Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

lord_blackfang wrote:And they're fine and dandy if you want to play with your pre-teen kids and maybe even invite grandpa along. Dreadfleet is probably not aimed at casuals (the raw sprues kinda give it away) but at gamers who like a little depth (hah, nautical pun!) How many pages is Descent, or Horus Heresy, or Space Hulk? That's probably more in the right ballpark. Hoping for something as in-depth as Monsterpocalypse (40 pages raw combat rules) is probably a bit too much to hope for.

You can explain chess in a few sentences, yet it is probably the most tactical and challenging war-game that exists. In fact, Dreadfleet likely won't hold a candle to chess, tactically speaking. Having more pages in a rulebook doesn't make a game better, it simply makes it more complicated.

As I said, I'm not interested in a game that takes a long time to set up and learn the rules. You may be interested in such a game, but simply because I have different taste doesn't mean I'm only interested in playing with "pre-teen kids" and "grandpa," or that I'm somehow less of a gamer.

mikhaila wrote:Yeah, who the hell wants those 12 different scenarios that form a campaign?

One off games of candyland are where it's at!

Or Axis & Allies, Risk, Diplomacy, Chess, Stratego, Dominion, Go, Puerto Rico, or, if we're desperate, Warhammer 40k.

There are plenty of other games out there that compete for my time.

mikhaila wrote:Really? You guys are are complaining about MORE content?

Nope, I'm complaining about rules complexity and difficulty in getting the game to a table. I have plenty of tabletop-style games, I don't want another one.

Other people might not, good for them.

mikhaila wrote:I have 30 coming into my store. Half are already spoken for over the weeked. At this rate I'll be sold out and begging GW to let me have more copies by the time it ships out. Hopefully can get more so I can have a big stack to sell through Christmas.

Good for you, I hope you move as many of them as GW is willing to supply you with. They obviously appeal to some part of the market (although I wonder how much of it is due to Citadel-brand blinders), and you should take advantage of that as much as you can so your store remains successful.

But if I happen to wander into your store some day, don't push this game in my face and say "One off games of candyland are where it's at!" when I politely decline.

feth me, there are some tight bastards on here.

Ok 70 is pretty steep, but it aint that steep.

I reckon about 50-60 is a fair price. Are you fethers still living in the 60s or what? Its like listening to my nanna!

I mean, gak, a can of coke sets you back a quid. And a fething mars bar goes for 60p.

The Kiwis are getting ripped off no doubt, but the UK/US lot are just being cheap bastards. I really don't think it's enormously overpriced. My fething running shoes go for £85 and I think that's acceptable, its clearly within an acceptable boundary anyways.

Now, talk about a gak deal, have you blokes seen how much a bag of heroin goes for nowadays!? Its gone in an hour! Models are with you for life!

When I think ships I think armadas... I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that there were no generic models molded... As cool as the "last chancers in nautical form" is, I think any good captain would have some redshirts there... Even if it were as simple as a "generic ship x 12" sprue.
I think we can agree that the price range/compatability combo has put this product out of anone but the dedicated hobbiest with more money than concern, so why not give them something they can at least try to incoporate with their army... Even if there is no actual connection.
Poor planning, dumb execution, IMO... Like most GW things I'm left wondering, "why god, why? Why don't they just give the customers what they want?"

mattyrm wrote: feth me, there are some tight bastards on here.

Ok 70 is pretty steep, but it aint that steep.

I reckon about 50-60 is a fair price. Are you fethers still living in the 60s or what? Its like listening to my nanna!

I mean, gak, a can of coke sets you back a quid. And a fething mars bar goes for 60p.

The Kiwis are getting ripped off no doubt, but the UK/US lot are just being cheap bastards. I really don't think it's enormously overpriced. My fething running shoes go for £85 and I think that's acceptable, its clearly within an acceptable boundary anyways.

Now, talk about a gak deal, have you blokes seen how much a bag of heroin goes for nowadays!? Its gone in an hour! Models are with you for life!

