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.

Maybe if you had read that thread, he wouldn't have to "pimp" it. Trying to shoe horn everbody into one WAAC based reason is just an easy way for you to dismiss everybody else's arguments without having to do some critical thinking.

 carlos13th wrote:
People tend to quit because they don't like the changes not just because there are changes.

Not always true. My D&D Group had two major large groups quit over 3rd and 4th, both only months after they were announced, be fore they even got to look at the rules. There are many out there who Quit over Change.

I quit over pricing and obvious gouging.

Like removing units from codices and jacking up the price. Then selling those removed units separately.

They've been changing rules to sell more models for 20+ years.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
People tend to quit because they don't like the changes not just because there are changes.

Not always true. My D&D Group had two major large groups quit over 3rd and 4th, both only months after they were announced, be fore they even got to look at the rules. There are many out there who Quit over Change.

Though sometimes it is relatively easy to see whether the changes are ones that you will support or not.

In the case of 4e D&D I went from mildly hopeful to complete hate before the game came out - and it was because of the changes that they had already announced, their attitude when announcing them, the lack of support for third party publishers, and the fact that they spent as much time trying to denigrate their older 3.X system as they did trying to praise 4e... (Folks interested can look up the faerie rings quote and the guards at the gate quote... WotC was trying to narrow the focus of the game down to a single play style.)

When I finally saw the game, all the parts that I thought that I would not like, I did, in fact, not like.

And remember, the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works.

Lying to your customers tends to leave them a bit wary.

That their shenanigans led to Paizo releasing Pathfinder - which outsold 4e - was something that the folks in charge of WotC realized that they could only blame themselves for.

WotC had created their own competition by the way they were treating their supporting 3P companies and their players....

Still no license for 5e - but that's okay, Pathfinder has a license, and 3PP support....

On the other hand - WotC spent a lot of time, and not a little money, researching the market this time around. With 4e they took the same view that is wrecking GW - 'They will buy what we sell' and with 5e they are taking the view that they need to sell what people will buy.

That much, at least, they have learned.

I am not buying 5e - the system looks okay, but I still prefer Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
People tend to quit because they don't like the changes not just because there are changes.

Not always true. My D&D Group had two major large groups quit over 3rd and 4th, both only months after they were announced, be fore they even got to look at the rules. There are many out there who Quit over Change.

Though sometimes it is relatively easy to see whether the changes are ones that you will support or not.

In the case of 4e D&D I went from mildly hopeful to complete hate before the game came out - and it was because of the changes that they had already announced, their attitude when announcing them, the lack of support for third party publishers, and the fact that they spent as much time trying to denigrate their older 3.X system as they did trying to praise 4e... (Folks interested can look up the faerie rings quote and the guards at the gate quote... WotC was trying to narrow the focus of the game down to a single play style.)

When I finally saw the game, all the parts that I thought that I would not like, I did, in fact, not like.

And remember, the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works.

Lying to your customers tends to leave them a bit wary.

That their shenanigans led to Paizo releasing Pathfinder - which outsold 4e - was something that the folks in charge of WotC realized that they could only blame themselves for.

WotC had created their own competition by the way they were treating their supporting 3P companies and their players....

Still no license for 5e - but that's okay, Pathfinder has a license, and 3PP support....

On the other hand - WotC spent a lot of time, and not a little money, researching the market this time around. With 4e they took the same view that is wrecking GW - 'They will buy what we sell' and with 5e they are taking the view that they need to sell what people will buy.

That much, at least, they have learned.

I am not buying 5e - the system looks okay, but I still prefer Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

I was not talking about after the preview, I am talking when Dragon Magazine announced "We are coming out with 3rd [4th] Edition, look for Information in upcoming issues" They quit without even seeing the first rules change. Their Quote was "They are just looking to make money, we quit."

 adamsouza wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

In fact, there's a whole thread about that.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page

Would you please stop pimping your thread ?

 carlos13th wrote:

Small codex changes and not being able to use power strategies are not the reason most people here are unhappy with GW.

