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.

Thread locked to merge into main thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655877.page

Thanks!

I can start with that I, like many others presumably are in a bit of shock over the destruction of the old world and all new names for factions, new realms and new lore. Personally, I have not quite decided if I like it or not (will wait for new lore and new faction releases). But I have decided to atleast try to see the side of GW in this on some decisions. In many threads we have bashed GW over their decisions and their choices, on trying to trademark everything and include Sigmarines in the game. And while it is likely that our complaints are true I just want to speak on what might be on their minds. (sorry if this turns out to be a bit rambling).

The death of wfb: From what I have heard and understood GW did this because it weren't earning them enough money. While I rage against the corporate decision I understand that GW is sadly a business these days and not a hobby company like before. I can't really excuse them for this but I am atleast happy that they release a new fantasy game and just not ditched the whole thing and focused on 40k.

All the new names on races: I can believe that they did this because of trademark reason, but when I look at 40k I also suspect it is because they usually name their races and faction differently from others (ogres in 40k-Ogryn, dwarf-squats, elf-eldar). If the reason was to trademark everything I personally find it odd that they kept the name vampire and mummy and not gave that a new name too.

Sigmarines: Well, who can really blame GW for trying to include a faction to fill the space marine position in fantasy. If we are lucky (we who do not want these models) the inclusion of this will make other people spend more money on 40k and make sure that the game stays afloat.

So these were some of my thoughts on the decisions that GW has done. Do you believe that they can be true or that I just believe GW to be better then they are?

Free rules and warscrolls were surely a good move to bring players into the game.
As a result, the overall threshold for starting AoS is very low.
One downside is the rule set which has no depth.
As a consequence, players might get uninterested in the game after a couple of battles.

I feel like I can see GW's side of things.... I don't respect GW's thinking but I can see it

 The Green one wrote:
The death of wfb: From what I have heard and understood GW did this because it weren't earning them enough money. While I rage against the corporate decision I understand that GW is sadly a business these days and not a hobby company like before. I can't really excuse them for this but I am atleast happy that they release a new fantasy game and just not ditched the whole thing and focused on 40k.

The problem here is that WHFB was doing badly because of GW's bad choices to begin with. They made 8th edition a game that was too expensive for new players AND pissed off a lot of old players and stopped them buying as well.

It wasn't a case of "well people don't like fantasy mass battle any more, lets drop it", it was a case of "we made this fantasy mass battle game something that doesn't appeal to people, lets drop it and try and milk the 40k cash cow some more".

I might have more respect for GW in dropping something unprofitable if it weren't for the fact they've out and said they don't do market research so the fools probably don't even know why WHFB was doing badly and what they needed to do to fix it short of going "well, duh, 40k sells, lets make Fantasy another 40k."

All the new names on races: I can believe that they did this because of trademark reason, but when I look at 40k I also suspect it is because they usually name their races and faction differently from others (ogres in 40k-Ogryn, dwarf-squats, elf-eldar). If the reason was to trademark everything I personally find it odd that they kept the name vampire and mummy and not gave that a new name too.

The reason 40k had different names was because those names were traditionally associated with fantasy. Instead of calling them space elves, they called them eldar, instead of space ogres, they called them ogryns, instead of space orcs, space orks

I personally don't really have a big problem with companies inventing new names for the classic fantasy tropes, though I'm less a fan when they change names they already had established.

But the names are less of a problem to me than the other stuff they've done, so whatever.

Sigmarines: Well, who can really blame GW for trying to include a faction to fill the space marine position in fantasy. If we are lucky (we who do not want these models) the inclusion of this will make other people spend more money on 40k and make sure that the game stays afloat.

I respect that some people like Sigmarines, but I personally don't. I liked the fact WHFB didn't have a superhuman good guys race, the good guys were just regular humans trying to survive, that was an appealing state of affairs to me. But obviously that's just personal opinion, I know some people lap up the Ground Mahreens.

Seeing GW's side is all too easy, especially with financial report preambles and courtroom transcripts. The thing as I see it is...
Well, not so much 'why would you want to?' I can understand that. I'm just not entirely sure what the point is, unless you're planning to write a commercial game or release a mini range and want to know what not to do, or making up a similar checklist if you're looking for another games company to devote yourself to. Will the fact that they almost entirely ditched a long-established game for low sales make you feel better about it's fairly shaky replacement? Will the greater specificity of the word 'ogor' over 'ogre' make the rules better? Will the inclusion of sigmarines... actually I'm not sure about what you think the advantage of the stormcast is. Make more people spend on 40K? Did you mean make more people spend on fantasy? If that's the case, if people snap up enough stormcast minis to keep AoS afloat, will that improve the game for you? From GW's pov, doing no market research, I'd guess they'd conclude that fantasy marines and bare rules are the way to go. Will that benefit someone like you who doesn't like the stormcast and isn't sure they'll like the rules?