Cheap is a pretty relative term though, perhaps you earn more than average, or for some reason have a high amount of disposable income, but other don't. I can afford it, it's just the fact that I'm going to prioritise my spending on hobby this month to other things, namely at games day, instead of buying something I'm not 100% interested in. Probably a fair few other people are in a similar situation, and the limited release also means most of those won't have a chance to pick it up perhaps if they'd put some money aside for a month or so. Just saying.

biccat wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:And they're fine and dandy if you want to play with your pre-teen kids and maybe even invite grandpa along. Dreadfleet is probably not aimed at casuals (the raw sprues kinda give it away) but at gamers who like a little depth (hah, nautical pun!) How many pages is Descent, or Horus Heresy, or Space Hulk? That's probably more in the right ballpark. Hoping for something as in-depth as Monsterpocalypse (40 pages raw combat rules) is probably a bit too much to hope for.

You can explain chess in a few sentences, yet it is probably the most tactical and challenging war-game that exists. In fact, Dreadfleet likely won't hold a candle to chess, tactically speaking. Having more pages in a rulebook doesn't make a game better, it simply makes it more complicated.

As I said, I'm not interested in a game that takes a long time to set up and learn the rules. You may be interested in such a game, but simply because I have different taste doesn't mean I'm only interested in playing with "pre-teen kids" and "grandpa," or that I'm somehow less of a gamer.

mikhaila wrote:Yeah, who the hell wants those 12 different scenarios that form a campaign?

One off games of candyland are where it's at!

Or Axis & Allies, Risk, Diplomacy, Chess, Stratego, Dominion, Go, Puerto Rico, or, if we're desperate, Warhammer 40k.

There are plenty of other games out there that compete for my time.

mikhaila wrote:Really? You guys are are complaining about MORE content?

Nope, I'm complaining about rules complexity and difficulty in getting the game to a table. I have plenty of tabletop-style games, I don't want another one.

Other people might not, good for them.

mikhaila wrote:I have 30 coming into my store. Half are already spoken for over the weeked. At this rate I'll be sold out and begging GW to let me have more copies by the time it ships out. Hopefully can get more so I can have a big stack to sell through Christmas.

Good for you, I hope you move as many of them as GW is willing to supply you with. They obviously appeal to some part of the market (although I wonder how much of it is due to Citadel-brand blinders), and you should take advantage of that as much as you can so your store remains successful.

But if I happen to wander into your store some day, don't push this game in my face and say "One off games of candyland are where it's at!" when I politely decline.

I'm sorry if your offended by my sarcastic comment. I just fail to see how you can be so upset about the complexity of the game when no one has seen it yet. I think a lot of the griping in this thread is just mindless.

Not wanting to buy the game? NP Don't like naval games? NP Griping about things you can't possibly know about? Totally confusing.

Nope, I'm complaining about rules complexity and difficulty in getting the game to a table. I have plenty of tabletop-style games, I don't want another one.

Problem solved. Don't buy it. No one is pushing it on you. No one cares if you buy it. And no ones going to stop you from playing the games you like.

So what reason do you have to complain? Quota of griping at GW not filled for the week?

I only play one wargame. I've no interest in any other. (I play 40k.)

filbert wrote:I think he has his sums wrong -

$220 New Zealand dollars converts to £115 GBP approx.

Yup, £115, or AU$175

So it's actually slightly cheaper in New Zealand than in Oz.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:but for me that ain't worth 70 smackers.

If it was $70 here I might consider it...however for US folks its $115. At 190 for AUS folks I bet they will have terrible sales there.

mikhaila wrote:I'm sorry if your offended by my sarcastic comment.

I was only offended to the extent you equated not wanting to buy a new game to intellectual capacity.

mikhaila wrote:I just fail to see how you can be so upset about the complexity of the game when no one has seen it yet. I think a lot of the griping in this thread is just mindless.