I never said it was "the" reason most people are unhappy with GW.

My point was that peolple flip out over stuff as minor as codex changes, and to expect them to be all right with buying new rules and codexes if another publisher took over, was overly optimistic at best.

I'll stop as soon as GW apologists stop misunderstanding why people leave.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
People tend to quit because they don't like the changes not just because there are changes.

Not always true. My D&D Group had two major large groups quit over 3rd and 4th, both only months after they were announced, be fore they even got to look at the rules. There are many out there who Quit over Change.

Though sometimes it is relatively easy to see whether the changes are ones that you will support or not.

In the case of 4e D&D I went from mildly hopeful to complete hate before the game came out - and it was because of the changes that they had already announced, their attitude when announcing them, the lack of support for third party publishers, and the fact that they spent as much time trying to denigrate their older 3.X system as they did trying to praise 4e... (Folks interested can look up the faerie rings quote and the guards at the gate quote... WotC was trying to narrow the focus of the game down to a single play style.)

When I finally saw the game, all the parts that I thought that I would not like, I did, in fact, not like.

And remember, the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works.

Lying to your customers tends to leave them a bit wary.

That their shenanigans led to Paizo releasing Pathfinder - which outsold 4e - was something that the folks in charge of WotC realized that they could only blame themselves for.

WotC had created their own competition by the way they were treating their supporting 3P companies and their players....

Still no license for 5e - but that's okay, Pathfinder has a license, and 3PP support....

On the other hand - WotC spent a lot of time, and not a little money, researching the market this time around. With 4e they took the same view that is wrecking GW - 'They will buy what we sell' and with 5e they are taking the view that they need to sell what people will buy.

That much, at least, they have learned.

I am not buying 5e - the system looks okay, but I still prefer Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

I was not talking about after the preview, I am talking when Dragon Magazine announced "We are coming out with 3rd [4th] Edition, look for Information in upcoming issues" They quit without even seeing the first rules change. Their Quote was "They are just looking to make money, we quit."

Okay, then. I was speaking of my own reasons for dropping 4e.

I was irked because WotC had just made a statement denying that 4e was in the works.... But I did not make my decision right away... but painfully, over the months leading to the release... hoping that it wouldn't suck. Then it came out, and... it sucked.

Yours was a different experience.

Though... your friends were right - 4e was pretty much just a money grab.

On the other hand... I remember when work began on 3e - no secrecy, open communication, a very robust third party license.

My feeling at the time was 'this is gonna be good!

And it was!

So we had gone from having a system that made changes that I liked to a system that made changes that I loathed.

4e was as much (or more) a failure of PR as it was of game design. WotC could have avoided the pitfall just by engaging their customer base - asking what the customers wanted... instead they told the customers what they wanted, and the customers disagreed.... With the predictable result.

But WotC learned from that experience - I see no signs of GW bothering to learn from theirs....

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

In fact, there's a whole thread about that.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page

Would you please stop pimping your thread ?

 carlos13th wrote:

Small codex changes and not being able to use power strategies are not the reason most people here are unhappy with GW.

I never said it was "the" reason most people are unhappy with GW.

My point was that peolple flip out over stuff as minor as codex changes, and to expect them to be all right with buying new rules and codexes if another publisher took over, was overly optimistic at best.

I'll stop as soon as GW apologists stop misunderstanding why people leave.

But then he would have to admit to being wrong.

The Auld Grump

I was never around for the 3.5/Pathfinder/4th stuff but having played 5th and thoroughly enjoyed it it really does feel like they sat down, worked out what people want out of the game and then made that.

The same happened with Dystopian Wars and their 2nd edition and that has turned out great too.

It's not exactly a hard concept...

WotC's problem with 4e was they changed the paradigm of the game too much. They took away a lot of flexibility for something that played like a streamlined MMO on the tabletop (and speaking as a WoW player I don't mind that but it wasn't for everyone), especially the idea that everything was based on a party so you needed a tank, a healer, etc.

