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.

Backfire wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

I'm 36. You?

I have to say that Dreadfleet is the first game I've seen which has earned criticism not because of its gameplay, not because of its models, but because it was released at all.

That is really puzzling. Dreadfleet doesn't take anything away from people who play other GW games. No model or army or Specialist Game has been discontinued because of it. Nobody has to buy it to stay competive on Tournament circuit. Everyone who isn't interested about buying the game - like me - can simply, you know, not buy it. I didn't buy Space Hulk either. Neither game is my cup of tea. But I sure as heck don't go on ranting about GW publishing game which doesn't interest me. Maybe someone else wants to buy it, that's great, everybody's a winner. Why on Terra I'd want to complain about the situation?

As a 36 old fella you should have understood it was a totally rhetoric question But as Im a curious 37 year old fart its fun to know your age.

Wait you never seen critics on LOTR for the exact same reasons for so many years?

People complain and people praise its a common human behavior is it not? As long as they don't enter in a mindless war against others that have a different opinion I think all its legit.

lord_blackfang wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Because its so adult to attack a bunch of anonymous people on the net that are criticizing a game right?

Sigh I wonder how old are you guys sometimes...

Looking at it objectively, there are almost always reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides, but every participant feels like all the unreasonable ones are on the opposite side.

Love and hate always cloud opinions, and there are plenty of people with a predetermined opinion of GW that will always be on the fanboy side, or the hater side. There seems to be much more of the latter, though. Personally I would put more stock in the opinions of people who judge every product on its own merit, and there are certainly plenty of legitimate reasons not to like Dreadfleet. But there is also a slew of people here who seem to hate it just because it's from big bad GW and make up completely ridiculous excuses to complain about it.

A completely ridiculous excuse for me may be a strong reason for others hey? I find interesting the debate about those reasons without resorting to cursing and trying to be offensive...
I agree with you that some do think this is a sides thing but those are probably the extreme and minority of the vast majority that is the middle ground opinions at dakka.

One thing I have been noticing is a huge influx of 2010, 2011 members behaving really really strangely.

In short all reasons to buy or not Dfleet are equally important even if you disagree with them, can we debate them without the drama and without kicking the testicles of the guy you disagree with?

One of my friends will get the game and I hope he plays and paints and has a good time with it, I will check it out. To bad the boats and islands do nothing for me design wise.

I'm looking forward to recieving mine..
Some guys on internet forums, if GW gave them $100 bills, they'd complain they were folded wrong...

Of course they wouldn't

They would be to astonished at GW giving anything away to bother with the origami

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

12thRonin wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

What is is with this obsession with expansion?

Seems noone is happy with a simple, boxed game.

The way I see it, less expansions = less money spent....

cincydooley wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

What is is with this obsession with expansion?

Seems noone is happy with a simple, boxed game.

The way I see it, less expansions = less money spent....

depends on the game, some expantions add balance or mroe fun to a game.

one of the funnest games I've played to date is battlestar gallactica (you'll make cylon jokes to peopel you play with for the next month) and the expantion only added to it

I could see them releasing a few ships as options, btu as is the game seems pretty interesting, I'd have to play more to decide if more ships would be worth it, maybe add faction packs for other races or ship types... but as is I enjoyed it

is it possible to play Space Mutiny with that game lol

It isn't an obsession but would make the initial outlay more worthwhile.

ATM it looks as though you run through the scenarios
then you run through the same scenarios again
and then you run through the same scenarios again...
and.. well you get the picture.

It just doesn't seem to have the repeat playability.

there's actually several mission types. if you played the starting game where its just kill a ship it'd be boring soon, but some of the effects and missions are neat where you have to go onto islands and such all while fighiting off ships and protecting others

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It isn't an obsession but would make the initial outlay more worthwhile.

ATM it looks as though you run through the scenarios
then you run through the same scenarios again
and then you run through the same scenarios again...
and.. well you get the picture.

It just doesn't seem to have the repeat playability.

I never understood that way of thinking with any game. Take Steve Jackson's OGRE for example. It didn't come with too many scenarios, but we made our own. I see no reason why you couldn't do that with this game very easily. I don't think I've ever bought a wargame, miniatures or board, that I felt limited to included scenarios. I've always been able to come up with my own. I do it with Spacehulk, I'll do it with Dread Fleet.

Yeah but you are still stuck with the same ten ships and the same ten crew
and the same improbable alliances
and the same Skullz Islands

You might be happy with that and fair do's but there is no compunction for everyone to want the game.

The point is not that GW should not have released
Dread Fleet imho, but that they could have made it a general release and allowed for expansions.

Hyperthetically, would you have refused to invest in such a game because it was expandable?
My bet is that many of the people that have bought Dread Fleet would also have got such a system, and a lot more people would have bought into it besides.

