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.

In my case, because I'm a Tyranid player.

Both 3rd ed 40k and 6th ed fantasy were about increasing the model count of the games to sell more miniatures. I suppose one could make an argument that bigger games can then be played in shorter times and that efficiency is a good thing, but we know from ex-employee interviews that the motive was commercial rather than one based on delivering game excellence.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I swear every time they seem like they're doing something brilliant (like End Times, DoW or Total War: Warhammer) they do something so unbelievably stupid i just can't fathom why they would do it.

To be fair, GW didn't make Total Warhammer or DoW. They simply got paid for the use of the license.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Seriously making 9th edition fantasy and selling the Total War game at the same time would've been brilliant. I mean Total War advertised the Fantasy minis shown in-game on the title page when you enter the Total War: Warhammer game. GW still shoots this brilliant marketing strategy down from the sky before it succeeds.

I completely agree, but GW has always been terrible at leveraging their IP for cross-promotion and enhancing their own brands. Think of all the big non-GW-created GW IP releases and how often they've never done anything to coincide with them. Warhammer Online got a cool Orc mini in the collector's edition and... that's it as far as I can tell.

A bunch of massive Dawn of War games come out, and it took GW nearly twelve years to release a single Blood Raven model.
Space Marine? Nothing.
That (admittedly quite bad) Ultramarine movie? That got a free PDF release from FFG, and nothing from GW.

They just ignore their IP once it's out in the world, and never do anything that would draw people towards them. The first time I saw links to the GW website was for Total Warhammer, and those links take you to AoS because they killed the WFB universe. The splash page might as well have said "Did you like fighting the Chaos Hordes with your Empire army? Well feth you 'cause we blew all that gak up! Now buy some Sigmarines and shut up kid!". It's insane.

I know GW has a level of involvement in everything of theirs that other people are doing, but why can't they get with the program and key some releases to go along with major IP releases? For the one in a hundred people who go "What is this 40K caper anyway?" and log into their website, it'd be great if they came across something that directly related to the video game or board game that they just started playing.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
People complain about Sega or CA with all the DLC but at least they're smart enough to know how much people are willing to spend and how to get them interested in something.

Nah they're still write to be gakky at SEGA. They're a bad publisher. Not as bad as some (EA, Ubisoft and especially Warner "Me no smart PC too hard!" Brothers), but it's A-Ok to dislike their DLC policies. And CA? Well they made a game that wasn't unplayable on release and riddled with endless bugs. That alone deserves some massive recognition.

Yeah GW didn't make it which is probably why they were so good but their failure to capitalize on a good situation (not a bad one even but a good one) makes for a poor business strategy.

Actually they did worse later on. All those Total War: Warhammer models were taken down. Total War still promotes the models on the game menu screen and when you click to see them it shows an empty/broken link or no models. I can't remember which the last i checked. I think GW straight up deleted it. I can understand maybe the Total War Warhammer game isn't as hot as it was on release and there's a limit to how much they should show it but the models shown (esp. the affordable ones like mannfred) were consistently 'out of stock'. Gee i wonder why.

Sega is still Dennis the Menace whereas GW is the game company equivalent of the devil. At least CA or Sega are fixing their mistakes to an extent. People complained and then Sega said "Ok we'll allow the Chaos Warriors DLC to be free if you buy the game within a week of Total War: Warhammer being out." GW wouldn't even listen to their customers in the longest time.

Personally just there's so much to hate about GW. Lack of game balance, alienating WHF players, increasing prices, having combined box sets that go for thousands of dollars without one cent of a sale (somewhat being improved), disdain for the customer, lack of listening to customer feedback (may also be somewhat fixed), lack of understanding newer technologies or figuring them out slowest (gonna bet they were the last to figure out iPad, ebooks and similar), IP protection beyond compare, making things out of crappier materials and increasing cost, gutting codexes and rulebooks of story and flavor to add more pictures and slapping a higher price tag on them (anybody remember the dwarfen language and how much they gutted that out of the last dwarf codex in fantasy?), lack of being friendly or smart with game publishers that could legit boost sales on their products by showing video gamers and similar their game and thereby increasing their constantly shrinking hardcore loyal fanbase (which they totally f'ed up with the death of Fantasy and brought old 40k players into AoS instead so nice job on that one GW) and probably more issues i can't think of right now.

