LRBTs to have literally double their firepower just to make them remotely viable. And on top of it all, alpha strikes are far too easy to deliver and reduce the game to a question of who wins the roll to go first.
Close combat has similar problems, plus others. Fixed to-hit rolls make very little sense, and over-buff weak units like conscript hordes. Consolidation is a mess RAW, and allows you to bypass overwatch and lock units in combat without facing overwatch. Overwatch is still an awkward mechanic that is usually a waste of time. Units with long charge distances make melee alpha strikes too mindlessly easy. Removing initiative order over-buffs weak units again.
Morale is a rule that seems to be bad for every situation. Horde units are crippled by it, unless they have abilities that bypass it entirely. MSU units don't care about it at all. Elite armies get barely any bonus to morale compared to conscripts. So it's either "WTF, that's stupid" or skipping the entire phase because none of the dice you roll matter.
Power level is an idiotic mechanic that only "works" because people acknowledge that balance is nonexistent, the rules suck, and there's no reason to bother adding up detailed points. Characters being invulnerable is stupid, and way too easy to exploit. The "everyone in the Imperium is one giant army" faction rules are hilariously terrible. Etc.
In short, 8th edition 40k is a mindless, over-homogenized dumpster fire that only looks good because 7th edition somehow managed to be worse.
I actually agree with just about everything you said. 8th is better than 7th, but 7th was pretty bad, so that's not saying much.
Add in effects like Feels No Pain and a round of shooting becomes even more ridiculous. A wound might only occur after six die rolls. Very tedious. 40k is not even remotely elegant or modern in terms of game design.
It may not be elegant but it's fun and to be blunt a lot of people agree with me here. The fact that GW cannot keep some 40K kits in stock would suggest that it is selling better than it has in years, if not ever. (I've played since early 2nd Ed and can never remember not being able to find kits because they sold out, poor stocking and shipping back in the 90's yes but not because of high sales)
I left in early 6th Ed because the game stopped being fun, checked back in 7th, still not fun, checked back in 8th and holy gak it's actually fun to play again. Best rules ever? Nope, not even remotely close, it is GW we're talking about here but the point is not having the best rule writing it's making something that is fun and enjoyable to play.
As to the original question I think some of the newer games that were developed post Kirby have shown signs of being innovative. Nothing super crazy but ShadeSpire and Necromunda are showing signs of trying new things and if those products do well as it appears they are/will GW may take more chances, we'll see.
Ah, it wouldn't be a Dakka-thread without all the cries of "boohoo it ain't modern enough" or how anything done by GW in recent years wouldn't be a dumpster fire
In reality though, OP, I for one can vouch for the newer games too and have in several other threads said how I hold Hewitt's Betrayal at Calth in the same tier as Space Hulk, if not better as a core system for claustrophobic tactical firefights. It has alternating actions (all Hewitt's games have, really: BaC, Newcromunda, upcoming Titanicus...), intriguing yet simple system for Line of Sight -determination (unhindered and obstructed), objective based missions (which is good to follow if one designs their own missions), every single weapon is different and useful (some give more shots, some punch through armour, even the basic bolter strips target units of their action points via pinning), there are actual tactical decisions to be made in the very concise space you're given (which squad to activate, as I can dominate there but then get pummelled to dust here...), pinning enemy units by simply moving is a thing... Really, I could go on why it's a very good base for a game and is a good game even right out of the box. Some have even made a proper table top adaptation of it http://thisveryblog.blogspot.fi/2016/03/betrayal-at-badab-betrayal-at-calth.html
I've played it dozens of times, have the White Dwarf extras, have used it as a demo game in some conventions as long as it has existed. Really, I encourage everyone to honestly try it out with an open mind. If something doesn't work, just tweak it a bit, like doubling the deck sizes and letting both players draw two cards instead of one every turn to reduce the weight of randomness. Or just letting players pick their cards. Just make it your own game your way, but you're really doing yourself a disservice if you simply think of it as a throw-in filler in a miniature deal.
On the Space Hulk front, I also love that one and used my selfmade 3D board as a demo game for a decade now, likewise. Whoever said gak about it earlier on, I love playing as the 'stealer and really giving the termies a fight of their lives
I'm really looking forwards to Adeptus Titanicus and Newcromunda too.
Wayniac wrote: In all honesty dude, why do you play? I mean, i've followed your posts for a long time, some I even agree with (a lot I don't as it wants to break the game down to the "most optimal" all the time) but I think you're always slagging GW and/or 40k (sometimes it's well deserved).
Do you play other, "real" balanced games?
It is sometimes a lot easier to write about what you dislike in a game than to describe what you do like. I know that it is for me.
I play Kings of War - simple, well balanced rules that I was able to teach to nine year old players in a single session. So much so that last game... they really did not need me, except to set up the table and tell them the scenarios. (Tactics on the other hand... is a bit longer in coming.)
Simple rules does not mean simple game play.
Right now I am in a league - and am currently at the top, playing orcs for the first time.
And, to be clear, Kings of War is not innovative, except maybe for treating the whole unit as a single model.
And was written by a former GW game designer.
I love Mordheim - no other miniatures game has ever caught me the same way.
Innovative? Probably not.
Fun? Hell, yeah!
Given the choice between a fun game that is not innovative, and a crappy game that is brand new and shiny, I will take the fun game.
For me, Age of Sigmar - the initial release - felt like a slap to the face. No attempt at balance, and rules that seemed like a first draft, written on the back of a tray liner. (Hey, I've written first drafts on the backs of tray liners!) Not even bothering to have point values.
Then War Scrolls that read like poorly considered jokes.
I honestly think that it came down to GW trying to run with the idea that folks were only buying the miniatures to collect - and not to play the danged game. So, AoS was pretty much just an excuse to buy minis, and put them on the table.
As a game, it was not fun, at least for me and my group.
And the poor game play bit them in the arse, and sales dropped like a rock - which was possibly the best thing that could happen for the company - because it got them to finally pay attention.
Before Rountree took over, I was pretty sure we were looking at the twilight of GW - ever shrinking sales, with ever increasing prices, and poorly balanced rules.
And, yeas, some very nice miniatures - even though I do not love me the current aesthetic.
Mantic may go too far the other direction - good rules, but maybe so-so miniatures. (I like their minis - I want figures to play with, not to put on the shelf. And they see use in a lot of games - not just Mantic games, Pathfinder also sees the figures in use. But... even I have to admit that the best GW minis are better than the best Mantic minis.)
Now, I have spent a fair time kvetching about GW - but I also think that they, as a company, are trying to address the problems.
And are definitely making headway again.
