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.

 agnosto wrote:
Is it a wargame or a board game.

It's a board game. It's clearly not marketed towards the general board game demographic.

I can understand why someone coming from that background would laugh at the price/offering ratio. Thing is - he's not the person that's supposed to buy it.

I'm wondering if the rules will be versatile enough to build larger boards...

I won't hold my breath but I'm looking forward to the pre order going up. It would be nice if they released a "How it works" video but we can't expect such things from GW.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Just to make sure people are clear, the "Execution Force" game will cost:
100Euro
75GBP
124USD
200NZD
175AUD

Ouch. That's Super Dungeon Explore money, but with a lot less mini's or gameplay.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Operation Icestorm wasn't marketed as a board game though, it's a starter set. Maybe it was a bit pricey but the models are damned good, not just repackaged surplus stuff with a couple new thrown in.

So if they'd added a boardgame, a solid cardboard board instead of flimsy paper, additional rules and more to give Icestorm dual-use as both boardgame and miniature-game starter, it would've been worth less?

No but then it wouldn't have had metal models as a board game so actually it probably would be, yeah.

Metal models < (hard-)plastic models in production cost. Those 14 pewter minis probably cost Corvus Belli less than even half an Assassin.

Sure the pewters cost less to make than an assassin if you don't consider economies of scale. Mould costs aside those 14 petwer mini's probably cost more than the entire Execution Force game to produce.

Those miniatures are ugly. I'm sorry, but I was expecting a lot more out of modernized Assassins.

Me too. The Callidus and the Vindicare are the main offenders - I thought GW had gotten rid of the "huge hands and feet" but they felt like the Vindicare had to take a nod to 2nd edition 40k (plus the dislocated shoulder, the way he's holding the rifle).

Not sold on the Eversor but he's not that bad, the best is the culexus, apart from him having a barrel so big you could swear it was taken from a battleship and then glued on top of another.

 Desubot wrote:
Hmmm is it just me or is there something horribly wrong with the cali arms?

I still plan on getting them. but now im gonna probably have to do some cutting and green stuffing which i dont mind that much.

Honestly, the Callidus would look so much better if you were to take some scenery pieces and make it appear as though she's dropping from rafters in a desecrated cathedral or something like that.

The model is very fluid in the way they modeled it, but having it attached to a rock by the foot is killing the look.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Is it a wargame or a board game.

It's a board game. It's clearly not marketed towards the general board game demographic.

I can understand why someone coming from that background would laugh at the price/offering ratio. Thing is - he's not the person that's supposed to buy it.

So it's a board game, but not one for people who actually play board games?

And you honestly don't think GW lost the plot on this one?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Is it a wargame or a board game.

It's a board game. It's clearly not marketed towards the general board game demographic.

I can understand why someone coming from that background would laugh at the price/offering ratio. Thing is - he's not the person that's supposed to buy it.

So it's a board game, but not one for people who actually play board games?

And you honestly don't get how GW lost the plot on this one?

Someone who is "the general board game demographic" scoffing at the price/offering of this game are not necessarily the audience, when you take into consideration that people who might be interested in picking up a self-contained game with models usable for 40k do exist...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Is it a wargame or a board game.

It's a board game. It's clearly not marketed towards the general board game demographic.

I can understand why someone coming from that background would laugh at the price/offering ratio. Thing is - he's not the person that's supposed to buy it.

So it's a board game, but not one for people who actually play board games?

And you honestly don't get how GW lost the plot on this one?

Someone who is "the general board game demographic" scoffing at the price/offering of this game are not necessarily the audience, when you take into consideration that people who might be interested in picking up a self-contained game with models usable for 40k do exist...

Of course they exist, but that doesn't mean it's not ridiculous to make a board game exclusively for people who don't play board games.

Especially since Space Hulk perfectly walked that balance with the first release of the new version.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Is it a wargame or a board game.

It's a board game. It's clearly not marketed towards the general board game demographic.

I can understand why someone coming from that background would laugh at the price/offering ratio. Thing is - he's not the person that's supposed to buy it.

When is a board game not a board game? Apparently when GW makes one.

Your statement is what's wrong with the company in my opinion and a greater indication of why their profits continue to slide, year-on-year; they have absolutely no idea what they're doing. If you make a board game, you make a board game. If you make a wargame expansion, you make a wargame expansion, you don't market something as a board game and price it as a wargame expansion because then you limit your prospective market. Limiting your prospective market limits how much money you make, which in turn....I think you can see where this goes.

