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.

You seriously are saying that because AOS uses round bases that makes a difference? A lot of games use round bases and resemble 40k way more than AOS.

As stated above, WM/Hordes *is* the same game.. it's not two games for all intents and purposes, they just have some different mechanics like a codex. They are also in the same universe where as 40k and AoS are not.

Might as well combine 40k and Infinity then since they use round bases, at least they are both sci-fi.

-Loki- wrote:They could 'resurrect' them as one off boxes. Blood Bowl has long been rumoured to be getting this treatment, and would kind of work (4 teams in the box, rules for normal one off games, rules for a 'campaign' among the 4). Some are already one off boxed games so would work anyway, like Warhammer Quest or Space Hulk. Others would be shoehorned into that style of package for better or worse. This approach means there's no need for support, just fire and forget.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW's recent form has been variable. The SPulk revival was a huge success, Dread Fleet was a disaster, Assassinorum seems likely to be a failure and has been criticised for poor quality parts. Battle of Cattle seems like it will be a good success, though this is partly because it is a great value bundle of 30K figures for use on WH40K/30K, rather than its inherent value as a board game.

From one angle it doesn't matter to GW or to players if people buy a lot of a board game boxed set not because they want to play the game, but to get the figures. It's still money to GW and value to users. From the other viewpoint, it would be sad for new and revived SGs to be effectively just bundle deals for Fantasy or 40K figures. GW need to diversify away from their current three products, LoTR, WH40K and AoS.

Therefore, In my view, GW need to make the games worth while to play in their own right.

Agreed with KK. I don't know if even one-off boxes will be so great for all SGs. I'd say it worked well for Space Hulk because it was a board game, and you only really need some terminators and genestealers for it. It could work with Blood Bowl for similar reasons: played on a 'board', not so many models needed. But even so, four teams is a ways off the diversity the Blood Bowl range used to have. For other games that need more or bigger models, like BFG or Epic, that approach could be even more limiting and frustrating. I'd say you'd have to offer only a few token models of each faction, or cut it back to two factions. Even then the forces could seem a bit sparse compared to 40K equivalents.

If there's a string of one-off boxes providing more minis and factions, I still see that as problematic for someone trying to get into the game or start a new force. Could be too much pressure to buy everything before it goes OOP again, and to find it afterwards. Not impossible, but again, limiting and frustrating, compared an ongoing, fully available range. As Kilkrazy says, they'd need to make the games worth while to play in their own right, rather than as artificially scarce, gotta-buy-em-all 'collectables'.

Some SGs can be one-off boxes. Others can be a starter box with some supplement boxes.

I think Blood Bowl would be best done as a core box, containing 'terrain', rules and so on, with no player figures. You buy the player figures separately, so you only have to pay for the teams you want.

Those are quite sensible and reasonable ways to go about the matter.

GW will never do it.

 Vermis wrote:
Those are quite sensible and reasonable ways to go about the matter.

GW will never do it.

They might... if they feel they can profit enough. Let's say... 100£ for the starter box plus 75 for each team?

Sounds pretty GW-y to me...

 Kirasu wrote:
40k isn't WFB.

WHFB isn't AoS. That didn't stop GW.

 Vermis wrote:
If there's a string of one-off boxes providing more minis and factions, I still see that as problematic for someone trying to get into the game or start a new force. Could be too much pressure to buy everything before it goes OOP again, and to find it afterwards. Not impossible, but again, limiting and frustrating, compared an ongoing, fully available range. As Kilkrazy says, they'd need to make the games worth while to play in their own right, rather than as artificially scarce, gotta-buy-em-all 'collectables'.

The way to avoid this, IMO is to make neat games that aren't dependent on HIPS plastic. Go resin and make less complex miniatures to reduce production costs, run sizes, and warehousing costs. If a game gets really popular, then come out with a plastic set.

 Talys wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
If there's a string of one-off boxes providing more minis and factions, I still see that as problematic for someone trying to get into the game or start a new force. Could be too much pressure to buy everything before it goes OOP again, and to find it afterwards. Not impossible, but again, limiting and frustrating, compared an ongoing, fully available range. As Kilkrazy says, they'd need to make the games worth while to play in their own right, rather than as artificially scarce, gotta-buy-em-all 'collectables'.

The way to avoid this, IMO is to make neat games that aren't dependent on HIPS plastic. Go resin and make less complex miniatures to reduce production costs, run sizes, and warehousing costs. If a game gets really popular, then come out with a plastic set.

Or make less complex plastic miniatures for the base units, so you can fit more of them in a single smaller mould, without a ton of useless extra bits, and sell them cheap, effectively lowering the entry cost for the game.

Or go back to metal and make miniatures for Real Men(tm) and Women(tm).

 Talys wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
If there's a string of one-off boxes providing more minis and factions, I still see that as problematic for someone trying to get into the game or start a new force. Could be too much pressure to buy everything before it goes OOP again, and to find it afterwards. Not impossible, but again, limiting and frustrating, compared an ongoing, fully available range. As Kilkrazy says, they'd need to make the games worth while to play in their own right, rather than as artificially scarce, gotta-buy-em-all 'collectables'.

The way to avoid this, IMO is to make neat games that aren't dependent on HIPS plastic. Go resin and make less complex miniatures to reduce production costs, run sizes, and warehousing costs. If a game gets really popular, then come out with a plastic set.

That is where FW could go, being a boutique manufacturer, however I feel that GW is set up now for large scale production in polystyrene, and they should leverage that by doing market research to discover designs that are likely to be successful in economic quantities.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Once and for all, I want to dispel the myth that Dreadfleet was a disaster.

It wasn't.