Age of Sigmar now is probably what it should have been when it was first released - too late for me and my group, but others seem to really enjoy the game as it is now. Points have been put in, the weird engagement rules shifted to something workable. It is actually a game now. Just not one I want to play. (It is in good company - I think that Dreadball is a great game, with unexpected depth - that I have no interest in playing. My wife, on the other hand, is starting in a Dreadball league next week.)
Necromunda has me buying a GW game for the first time in a long while - it seems an honest attempt.
It also seems that they are paying attention to the setting - fleshing out the gangs and their interactions.
Innovative? Probably not - but I am really looking forward to playing.
So, in a few weeks, I will be playing the game.
I have a lot of very fond memories of playing GW games - Mordheim and Necromunda are my very favorite miniatures games. If Necromunda wasn't coming out, I would almost certainly be organizing a Mordheim game right now.
So, I feel that innovation is not needed - instead, GW should focus on making games that people want to play.
The Auld Grump - it probably sounds like I am griping about GW - but, really, I am very glad that I am not mourning iGW's passing, but instead am planning on playing the danged game.
For me and my group, the rules are not the most important aspect of the game. They are third or fourth in the list of things that make a game fun. However, the clarity of the rule book can make or break a game before it starts. Hence, Space Hulk is one of our favorites, while we never managed to get into 40k.
To be fair someone shouldn't have to read that much to be enamored with a universe's lore but on the otherhand good luck finding anything but a very small group of AoS haters that bothered to even read the wiki.
Honestly why would they bother, genuine attempts on my part to try and get a handle on some aspects of the fluff that were a sticking point was met with self-righteous posturing and accusations of trolling by the AoS community, the fans are evidently quite happy in their wee bubble branding anyone who wasn't 1000% on-board on launch day as a "hater"
If I remember correctly, Shinros outed you as never have read the books when you were judging them at "launch day".
Your attitude towards the fluff likely didn't help promote a civil conversation as well. One should want to bother learning lore to enjoy it, not just to debate it.
Ventus wrote: The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.
The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.
Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...
One of the worst RNGfests I've ever played. Terminators with garbage armor fight in confines they can't effectively navigate with defective weapons. I own both versions, and out of my massive collection of board games the only one less popular than old Space Hulk is the new one.
It basically means one bad roll by you (or a computer's ai) can ruin all your careful planning and best attempts at winning by no fault of your own.
(Examples being Mordheim or Darkest Dungeon)
It's easier to swallow on tabletop where that's always the case rather than videogames where people feel like they've been cheated.
I think the reason that random dice rolls hit harder in GW games is because its alternate army activations. If its not your turn and a dice roll goes against your favour, your opponent can instantly capitalise on that before you get a chance to counter.
That said there is a balance in random whereby it harms you but doesn't cripple you.
To be fair someone shouldn't have to read that much to be enamored with a universe's lore but on the otherhand good luck finding anything but a very small group of AoS haters that bothered to even read the wiki.
Honestly why would they bother, genuine attempts on my part to try and get a handle on some aspects of the fluff that were a sticking point was met with self-righteous posturing and accusations of trolling by the AoS community, the fans are evidently quite happy in their wee bubble branding anyone who wasn't 1000% on-board on launch day as a "hater"
I mean, you kind of where doing trolling, making very pointed statements on the community as a whole based on one comment... out of three pages of helpful info and rather corteous behavior.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For me and my group, the rules are not the most important aspect of the game. They are third or fourth in the list of things that make a game fun. However, the clarity of the rule book can make or break a game before it starts. Hence, Space Hulk is one of our favorites, while we never managed to get into 40k.
The 40K rule book is the biggest thing getting in the way of the game (at least in 5th, 6th & 7th editions). We had to stop pretty much once a turn to try and figure out how some special rule interacted with another one. The core mechanics were easy enough, but it was always the special rules interactions that broke our immersion every time.
Baron Klatz wrote: If I remember correctly, Shinros outed you as never have read the books when you were judging them at "launch day".
Your attitude towards the fluff likely didn't help promote a civil conversation as well. One should want to bother learning lore to enjoy it, not just to debate it.
I don't have a clue what you're on about, so you might want to have a wee delve back into that memory and double check before you throw around accusations.
For the record, I was perfectly civil, open about my prior dislike and my ignorance of the material on the point being discussed, and tried multiple times to genuinely and honestly explain the issue I was trying to wrap my head around(the "nebulous" nature of the realms - I thought that maybe by figuring out some actual, observable, even mappable structure to the reality AoS exists in I could find a "way in"; 40K is much easier to get a grip on because you can just say "mostly our galaxy" and your brain fills in the rest). A few folk were willing to discuss it for a handful of posts but didn't really understand my point and things quickly went to pot as half the thread decided to wander off on a tangent among themselves and the other half resorted to accusations of trolling or PMs basically saying I was just too thick to understand the majesty of AoS' fluff.
You can believe what you like, but the AoS community has just as many toxic and self-righteous gits in it as any other, and lost the moral high ground a fair wee while ago.
I don't have a clue what you're on about, so you might want to have a wee delve back into that memory and double check before you throw around accusations.
Hmm, perhaps. At the very least it seems it was around 2016 rather than launch day like I thought. I'll check more into it later, maybe it was someone else and for some reason I thought of you, if so full apologies, but it seems so clear...
Anyway, kudos on making that awesome thread! The discussions there were greater than I expected and it even gave birth to the epic inspirational art thread and so many people got questions they needed answered(which brought a few people iffy on the lore back around) while making so many great ideas for races and rpgs!
I'm really sorry that those few guys hassled you because of your heavy anti-AoS past but the grand majority were very friendly, informative and so enthusiastic for the subject with Shinros showing why he's a loremaster.
At least your question was answered and even if you can't connect now there's some really good points there why AoS might bring you back.
And if not, hey, just have a massive Malakai expedition into the chaos wastes with state of the art airships to justify your Overlord purchase.
Being innovative isn't easy, doubly so while also making a well-oiled ruleset. Then, there is no gaurantee it will be popular.
GW has huge problems iwth the second part - rules. Many of their games only retain playability due to the RND factor of their rules, rather than any sort of strategizing. The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No". Contrast that to Heroes of Normandie, if you will, which is an entire cardboard boardgame/wargame.
Of the recent games I have played, both Lost Patrol and Stormcloud Attack are glaring in how the rules were written on a napkin to push the models sold within. Lost Patrol isn't even fun and Stormcloud is an example on how NOT to build an X-Wing knockoff.
Their other boardgames, Calth and Prospero, are only replayable due to the RNG factor of the mission cards - the base rules are easily exploitable and it would be easy to master each mission without the RNG to throw some curveball into the mix.
Back in the 80's and 90's, GW's style of game design served them well. People would play their games and generally enjoy them. Nowadays, their rule sets are so abysmal that their sets are bought for the minis and the games themselves go unplayed and ignored. If you want proof, just look at the e-bay prices for the boxed sets sans the models.