They also tried too hard to push everything Wizards; I remember the days of Gleemax and the Digital Initiative that turned into probably the greatest failure since the collapse of TSR; their digital tools were unpolished crap and the main selling point (Virtual Tabletop) was vaporware that didn't materialize for years and when it did it was a poorly done version of tools like Fantasy Grounds and others that had been around for years. Gleemax was touted as "MySpace for gamers", a place to connect and network and share ideas, but barely worked half the time due to a half-assed implementation and the fact sites like EN World already had that. And of course there was getting rid of the OGL which just annoyed lots of people and paved the way for Pathfinder and others.

They thought they were too big and could dictate to the market, which is just what GW is doing. The difference is that WotC had a wakeup call when Pathfinder beat them at their own game. GW still technically dominates the market (although it's eroding) so in their eyes they have no reason to worry. While something like Dystopian Wars or w/e it was that outsold 7th edition is out there, it's not enough impact in the overall market to get GW to wake up and realize "Hey we are losing this battle, we need to fix it".

WayneTheGame wrote:
WotC's problem with 4e was they changed the paradigm of the game too much. They took away a lot of flexibility for something that played like a streamlined MMO on the tabletop (and speaking as a WoW player I don't mind that but it wasn't for everyone), especially the idea that everything was based on a party so you needed a tank, a healer, etc.

They also tried too hard to push everything Wizards; I remember the days of Gleemax and the Digital Initiative that turned into probably the greatest failure since the collapse of TSR; their digital tools were unpolished crap and the main selling point (Virtual Tabletop) was vaporware that didn't materialize for years and when it did it was a poorly done version of tools like Fantasy Grounds and others that had been around for years. Gleemax was touted as "MySpace for gamers", a place to connect and network and share ideas, but barely worked half the time due to a half-assed implementation and the fact sites like EN World already had that. And of course there was getting rid of the OGL which just annoyed lots of people and paved the way for Pathfinder and others.

They thought they were too big and could dictate to the market, which is just what GW is doing. The difference is that WotC had a wakeup call when Pathfinder beat them at their own game. GW still technically dominates the market (although it's eroding) so in their eyes they have no reason to worry. While something like Dystopian Wars or w/e it was that outsold 7th edition is out there, it's not enough impact in the overall market to get GW to wake up and realize "Hey we are losing this battle, we need to fix it".

To me, most of the problems was all the change of Nomenclature and lack of "Reverse Compatibility". Once I got my group back to the table they were upset that their Characters changed to much and lost their "Iconic" Items.
Personally I love 4th Edition, 5th though seems to be the case of trying to please every one.
7th Edition WH40k has the same feeling of trying to please everyone without the research.
The main issue I have been reading before 7th was "The Game is to Restrictive, you cant play [Insert Army] the way I want. They gave us "Unbound" in 7th and now you can take what you want and many of the same people want to ban it.

GW needs to cut its prices by about 50%.
Then, once that is done they need to work on their public and online profiles, lose the "only allowed in if your buying or playing" attitude and actually accept that there are other game companies out there that are as successful as they are (Privateer Press, BOLS, etc) and that sometimes people want to utilise conversions that incorporate parts of other companies kits-like my counts as Hellhound Mech that I built out of an old Airfix 'Madbull' kit.
Not to mention the firing of all the upper management and the replacing of this "sell all models" policy with a "Hobby first" policy.
After that many of the models need to be moved away from this "kiddies cartoon" look and the old styles brought back in.

Oh, and the Daemonettes need to be scrapped and resculpted by Diaz.

WayneTheGame wrote:
They thought they were too big and could dictate to the market, which is just what GW is doing. The difference is that WotC had a wakeup call when Pathfinder beat them at their own game. GW still technically dominates the market (although it's eroding) so in their eyes they have no reason to worry. While something like Dystopian Wars or w/e it was that outsold 7th edition is out there, it's not enough impact in the overall market to get GW to wake up and realize "Hey we are losing this battle, we need to fix it".

Heck, Paizo beat them with their own game.