The problem is that GW is convinced that they are serving a fixed audience/community and are making zero attempts to expand their reach beyond that current, small group. A board game, priced competitively, would be an excellent introduction to the GW IP for people who are not already customers and draw in much needed revenue. A missed opportunity because sticker shock will scare your regular board game players off.

There is a logical disconnect here and it's sad that you, and a few others, are unable to perceive it.

 Platuan4th wrote:
So it's a board game, but not one for people who actually play board games?

And you honestly don't think GW lost the plot on this one?

It really isn't a hard concept to follow. GW is not looking to expand it's market. It's not looking to snag a few stray boardgame customers. You might argue that they should, and I'd agree with you, but that's beside the point.

The goal of the product is to maximize profit and minimize cost. They're using the bare minimum of effort to sell items they're already producing at a massive premium (Bigger than the already massive premium they charge as normal. Massiverer?). Bonus points for clearing existing stock of otherwise less desirable items.

This game reeks of being designed as a product for this very purpose. And it gets an A+ for execution.

GW might have lost the plot in general, hard to argue with that one, but not in this particular instance.

 agnosto wrote:
There is a logical disconnect here and it's sad that you, and a few others, are unable to perceive it.

I'm very well aware of GW's follies, no need for the sad puppy eyes.

You seem to project the game onto GW's general strategy to point out it's obvious flaws (the strategy, not the game itself). We've done that so many times that, for me, it transcended boredom, cut right through rejection and entered the calm waters of apathy. I accept said strategy for what it is and asses the game as a natural consequence of the framework GW chose for its business.

Would I prefer GW to act differently? To give me Necromunda, Kill Teams, Epic and a proper integration of those systems into 40K? Well, duh.

Even though I bet they will sell all limited numbers really fast... I think the aim here is not to look for new customers but rather milk in a future release in a new format.

 agnosto wrote:


There is a logical disconnect here and it's sad that you, and a few others, are unable to perceive it.

I think you're yourself a bit to enamored with your weird "boardgaming market" vs. "wargaming market" divide, which in your oddly out-of-touch world-view seems
- absolute,
- non-overlapping and
- unbridgeable and impenetrable, as well as
- 100% causal for making near-identical products (X number of miniatures in material Y of quality Z) either completely"sensible" or completely "insane", solely and exclusively depending on the basis on which side of this made-up fence YOU arbitrarily place a product.

You're unwilling to take ANY other factors into account (or even other interpretations who a given product is marketed to, even by people accepting, for the sake of the argument, your oddly hermetic segregation of markets).

Keep preaching.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Hmmm is it just me or is there something horribly wrong with the cali arms?

I still plan on getting them. but now im gonna probably have to do some cutting and green stuffing which i dont mind that much.

Honestly, the Callidus would look so much better if you were to take some scenery pieces and make it appear as though she's dropping from rafters in a desecrated cathedral or something like that.

The model is very fluid in the way they modeled it, but having it attached to a rock by the foot is killing the look.

I dont mind the droping from the rafters look. im talking about the way her arms are bent. one up the other one sideways.

 His Master's Voice wrote:


I'm very well aware of GW's follies, no need for the sad puppy eyes.

You seem to project the game onto GW's general strategy to point out it's obvious flaws (the strategy, not the game itself). We've done that so many times that, for me, it transcended boredom, cut right through rejection and entered the calm waters of apathy. I accept said strategy for what it is and asses the game as a natural consequence of the framework GW chose for its business.

Would I prefer GW to act differently? To give me Necromunda, Kill Teams, Epic and a proper integration of those systems into 40K? Well, duh.

Ok, as long as we understand each other which was all that I was aiming for to begin with, a mutual understanding of each others' opinions; I'm not always perfect at expressing my opinion in writing and do sometimes belabor a point, pardon me if that's the case here. I just expressed my disappointment at yet another lackadaisical release that could have been much more with a bit more effort. *sigh* ah well, onward and upward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


There is a logical disconnect here and it's sad that you, and a few others, are unable to perceive it.

I think you're yourself a bit to enamored with your weird "boardgaming market" vs. "wargaming market" divide, which in your oddly out-of-touch world-view seems
- absolute,
- non-overlapping and
- unbridgeable and impenetrable, as well as
- 100% causal for making near-identical products (X number of miniatures in material Y of quality Z) either completely"sensible" or completely "insane", solely and exclusively depending on the basis on which side of this made-up fence YOU arbitrarily place a product.