People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.
But you just made a rules argument: people are buying the boxes, but don't feel one bit of regret about giving up the rules for cheap. If the rules were worth playing then people would hold onto them, even if they aren't the primary reason they bought the box.
It seems an odd argument to raise the question of the value of the book for the rules within when the typical argument is that most games should make rules free and just profit from model sales - a valid tactic several other games companies have worked with (online releases at least).
So its no shock; the rules for any game tend to be on the cheaper end (if anything GW rules are the more expensive so long as we take Dungeons and Dragons out of the picture with their legion of books). Even if the rules were top notch I doubt you'd see the rule packs from spit boxed sets go up much if anything in price on the second hand market
Also don't forget ebay is supply and demand - models not made outside of boxed sets; models cheaper sold in boxed sets are going to be lower supply higher demand than rules which are sold in multiple formats and are easily bought.
Stormonu wrote: The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No".
I am not saying that you are entirely correct, but I can say that I have played games of Kings of War with units represented by cardboard rectangles cut to the right size.
One of the best ways to learn if I will enjoy the play style of a given army, and it will fit in a lunch box. (I have also used PDF 'miniatures' for portable games of KoW.)
I don't think I have ever done that with a GW game, but I could be wrong. Aaaannnd as soon as I wrote that, I remembered playing several games of Battlefleet Gothic that way. Timing is indeed the heart of comedy.
Battlefleet Gothic played just fine with cardboard ships.
Yeah, Ican see Space Hulk, Warhammer Quest and at least Battlefleet Gothic being games people would easily play with cardboard components. Bloodbowl too (I have played that with paper stand ups), maaaybe Necromunda. When I was talking about GW's games, I primarily was referring to their newer ones. Their games from the 90's feel as though they generally had more thought in them - until the got into the likes of Crunch!, Lost Patrol and Space Fleet.
Stormonu wrote: Being innovative isn't easy, doubly so while also making a well-oiled ruleset. Then, there is no gaurantee it will be popular.
GW has huge problems iwth the second part - rules. Many of their games only retain playability due to the RND factor of their rules, rather than any sort of strategizing. The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No". Contrast that to Heroes of Normandie, if you will, which is an entire cardboard boardgame/wargame.
Of the recent games I have played, both Lost Patrol and Stormcloud Attack are glaring in how the rules were written on a napkin to push the models sold within. Lost Patrol isn't even fun and Stormcloud is an example on how NOT to build an X-Wing knockoff.
Their other boardgames, Calth and Prospero, are only replayable due to the RNG factor of the mission cards - the base rules are easily exploitable and it would be easy to master each mission without the RNG to throw some curveball into the mix.
Back in the 80's and 90's, GW's style of game design served them well. People would play their games and generally enjoy them. Nowadays, their rule sets are so abysmal that their sets are bought for the minis and the games themselves go unplayed and ignored. If you want proof, just look at the e-bay prices for the boxed sets sans the models.
I guess no one read my earlier post. James Hewitt said directly that GW spent several years directly saying that the standalone game rules were a deliberate miniature delivery system with the designers encouraged not to waste too much energy on the rules. It seems that even warhammer quest was pitched by the management as this, but he went away and tried to make a real game out of it. According to Hewitt this attitude has changed and the first game made with the new attitude was Shadespire.
So the answer to the op's question is that GW did lose the ability to make new games for a while, but they might be getting it back. (Shadespire is the highest rated GW game on boardgamegeek ever.)
P.s. I have seen Pics on Twitter of Shadespire being played with my little ponies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.
But you just made a rules argument: people are buying the boxes, but don't feel one bit of regret about giving up the rules for cheap. If the rules were worth playing then people would hold onto them, even if they aren't the primary reason they bought the box.
So the question is who read the actual rules themselves?
I'm willing to bet so many people just bought those and Calth to supplement their Marine armies with older armor. That isn't anything having to do with rules quality. I bought 3 Prospero and a Calth and didn't read either ones rules once because models.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.
But you just made a rules argument: people are buying the boxes, but don't feel one bit of regret about giving up the rules for cheap. If the rules were worth playing then people would hold onto them, even if they aren't the primary reason they bought the box.
So the question is who read the actual rules themselves?
I'm willing to bet so many people just bought those and Calth to supplement their Marine armies with older armor. That isn't anything having to do with rules quality. I bought 3 Prospero and a Calth and didn't read either ones rules once because models.
*Raises hand*
I bought Calth complete, but I actually bought the Prospero box sans minis so I'd have the boardgame. Mostly because I was curious if the rules were any good and it was only $20. Glad I didn't pay more, probably paid more than I should have.
Yes several of them "trade off of", so to speak, the warhammer quest name from yore but mechanics wise they're certainly different.
.... do any games really use d12s anymore ..? Got a player with a great axe in a p'finder campaign but I don't think we use them for owt else these days ?
Several of those games you list look fantastic, but for want of a better expression, they feel a bit 'samey.'
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but none of them have alternative activation, do they?
It's a more common feature in games these days, and it's one I like
So it's not that GW can't create new games, it's that you don't like the new games
SeanDrake wrote: If Hewitt is GW's great white hope for future games there maybe a problem as he left 3-4 months ago.
Last I read he seemed to think they were reworking titanicus so Necromumda is probably his swan song.
People really don't read my posts do they? Hewitt has one more stand alone boardgame coming out for GW and Adeptus Titanicus was delayed to make plastic Titans, not to change the rules.
As for the great white hope for GW; it is the new philosophy exemplified by Shadespire. It will also be interesting to see if Dave Sanders can be more than a one trick pony.
Stormonu wrote: Being innovative isn't easy, doubly so while also making a well-oiled ruleset. Then, there is no gaurantee it will be popular.
GW has huge problems iwth the second part - rules. Many of their games only retain playability due to the RND factor of their rules, rather than any sort of strategizing. The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No". Contrast that to Heroes of Normandie, if you will, which is an entire cardboard boardgame/wargame.
Of the recent games I have played, both Lost Patrol and Stormcloud Attack are glaring in how the rules were written on a napkin to push the models sold within. Lost Patrol isn't even fun and Stormcloud is an example on how NOT to build an X-Wing knockoff.
Their other boardgames, Calth and Prospero, are only replayable due to the RNG factor of the mission cards - the base rules are easily exploitable and it would be easy to master each mission without the RNG to throw some curveball into the mix.
Back in the 80's and 90's, GW's style of game design served them well. People would play their games and generally enjoy them. Nowadays, their rule sets are so abysmal that their sets are bought for the minis and the games themselves go unplayed and ignored. If you want proof, just look at the e-bay prices for the boxed sets sans the models.
