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.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
As mentioned in another topic, I really want this to get better, not concerned how. GW just starts making stuff better? Great! GW gets some sense knocked into them by financial issues? Great! GW dies and someone better ends up with the IPs? Great!

Just as long as 40k remains and doesn't get the AOS treatment though, I should be fine. I've only been around in 7th and even I am scared of that happening!

40K will always remain, it's just a question of if a company carries the torch of gaining new players or if it gets lost in obscurity until you can only find people to play games online.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Sorry to disappoint, but it IS coming. I've played it. Or at least a version of it. A full year and change before AoS hit. Heck, played it the weekend 7th was actually hitting retail shelves, if memory serves.

That's what I'm afraid of...
I can only hope they get deterred from this stupid plan (by AOS failing horribly or something) or at least they keep full-fat 40k around. I suppose Age Of The Emperor doesn't have to be a bad thing as long as long as the real deal sticks around.

 SDFarsight wrote:
40K will always remain, it's just a quesiton of if a company carries the torch of gaining new players or if it dies a slow death until you can only find people to play games online.

I suppose I should clarify that I mean it remaining officially supporting and not getting squatted like Fantasy Battle.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:
40K will always remain, it's just a quesiton of if a company carries the torch of gaining new players or if it dies a slow death until you can only find people to play games online.

I suppose I should clarify that I mean it remaining officially supporting and not getting squatted like Fantasy Battle.

I see.

Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...

Then it's a good thing that I'm more into 40K for the fluff and the gaming. If 40K went entirely online I'd be quite happy, albiet occasionaly missing that friendly atmophire of a real tabletop game.

 Kahnawake wrote:
Is X-Wing any fun? I see alot of people playing that recently.

If they go AoS on WH40k, that would be the end of GW

cheers
Kahnawake

Yes, it is great fun.

A dogfighting game featuring iconic starfighters and pilots from the massively popular Star Wars, with simple rules that lead to complex tactics, and a sprinkling of special rules to add spice to the mix. All topped off with play straight out of the box ready painted models, cards and tokens for an experience that is as accessible as playing a wargame could be.

To put the prices in perspective, you can get an X Wing starter set with three 'planes' for about £20 to £25, and the add-on planes are about £10 to £12 each (more for large models like Millenium Falcon). Six to eight models a side will give quite an involved game, so you and a pal could get a really good set up for £100 to £150 each.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...

Then it's a good thing that I'm more into 40K for the fluff and the gaming. If 40K went entirely online I'd be quite happy, albiet occasionaly missing that friendly atmophire of a real tabletop game.

Gaming as in video games?

Also, what do you mean by entirely online?

Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

 asorel wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

 asorel wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.

I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.

I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...

Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.

If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?

Fantasy may have been the first, but 40k very quickly eclipsed it in popularity and revenue. At the time that it was scrapped, fantasy wasn't pulling in nearly as much as 40k. Because Fantasy isn't a master of GW's profits the way 40k is, they can afford to experiment with it a little (or a lot).

Initial brand fantasy may be, but the principal brand it is not. Hell, the introduction of Sigmarines was an attempt to make fantasy more like 40k

And look at how well THAT went. Because clearly a shattered based is a better prospect than it was.

But I digress. You are correct in saying it wasn't the biggest seller for GW, but it was the base of it all. The 40k system came from Fantasy, as well as a lot of its original playerbase. The foundation.

I guess that what I mean is that for GW nothing is sacred if it means they can profit a little, or at least think they can.

I'm not suggesting that AoS was an intelligent decision, or that GW execs hold anything sacred. My point was that, on some level, they are aware that changing a product to such a major degree could have a negative impact on profits. Because Fantasy isn't as large a source of profit, GW decided that attempting a redesign was worth the risk, because they lost profit wouldn't break the company. In contrast, 40k is the franchise that is keeping the firm alive. Messing with it in any significant way is a very large risk where profits are concerned. I would imagine that it is for a similar reason that the timeline has remained frozen in place. Advancing it entails fixing something that already "works" to some degree. Age of the Emprah won't happen until true desperation sets in.