But, yeah... the lead that GW has over the competition is such that by the time they react... it may be too late. (Heck, it may already be too late.)

*EDIT* But, good gods! Why aren't they doing any market research?! Even when you dominate the market, you should always be looking to make that market grow! Instead they are trying to make more money out of fewer customers.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
They thought they were too big and could dictate to the market, which is just what GW is doing. The difference is that WotC had a wakeup call when Pathfinder beat them at their own game. GW still technically dominates the market (although it's eroding) so in their eyes they have no reason to worry. While something like Dystopian Wars or w/e it was that outsold 7th edition is out there, it's not enough impact in the overall market to get GW to wake up and realize "Hey we are losing this battle, we need to fix it".

Heck, Paizo beat them with their own game.

But, yeah... the lead that GW has over the competition is such that by the time they react... it may be too late. (Heck, it may already be too late.)

*EDIT* But, good gods! Why aren't they doing any market research?! Even when you dominate the market, you should always be looking to make that market grow! Instead they are trying to make more money out of fewer customers.

The Auld Grump

Sheer arrogance is the only thing I can think of. I think they vastly overestimate the GW "brand", especially in the UK because they're still resting on the laurels of the old "GW on every corner" situation.

I loved D&D and have been playing it since "Advanced" days. I'm not adverse to change, but the change has to be good. When 3rd switched to 4th, I bought all the books and was excited. Then I started playing and everything felt overly simplified and dumbed down and I hated it. So, for me, it was absolutely the rules.

When 40k switched to 7th, again it was the rules that made me say "I've had enough." The horrible business practices were getting to me and would have pushed me away soon enough, but the "Money Grab Edition" just kicked me right out.

I want to address the silly notion of someone like PP buying GW out just to get rid of the IP.

That's just silly talk. Why would they drop conceivably millions on something to then just dump it? There is no revenue recovery there. So lets say they have fond memories of that game that got them into mini's and want to bring it back for old times sake, restore it to glory as they say? Heck you buy it and you still have to deal with the massive infrastructure of the stores, warehouses. employees. Fixed costs that will sink your companies faster than the Iceberg did in the Titanic. Doesnt make a lick of sense.

Agreed.

Buying and burying is what you do with a property that is competition, but less popular/well known than your own.

TSR used to do it - or, in the case of DragonQuest, made a single print run, then buried it.

PP might actually be a good home for WH40K - but I doubt that they would try to keep the retail arm of GW alive - so they would most likely only buy GW's IP at liquidation.

The Auld Grump

They need to stop thinking Word of Mouth and a magazine that few non-wargaming stores stock is going to sell there products. Actually making an advertising department to create commercials to be shown via popular media to the public and then improving the capacity of their stores to take advantage of the new interest from said advert would boost the relevance to the general public no end. Then they would have to stop being Jerks to anyone who wants to something cool with the 40k setting and improving the price to quality ratio so they can a widespread image of them as being a great business who tries to satisfy their fans instead of having a focussing on making a profit.

If Kirby ran into a burning house and saved a baby, maybe that would change his image

Yeah... real likely scenario there....

[Joking]I'm not saying that if he were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put it out - but I am saying that I would take the opportunity to piss on him, even if I had a bucket of water handy.[/Joking]

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Yeah... real likely scenario there....

[Joking]I'm not saying that if he were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put it out - but I am saying that I would take the opportunity to piss on him, even if I had a bucket of water handy.[/Joking]

The Auld Grump

You would need that excuse? I would set him on fire just to piss on him

 Anpu42 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
People tend to quit because they don't like the changes not just because there are changes.

Not always true. My D&D Group had two major large groups quit over 3rd and 4th, both only months after they were announced, be fore they even got to look at the rules. There are many out there who Quit over Change.

Though sometimes it is relatively easy to see whether the changes are ones that you will support or not.

In the case of 4e D&D I went from mildly hopeful to complete hate before the game came out - and it was because of the changes that they had already announced, their attitude when announcing them, the lack of support for third party publishers, and the fact that they spent as much time trying to denigrate their older 3.X system as they did trying to praise 4e... (Folks interested can look up the faerie rings quote and the guards at the gate quote... WotC was trying to narrow the focus of the game down to a single play style.)

