H.B.M.C. wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
just because its (so far) meant to be digital only doesn't mean stuff has to be free, would you expect a new spacewolves codex which was mainly a copy paste of the old one with a few new units and the odd stat change to be free? I certainly wouldn't

But I would expect that if I bought that Codex, it would be complete, and that I wouldn't need to purchase rules/weapons/relics/psychic powers/units once I bought the Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Original Warhammer Quest used the same model, did it not? The only difference was that then, you bought the miniature and all the rules in one box. Now you buy the miniature and then buy the rules separately.

OG Quest you bought character packs. The pack had the mini, a rulebook for the mini, plus all the associated cards/tokens that went with the mini. With that description of the app, you would buy the character pack, and then have to buy additional skills/items, rather than all the skills being part of the character pack.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 avedominusnox wrote:
Sorry to ask and I don't know if it's answered already, but do we know if this is limited?

Likely limited in the same way 30k, Deathwatch and Renegade are, that is, not at all really.

sadysaneto wrote:
TBH i dont know how you came to this conclusion - pay for skills. If its like aos, you pay for the whole package.

Really? You have no idea how I might have inferred that meaning from the text?
Well here it is again, just to be clear, right from WD:

... and contains an in-app store through which you can purchase new skills, treasure and hero cards...

Can't really be any clearer than that.

 Necros wrote:
What happens if you read the Adventure book before you're instructed?

 Bottle wrote:
The app description reads as follows in my eyes:

A paid for app that has an interactive roster which includes all the treasure, skills and hero cards of the original game. Use this to track your character's progress.

IAP of new hero cards, new skills and new treasure to broaden your game content.

Sounds great!

 endtransmission wrote:
Levelling up has been mentioned in the app details and some of the other leaked character info

Albino Squirrel wrote:
It sounds like you can gain skills and items in the course of the campaign, but there really is no "leveling up" aside from that.

Based on the card, I'm guessing at the beginning of your turn your roll four dice and put them in those boxes with their scores showing. Then you can spend them to perform actions, but the score on the die you spend has to match the score of the action. For example, you'd need to spend a die that rolled a 6 to perform Bedazzle.

Albino Squirrel wrote:

sadysaneto wrote:

Albino Squirrel wrote:
It sounds like you can gain skills and items in the course of the campaign, but there really is no "leveling up" aside from that.

Based on the card, I'm guessing at the beginning of your turn your roll four dice and put them in those boxes with their scores showing. Then you can spend them to perform actions, but the score on the die you spend has to match the score of the action. For example, you'd need to spend a die that rolled a 6 to perform Bedazzle.

yup.

looks like you leveling consists of getting new gear and skils.

Core game must come with gear/skills for like 5 lvls? 10?

so you could "lvl" you character up to lvl 10 with the core box.

lvl 11-20 gear/skills, would be an add on.

Like most dungeon crawlers do.

That seems extremely unlikely. There are only 9 missions in the game. I doubt you level up more than once per mission. Besides, what would be the point of having 10 skills? How many could you even really make use of?

Neronoxx wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

GW seems to be searching for a more family friendly version of slaanesh, and there you have it.

This needs to stop. There is literally no proof of this, but everyone and their dog keeps saying it.
Slaanesh isn't leaving and they aren't 'child proofing' it. If you disagree, please back up your statement with evidence other than "but slaanesh isn't in sigmar" because that's already been debunked.
What you posted was literally just a rumor circling the AoS forums created by detractors of the game to drum up hate.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

GW seems to be searching for a more family friendly version of slaanesh, and there you have it.

This needs to stop. There is literally no proof of this, but everyone and their dog keeps saying it.
Slaanesh isn't leaving and they aren't 'child proofing' it. If you disagree, please back up your statement with evidence other than "but slaanesh isn't in sigmar" because that's already been debunked.
What you posted was literally just a rumor circling the AoS forums created by detractors of the game to drum up hate.

95% of the new arwork is 'clean' though. No mud, no blood, no grit. Clean drawn stuff of only existing models, mostly mid-swing.
Agree with you on Slaanesh, though.

 Mymearan wrote:
So it seems that unlike the previous game, you can't level up your statistics, and you only keep equipment and skills between dungeons?

motski wrote:
It says their renown will steadily grow...perhaps "renown" is a statistic/characteristic?

 Zywus wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Thats extreme dude, Way extreme. I play alot of online card games. I'll use Hearthstone as an example. sure they can change cards, nurf or buff, but you get it that instant. I dont need to buy new cards to get those game changes, good or bad I suppose.

Ive also never heard of a company just deleting all of someones data because they can. Im pretty sure in most countries they have laws over digital stuff. Thats straight Dooms Day Preppers reality lvl of paranoia.

