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.

Phobos wrote:OK, so there is a 3rd edition now? Free rules online is a change for sure.

But reading online I'm sort of piecing together a story about forum wars, theme lists making people mad (why), people saying it is dying, general internet salt, and other stuff but I'm not getting the whole story. I feel like I'm reading a book with huge chapters missing.

Can someone please tell me what happened between when it was booming in 2nd edition and now?

You are generally correct in what you heard. WMH did really well for the first couple of years of Mk2, but by the time late-Mk2 was rolling round, the game was getting extremely large and bloated and there were a lot of balance issues, busted lists and the game, essentially was ‘solved’ and to a large extent, stagnant. You can be cheeky and say that this wasn’t entirely due to PP, the player base itself (or maybe the large influx of players used to a specific way of playing) stopped being creative, and advice to new players became less about being creative and innovative in ‘how’ they played and more about ‘take this list and let it play for you’.

When I got into the game in Mk2, the game was big, but manageable. You could learn it. Now its huge. And not in a good way. It used to be daunting for a new player, whilst still being a challenge that was appealing. Now it’s almost inaccessible to fresh players because of the bloat of fifteen years of expansions and the burden of knowledge required to play (ie needing to keep track of everything going on, and to be competitive, you need to know all the synnergies in all the factions…). So you will see fewer and fewer people buying in, and really just the ultra-hardcore continuing on. Basically, fewer and fewer playing. And the ultra-hardcore can also be unwelcoming for some, and right at the time when the game needs to be opened up. Combined with a less-active playerbase (no pressgangers) and you have a toxic mix.

PP did a lot of things at once – they ditched the forums (I have no issues with this – they were a toxic mess that did nothing but enshrine group-think and added nothing productive or creative to the hobby), ditched the pressgangers – and this was huge – this tore the ground out from under the playerbase and a lot of gaming groups in a lot of ways, unless said groups were any bit able to self-organise (which as gamers go, is not likely for the most part!). The result, sadly was overnight nearly, the playerbase didn’t so much dwindle as evaporate. A further issue was their implementation of Mk3, which was ‘OK’ but had huge flaws – for example Skorne had to be completely re-re-designed after the start as they’d gotten so many things spectacularly wrong. Beyond that, while Mk3 fixed some issues, PP just baked in new ones, and it felt a lot of Mk3 was a ‘change’, rather than an ‘improvement’ with tough and reposition being handed out as band-aids for everything. I think it was fair to say at the start of Mk2, PP were amongst the movers and shakers in the industry. They did so many things right. Now? They’re essentially doing the same things GW did and got criticised for, so it’s no surprise that the exact same dynamics are happening to PP and the fans are losing interest.

Regarding theme lists, the issue with them is if you want to stand toe to toe, you need a theme list. The game is now balanced around theme lists (Mk3 theme lists are more like Mk2 Mercenary contracts). The ideas is generally sound but there are consequences for the game at large. Generic lists are dead. Theme lists essentially play with a 20% points advantage over non-themed lists and have other baked in advantages. My issues with themes is they force you into very specific builds first and foremost, but really, it feels like a ‘GW codex’ approach. PP used to release new stuff for all the factions once or twice a year. No more. Whatever new theme they’re working on (currently Khador MoW) and up-and-coming is Circle (Tharn) gets all the releases. The ‘themes’ are the new ‘factions’ and are released in the way that GW release faction-specific ‘codices’ and if the ‘themes’ are the new ‘factions’, then it’s fair to say that the old ‘factions’ are now a ‘product catalogue’ that feed into the ‘themes’.

Beyond this, PP have gone and done a Kirby with shifty rules, some dodgy models and some truly shocking pricing – look at the cost of the chosen of everblight for an example. Here in the UK, its £90 retail for 5 ‘cavalry’ models. Even GW are not evil enough to try for that! Also, while some of the recent sculpts are outstanding, some of them are really terrible. It’s a real ‘hit or miss’ affair, and PP, whilst often ranging from decent to pretty good, have never been outstanding in model quality.

On top of this, GW have been doing good things lately. Yes, their prices are a wee bit too high, and the game is unbalanced (point me to one that is n’tthough…) but they’ve done a lot in the last year or two to win back a lot of disgruntled fans, and their profit margins are showing this. Heck, everyone I know has a 40K project on the go again. The other games like WMH and Infinity are getting less table time as a result.