When I finally saw the game, all the parts that I thought that I would not like, I did, in fact, not like.

And remember, the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works.

Lying to your customers tends to leave them a bit wary.

That their shenanigans led to Paizo releasing Pathfinder - which outsold 4e - was something that the folks in charge of WotC realized that they could only blame themselves for.

WotC had created their own competition by the way they were treating their supporting 3P companies and their players....

Still no license for 5e - but that's okay, Pathfinder has a license, and 3PP support....

On the other hand - WotC spent a lot of time, and not a little money, researching the market this time around. With 4e they took the same view that is wrecking GW - 'They will buy what we sell' and with 5e they are taking the view that they need to sell what people will buy.

That much, at least, they have learned.

I am not buying 5e - the system looks okay, but I still prefer Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

I was not talking about after the preview, I am talking when Dragon Magazine announced "We are coming out with 3rd [4th] Edition, look for Information in upcoming issues" They quit without even seeing the first rules change. Their Quote was "They are just looking to make money, we quit."

Wouldn't that just be a way of saying as qouted above, "the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works." Seem pretty simple they lie about no 4th ed so you keep buying 3rd ed books then try to sell you 4th ed for more of your money.

Hire me as CEO and give me the power to actually fix up the place.

Bring out Bretonnians and (Sisters of Battle in plastic) and be done with it.

And above all no army/faction should never be left to rot for over a decade.

Come out with multiple armies in each book - Armies of Men: Empire & Bretonnia. Realms of Chaos: Beastmen, Chaos Warrirs, & Daemons. Lands of the Dead: Tomb Kings & Vampire Counts. The Beasts that Walk like Men: Lizardmen & Skaven. The Brutes: Ogres and Orcs.

Or have a big book of army lists that cover everybody - adding new books for specific wars.

Call it, oh, I don't know... Warhammer Armies or something?


The Auld Grump

This topic seems to be getting away from its stated purpose a bit before its time, I reckon!

Apologies in advance as this gets a bit rambling and tangential at times. It's the only way I can see to explain my thoughts on the subject, I'm afraid, but hopefully some of you will manage to wade through the prose and find the train of thought

Anyway, thinking about it I would say that GW need to consider the future. Unless World War 3 wipes out the current way the world runs then we can say a few things about where the future seems to be going:

Digital and internet-related things aren't going away. I don't mean they need to think about setting up a forum or anything like that. What I feel they need to consider is where miniature wargames fit into an even more digital future. Either they accept where the tide seems to be taking them - a very niche position - or they consider where they set a course for.

Personally I hate stuff that serves no purpose. I don't want a stack of DVDs when the videos could be provided from a hard drive or through a streaming service. I don't want a library full of books making my tiny British flat feel even smaller (reference books fall into a different category - I'm talking about books that are read beginning to end here). I don't even want to have to go out and buy most replaceable goods. If I need more bog roll I'd rather chuck it in my next online supermarket order and have someone lug it and my other groceries to my front door. That way I've got more time to do stuff I want to do.

What I'm getting at is that there's now a situation, at least in the UK, where there's pretty much no point going to another city to go shopping. Mass production means they have the same shops selling the same stuff. There's very little of the old joy of browsing to find new stuff these days, at least from what I see. Most things I know enough about to just order online so I don't have to cart the stuff home. Essentially this adds up to a world where physical things aren't as important. Social media, Netflix (or equivalent), and video games.

Where does a physical shop that sells expensive plastic minis fit into that world?

Sure, those of us who know about the world of wargaming have opinions but we're already informed. How does GW fit into the future of young people today? Why should a parent spend hundreds of pounds on miniatures when the latest games console and some games will keep them entertained more easily? Video games are everywhere now and multiplayer console gaming exists in a way that it simply didn't ten years ago.