I mean if i never played 'Dawn of War' i seriously never would've gotten into 40k and then switched to Fantasy a couple years after. Wargaming is a small market. Video games are a large market. It doesn't take a genius to look at this and figure 'Hey maybe we should expand our player base by dipping into other larger markets like video games, animated series, comics, etc.'

Just wtf GW. I should seriously stop playing GW games and play X-wing already. It sounds affordable and balanced and sounds like an actual good game. There's also a legit chance the company actually listens to player/customer feedback. I mean how sad is it that if i should even want to support GW by going to their stores that i can no longer play Warhammer Fantasy there and not only that but if i choose not to switch to AoS i'm not a true customer and they don't want me. I legit bought most of my stuff from GW and from their stores. If anything these guys should be kissing my *** but instead i'm not a true fan/customer. GW can go **** themselves. Like why support their games when they won't. I should seriously just buy all my GW product crap online from people on Ebay just to show i don't support such unfriendly customer support.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Problem is they put out 3rd in the form we know it because they wanted to have a larger sized game to sell more. Supposedly the original version of 3rd was like a cleaned up 2nd edition.

I can't find the interview, but IIRC the 3rd edition we got was actually a ruleset one of the designers (I want to say Rick Preistley but I'm not sure) was working on for their own game. Late in development GW management decided that 3rd edition wasn't going the direction they wanted (whichever direction that may be, more models was ab obvious requirement), so he brought that ruleset in and they quickly adapted it to 40k.

 -Loki- wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Problem is they put out 3rd in the form we know it because they wanted to have a larger sized game to sell more. Supposedly the original version of 3rd was like a cleaned up 2nd edition.

I can't find the interview, but IIRC the 3rd edition we got was actually a ruleset one of the designers (I want to say Rick Preistley but I'm not sure) was working on for their own game. Late in development GW management decided that 3rd edition wasn't going the direction they wanted (whichever direction that may be, more models was ab obvious requirement), so he brought that ruleset in and they quickly adapted it to 40k.

That said, 3rd edition remains my favorite version of the game. (I liked 2nd edition more than 1st, but oh my lords and ladies was the game broken!)

The Auld Grump

 -Loki- wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Problem is they put out 3rd in the form we know it because they wanted to have a larger sized game to sell more. Supposedly the original version of 3rd was like a cleaned up 2nd edition.

I can't find the interview, but IIRC the 3rd edition we got was actually a ruleset one of the designers (I want to say Rick Preistley but I'm not sure) was working on for their own game. Late in development GW management decided that 3rd edition wasn't going the direction they wanted (whichever direction that may be, more models was ab obvious requirement), so he brought that ruleset in and they quickly adapted it to 40k.

I heard that too. Priestly was doing a 15mm (not sure of that) WW2 set of rules and hastily adapted it to 40k when the revamped 2nd edition was rejected.

Still my point remains. 3rd edition has been the core of the rules for too long, and instead of actually fixing the problems they change the wrong stuff (e.g. let's make shooting good, now let's make assault good, now let's make shooting good) all the while ignoring the core problems that have been an issue since it's inception. I played 2nd edition, and it was kinda clunky overall. I liked the original streamlining of 3rd, but it quickly got out of hand. The entire game needs a core rewrite, from the ground up. I don't even mind if they would use the basics of AoS, because I'll admit the profile style for that is pretty good. They just need to not let visuals/models drive rules and actually look at things outside of a vacuum so gross imbalances can be fixed.

I think the biggest thing though is they need to decide what, exactly, 40k is meant to be, and if necessary have 3 sets of rules (using the same core mind you) for each. So you might have platoon/company level (couple of squads, like 2-3 tanks/walkers/monsters) as the default size. Going down to skirmish level (i.e. Kill team/Combat Patrol) puts more focus on things like individual models (e.g. buying individual upgrades for individual models, no coherency, etc.). Scaling up abstracts things further, possibly involving movement trays like you see in some historical games like SAGA (and I think they were in some LOTR version), but simplifies the rules so games don't take hours to play (e.g. you don't care what heavy weapon a squad has, just that it has a heavy weapon). That's what they need to have; a set of core rules and then add/remove as needed based on scale.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Both 3rd ed 40k and 6th ed fantasy were about increasing the model count of the games to sell more miniatures. I suppose one could make an argument that bigger games can then be played in shorter times and that efficiency is a good thing, but we know from ex-employee interviews that the motive was commercial rather than one based on delivering game excellence.