Basically, for PP, it’s a perfect storm of a lot of issues. Some of their own making, some as the consequences of their history/wave nature of their game, and some things out of their control. They still have loyal fans and groups, but it’s like the old days of Mk1 and they’re a lot less visible again. They lost a lot of players in the transition to Mk3. Regarding the second hand market, its usually a good indicator for the health of a game – if lots of people are buying/selling, it means there is interest. If they’re not, it points to a problem. I do know that there is still a market for 2nd hand PP stuff, but its limited and it’s generally hard to move stuff. A few years ago, when me and the wife moved house, I sold off a lot of my excess warmachine stuff. Mainly Khador and Circle. They literally ran out the door. Recently, I decided to slim down on my Wargame stuff to fund new projects (GW Dark Angels and Death Guard, amusingly!) and as part of that, I decided I’d sell on the WMH stuff I wasn’t going to use – my non-tharn circle and my retribution (I’m keeping my tharn and khador!). So I sold my Circle stuff, and a mate is buying my Retribution, but I had this stuff on sale for literally ages before anyone showed any interest. Compared to a few years ago, it was an eye-opener. I don’t think it bodes well for the future. PP need to do a lot of things, like gut the game of its bloat.

Sqorgar wrote:WMH, both the game and the community, was outright hostile to new players to the point where a new player that stuck around for more than a month or two was as common as a unicorn.

That's very close to trolling. WMH is a hard, unforgiving game. When the game was smaller, this represented a manageable, but appealing challenge. You earned your wins.

But to say the community is 'outright hostile' to new players? No sir. As a (lapsed) member of that community, and on behalf of my friends that still play, I find this comment appallingly rude and condescending. Some of the nicest people I've gotten to know through gaming play or played warmachine. Now fine, there are trolls that play WMH and go about noobstalking. I know some. Thing is, those same trolls play other Wargames and stalk noobs there too. It's not a WMH thing. It's a gakky gamer thing. Equating that to WMH is inaccurate, misleading, and just really rubbish behaviour on your part. Please don't. Please, don't tar a whole community as TFGs.

beast_gts wrote:
I bought the Khador Battlegroup box after playing a demo game at a con. Built & painted it, then got turned down for a game by a dozen different players across three clubs because I was a noob. Just because Sqorgar and my experiences are different to yours doesn't mean we're trolling.

Yet There is a difference between saying you have had a bad experience, or gone to a bad club, and referring to the 'community' as 'outright hostile' .Saying the former isn't trolling. I've been there myself. I've also experienced it and spoken about it too. saying The latter is perilously close to it, as it tars me and my WMH playing friends as 'outright hostile' by default. There are a hell of a lot of people that play WMH and The vast majority of them are pretty decent folks.

And why I find that so damned offensive is I'm the guy who has gone to cons, or clubs, and without even being a pressganger, played dozen demo games with folks that were interested or even mildly interested, just to show the game off. And these were not the 'assassinated th noob turn 2 with something out of the blue lol' games either. these were games where we talk it out, walk it through, point out fun shenanigans that can be done, have 'take-it-backs', and do as much as I can to allow folks to explore the game. And for what it's worth, here where I can play/live, while I can think of 1 TFG who represents everything that is wrong with the hobby as a whole, I can think of a dozen guys that represent everything thstthst is right.

Sqorgar wrote:
I assure you, I am not trolling, regardless of how offended it may make you. I was going to link you to a particular thread on Lormahordes, but it appears to be down at the moment. There was a thread which was literally about what to do in order to draw new players to WMH, and the general sentiment was, "feth 'em".
Sure, there were one or two posters who were saying, "Without new players, our game will eventually die", but generally speaking, the response was, "why should I change how I play just to let some newbies win? I had to learn the hard way, so should they. After they lose their 30th tournment-style match in a row, they'll have gained valuable experience needed to play the game at a somewhat competent level." They literally shouted down someone suggesting that they play smaller point games and play inefficient lists to give new players a chance to actually play the game instead of being curb stomped in the second round.

Then if you are not trolling, you'll happily walk back your comment about 'the community' being outright hostile, and clarify it as a bunch of donkey-caves you may have had personal contact with and the fact that really, a lot of it boils down to it being a game you personally dislike.

Pointing to a thread of a forum means very little - a post by a handful of people on the internet is not representative of the community. the internet is not representative of wargaming for the most part. Most WMH people I knowledge (actually, most wargamers in general that I know, not just WMH players) don't actually post online, either on lormahordes (never even heard of it), fb, or the pp boards (when they were alive).