I bought half a dozen copies, sat on them for months, and then sold them later on for vastly inflated prices

By any measure, that is not a disaster

PS. I did paint them all up, so the high price was justified.

If I sold an air guitar online for $43,797 it wouldn't prove that air guitars are good instruments.

Having to throw away product because it is not selling is basically the definition of a disaster in retail.

That's capitalism for you. If you're not happy, and want to change things, start reading some Karl Marx, and then organise a revolution in say, Russia, or something

Or just not buy it, and the manufacturer recalls the entire stock of unsold air guitars and destroys them, because they are bad instruments that broke the cardinal rule, and didn't sell.

Dreadfleet was a terrible game with some very pretty models.

It did not sell.

So, yeah, it was a failure. And that is Capitalism for you - it didn't sell, so it was a failure.

Marx does not apply.

The Auld Grump - I actually liked some of the models, but they were overpriced, and attached to a really bad game.

 larva_uk wrote:

Engel des Todes means "Angel of Death". Engel des Odes means "We didn't proof read the cover"

Thanks, I read the post but didn't recognize it on the image. I was concentrating on finding something non-obious that I totally overlooked it.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
FW have never done a full game

Aeronautica Imperialis?

I hadn't heard of that one until you mentioned it, which does not reflect any rules quality of course, but perhaps reflects on the popularity ad success of the system.

Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule.

To be fair to FW, GW have only done three and a half new games in the past 10 years, so neither company has got a great track record of development.

Never heard of it?


It would be smart to make starter sets of the old IP's hopefully redesigned to be inline with current designs, but if they are the same price as Battle at Calth, i will pass.

Indeed, though most specialist game models can be (and I have) made with the big two.
I am weary about them because I strongly forsee GW only caring about the models and not the rules.
And all I care about is the rules. I may buy models from them if they're not terrible and since I won't need many of them (and truth be told I always preferred the specialist games anyways), though even when they supported them for awhile GW's didn't let people play specialist games in store (at least in the few ones I've been to) so... if that's still the case when they get rereleased I will completely ignore them, like I do 40k and whatever fantasy is now.

Does 'Betrayal at Calth' qualify as a specialist game? If so it was being demoed in store.

I reckon it counts as a type of Specialist Game.

It's similar to earlier games such as Space Hulk and Adeptus Titanicus, which are stand-alone boxed games that include models and are set in the 40K universe.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I reckon it counts as a type of Specialist Game.

It's similar to earlier games such as Space Hulk and Adeptus Titanicus, which are stand-alone boxed games that include models and are set in the 40K universe.

My point exactly. Could mean we'll see other systems being played in store.

I expect they will plug whatever is the latest big release.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I expect they will plug whatever is the latest big release

which I think is the Calath box

Right now it is. We can expect more new releases as the programme to revive Specialist Games gathers strength.

Hi guys - I'm brand new to this forum but have been a watcher in the dark for years, but can no longer hold my peace. In a word No - GW cannot save themselves in the same way the Nazis couldn't as they are run on a cult of personality. They are incapable of making sound logical business choices and lurch from one disaster to the next propped up by the odd success (hence constant Space hulk and space marine re-releases). They will conduct no research prior to re-releasing / re-launching - re-whatevering their next specialist game - but will be decided upon in isolation by a committee of yes men "games designers" re-inforcng each others failed ideas, which tbh was always how it was. I was a GW store manager for about five years over two different stints attending numerous product launches / meetings and could see the writing on the walls fifteen years ago when I left. The model is fundamentally wrong, based on a 1950s sales model of designing a product and then trying to find someone to sell it to. How else can you explain Dreadfleet? Bommerz over da sulfur river? Gorkamorka? Battle for five armies? I could go on. All these turkeys ever did was cost money to develop then drain profits from successful ranges and goodwill from customers when prices are hiked up in a vain effort to compensate. GW are icapable of learning from these mistakes as in a cult of personality dissent is not tolerated and egos must be massaged.

In my second stint they did something incredible - they employed an accountant as their MD who pulled them from the brink saved their arses after their second profits warning when Pokemon really smashed them, hit them with facts figures forecasts projections business sense in a word. His reward to be dismissed following a whispering campaign from a former head of retail (who incidentally was happy to spend funds set aside for staff christmas parties on prostitutes for his favourite managers - not even best managers) who had the ear of senior executives. Either that or he was proposing some market research prior to release of Warmaster.

Now how many successful companies losecustomers at the rate GW do? ve no idea no esearch has ever been done. Bt ask yourself a diferent question - how many successful companies have ex-customers who HATE them in the same way so many of GWs former devotees do? Very fewI would think but surely no other company would think it acceptable to kill their customers children. Warhammer was my baby Id lived it and loved it for years - it didnt belong to them but to everyone whod ever gamed and collected and invested time and money into it. Such hubris will be their downfall more than their inability to make sound decisions.

Their heralded return of SG s puts me in mind of Hitler sitting in his bunker moving his imaginary armies around and we all know how that turned out.

Heil Kirby!

He signed up to Godwin a dormant thread?

Good show.

 Azreal13 wrote:
He signed up to Godwin a dormant thread?

Good show.

Sorry for not being half as clever as you think you are.

I don't think he was necessarily disagreeing with you, but godwin is one of those things that is fun to point out (and do).

Well I suppose I couldve chosen other examples of the cult of personality but if the cap fits.

dannybawse wrote:
Well I suppose I couldve chosen other examples of the cult of personality but if the cap fits.

Go with Steve Jobs, all of the crazy, none of the genocide.

The Auld Grump - Same great taste, less killing!

Plus Kirby seems to either idolize Jobs, or thinks of himself as the Steve Jobs of model wargaming.