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.
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
Or does logic hurt the person trolling?
Tried DZC. It too is fairly bland and symmetrical.
Sure, I can "modify" a competitive game and make it more narrative. People can (and do) take a narrative game and modify it to be competitive. Nothing wrong with that.
I am not saying it is impossible to do with Warmachine, but it takes a lot of work and, usually, more "free-form" gaming tends to go against the grain of most Warmachine players I've met.
You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
Or does logic hurt the person trolling?
Tried DZC. It too is fairly bland and symmetrical.
Sure, I can "modify" a competitive game and make it more narrative. People can (and do) take a narrative game and modify it to be competitive. Nothing wrong with that.
I am not saying it is impossible to do with Warmachine, but it takes a lot of work and, usually, more "free-form" gaming tends to go against the grain of most Warmachine players I've met.
You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
Start a kickstarter!
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
Zweischneid wrote: You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
This last point will be resolved when we see the next financial report. If they continue their downward trend, or only keep profits high due to further cuts without showing a significant uptick in sales volume, we will have our answer on that.
For the business perspective on GW, go to Masterminis.net and read his 12~13 part narrative on how GW is failing as a company; it's written not by a "common Joe" but a former corporate executive of a succesful international bsuiness and is invested personally in a miniatures based company. It's an award winning analysis and perfectly exemplifies on how GW is being sustained on blind brand loyalty alone.
The pricing of their new tools alone is proof enough they are in the market of sniffing their own farts. The mental gymnastics alone to play their game is one thing, but their physical flexibility to have heads that far up their bum is impressive.
For the business perspective on GW, go to Masterminis.net and read his 12~13 part narrative on how GW is failing as a company; it's written not by a "common Joe" but a former corporate executive of a succesful international bsuiness and is invested personally in a miniatures based company. It's an award winning analysis and perfectly exemplifies on how GW is being sustained on blind brand loyalty alone.
I know the series. GW does just about everything wrong you can do wrong. I don't deny that. If they didn't have the far and away best miniatures-game all around, they'd been toast years ago.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 16:54:31
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
Or does logic hurt the person trolling?
Tried DZC. It too is fairly bland and symmetrical.
Sure, I can "modify" a competitive game and make it more narrative. People can (and do) take a narrative game and modify it to be competitive. Nothing wrong with that.
I am not saying it is impossible to do with Warmachine, but it takes a lot of work and, usually, more "free-form" gaming tends to go against the grain of most Warmachine players I've met.
You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
Incorrect, it is easy to modify a competitive game to a narrative game. It is far more difficult to do the opposite. The reason why their prices are huge is they used to have a monopoly on non-historical war gaming. Even now they are still the most popular and inflate the prices to make up for a diminishing fanbase.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
You haven't played many miniature games have you? Please stop throwing words around if you don't know what they mean.
40k IS NOT A NARRATIVE FOCUSED GAME.
A narrative focused game is one that is mission or campaign focused, like Force on Force or GW's own Inquisitor. A narrative focused game is one that usually doesn't use a points system to define the opposing armies but where they are defined by the specific mission or as a continuing evolution of a campaign.
40K does not fill any of these criteria, they are just as narrative focused as Warmachine or Infinity!
Heck, if you take into account that there are narrative focused mission in almost every NQ and that CB as recently released narrative campaigns for all the factions in Infinity, you can even argue that 40k is LESS narrative focused than either of those games.
I know the series. GW does just about everything wrong you can do wrong. I don't deny that. If they didn't have the far and away best miniatures-game all around, they'd been toast years ago.
I never did like the idea of "You're so smart, so why not start your own?" Wargaming is all a hobby for us and I'll keep that way, too!
I think it's the brand that keeps them going. My attachment is to theme, the universe, and the models. Most certainly NOT the game. And I continue to meet folks in the same category more than those who are in it just for the game alone. I want a Mech IG army, Tau Auxillery army, and a fat grip of Space Marines, but I am entirely put off by how the game itself is being managed. If my hobby then becomes model collecting and painting, there are companies that offer me better options. Andrea Miniatures... gorgeous stuff...
I don't want GW to tank, but their model is unsustainable, sadly. I don't think they will collapse, but I expect them to become much smaller in the coming year(s).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 16:58:29
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Keep trying.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Being tournament based is superior to many folks, not idiotic. Why makes a narrative game not "iditoic"? If the result is 40K, I'd have to beg to differ.