This argument works fine if you stop just before WHQ (both Silver Tower and Hamerhal) and perhaps above all, Shadespire. These games have all been well received for their rules by the board gaming community.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDrake wrote: If Hewitt is GW's great white hope for future games there maybe a problem as he left 3-4 months ago.
Last I read he seemed to think they were reworking titanicus so Necromumda is probably his swan song.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.
And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.
And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.
And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.
I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.
BUT, and it's a big but...
These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?
What's dakka's view on this?
I've loved Shadow War: Armageddon, Gangs of Comorragh was a fun little game, Deathwatch: Overkill was very cool. Never played Assassinorum but I heard that was also pretty solid.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.
And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.
And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.
And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.
I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.
BUT, and it's a big but...
These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?
What's dakka's view on this?
I've loved Shadow War: Armageddon, Gangs of Comorragh was a fun little game, Deathwatch: Overkill was very cool. Never played Assassinorum but I heard that was also pretty solid.
That is the worst thing about GW's one and done policy that they have wasted so many good ideas. Gangs of a comorragh was a good game a half dozen pages short of being a great game. All it needed was a fuller advancement system and campaign rules with rules for other flying units such as beastmasters, scourge and even the jet fighters for a one v many scenario.
Shadow wars was another missed opportunity they could have ran with that for longer with new warbands and a more in depth campaign system and scenario. Not sure it would have even stepped on Necros toes given some people would just want to play there favourite race rather than random human gang.
I think for a long time GW's biggest issue has been lack of ambition due to corporate having too much control over the creative side.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.
And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.
And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.
And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.
I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.
BUT, and it's a big but...
These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?
What's dakka's view on this?
I've loved Shadow War: Armageddon, Gangs of Comorragh was a fun little game, Deathwatch: Overkill was very cool. Never played Assassinorum but I heard that was also pretty solid.
That is the worst thing about GW's one and done policy that they have wasted so many good ideas. Gangs of a comorragh was a good game a half dozen pages short of being a great game. All it needed was a fuller advancement system and campaign rules with rules for other flying units such as beastmasters, scourge and even the jet fighters for a one v many scenario.
Shadow wars was another missed opportunity they could have ran with that for longer with new warbands and a more in depth campaign system and scenario. Not sure it would have even stepped on Necros toes given some people would just want to play there favourite race rather than random human gang.
I think for a long time GW's biggest issue has been lack of ambition due to corporate having too much control over the creative side.
The big problem is that GW has no idea whether any of these games will do well when it hits - their philosophy seems to be to throw as much at the wall and see what sticks, so they have a hard time planning to follow up on a hit, and by the time they can, the iron has cooled. But they have done some follow-up, see their follow-on for Warhammer Quest (Shadespire?) and *sorta* with Burning of Prospero following Calth (in ththe HH theme, unfortunately not the rules). We may see some more for Shadow War - the boxed set seemed to do well, even if the "revised" rulebook didn't seem to be as big a hit (but that may have been a "too soon" situation).
I'm not sure they can do an awful lot to fix this - either they commit to pre-planning a follow-up line whether it's a bad seller or not and risk throwing good money after bad, or they'll have to paper-napkin a follow-up in a month or so that will likely tank because it hasn't been tested and just repacks other existing models into some quick-printed box. On the later a serious, thought out add-on would take 6-12 months to properly vet and manufacture all-new models for release.
This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.
I don't think the facts on the ground support this assertion. 8th edition is bringing people back to 40k after long absences, and also new players continue to join. 8th edition 40k or AOS aren't going to win any awards for best miniature game ever, but people are having gun and are excited, which is very different from the mood in 6ht/7th.
If you're arguing that GW simply has the advatnage of being well established and in every shop, with a rich lore and massive model range, then of course, yes, GW's rules are not it's strength. But the inertia you describe is built on far more than personality quirks, but on the very real advantages of playing GW games.
No.
If you like 8th, there's something wrong with you.
Apparently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through
They both have advantages and disadvantages in terms of accessibility. AoS is much easier to just start playing, despite it's reliance on silly names. WHFB requires hundreds of dollars and a ton more time in terms of preparation, simply due to the scale and regiment-nature of the thing. But Orcs and Elves instead of Orruks and Aelfar or whatever.
WHFB lost me long ago in 5th edition (Herohammer) but Kings of War got me into fantasy again - using mostly my old GW models, but also a TON of others from a pile of manufacturers. I occasionally play AoS as well as a Skirmish alternative, but - like my KoW games, they're set in The Old World (to me, anyway) that has a few mental tweaks of head-canon to allow for models from new AoS factions, LotR factions and Historical factions - so no more a stretch than The Old World was anyway. I'm ok with people being into the Mantica and/or AoS lore, and it being developed and all that, but I've personally just got no interest in learning much about them or exploring either in any depth at all.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
It's like rain on your wedding day...
Predictable that someone who doesn't know the meaning of "ironic" would make a ridiculous "YOU CALLED ME AN AD HOMINEM THAT MAKES YOU AN AD HOMINEM" post.
Dude, I have to ask this, but have you ever considered that if you try posting in a somewhat less aggressive and "I am" way, you may get some more levied and reasonable responses?
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
It's like rain on your wedding day...
Predictable that someone who doesn't know the meaning of "ironic" would make a ridiculous "YOU CALLED ME AN AD HOMINEM THAT MAKES YOU AN AD HOMINEM" post.
Eh... if that's supposed to be irony... you're doing an awful job at it.
I kinda wonder if GW just doesn't care much to innovate, up to AoS and 40k 8th, they just rehashed old editions, ignoring old problems and making new ones out of stuff that was previously working.
Its kind of a double edged sword. I'd like to see them cover new ground, but at the same time Id like to take another shot at games that were awesome 15+ years ago, like Epic and Mordheim, and Warmaster, but their modern efforts prove how its hard to catch lightning in a bottle. Necromunda is already making some strange half-assed stumbles with equipment and legacy rules, and it's barely out, when they had a sure-fire template to follow.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
That's just crazy talk!
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
GW could have avoided a lot of crap, just by actually testing the rules before releasing them into the wild as is.
Right now I am holding off on getting the new Necromunda - not because I don't want it, but because I have things I want to buy from Black Friday sales. But I am hearing... not so great things on editing, right now - so I may hold off for the second printing.
The Auld Grump - still planning to get the game, mind - even if the rules are not up to snuff, Necromunda minis are something I want.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
That's just crazy talk!
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
GW could have avoided a lot of crap, just by actually testing the rules before releasing them into the wild as is.
Right now I am holding off on getting the new Necromunda - not because I don't want it, but because I have things I want to buy from Black Friday sales. But I am hearing... not so great things on editing, right now - so I may hold off for the second printing.
