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.

I say kudos for GW in letting the fans have a hand in writing the lore again. Of course making it pay to play seemed a little off putting, but it's not a bad concept as a way to control who is reporting battles and the number of battles they can report.

I still miss the old campaigns (Armageddon and Eye of Terror) but that was a different era. At least this campaign gave us a definite winner. Revenge for Ichar IV. Huzzah!

 Dekskull wrote:

I still miss the old campaigns (Armageddon and Eye of Terror) but that was a different era. At least this campaign gave us a definite winner. Revenge for Ichar IV. Huzzah!

Plus we get to blame everything on the Ultramarines

It was exceptionally non-interactive and rushed.

Limited time to put the code in, an update that amounted to "This side's winning... so yeah, do the thing!".

I think it was an exercise in gauging box set sales more than anything else.

Uhhuh. Gw has better way to measure than this like sales data.

It was a popularity contest vote.

Sort of like voting for Prom Queen, except even more voting against the popular kid.

I wouldn't in any way describe it as a 'campaign,' unless there were scenarios hidden somewhere that I never noticed.

I barely noticed it was happening and the amount of effort GW put in seemed spectacularly low. Like Voss, I'm not sure I'd define this as a "campaign". I'm not really sure what I'd define it as, other than some sort of odd marketing drive.

 Dekskull wrote:
I say kudos for GW in letting the fans have a hand in writing the lore again.

Sure you had a hand in any of thier decisions.....

It wasn’t really a campaign. In the sense that while we were logging games, there wasn’t any sort of progress. Just a tally and an outcome at the end.

It’s better than nothing, but a little lackluster

tneva82 wrote:
Uhhuh. Gw has better way to measure than this like sales data.

Like this wouldn't also factor in?

Seriously, do you always have to post the way you do?

I wonder what went wrong (in GW's eyes) with the Konor campaign to not build upon that.
It's merely 6 years ago and came at a strange point in time: GW just started to recover from the Dark Age of Kirby, 8th was just released and during the campaign a couple of Codizes were released while most factions had to go on with their indizes. Nevertheless, I found that to be a fun ride and it was nicely presented with a website and new scenarios every week (or every 2 weeks? Something like that). In the end the Imperium won most of it (of course), but it nearly made me go to a FLGS and get me out of garagehammer for once.
Vigilus/Nachmund/Octarius/Pariah Nexus - any of these could have worked for a player campaign and be more than: Would you like to buy these three books for 50 bugs each?

That Oghram campaign now... well, it seems to me it's something to get the edition started, maybe get people hooked to actually build their leviathan stuff and not just put it on the pile of shame and wait for the next edition starter. Because if you've built these Leviathan minis, surely you want to build on that with these upcoming other tyranids we would like to sell you...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was exceptionally non-interactive and rushed.

Limited time to put the code in, an update that amounted to "This side's winning... so yeah, do the thing!".

I think it was an exercise in gauging box set sales more than anything else.

This. "Submit your proof of purchase and vote for who you think should win" is not a campaign, it's just a marketing gimmick. None of it had any lore, nobody cares about some random system that never existed before now and will probably never be mentioned again in any significant way, and TBH the only reason to care about the thing at all was voting to see which new model preview was shown first.

Yeah, I got really excited for Konor and would love to see more things along those lines.

I didn't even realize this one was a pay-to-vote thing. I saw two armies that I'm not focusing on right now and just kind of ignored it.

Honestly, itty-bitty pseudo-"campaigns" could be a really low-cost way for GW to keep up player engagement. Have someone knock out some campaign fluff during an afternoon. Like, the entirety of the lore written could fit into one or two of those little timeline fluff boxes from the 7th/8th edition codices. Spit out 1-3 gimmicky missions that don't even have to be especially balanced. Let people report their results via their Warhammer+ accounts or local GW stores or whatever. Reveal one of the two endings that you wrote during that afternoon of work.

Do one of those every 3 months or something. You don't necessarily need to include named characters. The stakes can be relatively low. Just give the fanbase the illusion of contributing towards some little nuggets of lore in the setting.

I think the "pay to play" of buying into Leviathan was both a way to try and ensure some fair play whilst at the same time also being a sales driver.

Chances are a new edition is a lot of chaos and work for GW so chances are a "light" campaign like this is more sane for them to run alongside everything else for 10th Edition.

More involved campaigns are better for slower periods where your staff can focus on the campaign and you can get more detailed.

 Overread wrote:
I think the "pay to play" of buying into Leviathan was both a way to try and ensure some fair play whilst at the same time also being a sales driver.

Chances are a new edition is a lot of chaos and work for GW so chances are a "light" campaign like this is more sane for them to run alongside everything else for 10th Edition.

More involved campaigns are better for slower periods where your staff can focus on the campaign and you can get more detailed.

As if a box with 980 Points of Space marines and 812 Points of Tyranids (with one unit below minimum model count) would be anything about "fair play"

It was the same as the 13th Crusade campaign in i think 5th edition or the warhammer fantasy Archaon crusade in 3th edition;
some made up story without any interactivity

From the sales perspective, what will sell more ? A new sm primaris leutnant and a primaris jumppack squad (cause we nearly have all other sm options with more than 100 options already), or brand new models with some replacing
old resin molds / overused plastic molds and a replaxcement for a forgeworld fan favorite?

The content of box was irrelevant for games though. Or you think people only had those models?

Roleplaying time...

tneva82 wrote:
Or you think people only had those models?

So you don't think anyone bought Leviathan as their first purchase and that everyone has massive huge armies with every model???

MongooseMatt wrote: Plus we get to blame everything on the Ultramarines

Voss wrote:It was a popularity contest vote.

Sort of like voting for Prom Queen, except even more voting against the popular kid.

I agree, but I have a painted 40k version of my Primarch, so I'll take the hate with a smile.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It was exceptionally non-interactive and rushed.

Such a missed opportunitytm. I'd love to see a weekly/monthly/whatever continuation of this where spin-off battles and such keep moving this story of some irrelevant planet forward. It wouldn't hurt the larger sandbox and would be a great hook for GW to sell a few more units and get people into the stores

tneva82 wrote:
Uhhuh. Gw has better way to measure than this like sales data.

If you sell 1 million boxes to local game stores, you have no way of knowing how many of those boxes were purchased day one vs how many are going to sit on a shelf collecting dust for 3 years. This campaign gives GW a pretty accurate picture of how many copies were purchased, which will help them figure out how many to produce next time they do a box like this.

Toofast wrote:
...This campaign gives GW a pretty accurate picture of how many copies were purchased...

...except for all the people who couldn't be bothered to do the code. Or forgot. Or couldn't get a game in and didn't want to just make up a result. Or managed to lose the code (probably pretty rare, but some people are just that good). I could see it being a decent way to track day-1 engagement, but I have a very hard time believing that they have no better way to track day-1 sales for any item, even from third-party stores. I'll admit, I've never worked with retail sales management, but I've heard talk of this new invention called a 'com-pyoo-tar'. They're supposed to be really good at counting things and storing numbers. I figure a forward-thinking company like GW might have found a way to use them in inventory or suchlike, and even if they can't store that many numbers at once I'd wager they could find a way top kludge a calendar, a pen, and the numbers labelled "Leviathan units sold" into a means of tracking sales figures.

Still more accurate than not having it...