But you know what? I will accept your point about that forum. I have no doubt that there's a thread that is derogatory towards new players. What I doubt Is that it is emblematic of 'the community'. It seems it's just your bias playing up. Because while I don't doubt what you say was said, I can also say I've seen dozens of similar threads here on dakka, on warseer, heck, on portent or earlier boards about loads of different games (40k, warhammer fantasy, Aos ), saying similar things about new players. Which leads me to believe it's not a WMH thing, but simply a jerk gamer thing. I am also pretty positive if I looked, I could find positive posts/threads (from back when it was more popular, haha) from people getting into the game, and their awesome pressgangers/welcoming communities or else positive threads regarding building a community, or getting others into the gsme.

Maybe you've met some jerks. Fair enough. I have too. The difference is I don't tar the rest of the community by association.

Sqorgar wrote:
The WMH community is absolutely the most anti-newbie community I have ever seen in my life, across all games, genres, and hobbies. I don't even blame the game itself, though it does have a learning curve. I think WMH can be played narratively or casually, but the community doesn't allow it. They don't make the game look good, they don't make it fun to play, they don't make it fun to belong, they don't make it easy to follow, and they don't allow for any variation in how others are allowed to enjoy it.

There you go again. 'The community' isn't a hive mind.

I've played narrative WMH. And I've played plenty 'casualmachine'. In fact, most of my games these last few years have been 'casualmachine' rather than 'tourney prep'.

Sqorgar wrote:
That's why WMH is dying but GW survived much worse sins. GW was always bringing in new players and making them feel special and like they belonged, while WMH players were telling them that "you'll lose the first 20 games you play (and won't have fun for most of them), but eventually, I'll bother playing you once you 'git gud' with your two tournament armies"

Warmachine may or may not be dying. I genuinely hope it's not. I don't doubt it has declined, But we shall see. And hope. I don't want it to go it would be a genuine shame I feel it did. That said, There's a lot of reasons for it's decline. Playing 'hard', playing 'fair', 'earning' your wins based on earned skill and harder earned experience, losing your first dozen games getting to that point was always a draw for a lot of people. I maintain That even though you dislike that kind of game, that's not the reason WMH is in decline. The bloat of the current game (it's about two or two and a half times the size it was for the mk2 launch, when you factor in the new factions and various expansions), and the burden of knowledge required to play to a decent level is a far larger aspect of the decline as it's those things that are truly unfriendly towards prospects, rather than 'play hard'. Some people enjoy playing halo on legendary. Or playing Starcraft against Koreans. A hard game is not necessarily a bad thing. dont mistake what you don't like or a universal truth.

Sqorgar wrote:
And I'll bet you money that the vast majority of them didn't have a single painted model.

I have seen a lot more unpainted gw armies than WMH armies.

Speaking of my own warmachine stuff.

Khador - 211 models painted. 100% painted.
Retribution - 100 off models painted. 100% painted.
Circle (including what I'd recently sold) - 89 models painted. 100% painted.

And it's painted to a pretty decent standard too. For what it's worth, quite a number of my friends are excellent painters too, and I can think of a few WMH armies I've seen that are to die for.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Warmachine started with a fairly interesting setting, then abandoned a lot of the exploration, IMO, to double down on adding things to the gameplay, rather than the world.

The setting really was a hidden gem. I have all the old D20 rpg material and pretty much all of the current ikrpg stuff.

I disagree that they stopped adding to the world. I think they started adding too much to the world and in the wrong way. When I started you had five warmachine factions and four hordes, plus mercs and minions. Now add to that convergence, crucible guard, grymkin and they've spoken about a new faction Every year. Now, the setting is the size of Western Europe but there is only so much space for this bloat of factions.

The ikrpg was a fantastic way of adding to the world, and it's a shame they've stopped publishing expansions to it (really wanted an ios one!). What they're currently doing though is adding bloat, without adding depth.

And it's a shame.

 silent25 wrote:


I think too many people underestimate the fun factor of a game in it's appeal. As others mentioned in this thread, it's not that AoS or 40k rules became amazing, they became good enough where the pluses from the other elements of the game made it a more appealing package. Plus GW is shooting out games at different levels of size and complexity. Talking with some of the WMH guys the other day, they're starting to talk up Shadespire. A couple have played some games and it's scratching their itches better than WMH is right now.