This is absolutely correct. Fantasy sales must have dropped to the point where it was a worthwhile risk to can the whole game and bring in a new product that built on the foundations.

However 40K has in the last three years repeated the mistakes that helped bring WHFB to the bring of the abyss.

The rules have become very complex and widely disliked in many details. The army sizes have been increased to screw more money out of players, and the price of rulebooks and codexes has been doubled.

During the time period of these changes, GW sales revenues have declined about 25%. This argues strongly that 40K is getting into the same difficulties as Fantasy did, that led to Fantasy being canned in favour of AoS. 40K is declining from a much higher level, of course, so it needs to fall farther before the situation becomes critical.

AoS looks like a weird replacement for Fantasy because the free rules and lists mean players do not have to buy new stuff to play the game. Presumably, GW expect that veterans will start to buy the new kits and books, and that there will be a lot of new recruits from scratch. It is too early to tell if this is happening.

If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.

That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.

While I'm not arguing against any of your points, it's possible that a reason that the newer GW-IP video games are crap is because the vast, vast majority of modern video games are crap in general.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...

Then it's a good thing that I'm more into 40K for the fluff and the gaming. If 40K went entirely online I'd be quite happy, albiet occasionaly missing that friendly atmophire of a real tabletop game.

Gaming as in video games?

Also, what do you mean by entirely online?

As in if there was a GW-supported Vassal 40K.

 jasper76 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.

While I'm not arguing against any of your points, it's possible that a reason that the newer GW-IP video games are crap is because the vast, vast majority of modern video games are crap in general.

Certainly if you believe ZP.

I suppose that would be fine mostly, though I kinda like the idea of playing it "for real".

Though I certainly like that idea, and it existing virtually would have more encourage to not squat it physically.

 jasper76 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.

While I'm not arguing against any of your points, it's possible that a reason that the newer GW-IP video games are crap is because the vast, vast majority of modern video games are crap in general.

I wouldn't disagree. Appealing to the least common denominator and so forth. Though I doubt the failure of 40k vidya is relevant to the appeal of the universe in different media. Space Marine was decent, for instance, though a bit repetitive towards the end.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games

There have been 24 if my research is correct. Thats not a bad number considering 40k itself is around 20 years old.
An average of 1 a year with some notably good ones - Chaos Gate, Final Lib, Space Marine, DoW series and SpaceHulk.

 Ratius wrote:

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games

There have been 24 if my research is correct. Thats not a bad number considering 40k itself is around 20 years old.
An average of 1 a year with some notably good ones - Chaos Gate, Final Lib, Space Marine, DoW series and SpaceHulk.

I meant to append that with "until recently." We've had an explosion of them over the past few years.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
I suppose that would be fine mostly, though I kinda like the idea of playing it "for real".

Though I certainly like that idea, and it existing virtually would have more encourage to not squat it physically.

Indeed they have their positives and negatives. Playing Orks in an online Apocalypse game doesn't require an entourage of army carriers.

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.

That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.

I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.

That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.

I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.

Warscrolls are a fantastic idea. It's no army structure/points that sucks.

And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.

 asorel wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games

There have been 24 if my research is correct. Thats not a bad number considering 40k itself is around 20 years old.
An average of 1 a year with some notably good ones - Chaos Gate, Final Lib, Space Marine, DoW series and SpaceHulk.

I meant to append that with "until recently." We've had an explosion of them over the past few years.

Let's just point out that your "few" means "for the past DECADE".

DoW came out 2004, followed by Winter Assault and Dark Crusade in '05 / '06. '08 saw Dark Crusade, '09 saw DoW2 followed by Chaos Rising in '10 and Retribution AS WELL AS Space Marine in 2011. '13 saw Space Hulk.

'14 was when GW apparently removed any quality concerns and crappy games started to flood the franchise. Let's hope they finally bring the quality games back now, hoping for Eternal Crusade, Inquisitor, Deathwing and Armada - and I think I heard something about a DoW3.