The Auld Grump - still planning to get the game, mind - even if the rules are not up to snuff, Necromunda minis are something I want.
The biggest problem I have (as a current player of AoS) is they really did not fix anything. The core of the game is bad, the little tweeks around the edges from the ghbs havent done anything to address that. I know my group initially tried it based on the GW guy saying it was "skirmish" and cheaper to get into with smaller armies and less expensive. I found that to be mostly untrue, the new models are just as expensive and you usually need just as many. I will give it credit where I think it deserves it, but I wont hesitate to criticize it where I feel it deserves it as well. The game had been hyped up far beyond its meager capabilities.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
It's like rain on your wedding day...
Predictable that someone who doesn't know the meaning of "ironic" would make a ridiculous "YOU CALLED ME AN AD HOMINEM THAT MAKES YOU AN AD HOMINEM" post.
Eh... if that's supposed to be irony... you're doing an awful job at it.
You... you... have heard an incredibly well known (and inaccurate) song by Alanis Morissette, right? That's what is being referenced and refuted by Perri here.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
And KoW has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So please don't A) derail the thread B) snipe his post and C) induce to a... let's say heated discussion.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.
It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.
And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.
My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)
Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 200ss, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.
There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)
I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.
My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.
I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.
That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.
GW used to be very good at building a community.
*EDIT* In part because GW used to put money into building that community - if there is anything that I miss about the old GW it is how much effort they put in to holding events, even at minor venues.
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* To put it another way - my liking KoW and my hating AoS are very separate - I would hate AoS just as much if I were into WARMACHINE. If and when GW produces a wargame that I like, I will be just as obnoxiously yammering about how much I like the new game. I still yammer about how much I like Mordheim, and I am still building new terrain to use in Necromunda, whether new or old. I still pull out Warhammer Quest now and again.
A good game is a good game - and I actually like some of the smaller games that GW has released recently - even if they are rehashings of older games. Like I have said elsewhere in this thread- innovation is just not that important - making a fun game is.
I do not need to love KoW to hate AoS, and my hating AoS will not change whether or not I like another GW game. I hate AoS on its own merits.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.
It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.
And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.
My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)
Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 200ss, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.
There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)
I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.
My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.
I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.
That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.
GW used to be very good at building a community.
The Auld Grump
Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.
Azazelx wrote: There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.
Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.
Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.
also, you throw around a lot of incendiary language. That's fine, you've found your niche on the side of Rule #1, so bully for you. But allow others to be snarky if they want.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.
It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.
And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.
My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)
Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 2000s, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.
There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)
I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.
My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.
I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.
That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.
GW used to be very good at building a community.
The Auld Grump
Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.
I honestly never expect KoW to match WHFB at the peak of its popularity.
Hell, I don't expect AoS and KoWcombined to reach that level of popularity.
I also honestly think that GW should have promoted AoS as a separate game from the Rank and File Warhammer - there was room for both games.
Though I also realize that WHFB was already dying when somebody had the 'brilliant' idea of AoS - it is quite possible that WHFB was not salvageable, much as I might wish that it were. (And I still hope that Specialist Games does a 'Legacy' game for WHFB.)
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* I might as well admit that I have enjoyed the heck out of both games of Lost Patrol that I have managed to play since the new version came out - it is still a good game, and the fog of war mechanic still works just fine.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.
It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.
And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.
My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)
Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 2000s, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.
There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)
I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.
My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.
I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.
That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.
GW used to be very good at building a community.
The Auld Grump
Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.
I honestly never expect KoW to match WHFB at the peak of its popularity.
Hell, I don't expect AoS and KoWcombined to reach that level of popularity.
I also honestly think that GW should have promoted AoS as a separate game from the Rank and File Warhammer - there was room for both games.
Though I also realize that WHFB was already dying when somebody had the 'brilliant' idea of AoS - it is quite possible that WHFB was not salvageable, much as I might wish that it were. (And I still hope that Specialist Games does a 'Legacy' game for WHFB.)
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* I might as well admit that I have enjoyed the heck out of both games of Lost Patrol that I have managed to play since the new version came out - it is still a good game, and the fog of war mechanic still works just fine.
they could have done a "ravening hordes" style update on pdf, kept warhammer as a specialist game, but I think they wanted to get all the warhammer players to switch to AoS. If so that was a massive amount of delusion on their part.
I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.
That might have something to do with it.
I know that a couple of the current batch of gwdevs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
auticus wrote: I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.
That might have something to do with it.
I know that a couple of the current batch of gwdevs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I dont think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.
Yeah, the hobby scene is all over the place where some dominate a place while others wither and at times can change completely around.
I certainly can't see that as a bad thing, though. With the fall of the crumbling Wfb empire arose new hobby kingdoms and a renaissance of gaming and new companies able to develop.
Which is even good for GW as the competition keeps them on their toes and helps bring in new hobbyists that can easily be tempted by their gorgeous products(even as proxies for other games) and by their now easy entry games of 40k 8th and AoS which can go hand-in-hand with other fun games like KoW or Frostgrave.
It's a win all round.
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.
Polonius wrote: Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.
No, it was an ad hominem. It went beyond mere "explanation" into the same old attempt to label certain people "haters" and therefore dismiss everything they have to say. Rather than addressing the substance of the criticism on its own merits, regardless of who is saying it, they went straight for insulting the people making the criticism and trying to de-legitimize their opinion.
Polonius wrote: Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.
No, it was an ad hominem. It went beyond mere "explanation" into the same old attempt to label certain people "haters" and therefore dismiss everything they have to say. Rather than addressing the substance of the criticism on its own merits, regardless of who is saying it, they went straight for insulting the people making the criticism and trying to de-legitimize their opinion.
Hmm, yes, it would be terrible if people responded with insults...
Peregrine wrote: Then why use power levels? If the quality of the game is similar then you're conceding that power levels have no advantage to make up for their disadvantages. Is this just another case of people wanting to use a less-balanced system for virtue signalling about how "casual" they are?
oh wait...
Thank you for that deep and insightful analysis of GW's rules team. I'll take this as your concession that you don't actually have any criticism of the substance of what I'm saying, and just hate negative posts on principle?
huh
FW bans are TFG behavior. They come in three categories:
1) People who will accept any level of broken rules as long as it has the magic "codex" word on it, but if any FW unit is ever overpowered it's an excuse for a blanket ban on the whole category. This is usually accompanied by various lies about how FW is a "separate company" or "requires permission" or whatever.
2) Bad tournament players who are afraid of allowing FW units to change the meta and create lists they aren't prepared to beat. Why risk your chances of winning when you can just ban the potential threat? Why spend time playtesting against FW units/lists and trying to figure out how to beat them if you don't have to? These players are usually nowhere near as skilled as they want to believe, but the whole "big fish in a small pond" thing often feeds their ego.