I was actually gonna mention shadespire. I played my first game of it tonight and thought it was excellent. I'm getting my own warband as soon as I can.

As you say, the rules don't have to be 'excellent'. 'Good enough' is fine, especially when you don't treat a game as 'srs bsnss' and when other factors are positive. I can work with the rest, and I can deal with the issues if they pop up. There was a time when I wanted big, complex serious games that were a 'white knuckle ride' and got my brain working overtime. I don't necessarily want that anymore. 'Complex' can be a turn off.

Sqorgar wrote:1)
2) Changing a model's MAT by 1 and increasing its cost a little doesn't "render the value of your purchases moot". Competitive gamers are weird. A difference of 5% chance to hit can be the difference between best model ever and irredeemable trash.
3) The majority of the hobby is making lists and buying/painting models. If having to make new lists and buy/paint new models is that big of a problem, maybe there is a more appropriate hobby out there for you.
4) Most WMH players I've seen don't even paint their models and proxy half of them, so they aren't nearly as affected by this as you are suggesting. Only tournament players really do it, and only because they have to, and given the costs associated with travel and tournaments, I doubt the army is the most expensive part.

(2)Changing a models spell list/feat/abilities can 'render the value of purchases moot' or in practical terms can also entirely change the purpose/function of a specific model. This can have an effect when the army suddenly functions in a completely different way to one you enjoy based on a whim of a designer.

(3) there is a different between making new lists and buying/painting new stuff and being made to make new lists, and buy/pant stuff because of a cynical game choice make by games designers to invalidate current builds and force the purchase of the new shiny. That just sticks in your craw. Example being the old 'nidzilla' lists of forth and fifth edition 40k.

(4) irrelevant. It's the principle, more than anything. always cheeky as hell to force someone to purchase a new thing for no other reason than you wrecked their old thing. How would feel if the car dealership made you buy a new car because they removed the engine block from your current one? Sure, you can walk or,cycle, but sometimes you need that damned car.

Sqorgar wrote:
As near as I can tell, competitive gamers just like to go around and talk about how miserable they are with their current game - how the company is screwing them, how the game is screwing them, how everything seems to be this big, frustrating obstacle to their true happiness - while all the non-competitive gamers are going around talking about how miserable the competitive gamers are making them. Competitive gamers only seem to be happy when they are with other competitive gamers, and they are winning. I'm not saying there is a right way to enjoy playing miniature games, but it really doesn't feel to me that they are enjoying it at all.

Competitive is a spectrum. Anyeay, what you describe is WAAC. There is a difference. Not that you seem willing to appreciate it. And You've made that error before (remember when you used 'tournament player' as a derogatory term)?

Sqorgar wrote:
And the thing is, they are ruining games like WMH. They will blame everybody else for why it is dead, and never take responsibility for their own nasty behavior.

It's almost what you say is predjudiced. Or,are you saying no competitive players are decent folks that can be a pleasure to play against, or game with?

And again - Waac. There is a difference.

Sqorgar wrote:
Why doesn't WMH have more new players? Obviously, it is because PP killed the press ganger program and the game is too challenging for new players to grasp - it can't possibly be because they are abusive and unaccommodating to potential new players. There's no way that the fact that the typical WMH table, with a bunch of flat terrain, brass rings, and a horde of unpainted models looks like the wargame equivalent of vomit, is preventing people from becoming interested in the game.

So are you saying it has nothing to do with pp axing the pressganer programme and the game being too daunting to grasp in terms of its knowledge burden and bloat?

And I take it you know for a fact that all competitive players are abusing and unaccomadating? Predjudiced much? Never mind that thread that you claimed 'proved this' despite your proof being six posts out of 11 pages, one of which was obviously sarcasm and another being selectively edited. Or and no examples of quite a few that were there of players being accommodating and helpful. Almost like you are twisting facts to fit your predjudice.
And I take it you've seen all the WMH tables. Most that I've seen have had 3D terrain. And as I've pointed out, plenty are painted. Or will I point you to the grey legions of Aos and 40k?

Sqorgar wrote:
Why is WMH losing players? Obviously, it is theme lists ruining everything, not the fickle and self centered competitive attitude that is preventing them from enjoying a game unless they can dominate the table with the same list they did last year. No, people are abandoning WMH because Mk3 - which is not appreciably different from Mk2 - is oh so wrong in everything it does.