Apart from a quick turnover there is no advantage for GW to have gone about things the way they have.


Can only assume that it is for the benefit of Kirby so he can get in another divi payout before he tootles of into the sunset!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Apart from a quick turnover there is no advantage for GW to have gone about things the way they have.

Quick turnover with finite use of resources, vs the possibility of more money from an open ended game, but also an ongoing drain on resources such as staffing, printing, sculpting, etc without knowing the amount of profit vs. resources committed.

Which is it? A) Should never have made DF because it takes resources away from other projects or B) it sucks because it's not expandable and ongoing with more drain on GW's resources?

Funny as hell how the arguements go back and forth.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with how they are doing it. There's nothing at all wrong with a quick turnover and profit. It also leaves them open to an expansion if they want. Most boardgame companies don't automatically dump out expansions, they wait for the initial sales of the game and decide after that. If they think it's profitable, I expect we may see additional ships and scenarios.

cincydooley wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:
Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

HH was published by FFG, not GW. The biggest beef I have with it is that its only a two player game and no real way to expand it further to multiple players.

What is is with this obsession with expansion?

Seems noone is happy with a simple, boxed game.

The way I see it, less expansions = less money spent....

Wasn't talking about Dreadfleet. HH is only a two player game, period. There's no way to alter the rules realistically to make it play more than that. Most of the time when you go to a store for a board game night, if it's only two player it doesn't get played.

I have my copy and the game is great. Too many people think of it like a table top game such as Warhammer or 40k. It is a board game that just happens to use a ruler instead of spaces. Moving your ships, shooting, and boarding are simple take just a few games to get used to the rules. The scenarios are fun and add random elements to prevent too much planning ahead. The fate deck has some interesting things. Wind, while not normally a big deal has on a few occasions provided someone with the means to escape when they should have been destroyed or thwarted someones plans when victory seemed in sight. All the random elements combined with the simple mechanics provides a fun game.

It is not a competitive game where you can min/max your way to victory. It is a fun, fast, and random game where you can sit down for an hour or two and have some fun and a few laughs when your ships drift into islands and burst into flames.

Which is it? A) Should never have made DF because it takes resources away from other projects or B) it sucks because it's not expandable and ongoing with more drain on GW's resources?

Well it takes two to tango baby which is why the argument goes on

I never said that Dread Fleet ought not to have been made, I said quite categorically that it COULD have been done differently.
It is a negative for a lot of people that there is no expansion judging by the comments on these threads. Those are lost sales and less coffers in the copper coffer pot.

The reason why the game has not been made expandable is most likely that it would take up resources and divert capital away from other projects. Which is understandable.
The game could have been made under licence, which would have alleviated the burden on GW, who are rumoured to be having cash flow problems.

As it stands only fans will get to buy the game. A different strategy would have been to put out a general release (which still could be done as presumably expensive plastic injection moulds will be sitting around doing nothing for evermore) and get the GW brand more publicly noticed. But I guess there is something wrong with my thinking as usual.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Yeah but you are still stuck with the same ten ships and the same ten crew
and the same improbable alliances and the same Skullz Islands

The terain is not set in place, can be added to or taken away from (it is not a limiting factr at all), and 10 different ships is still more variety than say Chess, which seems to have at least a little replay value. Sorry, I'm pretty sure I can come up with more scenarios. You, noit knowing me, are gonna have a hard time refuting that. I make sceanrios for all the wargames, both miniatures and board, that I have. I have no problem doing so and again I have trouble understanding why anyone would limit themselves to provided scenarios.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The point is not that GW should not have released
Dread Fleet imho, but that they could have made it a general release and allowed for expansions.

Hyperthetically, would you have refused to invest in such a game because it was expandable?

No hypothetical about it for me. I liked the Battlelore game concept a whole lot, because I saw the endless stream of expansions I did not buy it. I liked the look of Uncharted Seas, but again, didn't feel like buying into a system that would keep tempting me to buy more to keep up. So I can very honestly say, the Game in a Box concept is a big part of what sold me on this.

I play several historical and sci-fi game systems, most of which let me choose what figures and even what scales of those figures to play. That is one of the main reasons I stay away from GW games in general, though I do have some space marines and tyranids I use with other systems. I got Space Hulk because for a limited amount of storage space and a one time investment I got a cool game. Dread Fleet fits that category for me, so I got it too.

That is a good point Cpt.

But if Dread Fleet was expandable you would not have bought it because you maybe seduced into buying expansions? Just a matter of willpower to resist the siren song

Easy for me to say being a tightwad! Can turn a deaf ear in the blink of an eye

FWIW Am also preferring systems that allow flexibility and use of models which is why I have got into Ganesha Games lately

I have and play Flying Lead and Fear and Faith.

lord_blackfang wrote:But there is also a slew of people here who seem to hate it just because it's from big bad GW and make up completely ridiculous excuses to complain about it.