3) TFG store owners (and GW employees) who ban anything they can't personally profit from. They can't sell FW kits, they don't allow them. Who cares about the good of the community, it's all about their personal profit numbers.
None of these reasons are acceptable, and none deserve any respect or sympathy.
that's a lot of uses of TFG from a guy that loves calling out others on ad hominems.
But hey, at least you show respect to other people's opinions...
Your view is wrong.
oh.
Look, your relentless criticism heaped on 8th edition is incredibly relevant when discussing said criticism. Yes, we are delegitimizing your opinion, because your opinion isn't interesting or insightful or funny or in any way adding of value. Its just bile spewed out, in such volume and frequency that it carries with it an implied contempt for those that enjoy it.
auticus wrote: The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.
You know that the new rulebook is coming out spring next year and that the Battle Companies book is up for pre-order this Saturday right?
auticus wrote: I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.
That might have something to do with it.
I know that a couple of the current batch of gwdevs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.
I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?
If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.
I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.
Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.
It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.
On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....
Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.
Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.
So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.
It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.
The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.
When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.
auticus wrote: The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.
You know that the new rulebook is coming out spring next year and that the Battle Companies book is up for pre-order this Saturday right?
Isn't it basically skirmish low model count though?
I want a proper wargame. Is there a link to more information?
I've heared rumblings about a reboot of LOTR, I think now branded as Middle Earth Strategy Games. I'm intrigued, as I have some Minas Tiritth sitting in a tub.
auticus wrote: I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.
That might have something to do with it.
I know that a couple of the current batch of gwdevs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.
I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?
If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.
I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.
Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.
It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.
On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....
Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.
Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.
So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.
It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.
The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.
When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.
I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.
The Auld Grump
Just to point out on the AoS rules, Jervis Johnson mentioned in a HeelanHammer podcast interview (Christmas Special), the hardest part with creating the rules was being told they had to fit on four A4 sheets. It sounded like a number of your issues were dictated to the rules team by management, aka Kirby and Merret.
auticus wrote: I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.
That might have something to do with it.
I know that a couple of the current batch of gwdevs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.
I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?
If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.
I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.
Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.
It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.
On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....
Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.
Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.
So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.
It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.
The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.
When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.
I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.
The Auld Grump
Just to point out on the AoS rules, Jervis Johnson mentioned in a HeelanHammer podcast interview (Christmas Special), the hardest part with creating the rules was being told they had to fit on four A4 sheets. It sounded like a number of your issues were dictated to the rules team by management, aka Kirby and Merret.
That is no beginning of a surprise.
I am always willing to blame GW's failings on those two.
Ah, well - while what I am hearing about the rules content for Newcromunda is disappointing, the miniatures look fantastic - which will be enough reason to buy Underhive, and use the spiffy plastics with Oldermunda. (Not joking or being sarcastic about the models - the Goliaths in particular look about a million times better than the plastics that came in the long ago game. The Escher... I want to use in a tabletop Fallout game.)
The Orlocks also look good, and, again, a whole lot better than the long ago plastics. (I may be a minority - I liked the Orlock plastics better than the Goliaths, in that old game.)
And the Scum, definitely in favor of the new Scum.
So... I am willing to chalk it up as GW victory, just not as big a victory as I had hoped. I will be spending money on GW product.
auticus wrote: The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.
You know that the new rulebook is coming out spring next year and that the Battle Companies book is up for pre-order this Saturday right?
Isn't it basically skirmish low model count though?
I want a proper wargame. Is there a link to more information?
Battle Companies is a warband development game. Kinda Mordheimy or Necromunda. But the game has already been rebranded into Middle Earth Strategy Battle Gaming. (see the link). Battle companies is out for pre-order on saturday and as i said above, a new rulebook is due out around spring time. There's no core mechanics or anything changing, it's essentially a tidy up and a review of older profiles that need adjusting.
Also, did you miss There and Back Again that came out earlier in the year? It had army lists for Gundabad and Iron Hills that have been released through Forgeworld.
auticus wrote: I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.
That might have something to do with it.
I know that a couple of the current batch of gwdevs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...
I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.
None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.
I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?
If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.
I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.
Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.
It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.
On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....
Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.
Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.
So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.
It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.
The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.
When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.
I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.
The Auld Grump
I hope necromunda goes well, but if they do a mordheim reboot, I am hoping its not in the "mortal realms" as I have found that setting extremely uninteresting. One of the kicks in the teeth about AoS is that it not only nuked a system, but a setting as well.
I personally think ShadeSpire and the previous Skirmish is that reboot already. Cursed city, wandering warbands and shards of a rare magic material pretty much fit the bill.
Likely they'll make a box set to combine the properties and have the appeal of two games in one box as well as a draw into AoS itself.
I did miss There and Back Again. The question is... is it worth picking up with the new ruleset coming...
Yes it is. As I said, the core mechanics of the game are not being changed. The only things that are being touched are magic and heroic strikes, which have needed tweaking for a while now. And the other thing is profiles such as the Balrog which have also needed updating for years. Nothing they're releasing will invalidate previous rules or models. You should join Great British Hobbit League on Facebook Aut. Adam Troke and all the Middle Earth team post there regularly and talk about the game and such.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.
If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?
You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.
I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.
It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.
And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.
My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)
Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 2000s, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.
There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)
I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.
My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.
I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.
That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.
GW used to be very good at building a community.
The Auld Grump
Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.
I honestly never expect KoW to match WHFB at the peak of its popularity.
Hell, I don't expect AoS and KoWcombined to reach that level of popularity.
I also honestly think that GW should have promoted AoS as a separate game from the Rank and File Warhammer - there was room for both games.
Though I also realize that WHFB was already dying when somebody had the 'brilliant' idea of AoS - it is quite possible that WHFB was not salvageable, much as I might wish that it were. (And I still hope that Specialist Games does a 'Legacy' game for WHFB.)
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* I might as well admit that I have enjoyed the heck out of both games of Lost Patrol that I have managed to play since the new version came out - it is still a good game, and the fog of war mechanic still works just fine.
This is something I have contemplated in the past: Whether classic WHFB could be saved from itself. Numerous changes throughout the editions ultimately led to a game that for most intents and purposes could have been on life support. Subtle things, be it Ranks being 4-wide in 6th, 5-wide in 7th, and 10-wide for Hordes in 8th resulted in a higher barrier to entry, especially since said infantry were usually glorified wound counters for static CR. Meanwhile, wonky cannon rules (alongside with 8th adding TLOS) and "6s autowound" made Monsters increasingly irrelevant, around the same time GW kept pushing out (admittedly lovely) monster kits. And of course, most codexes got chopped to 8 or so Magic Items, and Special Characters pointed to unplayability.
To this day, I wonder if the game could have been saved.