Well, the core units weren't selling. So how about we make the game force you to buy core units? That's pretty much what happened. Every thing they change about their game is geared around selling models, whether new models or old models that nobody is buying anymore. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. However, the side effect of this was a more balanced game in both instances. Codex/Army book Creep is what ruined both editions.

The fact 3rd edition rewrote the game from the ground up was a good thing as a lot of the problems were in the codices themselves. It's a shame GW hasn't done a clean wipe in the past 18 years and carrying over old rules + general bad writing is what gives us the stinking pile of junk that we currently have.

3rd also was the start of decent quality multipose plastic, so increasing the size of the game was less painful when you don't have to buy tons of metal models to make an army.

I can never like 3rd ed though because it brought in too many core rules changes that I think are junk and have hung around for the past 18 years.



I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB

Granted I still like the 40k and WHFB universes, but I'm not buying in to it when the games aren't fun.... or non-existent.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB

I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.

GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.

I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.

niall78 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB

I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.

GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.

I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.

They just dont know what there customers need. Thats all. Just look at Total War: Warhammer and Fantasy.

By the way they are bringing back the Primarchs, because.....


Drum roll...


30k sales are good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw4FMgEnBXI

niall78 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB

I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.

GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.

I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.

/wins thread. What it boils down to for me, is that GW rules are inferior to the competition. So why would I play their games?

Is it GW loss if people play other systems but still keep buying GW minis?

They make seemingly dumb choices a lot but I still buy space marines. I literally cannot help myself. Help me.

Dunno, I think it's kinda tiring hating on a company at the end of the day you vote with your wallet. Stopped doing 40k because CSM were pretty boring.

Could not get into 8th since it was too expensive since I wanted to do counts. Started AOS because it's kinder to my wallet at the end of the day.

Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.

If people dislike GW so much don't buy their stuff. The people who hate GW and still bought total war warhammer are doing it wrong.

 shinros wrote:
Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.

I work a lot too. So do the people I play against.

We don't argue over a giant rulebook because the rules for the games we play are actually well written.

 -Loki- wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.

I work a lot too. So do the people I play against.

We don't argue over a giant rulebook because the rules for the games we play are actually well written.

Well that's just my experience and had a lot of people who did not really play for fun either. When playing AOS barely ever happens anymore and they left for other games so overall I am grateful my community is a lot better now. Still I don't know what games you play but in my store no one really played WHFB anymore.

edit:Still my point is if you no longer enjoy the game you are playing and the company is no longer supporting the way you enjoy it don't give them money anymore. It's that simple.

For me, it's two things that led to me quitting. I could have written a massive wall of text but I'd only be repeating what's already been said.

But to summarize what I was going to say, you're paying premium prices for a shoddy product.

 shinros wrote:
Dunno, I think it's kinda tiring hating on a company at the end of the day you vote with your wallet. Stopped doing 40k because CSM were pretty boring.

Could not get into 8th since it was too expensive since I wanted to do counts. Started AOS because it's kinder to my wallet at the end of the day.

Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.

If people dislike GW so much don't buy their stuff. The people who hate GW and still bought total war warhammer are doing it wrong.

They wanted to play a game that GW destroyed. Are you saying i should illegally download their game instead?

Have you ever been in a relationship where you hate someone but you're afraid of change so you stay together even though you hate them? That's where a lot of us are with GW. I don't know where i'd move on to and i don't know if i could go to another game store. I think i will though hearing so much about X-wing and how it solves all the issues i have pretty much. GW makes some pretty minis sometimes (though AoS brought most of 8th Fantasy's great model line into the trash can) but the cost just doesn't justify it anymore.

Davor wrote:
Is it GW loss if people play other systems but still keep buying GW minis?

It is actually. Not in the short term and obviously it's a lot better for GW than if people neither play the games or buy the models.

However, a huge competitive edge that GW managed to cultivate (either knowingly or accidentally) was the sentiment among players that GW rules and models are inexorably intertwined. Especially since GW games were the big dog on the market. (Now only 40K retains that position).