I simply expressed my opinion. My response in the last few pages was because someone attacked the validity of my position: that the rulebook is 96 pages. Even if it includes a lot of fluff, that's still a lot of pages of rules. In fact, I haven't seen many baseless attacks against the game. The complaints seem to be:
1) too lengthy for a board game
2) too expensive
3) limited run.

mikhaila wrote:Not wanting to buy the game? NP Don't like naval games? NP Griping about things you can't possibly know about? Totally confusing.

I'm not griping about the complexity, I expressed my assessment of the game based on the information provided. That's the reasoning behind why I don't want to buy the game.

Also, I don't think I should be expected to purchase a $115 game and read through a 96 page rulebook (and presumably get a few 3+ hour games under my belt) before I'm allowed to comment on whether the game looks like a valuable use of my time.

mikhaila wrote:Problem solved. Don't buy it. No one is pushing it on you. No one cares if you buy it.

This whole thread is asking "is anyone buying Dreadfleet." Presumably the OP cares if I buy the game.

Someone asked up-thread if cost was the only reason people aren't buying the game. That person obviously cares about my reasons for not wanting to buy the game. Perhaps he is on the fence and curious as to what other people think.

mikhaila wrote:So what reason do you have to complain? Quota of griping at GW not filled for the week?

Again, not complaining, merely providing my assessment of the game. Want it again? Probably not, but here it is:
1) this looks to be a one-off game, more board game (A&A) than tabletop game (like WHFB or 40k).

2) miniatures are supplied unpainted. Not a problem for tabletop games, a problem for board-games.

3) rules are long. Not a problem for tabletop games, a problem for board-games.

I actually do like the aesthetics of the miniatures and scenery, and I like the idea of the naval battlemat supplied with the game. But I probably would use them rarely (if ever), so it's not worth the $115 price tag, to me.

I was only offended to the extent you equated not wanting to buy a new game to intellectual capacity.

Not insulting your intelligence at all, I think you read too much into things. That just happened to be the first example of an easy to set up game that came to mind. Last week my twins were into chutes and ladders, this week we're back to candyland. Maybe I should have said Red Dragon Inn.)

And no matter how you try to guess on what's in those 96 pages, you're still making a guess and complaining about it. None of us know how easy it is to set up, complexity, or replay value.

2) miniatures are supplied unpainted. Not a problem for tabletop games, a problem for board-games.

Far be it from me to guess what boardgames you buy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any that have painted miniatures past solid blue, solid green, solid black, etc.

Mad4Minis wrote:

biccat wrote:96 page rulebook

WTF? Thats absolutely crazy.

It's probably about six pages of actual rules, 20 pages of special rules for the 20 ships, and the rest is fluff and painting guides.

biccat wrote:I simply expressed my opinion. My response in the last few pages was because someone attacked the validity of my position: that the rulebook is 96 pages. Even if it includes a lot of fluff, that's still a lot of pages of rules.

The thing is, without having seen the rulebook there is absolutely no way to know that. For all anyone knows it could be 5 pages of rules, 10 pages of pretty pictures and a novella.

It's a small format book. Fill up half of the book with artwork, scenarios and fluff pieces, and you're left with around 50 pages. Use a large font and lots of diagrams to make it easy to follow, and you have 25 pages of rules. Still potentially complex for a boardgame, but not overly so for a stand-alone wargame.

But it's all guesswork. We won't have any way of judging how complicated the rules are until we actually see the rules.

mikhaila wrote:Not insulting your intelligence at all, I think you read too much into things. That just happened to be the first example of an easy to set up game that came to mind. Last week my twins were into chutes and ladders, this week we're back to candyland. Maybe I should have said Red Dragon Inn.)

Yes, obviously chutes and ladders is a step up from candyland. And you're not repeating the same implied insult at all.

How about chess? That's a very easy game to set up (as long as you can remember whether the knights go inside the bishops or not).

mikhaila wrote:And no matter how you try to guess on what's in those 96 pages, you're still making a guess and complaining about it. None of us know how easy it is to set up, complexity, or replay value.