Honestly my only real complaint about Dreadfleet is the fact that it's a limited release, and that I currently can't afford to lose $115 after all the rampant spending I've been doing the past month. Maybe if GW didn't keep everything super fething secret now and I knew about it two weeks earlier than they told us I could have managed it, but right now I'm all out of cash and it'll be gone by the time I can get more. So that's why I'm pissed about it, I have a legitimate interest in the game but I'm not gonna get a copy before it sells out, and I'll be damned if I pay a dime more buying it from some fething knob on eBay who had more money than I did trying to take advantage of me.

And the worst thing is GW doesn't even give a gak, because it's going to sell out anyway and they'll make their money no matter what. And they'll use that fact as yet more "proof" that the "super secret" style of releases works brilliantly, which means this crap will never end and if you ever think you might be even remotely interested in a future board game they might or might not release then you need to keep a damn credit card free or start an "emergency hobby savings" just in case.

Green is Best! wrote:Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

Honestly, I was never really that interested in the Horus Heresy game. It was also kinda pricey IIRC, and the game itself didn't really interest me that much. Not sure why but I was just kinda "meh" about the whole thing and didn't really say anything about it one way or the other.

mikhaila wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with how they are doing it. There's nothing at all wrong with a quick turnover and profit. It also leaves them open to an expansion if they want. Most boardgame companies don't automatically dump out expansions, they wait for the initial sales of the game and decide after that. If they think it's profitable, I expect we may see additional ships and scenarios.

I would be happy if they never made an expansion for it, but simply just printed more copies after this run sold out. They don't need to keep adding more gak to it to make me happy, just make it possible for me to buy the god-damned game when I have the money for it.

But since they haven't done that with Space Hulk yet, which was way more popular, I doubt that'll happen here.

I've read the explanation for why they're doing it this way, but I still don't get it. FFG and other board game manufacturers can afford to keep producing their games, even years after the fact, but Games Workshop can't afford to print more than a few thousand copies? Yeah, whatever.

Lord Poison wrote:is it possible to play Space Mutiny with that game lol

RRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!

*dives head first out of the thread and rolls across the ground*

I definitely prefer standalone games. Most boardgames, if the basic game is decent, are not significantly improved with expansions.

I am quite tempted by Dreadfleet now... it has had some really good reviews and ratings on boardgamegeek.com. That was always my big concern -- is the game any good -- rather than price & component quality (which are both clearly high, which seems kinda fair).

The expansion for Pandemic is awesome because you get petri dishes to store the components in.

True, but you have to supply your own agar.

Pandemic is awesome.

Dreadfleet, well read the rules and had a lil tester, seems too simple and gorkamorka like i.e. ram ships together, shoot the crap out of each other if you can't ram. You might enjoy that style of game, but I'd prefer some alternate tactics.

I'll just play man'o'war...

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The game could have been made under licence, which would have alleviated the burden on GW, who are rumoured to be having cash flow problems.

Umm, BS. I read the same post you did where the OP said that, then said he had no idea but was hoping to start the rumor. I understand the game people may be having fun playing, but I object to spreading information that isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly my only real complaint about Dreadfleet is the fact that it's a limited release, and that I currently can't afford to lose $115 after all the rampant spending I've been doing the past month. Maybe if GW didn't keep everything super fething secret now and I knew about it two weeks earlier than they told us I could have managed it, but right now I'm all out of cash and it'll be gone by the time I can get more. So that's why I'm pissed about it, I have a legitimate interest in the game but I'm not gonna get a copy before it sells out, and I'll be damned if I pay a dime more buying it from some fething knob on eBay who had more money than I did trying to take advantage of me.

In that case just send me a PM with your name and address. I'll set one aside for you. I picked up about 50 for my stores, so I'd have it for the Christmas season.

I've played and enjoyed Pandemic, but as co-op games go, you just can't beat Death Angel, just because flamers and genestealers are more interesting than vaccines and germs.

Sidstyler wrote:
Honestly my only real complaint about Dreadfleet is the fact that it's a limited release, and that I currently can't afford to lose $115 after all the rampant spending I've been doing the past month. Maybe if GW didn't keep everything super fething secret now and I knew about it two weeks earlier than they told us I could have managed it, but right now I'm all out of cash and it'll be gone by the time I can get more. So that's why I'm pissed about it, I have a legitimate interest in the game but I'm not gonna get a copy before it sells out, and I'll be damned if I pay a dime more buying it from some fething knob on eBay who had more money than I did trying to take advantage of me.

Your lack of funds is hardly GWs fault.