I'm just not sure that trying to analyse a company's reasons for what are seen as their bad decisions, in order to... what? Rationalise them, to make yourself feel better about the turns you don't like? ... is a hugely productive thing to do. Especially not with GW - that way madness lies.
I can imagine it might help to make excuses for GW if you're stuck in a gaming group full of people completely dazzled by AoS, with no other game choices open to you (though, IMO, give it a while...); but for one of those constantly-mentioned communities that're ignoring it in favour of 8th, or other games, or who just aren't grognardy enough not to try different games, I say just get on with it.

I know there are plenty on Dakka, Warseer, BoLS etc. who are hung up on explaining what GW does and why. (though a lot do it in facepalming disbelief rather than spinning it into something positive) I do it myself. But I also think it's something that we here are more concerned about than necessary. All the arguing and oneupmanship about the state of GW is like playing the metagame of the metagame, rather than playing the game - any game. There's a lot of nostalgia and baggage about GW that's hard to let go of, but we should be more hung up about finding and promoting games we like and enjoy*, rather than second-guessing GW and what it'll do with it's own games in the future, for good or ill. If GW dumps WFB in favour of Sigmarines and back-of-a-soggy-beermat rules, look elsewhere. If in future they do something good with minis or rules, all well and good. If they don't, too bad. But why hang aroung waiting, on the offchance? Heck, these days if you want to find a set of rules that's deeper and with more conscientious designers than GW, all ya gotta do is throw a stone.

*Which can include AoS and 8th ed, and the usual big-box suspects like WM/H, Infinity, BA etc., and an unimaginable wealth of games of all sizes and genres that might be glossy hardback books, pdfs sold on Wargames Vault or elsewhere, or somebody's two-page rules for a club game, uploaded to a blog. You just have to be willing to look.

Just gonna say that they did rename all the Undead stuff. Just that (likely due to error) the store wasn't updated with the new names.

Vampires et al = Soulblight
Skeletons et al = Deathrattle
Spirits et al = Nighthaunt
Zombies et al = Dead Walkers
Ghouls et al = Flesh-Eaters
Necromancers et al = Deathmages
Tomb Kingsy Stuff = Reanimants

Only mummies didn't get renamed.

If a line was not going to get moved forward, my guess is it'll be the mummies.

GW's stance isn't hard to figure out.

They wanted a game that wasn't so heavily tilted towards a tournament, competitive scene, where such pursuits dictated what models people were willing to buy based on potency on the board and not their merits as models. As a model company, it's disappointing to release model ranges and have them panned by the playerbase because they're not powerful enough to get fielded by any player motivated by achieving victory in competition.

Speaking of the game itself, they wanted an easily manageable, modular game system that they could keep up-to-date easily, and one that could have additional rules put into it very easily - and rules made by the players themselves easily as well. GW wants their players to have the freedom to make their own rules for things, and have offered a very easy template to follow in their free rules for all existing and current models. Also, since the game system's rules are no longer written piecemeal by various different writers at different times, a greater degree of balance across all armies is more easily achievable. The rules themselves also make everything more able to fight everything else, while also still preserving degrees of potency and varied roles within a force.

As for the tournament scene, GW knows that no one played their games as-presented in competitive play, no matter how tight they tried to make the rules. In many ways, their efforts to design watertight rules feel flat because they were driven to create ever-more-powerful rules for their minis to drive sales, given how slanted the game was towards competition. As such, AoS's competitive rules are largely up to whatever organization or individual is creating a given tournament - which is something that tournaments were already doing with their rules, only now it's much, much easier to do. There are multiple, effective comp systems that present a high level of balance out already, only weeks after the game's launch.

They wanted a game that was accessible to new players without vast collections, so they could actually grow the hobby and their customer base rather than simply try to sustain an aging fanbase who already had many models. It's much easier to get into AoS and play - though collecting a larger body of miniatures will give you more play options, which encourages more purchases - which is exactly what GW wants as a company. Also, more than before, purchases are no longer driven solely by potency on the table - players can buy the models they like and expect them to perform well as whatever they are.

They also wanted a system with lower model count, so that they could start producing more detailed miniatures in fewer number at a higher price. This satisfies their artists and designers and helps them meet sales targets. This also satisfies GW's needs as a company.

GW's move to junk WFB and make AoS has left a great deal of their players saltier than the Dead Sea, but it's not hard to understand from their perspective. The only problem from their angle is that they've created a body of angry gamers who are more than willing to try to chase anyone actually interested in the new game away from it. :p

 The Green one wrote:


All the new names on races: I can believe that they did this because of trademark reason, but when I look at 40k I also suspect it is because they usually name their races and faction differently from others (ogres in 40k-Ogryn, dwarf-squats, elf-eldar). If the reason was to trademark everything I personally find it odd that they kept the name vampire and mummy and not gave that a new name too.

If this is true, GW would prove they are so dumb they can't learn from their own mistakes. As the new names are still useable for 3rd market company to sell their not-GW parts and models. So if you have any fatih in GW you better hope that is not the reason.