Someone playing a GW game will generally first consider the GW models and only if they don't like them they'll consider other manufacturers. Some will even buy GW models they don't like the look of because the connection between the game and the models or for fear they won't be able to use other models pleying in GW stores. Someone playing for instance T9A or KoW with their GW models and decide to expand the army or get a new one will probably consider GW, but those models now need to compete on a lot more even playing field with models from Mierce, Puppetswar, Avatars of War, MOM etc...

Short term at least, GW gets a lot of sales from people using the models in T9A, KoW etc, but they lose a lot of mindshare by people playing other games than the one connected to their minis and that means they eventually lose marketshare since their model sales were propped up by the models being connected to widely played games.

The situation is more dire when it comes to 40K since Space marines is such a huge portion of the sales. There's not really any other popular game that I'm aware of where GW Space Marine models fit in (unless we count 30K), so anyone stopping playing 40K will probably soon stop buying Space Marines.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

niall78 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB

I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.

GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.

I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.

/wins thread. What it boils down to for me, is that GW rules are inferior to the competition. So why would I play their games?

I can answer:. Because in many areas, people still choose to play GW games and either don't know, font care or don't want to play their competitors. You don't know how many times I think about starting one of the games that's mentioned above and then I realized nobody around me plays it, no stores stock it and if I tried to get interest in it I would get told off for trying to steer people away from the games that they do play which almost always includes the GW brand. Even when a new game store opens they immediately try to push Warhammer like the old days because there is people who play it rather than taking a chance on an lesser known game that may or may not work and typically has to be gotten from overseas. That is why. Getting people to try a new game when they already play one is a Monumental task especially when they are so heavily invested in the game like you typically find with Warhammer players.

There is one store by me that has KoW and other Mantic stuff (sadly it seems the competitive gamers have infested it). None of the others know what it is or has anyone (except me likely) who cares because it's not Warhammer. I have never seen anything from warlord or game like infinity or saga or similar games on the Shelf or spoken to anyone who knew what it was and had any desire to find out more. But on the flip side there are plenty of people I know who play Warhammer and are happy doing it so it makes the choice of what to play pretty much decided for you already that is why people still buy it because they know that others buy it and it's easier to get a game, crappy rules notwithstanding

 Elbows wrote:


Now, sure, they could just crank out a new AoS-esque 8th edition and say "screw you all, all of the books you've purchased are worthless". I don't remember the time lapse between the latest Fantasy books and their new edition. If they want desperately to lose customers they could go this route. I can guarantee if I'd just paid the ridiculous $55-75 bucks for a GW rulebook and it was replaced within a year, I'd be pretty ticked.

I think that the last End Times book, Archaeon, came out in March 2015 and then AoS was July... What was that you said about desperately wanting to lose customers???

Crispy78 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


Now, sure, they could just crank out a new AoS-esque 8th edition and say "screw you all, all of the books you've purchased are worthless". I don't remember the time lapse between the latest Fantasy books and their new edition. If they want desperately to lose customers they could go this route. I can guarantee if I'd just paid the ridiculous $55-75 bucks for a GW rulebook and it was replaced within a year, I'd be pretty ticked.

I think that the last End Times book, Archaeon, came out in March 2015 and then AoS was July... What was that you said about desperately wanting to lose customers???

Nagash end of times was Aug 2014
Gottkin end of times was Oct 2014
Khaine Nov 2014
Thaquol Jan 2015
Archaon Mar 2015
All books under a year old

And if their plan was to lose customers, they sure succeeded with flying colors.

I do think it's a pill they have to swallow though. Keeping, even worsening the confusing and incalculable bloat of 40K rules is just not a valid prospect. If they streamline it, they can at least hope to get people into the new game eventually, even if they get pissed initially due to a lot of books being obolete in the new system.

For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow. The problem there was that the new game was arguably the crappiest excuse for a game system ever published. If 40K 8th it actually good, it could work in the long run.

 Zywus wrote:
And if their plan was to lose customers, they sure succeeded with flying colors.

I do think it's a pill they have to swallow though. Keeping, even worsening the confusing and incalculable bloat of 40K rules is just not a valid prospect. If they streamline it, they can at least hope to get people into the new game eventually, even if they get pissed initially due to a lot of books being obolete in the new system.

For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow. The problem there was that the new game was arguably the crappiest excuse for a game system ever published. If 40K 8th it actually good, it could work in the long run.

I think the endless codex's and other associated army books are to much of a money maker to drop at this stage. Every edition cycle GW make a lot of money with minimal effort by tweaking and republishing these books. Each involved player is spending hundreds of Euro "to stay current" just on the books alone.