The irony I find with this is that a game built around tournaments also lends itself to casual play, while the reverse is blatantly false and a game geared for casual play usually falls apart in tournaments. Ergo, games should be designed for tournament play first since there's no drawback for casual play.
I concur with the OP. People do take 40K way to seriously. But since I don't play in tournaments (IMHO40K is not a tourney game because it is not balanced. For tourneys I play WM).
But I do enjoy the heck out of some Beerhammer. And if people get really wound around the axle about the game, I just don't play them any more.
The irony I find with this is that a game built around tournaments also lends itself to casual play, while the reverse is blatantly false and a game geared for casual play usually falls apart in tournaments. Ergo, games should be designed for tournament play first since there's no drawback for casual play.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Keep trying.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Being tournament based is superior to many folks, not idiotic. Why makes a narrative game not "iditoic"? If the result is 40K, I'd have to beg to differ.
The irony I find with this is that a game built around tournaments also lends itself to casual play, while the reverse is blatantly false and a game geared for casual play usually falls apart in tournaments. Ergo, games should be designed for tournament play first since there's no drawback for casual play.
People need to stop comparing Warmachine and 40k... It's an apples to oranges comparison...
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
People need to stop comparing Warmachine and 40k... It's an apples to oranges comparison...
The game, yes. But they are both like businesses that sell rules, models, supplies, and have periodicals and company supported events.
One does all of this in a much more consumer friendly manner than the other. One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip. The other is performing every corporate cost-cutting measure in the book to stay relevant and ensure profits for the shareholders while treating customers like walking wallets.
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 17:38:27
Oooh, where did you check? I'm always interested to see some good hard figures on the businesses in wargaming.
The PP range must have grown loads too, if it is 1000x bigger than X Wing.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
So, they lose market share to one of the "Big Fish" Franchises when it moves in. How'd GW do?
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
You mean two massively popular IPs that have their own built in giant fanbase plus less construction required? Not that surprising honestly.
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
So, they lose market share to one of the "Big Fish" Franchises when it moves in. How'd GW do?
40K remains the top dog. Fantasy disappeared.
Of course, they are relative numbers. 40K might have taken a hit, but not enough to dethrone it. Or it might not have, and GW's recent sales-cave-in is "Fantasy-caused".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 18:01:17
azreal13 wrote: Oooh, where did you check? I'm always interested to see some good hard figures on the businesses in wargaming.
The PP range must have grown loads too, if it is 1000x bigger than X Wing.
Good hard figures?
Don't exist except for GW, which is publicly listed.
ICv2-surveys are probably what most people are working with.
The X-Wing range is currently 12 miniatures. Ok, warmachine is probably not 12.000 miniatures, but it is a lot more than 12.
So, what I'm getting is you didn't actually check anything and were throwing around made up numbers for hyperbolic over exaggeration?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I don't think a pissing contest over financials that involves no actual data proves anything.
The problem: GW introduces units like Helldrakes and Riptides that invalidate huge swaths of army concepts. Concepts, by the way, that didn't need such hard counters. GW also puts in units that are objective inferior in nearly every way to other choices in their own codex slot.
Myself and others are asking for solutions for this, not being told to "suck it up" and "forge the narrative".
Martel732 wrote: I don't think a pissing contest over financials that involves no actual data proves anything.
Which is why I was asking for the data that PP is doing well. It would put a lot of perspective on things.
The only place we can get such a thing is by removing it from our collective derriers. You know full well PP are a private company and the only things we have are conjecture and educated guesses based on the fact the wargaming industry as a whole is growing.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
azreal13 wrote: Oooh, where did you check? I'm always interested to see some good hard figures on the businesses in wargaming.
The PP range must have grown loads too, if it is 1000x bigger than X Wing.
Good hard figures?
Don't exist except for GW, which is publicly listed.
ICv2-surveys are probably what most people are working with.
The X-Wing range is currently 12 miniatures. Ok, warmachine is probably not 12.000 miniatures, but it is a lot more than 12.
So, what I'm getting is you didn't actually check anything and were throwing around made up numbers for hyperbolic over exaggeration?