And honestly one could argue that even before 2004 40k has been decently represented. The longest "dry streak" was 2000-2002. Probably had something to do with SSI ceasing to exist in 2001, and THQ picking up the franchise in 2003 only. But baring that, the Franchise had a game released AT LEAST every other year since 1992, and there are not many years without any game.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.

Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.

Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.

I don't personally like it, but then I run half of my army using proxies as I save time and money to buy and build the rest. It isn't a bad idea from a business standpoint, but the paying for rules for individual units would only further encourage better units costing more dollars. Even discounting this, I don't see it as beneficial to internal army balance, as the rules aren't unified.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.

Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.

My post was a direct response to your second sentence. Sorry, probably should've quoted it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.

That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.

I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.

Well I mean, I know we're all fearmongering in here, but you're 1/4 in the Rumor Accuracy thread. So, you'll forgive me if I don't go off your word that "AoS version of 40k IS COMING". Basing my buying/selling habits off internet rumors is something I try not to do.

They're producing Codexes at a steady rate and FW is producing models and rules at a steady rate. I'm not particularly scared of them releasing a codex and then a month later invalidating it by remaking the entire system. Releasing 8e and breaking rules, sure, but that's par for the course.

Eh, GW will likely struggle on. My LGS group is still thriving (though it definitely is not without it's fair amount of End Times criers) and while it does my love of it will stay.

Is it perfect? Nope, but it's enough for right now and I'll keep playing as long as my friends will. I've tried WMH and looked at plenty of others, but nothing holds my passion the way 40k does. Will it eventually become an abomination that I decry in the same vein of the old fogies who decry 7th? Absolutely.

Until then, I'l keep rolling dice and buying off old fogie's collections off eBay.

P.S. Nothing wrong with being an old fogie. Your hate is totally justified, but 7th is still a blast to me.

Requizen wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.

Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.

They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.

The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.

That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.

I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.

Well I mean, I know we're all fearmongering in here, but you're 1/4 in the Rumor Accuracy thread. So, you'll forgive me if I don't go off your word that "AoS version of 40k IS COMING". Basing my buying/selling habits off internet rumors is something I try not to do.

They're producing Codexes at a steady rate and FW is producing models and rules at a steady rate. I'm not particularly scared of them releasing a codex and then a month later invalidating it by remaking the entire system. Releasing 8e and breaking rules, sure, but that's par for the course.

That's fine. You're entitled to not believe me. But this isn't just information I'm getting from other sources. This is coming from me directly playing an early version of it. I have no timetables. No idea when it'll drop. Hell, for all I know, it could be this Horus Heresy set that everyone is going gaga over. I really have no idea on a time frame. But it is in development, and has been for a year and a half minimum.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.

Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.

My post was a direct response to your second sentence. Sorry, probably should've quoted it.

Ohhhhh! Gotcha!

 timetowaste85 wrote:

That's fine. You're entitled to not believe me. But this isn't just information I'm getting from other sources. This is coming from me directly playing an early version of it. I have no timetables. No idea when it'll drop. Hell, for all I know, it could be this Horus Heresy set that everyone is going gaga over. I really have no idea on a time frame. But it is in development, and has been for a year and a half minimum.

But you're drawing a conclusion from a faulty premise. The game you played could have been a test run that will never be implemented or was just to see how well a small game would work and apply the results to fantasy.
When you played this, where there any Fantasy players there or were you merely what was available?
There is also the possibility they come up with a mini game like they did with the flyers or some sort of campaign book. Lots of possibilities that do not including scrapping the current edition.

I believe the comment about the 1/4 rumor accuracy is a fair point to bring up. Based on the comments you've made about this so far, it seems like you're quick to jump to conclusions based on incomplete data sets. You played a weird game and now are saying 40K will go the route of fantasy. And worse off, you have no time tables to say when your suspicions will be proven or disproven. 8th edition could roll around and you could still make the claim that you played an early version of 9th or Age of Emperor.

But I still think it's something worth being aware of. Is GW in the trend of selling larger kits rather than multiple small boxes or are they just making sure every army has the ability to bring large centerpiece models? With Tau now having 4 different MC/GMC it's really hard for me to say they aren't.