That adds up to millions very quickly and a big reason why we see edition changes. The rules, scale and balance stay busted but updating the books with minimal effort brings in bales of cash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

I can answer:. Because in many areas, people still choose to play GW games and either don't know, font care or don't want to play their competitors. You don't know how many times I think about starting one of the games that's mentioned above and then I realized nobody around me plays it, no stores stock it and if I tried to get interest in it I would get told off for trying to steer people away from the games that they do play which almost always includes the GW brand. Even when a new game store opens they immediately try to push Warhammer like the old days because there is people who play it rather than taking a chance on an lesser known game that may or may not work and typically has to be gotten from overseas. That is why. Getting people to try a new game when they already play one is a Monumental task especially when they are so heavily invested in the game like you typically find with Warhammer players.

There is one store by me that has KoW and other Mantic stuff (sadly it seems the competitive gamers have infested it). None of the others know what it is or has anyone (except me likely) who cares because it's not Warhammer. I have never seen anything from warlord or game like infinity or saga or similar games on the Shelf or spoken to anyone who knew what it was and had any desire to find out more. But on the flip side there are plenty of people I know who play Warhammer and are happy doing it so it makes the choice of what to play pretty much decided for you already that is why people still buy it because they know that others buy it and it's easier to get a game, crappy rules notwithstanding

Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.

Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.

I got a small group involved in Black Powder The Anglo-Zulu War in the last few years. I bought the stater box, painted the forces and demo'd a few scenarios. Before long I had three others collecting small forces with two more that joined in later. Will Black Powder battles in the late Nineteenth Century become the go-to game in my area? No but it will be brought out every now and again as the rules and setting provide lots of fun scenarios.

I'd imaging if I'd asked players locally if they wanted to collect forces or fight battles based of some obscure historical setting I'd have been laughed at but with a bit of work that's exactly what happened. Of course prices and proper scaling help. Players could get heavily into Black Powder The Anglo-Zulu War for less than a hundred Euro.

I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.

 Zywus wrote:
For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.

Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)

Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!

Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.

Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)

Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!

Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?

The Auld Grump

Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.

Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)

Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!

Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?

The Auld Grump

It went a little something like this for me :-


GW : "You've bought multiple editions with associated army books? Multiple armies? Brought dozens of players into our gaming system? Demo'd our game? Organised campaigns? Took part in tournaments? Over decades? Thanks! Let me spit in your face!"

Me : "Hey guys and girls. I just picked up this Kings of War game. I had a quick read through it looks the business. Lets give it a whirl."

Club Gamer : "Sure lets give it a go."


And hey presto the default mass fantasy table-top game in my group became KoW after twenty-five plus years of WFB.

niall78 wrote:


Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.

Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.

Reading Wayne's previous posts though, it does seem that, unfortunately for him, the players in his area (and, according to some, American gamers in general, apparently) are completely uninterested in the idea of 'community'. You are an 'opponent' and the relationship ends there. There is no will to take it further. No building. No working together. No 'community'. Just a bunch of disconnected, disinterested individuals. Ultimately self destructive f you ask me, but there are plenty gamers out there like this that can't see beyond the next game and can't see the value in proactive effort, communication, organisation and community building, and instead scoff at these very same ideas.

niall78 wrote:

Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.

I'm on your side Niall but That's the optimistic view. It's not the universal view, sadly. I think there are a lot of entitled gamers out there. I also think that inertia is one of the greatest problems in the community. In other words, I don't see the majority of gamers putting in the effort. I also don't see people interested in other people putting in the effort for other games, and often, it's the store owners that are unwilling to buy in/stock new product and that often puts a bucket of cold water over the entire thing.

niall78 wrote:

I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.

An interesting counterpoint to think on for you Niall - I would rather play an opponent who only plays one game, but plays it in a huge variety of ways, rather than an opponent who plays hundreds of games but approaches every one with the same mindset. Might be a different language, but the conversation remains exactly the same!

 shinros wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.

Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)

Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!

Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?

The Auld Grump

Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.

That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.

It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.

Deadnight wrote:

niall78 wrote:


Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.

Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.