So are you saying that theme lists have had no impact on the state of the game? Or that there were no errors in the introduction of mk3 that drove a lot of people away?

And again, what you describe as the 'competitive attitude' is Waac. Competitive can also be both welcoming and empowering. But hey, why have nuance when you can have predjudice.

Sqorgar wrote:
Why are WMH models so terribly made? Obviously, it is because PP is cutting corners and producing shoddy work, and not because competitive WMH doesn't give a gak about the model quality and so they'll pay top dollar for substandard models that they won't even care enough to fully assemble or paint anyway. When the majority of your playerbase is happy to just play with empty bases, why would you bother to improve your models?

So are you saying pp don't cut corners and produce some absolute howlers with dodgy QC? And that their model quality has nothing to do with people not being interested in Getting involved

And how do you know for a fact that competitive people don't give a damn about model quality? Plenty people have posted about leaving, or having issues with the game for precisely this reason.

And can you prove that the majority of the player base is happy to play with empty basic or is this just your predjudice again? I call 'fake news' on you. Because in steamroller, you need to have the damned model to play it. And there's plenty people, across all spectrums or Wargame playing, from casual to competitive that would refuse, simply on principle the idea of playing empty bases.

 Sqorgar wrote:

And this happens all the time. Seriously, 40k is on the 8th edition. There isn't a single model more than a year old that hasn't been changed significantly. Things need to change over time in response to new releases, balance imperfections, and direction changes. It happens in every game to every model. If you are buying a model for a very narrowly defined, specific purpose that you know will one day be nerfed, removed, enhanced, modified, or otherwise changed, isn't it your fault for having absolutely unrealistic expectations of an ongoing game system?

And the fact that this happens all the time in all games makes it OK? People walked away from those other games when it happened there. Same thing is happening here.

And no - I don’t see it as my ‘fault’ for expecting my product to stay relevant/functional. I don't expect the ink in a book to evaporate, I don't expect a DVD disc to shatter after x amount of time.

I don’t mind broken things being toned down, I don’t mind underpowered things being beefed (actually, I encourage these), I do mind change for the sake of change, especially when it is not an overall improvement. I also mind things being nerfed, not because they were causing issues, but solely in order to push the ‘new stuff’. You don’t need to nerf the older stuff to keep folks interested in the new stuff.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Cynical? If anything, game designers are optimists. They think all the changes they make are for the greater good of the game and that whatever sacrifice is being asked of the players is ultimately worth it. It's the players who are cynical.

It’s got a lot less to do with the ‘greater good’ than dictats from management about pushing the new shiny at the expense of the old.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Probably the same way I'd feel when the new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, my computer no longer runs DOS games, or when the guy I didn't vote for gets elected into office. Sometimes, things change, and not always for the better, and being able to adapt to change is the mark of maturity.

I genuinely doubt you prefer to sit back and let yourself get screwed over
.
As you say. Adapt to change. Or suffer.

So when, for example Apple do dodgy, cynical things with the new iPhone, while I could accept it, and shrug my shoulders and say 'ah well, change happens', I don’t actually have to just sit there and take it on the chin. In this specific example, There is a reason both me and my walk walked from Apple.

In this topic, We are talking about why people are ‘adapting’ and turning their backs on Privateer Press, rather than ‘suffering’.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Competitive is not a spectrum. There's a wide variety of different personality types that enjoy competition, but they do not enjoy it for the same reason. I don't call all of them competitive players. I define "competitive player" as someone for whom the game ceases to be worthwhile without the promise (threat?) of competition. Like, for example, a WMH player who won't play Battle Box games with new players. Those aren't WAAC players, but their behavior may have just as high a cost.

WAAC is someone who will literally "win at all cost". They'll cheat, whine, exploit, manipulate, throw fits, and generally use any action available to them in order to chase victory. Competitive players are a different breed. They aren't trying to win at all cost, they are trying to compete at all cost. They may desire fair competition, and generally be decent opponents to play against, but the only thing they care about is their selfish desire to make all games into a competition of skill, willpower, and intelligence. The Necromunda player mentioned earlier in this thread is a good example. They aren't a WAAC player, but they are trying to make a game competitive that really isn't designed for it.