Something I love about wargaming that I can't get from video games is the tangible aspect. Whenever I see a bit of plastic piping in a skip I have to force myself not to take it home. I can explore digital worlds at my computer but there's something very primal about physical objects.
Then of course there's the game theory stuff. Figuring out good ways to spend points in equipping an army and the likelihood of a setup working the way I want it to exercise mental faculties that I don't use to anywhere near the same extent whilst playing video games.

So perhaps something to consider is how to reach parents. Pricing structures should probably be revised somewhat, obviously, but more of a priority should be considering entrance vectors.
What should the journey of a young new player be? What do they buy first? What can they expect to learn from that? How quickly does it generate a feeling of satisfaction and fun?
It doesn't need to be instantaneous but if it's too slow then their patience is likely to wear thin.

Extremely importantly - if they don't have £30 to spend on a new unit right now what's there to do until they can afford it?

I was looking at White Dwarf 212 (August 1997) the other day and saw a feature on building a modular boards. They managed to make 32 square feet of terrain for £40 (about £55 in 2013 money) (as an aside - they actually made them double sided to bring it up to 64 square feet!). Clubbing together with a few friends and being inspired to have a go at scavenging materials seems like a good way to keep them engaged!
What really stood out was that the article mentioned that certain things could be bought from GW but also mentioned free or cheap alternatives (like using sand instead of GW bought flock).

These days GW seems to be aiming for terrain to only be store bought. Perhaps this'll mean that the remaining boards owned by their players will look nicer but it seems likely that it'll mean fewer of them!

Similarly smaller scale games that link into "proper" 40K seem important. The one thing that Gorkamorka really had over Necromunda was that an Ork mob could become the basis for a 40K army of Orks in a way that Goliath gangers couldn't.

I'm not suggesting Specialist Games need to return (although if they could be done in a cost effective way I'm sure lots of us wouldn't complain) what I am thinking about is things like Kill Team. A way to get games going without needing 1500 points or more on the table. 12 year old me really had to battle to get his unit of slugga boyz painted, I can tell you!

The point I'm laboriously building to is that a GW that is looking forwards and not trying to squeeze every penny from new entrants to the hobby would help a great deal. That attitude affects everyone that deals with GW. I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable letting my (hypothetical!) kids spend time in a GW store. The company line when it comes to people buying stuff from them makes me massively uncomfortable and that's after years of dealing with money-grubbing companies and the resultant thick skin.

Furthermore a "re-entrance" vector would probably do them a world of good too. How many of us stopped playing as teenagers and then started to get back into it when we had some disposable income later in life? It's a common story. Planning for this sort of behaviour and figuring out how to ease people back into "the hobby" without alienating them immediately would do a world of good.

Realistically I don't see that sort of attitude shift happening any time soon but I live in hope.

 Chute82 wrote:
If Kirby ran into a burning house, saved a baby, and never made it back out again maybe that would change his image

Fixed.

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Hire me as CEO and give me the power to actually fix up the place.

Bring out Bretonnians and (Sisters of Battle in plastic) and be done with it.

And above all no army/faction should never be left to rot for over a decade.

Is this your campaign promise to bring Squats up to date?

Noir the case of 4e D&D: that just be a way of saying as qouted above, "the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works." Seem pretty simple they lie about no 4th ed so you keep buying 3rd ed books then try to sell you 4th ed for more of your money.

edited your post a bit.

GW did the exact same thing with the re-release of Space Hulk. UK Games Day they hinted at it, US Games Day they scoffed at the idea in fact replying that "no, SH was not going to be released this year", DEU Games Day they made a big deal about a "Special Announcement", the world waited.. Jervis hobbled up to the podium and loudly announced that "We have something special to announce, but to find out what it is you'll have to check your e-mail tomorrow". Was it to be SH? We wanted to know "just look online tomorrow" is all he replied.

So no cheering masses at GWGD that year, and a massive jerk move by Jervis and the rest of them. The worst is the limited nature of the product and the fact that a massive presence in retailers with such an introductory game wouldn't be a bad deal at all.