Tell that to all the computer or video games that can no longer be played since they require online servers that's now been shut down. And the company shuts down any fan-hosted servers created to enable people to continue playing the game.

Presumably GW won't delete any cards from your existing phone/tablet but don't count on being able to access them in a few years with your new device.

 General Kroll wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
The old game had individual minis that you could buy (like "Human Gladiator"), and it was not until recently that I learned they came with anything more than the mini. I never bought into them because I thought the idea was nothing more than a money grab. They used a different term back then, but to me they were the same sort of nickel-and-diming.

Except, by your own admission, they weren't nickel-and-diming you, because they weren't just minis, but full character packs with mini, rules, counters, cards and so on.

 Stormonu wrote:
My point though is that they sold add-ons back in the day, they sold many of the same add-ons for the recent iPad app and it's assured they'll do it for this new game - and to my wallet, it will be overpriced; too much for too little.

To which again I say, there's a difference between buying a 40-card treasure pack and having to buy extra rules for your guys at 99c a pop.

Chopxsticks wrote:
Thats extreme dude, Way extreme.

No it's not. It's happening already.

Or perhaps it's not....from the very same blogger: https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/09/apple-and-james-excellent-adventure/

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
the guy only gave a warning by saying that the game was missing numerous of the elements that made the original great

That must have been in another post. The one I saw was completely vague. But again (third time?) it's not really important that this guy is undermining his own sales so much as just pointing out that this kind of empty negativity needs to be called out for what it is ... otherwise it's starts snowballing into people saying, like you kind of just unconsciously did, well Silver Tower is no good because there was this other game in the past that was different.

You're putting a lot of word in my mouth. I never said that WQ ST was a bad game. In fact, we barley know anything about the gameplay. I only said that for me, meeplemart post was obiously intended for veteran gamers who expect this game to be as complete as the orignial WQ (and it is clearly not the case). From the little we know, it look more similar to Hero quest than WQ. And I much prefer a store owner telling me clearly what he thinks about a product, than him being cryptic in hope of getting a sale out of me.

BTW, if the rules and the games indded turned out to be poor, would your opinion of the whole situation change?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's

That is a severely entitled viewpoint. The trade name itself is not a representation that the product will live up to anyone's nostalgia. GW wants to make a dungeon crawler board game leveraging their IP. "Warhammer Quest" is a perfectly appropriate title for that product, whatever a given customer would prefer or might expect. It's easy to tell if someone has a genuine interest in a product because they will look at it for what it is, rather than what it (apparently) "ought" to be.

I despise that word, "entitled", it's such a load of BS and is always deployed to shut down criticism that can't otherwise be refuted.

Almost everything about the way GW are pushing nu-WHQ is based on evoking the nostalgia people have for the original game, and even if it were not GW would have to be literally deaf, dumb, blind, and clinically stupid not to recognise that evoking a brand with a strong emotional component to it IS going to create expectations - it's their job, literally their job, to manage those expectations effectively. If they're incapable of effectively communicating to people what the product they're selling is, that's their problem and it's total horse manure to lay the blame for the fallout of that failure on the heads of potential customers.

If GW were to next "bring back" Mordheim using Mordheim's branding, talk about returning a "classic", repeatedly reference the original in their marketing etc, then you're damn right they would be responsible for creating an expectation that what people would be getting would be close enough to the original to justify such close comparison. If the resulting product wasn't set in Mordheim, had none of the factions of Mordheim, and completely dropped the complex post-game sequence for a much simplified system that barely met the definition of campaign progression, then calling people who react badly to the total disconnect between the product on-offer and the product "sold" to them by the marketing "entitled" is just petty trolling.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product

Wow, entitled much?

When making a new, AoS based, board game, GW had any amount of opportunity to choose a different style or name at the very minimum.

That would be the dumbest move they could do, because they already own the branding for Warhammer Quest. So, make a new Warhammer Quest. What they did was in fact the smartest thing they could do. Use their pre-existing brand that has name recognition.

In which case they must also bear the burden of dealing with the history of that brand and the reasons it has name recognition.

This isn't controversial, it's not some random thing people are inventing for this one release by GW "because they just be AoS haters y'all", creating and managing expectations is literally the whole fething point of marketing. GW can use the brand they own in any way they see fit, but if they choose to use one in a way that substantially departs from what made the brand valuable in the first place and they not only fail to adequately explain those changes but actively play on the original version, they don't get to piss and moan about all the meanie-weenie gamers who're not judging the new version solely on its own merits and it's not faaaaair

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People are popping into the Warhammerfest news threads and saying the game is fun. So...that meeplemart guy is making himself look a wee bit foolish by providing no info about why he disliked it and won't get as much in. Glad I have my copy reserved, will be buying it on Sunday (out of town Saturday).

 pancakeonions wrote:
Here's another "first impressions" thread:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1575561/first-impressions

 NTRabbit wrote:
Actually I believe they're trying to make sure they don't have a stack of unsold games they need to flip for peanuts on ebay just to minimise the loss, as happened to the AoS starter practically everywhere, and the Calth box here and there

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I despise that word, "entitled", it's such a load of BS and is always deployed to shut down criticism that can't otherwise be refuted.