And the worst thing is GW doesn't even give a gak,

And why should they?

Green is Best! wrote:Was there this much backlash towards the Horus Heresy boardgame that came out a year or so ago? (I am honestly asking). Or was that given a pass because it was 40k related?

It was given a pass IMO because, despite being a GW property, it was released by Fantasy Flight. Don't you know that GW is the baby-eating villain you see in all the worst movies?

I've read the explanation for why they're doing it this way, but I still don't get it. FFG and other board game manufacturers can afford to keep producing their games, even years after the fact, but Games Workshop can't afford to print more than a few thousand copies? Yeah, whatever.

This isn't even remotely true. FFG has stuff go out of print ALL THE TIME. Often times they remain out of print until some reason drums up enough interest to warrant a reprinting. See the Game of Thrones boardgame as a perfect example. It was out of print for around 4 years until the HBO show became successful. Even then, FFG waited until a full season was over to announce a reprint. As a result, a $40 board game was pushing $200 on eBay. That of course has tapered off since they announced a reprint, but had they not the eBay price would remain inflated. GMT doesn't even reprint something until they can gurantee 500 sold copies that are pre-paid for. People much more in the know than you or I determine for GW how many copies they think they can sell, and then the print them accordingly. In order to maintain the same profits, they'd need to do a reprint of roughly the same size; for GMT, that number is 500. For GW, one can presume that number is much higher (and justifyably so; there is so much more production value in Dreadfleet or Space Hulk than any GMT game).

Simply - It is not GWs problem that you can't afford a product. As you stated: They're going to sell out of it regardless. They're a for-profit company with shareholders, and not a charity. I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

cincydooley wrote: I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

I can save tons of money and I can do that for a long time since I'm very patient, but as long as I know what the heck Im saving to... I mean saving for "something" is really odd if you ask me. This game was released as a Lted thing as a splash release it has nothing to do with savings but rather impulse buy... today under the economic storm even some of the guys that can burn money will think twice before spending 100+ usd in a impulse buy... Just saying.

So the way you planned and saved for this is not the way this product was planned and marketed.

NAVARRO wrote:

cincydooley wrote: I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

I can save tons of money and I can do that for a long time since I'm very patient, but as long as I know what the heck Im saving to... I mean saving for "something" is really odd if you ask me. This game was released as a Lted thing as a splash release it has nothing to do with savings but rather impulse buy... today under the economic storm even some of the guys that can burn money will think twice before spending 100+ usd in a impulse buy... Just saying.

So the way you planned and saved for this is not the way this product was planned and marketed.

Are we really considering $115 tons of money? They gave you two weeks notice for preorders until the day the game released. I'm just saying, that perhaps if you can't budget $100 over two weeks (a standard pay period in the US) then maybe you can't afford it anyway...

$100 is:

Two dinners out with your spouse
3 Cartons of smokes (this is an estimate, because I don't smoke)
Not eating out for lunch or getting that Starbucks in the morning for two weeks. (@$10 a day)

I'm simply saying that, while $115 is no slouch for the average joe, nor is it an obscene amount of money...

cincydooley wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

cincydooley wrote: I have a gaming budget that I'm on as well. But you know what? We've known for about 6 months that "something" was coming. Based on Space Hulk, I knew it was going to be about $100. I planned accordingly.

I can save tons of money and I can do that for a long time since I'm very patient, but as long as I know what the heck Im saving to... I mean saving for "something" is really odd if you ask me. This game was released as a Lted thing as a splash release it has nothing to do with savings but rather impulse buy... today under the economic storm even some of the guys that can burn money will think twice before spending 100+ usd in a impulse buy... Just saying.

So the way you planned and saved for this is not the way this product was planned and marketed.

Are we really considering $115 tons of money? They gave you two weeks notice for preorders until the day the game released. I'm just saying, that perhaps if you can't budget $100 over two weeks (a standard pay period in the US) then maybe you can't afford it anyway...

$100 is:

Two dinners out with your spouse
3 Cartons of smokes (this is an estimate, because I don't smoke)
Not eating out for lunch or getting that Starbucks in the morning for two weeks. (@$10 a day)

I'm simply saying that, while $115 is no slouch for the average joe, nor is it an obscene amount of money...

No one saying that 100 is a ton of money, read again please... missed the point? (Besides US is NOT world wide standart)

I will repeat in topics to be more clear.

-I can save tons of money to buy anything I want for a long period of time.
-Its odd to save money to buy something you have no idea what is.
-This product was not about saving and planned conscient shopping habbits it was about impulse buy.
-Impulse buys of something you never heard before are risky at 100+usd since you know, there's a recession V.2 coming so people in general, rich or poor are more aware of the money and how to spend it.

Clearer?