Reading Wayne's previous posts though, it does seem that, unfortunately for him, the players in his area (and, according to some, American gamers in general, apparently) are completely uninterested in the idea of 'community'. You are an 'opponent' and the relationship ends there. There is no will to take it further. No building. No working together. No 'community'. Just a bunch of disconnected, disinterested individuals. Ultimately self destructive f you ask me, but there are plenty gamers out there like this that can't see beyond the next game and can't see the value in proactive effort, communication, organisation and community building, and instead scoff at these very same ideas.

niall78 wrote:

Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.

I'm on your side Niall but That's the optimistic view. It's not the universal view, sadly. I think there are a lot of entitled gamers out there. I also think that inertia is one of the greatest problems in the community. In other words, I don't see the majority of gamers putting in the effort. I also don't see people interested in other people putting in the effort for other games, and often, it's the store owners that are unwilling to buy in/stock new product and that often puts a bucket of cold water over the entire thing.

niall78 wrote:

I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.

An interesting counterpoint to think on for you Niall - I would rather play an opponent who only plays one game, but plays it in a huge variety of ways, rather than an opponent who plays hundreds of games but approaches every one with the same mindset. Might be a different language, but the conversation remains exactly the same!

Correct. Now obviously I can't speak to American gamers as a whole by my area in particular seems to have little in the way of a "community" and instead you have a game shop that sells X and Y, and it's considered disrespectful to the owner to bring and play game Z because the store doesn't stock it, ergo people would not be buying things at the store (actually had someone, not store staff but a member of the "community" say this). I recall when I first found out about Kings of War, I posted something innocuous on a facebook page for a game shop, basically mentioning how it looked pretty close to WHFB (this was before AoS) but faster and it looked like something to try, even stating that the WHFB people could use their existing armies. I got several rude responses that boiled down to "Looks like Wayne is trying to push his pet game on everyone here" and basically the opinion was if I wasn't going to talk about wanting to play Warhammer, to feth off elsewhere (this wasn't a GW store it was a regular game store). People seem to care the most about having a place to "just show up and play" versus any sort of organization, I've even seen campaign ideas get shot down and fizzle just because people don't seem to want anything other than to post a message asking "Who's up for a game?" and that's the extent of effort involved.

From what I've seen in my area, people gravitate towards "chosen" games (basically that means Warhammer or Warmachine for the most part, sometimes you get some hidden groups that play X-Wing or Infinity or whatnot) and kind of filter out anything else, either because they aren't willing to try something else, or because they just have no interest in it. Malifaux for example, looks like a pretty cool game with nice figures. I don't know of any place that stocks it, anyone who plays it, nor anyone who wants to play it or anyplace that wants to stock it. So if I were to find out it's really a cool game, I'd be left playing with myself (no pun intended) and while I doubt any shop would be rude enough to say "Don't play that here, we don't sell it" there would be no community to play. Or as a better example, any of the myriad of Warlord historical games, which I find to be fascinating but again, zero interest (that I'm aware of, I mean I'm sure there's a club somewhere but the don't advertise and I don't know where to look) so it's pointless to spend money on let's say a Roman army, because it's not like I can go down to the game shop and play it, people would be like "Uhhh... yeah no I'm going to play Warhammer over here". Same could be said for Infinity (which I think might have a tiny following), or Dropzone Commander or that wild west skirmish game or even Malestrom's Edge, basically if it's not something readily available that you can buy at a game shop and play at that same shop, people aren't interested to go out of their way or even to foster a community. Like, I would probably be run out on a rail if I dared to suggest, even to a group of Warhammer or Warmachine players, that we form a sort of "games club" that wasn't tied to a particular game store (or any store at all) and as a result could bring in people who played a variety of games and, hopefully, expand our horizons. People just don't seem interested in doing it, while to me that's much more preferable to flocking around a specific game shop.

With Warhammer at least, it's still a pretty big player (albeit a lot less than it used to be). I can (and have) reasonably decided to buy some 40k stuff and I can be pretty certain when I have a viable army I can get a game in, versus spending money on something and be the only player of that game in a 30+ mile radius, and on top of that be surrounded by people who don't know or care about the game and might even get hostile for me trying to get them to try something different (again, I've had that actually happen to me, just by mentioning how another lesser-known game looks cool and might be something fun to try). It's a weird mentality with game shops I notice (and I could go into depth talking about it), where people are more concerned about doing something to drive business to the game store than actually trying out various games that might strike their fancy.

With that I've gone a bit off topic, so I apologize.