You're right. But I'm not willing to make the investment of time and money simply to find out whether the game is needlessly complicated or not. I could just as easily have said that I'm not buying it because of the box art, because I'll bet that box art has a much higher impact on sales than word of mouth.

mikhaila wrote:Far be it from me to guess what boardgames you buy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any that have painted miniatures past solid blue, solid green, solid black, etc.

There needs to be an easy way to distinguish models from one player to the next. Solid blue/green/black/red works remarkably well. Highly-detailed grey plastic does not.

In fact, isn't this one of the standard rationale's that's pushed in the "to paint or not to paint" threads?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=167

Like the earlier Doom boardgame it has colour plastic, unpainted models. Detailed painting doesn't matter for identification as each player controls only one figure.

Lots of owners do paint their models for this type of game, though, owing to aesthetic considerations.

mikhaila wrote:
Far be it from me to guess what boardgames you buy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any that have painted miniatures past solid blue, solid green, solid black, etc.

Heroscape comes to mind. I seem to recall there were a couple Marvel and Transformers games that came with painted pieces. That's just with about 10-15 seconds of thought.

biccat wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Not insulting your intelligence at all, I think you read too much into things. That just happened to be the first example of an easy to set up game that came to mind. Last week my twins were into chutes and ladders, this week we're back to candyland. Maybe I should have said Red Dragon Inn.)

Yes, obviously chutes and ladders is a step up from candyland. And you're not repeating the same implied insult at all.

No, actually, I'm not. You want to take it that way, go right ahead.

With 5 year old twin girls, my gaming is often reduced to Candyland and Chutes and Ladders. Checkers was ok for a weekend, and then they wanted to go visit candyland again. I'm so hoping my wife lets me skip to kids of Cataan soon.

RandomSauce19 wrote:What about you guys?

Not feeling it, not at that price point. I'd have considered it at $50-60. Will probably get this instead, which I'll likely enjoy more, plugs into a pre-existing game I already own if I fancy that, not feel like I have to paint up, and costs half as much.

It looks like a neat game, don't get me wrong, and the minis look very nice. It's just too much money for me, $115 would be too much for most any board game unless I was dying for it.

I'm with ouze WRT his last remark. It looks decent enough, but I can also grab two of the new-sculpt Uncharted Seas starters that have just gone up for preorder(each with mini rulebook and mini fluff primer for faction involved) for the $115 price point(3 if i get 3 different unsailed fleets, since the pewter sails drive their price up).

Basically, if a buddy showed up and asked to play Dreadfleet I wouldn't turn them down, but if I'm buying I'm going to buy into an existing fantasy naval game.

Breotan wrote:This game might have gone over better had GW done it back when the PotC movies were popular.

notprop wrote:If you follow that logic then you will have to wait until they make the next D&D film to get a Warhammer Quest.

Respectfully, that's not a reasonable analogy. The last Dungeons & Dragons movie was a critical & box office failure which took in $33 million worldwide on a budget of $35 million. Inexplicably, a sequel was produced for $12 million which took in $900,000 worldwide.

The POTC series has taken in nearly 4 billion dollars.

The only similarity between these franchises is that they are all films you can watch. Financially, one is essentially a license to print money, and the other is a cash bonfire for which every $20 bill you toss onto it nets you $1.60 in return.

Attempting to ride the coattails of the POTC movies for a game like this would have been good business.

Am seeing a fair bit about overpricing and value

It is may not be bad value, but it is still overpriced for a one trick pony board game.

That demand /supply chart is pointless as GW never price products based on such things
They use a spinning wheel to price them:
Lots
even more
How do we even get away with it excess
The suckers still buy if we add another 20% on excessive
and such like

Round and round and round she goes...