6s autowound to me is necessary. Otherwise you just listbuild to make your opponent's list not be able to hurt yours.
Which was garbage and not fun at all (remember we're talking about a game)
The cannon rules were indeed bad. Laser guided.
The spells were ridiculous. So many peoples' main strategy was to six dice the #6 spell for the win.
Steadfast had good intentions. Because 7th edition was a checkerboard of tiny cavalry units... steadfast brought back infantry.
But the gaming populace being the gaming populace run in extremes and took steadfast to places it shouldnt' have been taken with the 50 or 60 model mega death star facing off against the opponents 50 or 60 model mega death star, slapping bellies in the middle of the table until one failed a break check.
Even though your post was a huge logical fallacy ("I have a preconceived conclusion and will choose to ignore evidence that already exists."), it made me stop and think.
I've been playing geedub games since the early 90's. Space Hulk 1st and 40k 2nd were my first games (and of course Heroquest and Battlemasters before that).
This period of GW, the last few years, is the best I've ever experienced, by far. Thank you, James Hewitt and Adam Troke and everyone else with the passion and brilliance at New-GW!
Not only are their recent games _fantastic_, but that old blood that has all left GW is also producing _fantastic_ games. I'm spoiled for choice!
To this day, I wonder if the game could have been saved.
It probably could have but it would've had to start at 6th edition before Kirby let the fantasy monopoly slip through his fingers as he clutched onto the 40k Grail.
I see it as basically like yelling at Napoleon for losing Waterloo, a hundred easily seen mistakes in hindsight made by a genius at his height of power but whose mind was being effected by a grave illness.
And just like yelling at him there's no point now.
Not just hindsight, in this case - lots of people could see what Kirby's policies were doing to the company,
Kirby did okay when the company was doing okay - it was when things started going wrong that he made things worse.
First he focused on the game that was making the most money - sidelining Fantasy in favor of 40K.
Then, when things continued to slip, he focused on cutting costs and increasing profit per item over increasing sales.
It basically comes down to Kirby having no idea of how to bring the sales back, and focusing on what he did know.
A short range strategy for a long term problem.
Right now, I am wishing that Paizo would do an official miniatures based mass combat game that was compatible with Pathfinder - I am using KoW for that, but the systems do not have a lot in common.
The current Paizo mass combat rules (From Ultimate Campaign and before that in the Kingmaker Adventure Path) are abstract - they work, and pretty well, but sometimes I like having three hundred zombies on the table....
The Auld Grump - I am waffling about whether to run Kingmaker for the kids game... some of the kids seem to have no problem at all with mass combat, others do not seem that interested.
I think the old world could have been saved. If it had been up to me, I would have kept the world that was and ran a campaign to shake everything up, retconned a few things added a bit more high-fantasy to the mix and relaunched it as the first edition of WARHAMMER Realm Gate Wars.
Introduce the idea of realm gates appearing around the world opening and closing at random allowing for armies to fight each other and for it to make sense.
I would have focused on players creating smaller warbands>patrols>armies and then introduced movement trays to allow for models to be ranked up to gain bonuses and to be able to scale the game.
Explored the kingdoms of Ind and Cathay, rebooted Mordhiem...argh, just thinking about it makes me sad.
I would suggest that laying the blame for the faults of the games and miniatures and rules at the feet of Kirby lacks merrett... I am certain someone with more connection to the IP and how it was being implemented, micro managed or otherwise would be the more likely source of a sizable amount of that.
Did anyone else senior leave around the same time as Kirby stepped down, perhaps suddenly finding themselves without the old king's protection for their 'interesting' management style and now facing a new king who knew they were a menace and needed removing.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I would suggest that laying the blame for the faults of the games and miniatures and rules at the feet of Kirby lacks merrett... I am certain someone with more connection to the IP and how it was being implemented, micro managed or otherwise would be the more likely source of a sizable amount of that.
Did anyone else senior leave around the same time as Kirby stepped down, perhaps suddenly finding themselves without the old king's protection for their 'interesting' management style and now facing a new king who knew they were a menace and needed removing.
Heh - I kind of consider Merret to be one of Kirby's failed policies....
For the sake of Gogamagog, put somebody that knows how IP works in charge of IP! (Insert as many exclamation points as you are comfortable with)
Right now, GW is still in a recovery phase - which is going much better, financially, than I ever dreamed possible.
Going to be a while before they are ready to try 'innovation'.
The Auld Grump - Merret was the Zack Snyder for the GW IPs....
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I would suggest that laying the blame for the faults of the games and miniatures and rules at the feet of Kirby lacks merrett... I am certain someone with more connection to the IP and how it was being implemented, micro managed or otherwise would be the more likely source of a sizable amount of that.
Did anyone else senior leave around the same time as Kirby stepped down, perhaps suddenly finding themselves without the old king's protection for their 'interesting' management style and now facing a new king who knew they were a menace and needed removing.
Heh - I kind of consider Merret to be one of Kirby's failed policies....
For the sake of Gogamagog, put somebody that knows how IP works in charge of IP! (Insert as many exclamation points as you are comfortable with)
Right now, GW is still in a recovery phase - which is going much better, financially, than I ever dreamed possible.
Going to be a while before they are ready to try 'innovation'.
The Auld Grump - Merret was the Zack Snyder for the GW IPs....
I think I would more associate Merrit with Uwe Boll than Snyder, myself.
Kirby was certainly in "circle the wagons" mode when the company needed to more open and trading. Outwardly, Roundtree has brought a friendlier face and some improvements (multiple entry levels to 40K, some bundling with the Start Collecting boexes), but this Titanic of a company has still got a lot of manuevering and sailing to do before it is clear of the iceburg it's been floundering on for around 8 years.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I would suggest that laying the blame for the faults of the games and miniatures and rules at the feet of Kirby lacks merrett... I am certain someone with more connection to the IP and how it was being implemented, micro managed or otherwise would be the more likely source of a sizable amount of that.
Did anyone else senior leave around the same time as Kirby stepped down, perhaps suddenly finding themselves without the old king's protection for their 'interesting' management style and now facing a new king who knew they were a menace and needed removing.
That would be Alan "Great News" Merrett. He was in charge of IP and the final say of all GW lore. He left about 6 months after Roundtree took over.
Mentioned this in another thread, but Jervis did say it was management direction to make AoS' rules fit onto four A4 sheets. The rules guys were being given direction on how to produce rules to a certain extent.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I would suggest that laying the blame for the faults of the games and miniatures and rules at the feet of Kirby lacks merrett... I am certain someone with more connection to the IP and how it was being implemented, micro managed or otherwise would be the more likely source of a sizable amount of that.