Lying about a product does not generate hype but is a wet blanket towards any enthusiasm.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Hire me as CEO and give me the power to actually fix up the place.

Bring out Bretonnians and (Sisters of Battle in plastic) and be done with it.

And above all no army/faction should never be left to rot for over a decade.

Is this your campaign promise to bring Squats up to date?

HELL YEAH

xraytango wrote:

Noir the case of 4e D&D: that just be a way of saying as qouted above, "the month before the big announcement of 4e WotC had made a statement that 4e wasn't in the works." Seem pretty simple they lie about no 4th ed so you keep buying 3rd ed books then try to sell you 4th ed for more of your money.

edited your post a bit.

GW did the exact same thing with the re-release of Space Hulk. UK Games Day they hinted at it, US Games Day they scoffed at the idea in fact replying that "no, SH was not going to be released this year", DEU Games Day they made a big deal about a "Special Announcement", the world waited.. Jervis hobbled up to the podium and loudly announced that "We have something special to announce, but to find out what it is you'll have to check your e-mail tomorrow". Was it to be SH? We wanted to know "just look online tomorrow" is all he replied.

So no cheering masses at GWGD that year, and a massive jerk move by Jervis and the rest of them. The worst is the limited nature of the product and the fact that a massive presence in retailers with such an introductory game wouldn't be a bad deal at all.

Lying about a product does not generate hype but is a wet blanket towards any enthusiasm.

I think Jervis could have taken a page out of that Ferguson cop's playbook and said "I will Kill you, Go F*&% Yourself!" and SH would still have sold out. It was that good of a box at the time.

It sucks, but it's the truth.

Dreadfleet though.... whew.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Okay, then. I was speaking of my own reasons for dropping 4e.

I was irked because WotC had just made a statement denying that 4e was in the works.... But I did not make my decision right away... but painfully, over the months leading to the release... hoping that it wouldn't suck. Then it came out, and... it sucked.

Yours was a different experience.

Though... your friends were right - 4e was pretty much just a money grab.

On the other hand... I remember when work began on 3e - no secrecy, open communication, a very robust third party license.

My feeling at the time was 'this is gonna be good!

And it was!

Yep yours mirrors mine. We heard about 3E and thought "this sounds great!". We heard about 4E and thought "ffs!". Both were borne out by later playtesting - e3 after buying the books, 4e after downloading them and therefore thankfully avoiding getting burnt. So much about 4E still irritates me and I really hope 5E improves it all. If not, I'll probably pick up 3E again at some stage thanks to the extensive D20 support for it... although yeah I hear pathfinder basically replaced it thanks to the feth-up that was 4E.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I loved D&D and have been playing it since "Advanced" days. I'm not adverse to change, but the change has to be good. When 3rd switched to 4th, I bought all the books and was excited. Then I started playing and everything felt overly simplified and dumbed down and I hated it. So, for me, it was absolutely the rules.

When 40k switched to 7th, again it was the rules that made me say "I've had enough." The horrible business practices were getting to me and would have pushed me away soon enough, but the "Money Grab Edition" just kicked me right out.

Exactly, people often say "people cry about change" and while that may be true for a very small number of people, the cast majority are happy with good change - or at least, change that is good in their subjective opinion. Some change is just objectively good too and anyone arguing against it is likely doing so out of an information deficit or they stand to lose somehow (nerfed favourite build, obsoleted books/models etc - think an obviously OP class in an MMO).

---

To tie all that into GW - We don't just dislike 7th ed, codex changes, whatever because it's change. We dislike it because it's bad change. Bad change done out of both incompetence in not knowing what the market wants and greed in changing the game in order to sell more models rather than making a good game that makes people want to buy more models. GW need to stop acting like that as one of the many things they need to do to improve their public image. AD&D 2E to D&D3E was an amazing edition change. It simplified and optimized mechanics without reducing depth (feth off THAC0!!) and created a basis for which 3rd parties could create their own custom modules to tie into the game and implemtned many new and well thought out systems. 40k Really needs something like this. REALLY needs it.