A classic S/D chart won't apply to a product with limited supply.

mattyrm wrote:
The Kiwis are getting ripped off no doubt, but the UK/US lot are just being cheap bastards. I really don't think it's enormously overpriced. My fething running shoes go for £85 and I think that's acceptable, its clearly within an acceptable boundary anyways.

Try college student paying out of pocket and you'll be a lot closer to the mark, in my case. You have $115 to just drop on something? $130 for shoes? I think I need to change my major to get wherever in life that you are. I'll be there one day...I think. -sigh-

I won't be buying Dreadfleet. That kind of price is too much for an untried game when I'm also in the middle of buying a flat at the same time. I'll save my meagre gaming budget for more Warmachine or Malifaux

No. I actually like the models (I think the exaggeration gives them a nice, cartoony flavor), but I'm not a huge boardgame fan. And the price is scary when I'm still trying to build my first army.

The value of the components looks high (probably worth £70, if the game's any good), but I wouldn't buy for the components alone, because I (like most people here I suspect) have more than enough unfinished painting projects to occupy me for some years yet.

The quality of, complexity of, and duration of the game is a complete unknown, so I can't reasonably consider buying it for the game alone either. I do love boardgames, and board wargames, but there are loads of others I'm really keen to buy, that I *know* are good, and my boardgame shelves are looking pretty full already, too.

I decided on the last price rise that I wouldn't be buying any more 40K stuff from GW, or starting WH. I will happily buy a boardgame from them if convinced it's worthwhile, but I'm not convinced this one is, for me. I'd like to play it, sometime, to find out, and I will certainly look out for reviews. Unfortunately I probably won't get a chance to play it. Even the frothiest of GW fans near me seem to be saying "Oooh, I'd really love to buy it, but can't afford to" (whereas for Space Hulk, a lot of people who usually bashed GW were saying "I can't really afford it but I have to buy that game anyway").

How much was Space Hulk -- £60? I can't remember now.

Kilkrazy wrote:How much was Space Hulk -- £60? I can't remember now.

In the US, it was $90 from the Warstore, which is where I got mine.

I will order a copy and I will get it for Christmas.

Hmm, more complaints about price. So, £35 per player is too much, despite it including the rules, counters, gaming table, terrain, and both factions' miniatures. Hey, if you don't like it, you don't like it, fair enough. But no games company sells cheaper than that. None. My Dystopian Wars entry cost was higher than that, and that's the cheapest game I've gotten into. Complaints about the price tag are daft, especially compared to the costs of the rest of GW products.

Personally, I couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the game. I'm going to get me a copy for the models. I like those crazy ships, and have plans for modding Uncharted Seas into the Warhammer World. Being familiar with the basics of the rule-set from DW contributes a lot to that decision.

htj wrote: So, £35 per player is too much, ...

Most people don't go shares in boardgames. It's not £35 per player. It's £70 for the game.

Complaints about the price tag are daft, especially compared to the costs of the rest of GW products.

Complaints about the price are no less valid than complaints about any other aspect of the game. Everybody has their own threshold as to how much they would be prepared to play. If the product under discussion is above that threshold, pointing that out is simply a natural part of the discussion.

insaniak wrote:Most people don't go shares in boardgames. It's not £35 per player. It's £70 for the game.

Yes, I was oversimplifying, it's fair to say. Point taken. But you're still looking at an effective £35 per army price tag, discounting cost of rules and mat and so forth.

It's not a boardgame, though.

Complaints about the price are no less valid than complaints about any other aspect of the game. Everybody has their own threshold as to how much they would be prepared to play. If the product under discussion is above that threshold, pointing that out is simply a natural part of the discussion.

I see what's being said here, but I can't get along with it. For cost-product balance it's probably the cheapest thing GW have produced in years. Considering how much one will spend on an army, it doesn't seem that outrageous to me. At worst it's cutting into the process of building your army only a little, no? Still, it does make one wonder - if they rules and miniatures were released separately and lower individual costs, would those who stop at the price tag be more likely to pick it up?