That X-Wing overtook Warmachine, Fantasy and Hordes, and Star Trek Attack Wing overtook Fantasy and Hordes, no, that seems confirmed as far as the limited data we (or I) have allows.
Spoiler:
Spring 2012 is "typical" for many years before that too. A long time, there was little change.
Gen-Con 2012, X-Wing launches
Spring 2013, the first X-Wing craze abates
Fall 2013, X-Wing goes viral among the gaming crowd, as opposed to the IP crowd. Also, Fantasy = Gone.
WIth X-Wing selling more than Warmachine, while having a far smaller range, presumably it is far more profitable.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: People need to stop comparing Warmachine and 40k... It's an apples to oranges comparison...
I kinda see your point, but it's more like comparing an orange to a tangerine. They are similar games, with similar goals, and as such the closest comparison to be made (and I'd argue that 40k is more of the outlier as other games seem similar to Warmachine than to 40k)
Martel732 wrote: I don't think a pissing contest over financials that involves no actual data proves anything.
Which is why I was asking for the data that PP is doing well. It would put a lot of perspective on things.
The only place we can get such a thing is by removing it from our collective derriers. You know full well PP are a private company and the only things we have are conjecture and educated guesses based on the fact the wargaming industry as a whole is growing.
It is not. According to ICv2, the "gaming" industry is growing, with the biggest new entry being the My Little Pony CCG... no joke, and MtG breaking one record after another. Boardgames are also up.
The subgroup of wargaming that includes 40K, Warmachine, etc,, was not growing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 18:11:49
Not true, I suggest you check out Wayshuba's posts in the ongoing FFG discussion in General, he's a market analyst by trade and has access to a variety of (pay to access, not allowed to share) sources which give a lot more info and say otherwise.
ICv2 is, at best, the market equivalent of someone licking their finger and putting it in the air, and while a useful guide, shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote: Not true, I suggest you check out Wayshuba's posts in the ongoing FFG discussion in General, he's a market analyst by trade and has access to a variety of (pay to access, not allowed to share) sources which give a lot more info and say otherwise.
ICv2 is, at best, the market equivalent of someone licking their finger and putting it in the air, and while a useful guide, shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel.
Well, I would assume ICv2 has at the very least the same tools that Wayshuba has. They are a market analytics consultancy after all.
But yes, all that stuff needs to be taken with all the appropriate caveats.
I spent over a hundred dollars lovingly acquiring my command squad and hero, dozens of hours building and painting, and then I played them only to be evaporated with no save of any kind.
This is what I was talking about. What evaporated them? Building-sized monster? Daemon from hell the size of a tank made of unreality? Orbital strike? A gigantic mech? What exactly do people propose a game do to make a unit like a command squad balanced in those situations?
Everyone has complaints, not solutions. I think that is because by and large people aren't sure what the problem is, and the community at large is just in a big "40k is a mess" echo chamber.
I spent over a hundred dollars lovingly acquiring my command squad and hero, dozens of hours building and painting, and then I played them only to be evaporated with no save of any kind.
This is what I was talking about. What evaporated them? Building-sized monster? Daemon from hell the size of a tank made of unreality? Orbital strike? A gigantic mech? What exactly do people propose a game do to make a unit like a command squad balanced in those situations?
Everyone has complaints, not solutions. I think that is because by and large people aren't sure what the problem is, and the community at large is just in a big "40k is a mess" echo chamber.
The solution is to price the units fairly for how the are *actually used in the game*. Lots of units need to be cheaper, and some need to get a hike.
azreal13 wrote: Not true, I suggest you check out Wayshuba's posts in the ongoing FFG discussion in General, he's a market analyst by trade and has access to a variety of (pay to access, not allowed to share) sources which give a lot more info and say otherwise.
ICv2 is, at best, the market equivalent of someone licking their finger and putting it in the air, and while a useful guide, shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel.
Well, I would assume ICv2 has at the very least the same tools that Wayshuba has. They are a market analytics consultancy after all.
But yes, all that stuff needs to be taken with all the appropriate caveats.
Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing which you shouldn't do. All the ICv2 is, essentially, is the compilation of results of a phone survey conducted with a variety of gaming retailers, who themselves essentially pull the answers out of the air. I can testify as a former director of a retail business that often what you think is doing well isn't always borne out by the sales figures, and is frequently coloured by what has been selling well that month, day, week or morning.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