Almost everything about the way GW are pushing nu-WHQ is based on evoking the nostalgia people have for the original game, and even if it were not GW would have to be literally deaf, dumb, blind, and clinically stupid not to recognise that evoking a brand with a strong emotional component to it IS going to create expectations - it's their job, literally their job, to manage those expectations effectively. If they're incapable of effectively communicating to people what the product they're selling is, that's their problem and it's total horse manure to lay the blame for the fallout of that failure on the heads of potential customers.

If GW were to next "bring back" Mordheim using Mordheim's branding, talk about returning a "classic", repeatedly reference the original in their marketing etc, then you're damn right they would be responsible for creating an expectation that what people would be getting would be close enough to the original to justify such close comparison. If the resulting product wasn't set in Mordheim, had none of the factions of Mordheim, and completely dropped the complex post-game sequence for a much simplified system that barely met the definition of campaign progression, then calling people who react badly to the total disconnect between the product on-offer and the product "sold" to them by the marketing "entitled" is just petty trolling.

It's been done before, and examples were given here as well. Space Hulk was changed between editions. Rogue Trader, 40k 2nd Edition and 40k 3rd Edition are distinct, and different games to what came before. Especially 3rd. WHQ was a long time ago, and it having new/changed rules is a very reasonable thing. I actually missed out on the original, and didn't want to pay $400 on eBay so was looking forward to a straight re-release, but... I'll still take this, since it looks good on its own merits.

I've been following this thread without commenting, and aside from the obvious question (Why is a GW standalone Fantasy boardgame release thread bizarrely embedded into an AoS thread, despite being it's own thing - unlike DW:O, or Renegade, or even piddly little Last Patrol??) It seems that you're mostly here for a fight, since you appear fixated on having the same pointless circular argument about it not being a straight re-release of the 21-year old original. Are you the same poster who mentioned that you had major issues with the ridiculous pantomimes embedded in the legacy model rules when AoS came out due to ASD-specific discomfort? That's a serious question, asked deadpan with no emotion or judgement embedded in it.

I am, although I don't see why it has any bearing(I also took issue with them because of the multiple other groups they might annoy/make uncomfortable and because they seemed to be a deliberate middle finger to fans of WHFB).

As for "just being here for a fight", you know, I think you're probably right at this stage, evidently there are a group of people here incapable of discussing a point of principle(that companies are every bit as responsible for the outcomes of their actions as individuals, not "it's not exactly the same as the original, boo hiss ebil GW" - I've no attachment to the original I just despise the tendency that certain people have to start giving folk gak for being critical consumers rather than fanboys, sadly among them a mod or two) without devolving into mudslinging diatribes, and I'm evidently not going to change my mind and accept that people who've been deliberately misled by marketing are "entitled" for expressing their annoyance, so enough's enough.

I appreciate that wee metaphorical tap on the shoulder.

Chikout wrote:
Next week's box set containing the knight Venator, slaughter priest, auric rune master and Tzeentch sorceror is $55 €45 £35. That is just under half the price of buying them individually. Not bad!

 streetsamurai wrote:

sadysaneto wrote:
I have not read a single bad impression from people who played the game.

Yeah, i know, there is a lot of negative reviews from people who didnt.

Well, call me crazy, but i tend to believe in reviews of people who tried a product.

That said, even tho i love dcs, even tho this one looks amazing, even tho it has some really nice twists on gameplay, im still not sold on it.

I can live with progression based on skills and gears, not stats, but it seems that will have no porgression between expansions.

That is a dealbreaker for me :(

you've been claiming this for the last few posts, yet I didn't see anyone complains about the gameplay. The only complains I've seen is about the lack of campaign rules, and you also seems to have a problem with it.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
What's everyone's guess on what that expansion pack is going to cost? That's like 120 dollars worth of figs.
It might be fair at that price but kind of rubs me the wrong way as an expansion pack to a game.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


what a lovely left pauldron.

i like how he couldn't possibly see over it.

Their general-god-mage-king hurls them to the battlefield on lightning bolts and shoulder pads is what breaks belief?

Yes because, unlike magical storm-based teleportation, armour and human anatomy are real things we're all pretty familiar with. "LULZ, it's fantasy brah!" isn't a catch all excuse for laziness and bad design.