‘Competitive’ is very much a spectrum. If you have a wide variety of different personality types enjoying competition for different reasons, that very much points to a spectrum of what 'competitive' represents. ‘Competitive’ means different things to different people, regardless of what you yourself (or I) call it. It’s a gradient, not a ‘line in the sand’. And you can’t take an extreme fringe element of this spectrum, especially one you don’t like, and slap a label most people would call ‘generic catch-all term’ on it, you are opening yourself to claims that you are deliberately misrepresenting and skewing the picture to push your own narrative. The necromunda player mentioned earlier was a tool – I agree, but is certainly not a good example of a lot of competitive players. He is a good example of an donkey-cave gamer. And as someone who has played competitively, I find the comparison that both he and I see the same to be both inaccurate, condescending and extremely damned rude.

You need to be very careful about your definitions, especially the ones that you define on your own terms that are at odds with what others define it. The kind of gaming you call ‘competitive’ is what I refer to as ‘competitive at all costs’ for example. Now, I will agree with you here – this type of gaming certainly can be destructive to a community when it's not held in check or kept to the right place. But 'competitive' as a whole? In my experience, competitive can be both extremely positive and empowering for a lot of people.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Yes. I don't think you need an official program for players to act as ambassadors for it, and if you need some sort of badge or reward or else you won't do it, then the problem isn't the with the program stopping. And WMH's bloat is most felt when played in a very specific way. There's plenty of opportunities to play the game in a less bloated manner (playing journeyman leagues, battle box games, company of iron, heavy metal games, narrative games) which are much more welcoming to new players. But if you only play 75 pt Steamroller games with the intent of winning against every single overpowered combo in every single faction across Warmachine and Hordes, then yeah, it's a bit bloated.

I think if you put the effort into building a community, organising events and acting as an ambassador for a game, especially in a volunteer capacity, you should get something out of it. To me, that goes for anything people put their time and effort into. I have Marshalld for several marathons (as well as run them). I stood there I never godawful weather, cheering and directing people on the course. At the end of the day, I got a free t-shirt. Totally fair, considering the time I'd put in.

Losing the pressganger programme took the incentive away from a lot of people to be community builders. Also, PP gave a lot of support and tools to pressgangers that helped organised things that is extremely difficult to replicate.

That said, I agree with the second part of what you say. There are plenty other ways of playing the game. Id actually also argue there are plenty other ways of playing effective 75pt tournaments than what the internet says, but there can be a certain stagnancy of thought about these things on line.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Someone more up to date on WMH that I should intentionally create a newbie-friendly subset of models - maybe one or two casters, a couple jacks, and a couple units per faction (equivalent to the initial release of mk1) - which doesn't include any curbstomp combos or the trickiest caster spells or any of the bloat. Something where a new player can pick any combination of any faction's models and just play it against any combination of another faction's models and have a game that will last at least 3 turns.

I am a big fan of the idea of more restrictive formats. For me, a start is ‘current versions’ of casters only. I like the idea of something like a ‘legends’ format which is a format where what is ‘game-legal’ is what was around at the time of the ‘legends’ expansion of Mk1. As you say, limit the casters, jacks and units but still leave enough there that you can sink your teeth into.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I think people who would drop a game and sell all their models after investing hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the better part of a decade over temporary balance issues are mentally ill.

And you didn’t answer my question. Are you saying PPs shift to ‘theme’ based list building (effectively akin to a GW ‘codex’ style release schedule) and CID as opposed to ‘open’ lists didn’t sour some people on how the game was presented and built?

PEople left 40k, for example, when GW brought in 'allies' as it brought in a huge range of problems. People can leave WMH because go with the company is building/supporting its game no longer matches what they want to play.

Hmm,

I remember with the warroom 2 app release, and the somewhat fudged launch of mk3, I felt that elements of it were not 'polished', and for some reason, maybe one entirely in my own head, it felt to me, that it was pushed out the door asap, because the company needed an injection of cash, and was focused on the immediate short term, rather than the long term.

Like I said, I'm probably way off, but for some reason, that was ome of the thoughts floating around my head at the time.

Now, 'bonus time' - we need to clear the warehouse, here's a mystery box at 75% off. That same part of my brain is saying 'fire-sale'....

Further update relevant to privateer press.

No more no quarter.

http://privateerpress.com/no-quarter-prime/farewell-to-no-quarter-prime

Another ominous sign of decline, or privateer press keeping with the times?

Regardless - such a shame - NQ was a fantastic resource, and one I will genuinely miss. It had so much excellent content.