Did anyone else senior leave around the same time as Kirby stepped down, perhaps suddenly finding themselves without the old king's protection for their 'interesting' management style and now facing a new king who knew they were a menace and needed removing.
Heh - I kind of consider Merret to be one of Kirby's failed policies....
For the sake of Gogamagog, put somebody that knows how IP works in charge of IP! (Insert as many exclamation points as you are comfortable with)
Right now, GW is still in a recovery phase - which is going much better, financially, than I ever dreamed possible.
Going to be a while before they are ready to try 'innovation'.
The Auld Grump - Merret was the Zack Snyder for the GW IPs....
I think I would more associate Merrit with Uwe Boll than Snyder, myself.
Kirby was certainly in "circle the wagons" mode when the company needed to more open and trading. Outwardly, Roundtree has brought a friendlier face and some improvements (multiple entry levels to 40K, some bundling with the Start Collecting boexes), but this Titanic of a company has still got a lot of manuevering and sailing to do before it is clear of the iceburg it's been floundering on for around 8 years.
I went with Zack Snyder rather than Uwe Bolle because Snyder takes a valuable property (DC superheroes - including the two biggest characters in the industry) and turns it into an unprofitable mess.
Uwe Bolle makes bad movies based on mediocre property - but they do make a profit.
I agree 100% on the Circle the Wagons or Fortress Mentality on Kirby - he was out of his depth, and had no idea as to how to reach the shore.
I suspect that he had hopes that somebody would buy GW for the IP, but it did not happen.
Not malice - he had just reached the hard edge of his competence.
One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the currentAoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.
Regardless of the kind of knight I am here, I certainly don't think the initial release of AoS is something to downplay. It was a clusterfeth of a car crash, and handled in the worst possible way. The only good things about it were the actual rules mechanics (in general) and the models. Not sure how any of us is "fixing the game" by spending money? What?
The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.
That's the thing, isn't it? The "black knights" don't actually ignore AoS. They piss and moan and spit venom rather than moving on to another game - even this far on. Hence my "bitter ex" comment. Like, no-one's asking you to like AoS in the slightest - just move the feth on and ignore it now. I got my personal venting done within a couple of months and then moved on. To Kings of War primarily, but also picked up Lion/Dragon Rampant, downloaded 9th Age, etc, but mostly was happy with KoW and "used" the WHFB background rather than Mantica. When I tried AoS as a skirmish game following the General's Handbook release, my games were still set in The Old World and my Dwarves were still Dwarves, not Dvergr or Dispossessed or whatever.
GW could have avoided a lot of crap, just by actually testing the rules before releasing them into the wild as is.
Which is what they've attempted to do with 40k 8th. It's far from perfect, but it's incredibly far from the dumpster fire that was 6th/7th. It's, you know, playable again.
Right now I am holding off on getting the new Necromunda - not because I don't want it, but because I have things I want to buy from Black Friday sales. But I am hearing... not so great things on editing, right now - so I may hold off for the second printing.
The Auld Grump - still planning to get the game, mind - even if the rules are not up to snuff, Necromunda minis are something I want.
Entirely fair enough. I got 2 copies for the models and scenery and tiles. I already have the original game, so if the rules are ...not up to snuff for my own games, I'll revert to the originals or even the Yaktribe set.
The biggest problem I have (as a current player of AoS) is they really did not fix anything. The core of the game is bad, the little tweeks around the edges from the ghbs havent done anything to address that. I know my group initially tried it based on the GW guy saying it was "skirmish" and cheaper to get into with smaller armies and less expensive. I found that to be mostly untrue, the new models are just as expensive and you usually need just as many. I will give it credit where I think it deserves it, but I wont hesitate to criticize it where I feel it deserves it as well. The game had been hyped up far beyond its meager capabilities.
Serious question - no snark. If you and your group don't like the game, why are you playing it instead of one of the many other available quality skirmish rulesets out there that allow you to use your existing models without the need to buy anything that you don't want to buy on its own aesthetic/price merits?
Polonius wrote: Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.
No, it was an ad hominem. It went beyond mere "explanation" into the same old attempt to label certain people "haters" and therefore dismiss everything they have to say. Rather than addressing the substance of the criticism on its own merits, regardless of who is saying it, they went straight for insulting the people making the criticism and trying to de-legitimize their opinion.
Sorry matey. You don't get to ascribe my motives, and your attempts to discredit my comments don't work.
So why do you appear to continue to hate AoS with such a passion this many years on rather than simply moving on and ignoring it as a product that you have no interest in?
Just to point out on the AoS rules, Jervis Johnson mentioned in a HeelanHammer podcast interview (Christmas Special), the hardest part with creating the rules was being told they had to fit on four A4 sheets. It sounded like a number of your issues were dictated to the rules team by management, aka Kirby and Merret.
This is accurate. I've seen the same comments in a number of places. It's why there are so many rules as part of each unit entry. Then again, after seeing how well (not) GW handled USRs in the decline from 3rd-7th bespoke unit rules is probably a better fit for them.
I hope necromunda goes well, but if they do a mordheim reboot, I am hoping its not in the "mortal realms" as I have found that setting extremely uninteresting. One of the kicks in the teeth about AoS is that it not only nuked a system, but a setting as well.
Mate - just ignore the AoS setting if you don't like it. Works for me. Most AoS units can easily be shoehorned into TOW factions anyway or retconned into the Old World background pretty easily in the same way that GW did for decades, and even Sigmarine models can be written in using the same logic as a "Sigmar's Holiest Devoted Warriors" faction.
Of course, Mordheim was set in the past, so do do the above as I'd personally play it, it'd have to be set in the "modern" Old World. So have a newer Warpstone Nuclear accident in another Empire City.
Azazelx wrote: Which is what they've attempted to do with 40k 8th. It's far from perfect, but it's incredibly far from the dumpster fire that was 6th/7th. It's, you know, playable again.
Sadly, a full edition after I gave up on the game, and sold off my Dark Angels.
But most of the things I am hearing about the new edition have been very positive - - mostly from folks that preferred 2nd edition. (My own sweet spot was 3rd - which was more of a wargame than other editions.)
It is getting played again.
I am not one of the folks that is playing the new edition, so I cannot speak to 'Innovation' or its lack - but, really, the important thing is people putting their toy soldiers on the table, and rolling dice.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.
And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.
And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.
And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.
I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.
BUT, and it's a big but...
These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.
Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.
They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?
What's dakka's view on this?
The question is more of can they support it. The reason why their Specialist line died, in my opinion for what its worth, is they stopped supporting the lines. So if the these new versions of games can see the same support as what GW puts into AOS or 40k, then maybe they can consider creating new IP.
. It's the work of talentless cash cow milkers who should have been fired 10+ years ago. They'd arguably have been better off reprinting 5th edition and pretending that the entire recent history of the game never happened.