You're unwilling to take ANY other factors into account (or even other interpretations who a given product is marketed to, even by people accepting, for the sake of the argument, your oddly hermetic segregation of markets).

Keep preaching.

Sorry, what? I'm hardly "enamored" of anything that I've expressed. Odd use of that word, are you sure you quite understand what it means? Possibly you meant to use another word as I fail to see how anything that I have stated before would indicate that I am in love with anything I've stated thus far (I've hardly expressed such a strong opinion). I'm also not sure where you get that there's a necessary divide between the two markets. If nothing else, the board game market crosses over and feeds into the wargaming market...if done correctly. GW used to get this, they used to produce such games as warhammer quest which encouraged people to pickup WHFB and Necromunda which encouraged people to get into 40K (see, no divide there at all but a definite overlap).

I'm not unwilling to consider other factors, I'm just flabbergasted that GW is so deliberately obtuse as to leave money lying on the table that they could otherwise access with a little effort on their part.

The thing is, as a board game, it's too expensive (and I'm not expecting it to be overly good as board games go...) and as a 40k army expansion thingy it's pretty crap too, no new models for chaos only crappy snap fit models I'm sure everyone who plays chaos has, and the Chaos Lord I'm sure everyone has too, hell I have one and I don't even play 40k anymore. The only good thing is the plastic Assassins which aren't really an army expansion as such.... It's kindof in a weird place between a board game and a 40k starter box type thing, and doesn't really work as either.

 ImAGeek wrote:
The thing is, as a board game, it's too expensive (and I'm not expecting it to be overly good as board games go...) and as a 40k army expansion thingy it's pretty crap too, no new models for chaos only crappy snap fit models I'm sure everyone who plays chaos has, and the Chaos Lord I'm sure everyone has too, hell I have one and I don't even play 40k anymore. The only good thing is the plastic Assassins which aren't really an army expansion as such.... It's kindof in a weird place between a board game and a 40k starter box type thing, and doesn't really work as either.

Works perfectly for me.

- Co-op, making it distinctively different from the 1-vs-1 of 40K in ways Space Hulk never was.
- straight 40K dual-use miniature, in ways that the "baseless" Space Hulk minis never were.
- Assassins fit all (Imperial) 40K armies in ways neither Space Hulk faction does.
- Dark Vengeance cultists being arguably some of the best 40K models out there, certainly better than Space Hulk, and 3 out of 4 assassins look cool too.

It hits the absolute perfect sweet spot between board game and 40K for me.

If it doesn't work for you, don't buy.

The cultists would be okay, but you're getting repetition of them. You only get 5 poses. And I really don't agree that they're better than the space hulk miniatures.

I'm not going to buy it. But I can see why it's good for you, I was just pointing out why some people are shocked at the price for a board game.

This hasn't been posted yet. How does the game work?



I think that's fine. Random mission objectives like in Advanced Space Crusade, 3 large Board tiles, event cards, the enemy models are fully controlled by the game mechanics - finally a coop game from GW. Could turn out fun to play.

"this random system means the game is different each time you play it"


Or possibly that it's bad each time you play it lol

For the record, $125 for a boardgame with dual-use minis isn't completely off the reservation. But I think it has to be all original. There can't be recycled minis or low production value. I regret not picking up Space Hulk at its original price in 2009. At $100, it seems like a good value. At $125, it makes the choice much harder for me personally. It's still a brilliant boardgame, though.

This boardgame is marketed at 40K players. To believe otherwise is simply being obtuse. At $125, the value just isn't there. Maybe it's a great game with well thought out mechanics, but those of us looking at it from a 40K persepctive aren't wrong for doing so. In fact, GW is depending on 40K customers to buy these up and ignore their half-hearted execution.

I agree that it's a bit of an awkward niche. The game sounds fun, like a throwback to the Warhammer Quest style of game. Add to that the Assassins themselves, which are nice models (and a small fieldable 40k force in themselves).
However I already own every chaos model in the box. I can make use of the cultists, but the rest are unnessecary for me (I have 60 odd csm ranging back to 2nd ed metals, and far too many chaos lord and sorcerer figures to ever field together save for apocalypse). Had they been new models I might've bitten, but £75 for stuff I mostly own already is too much.

 the_Armyman wrote:
For the record, $125 for a boardgame with dual-use minis isn't completely off the reservation. But I think it has to be all original. There can't be recycled minis or low production value. I regret not picking up Space Hulk at its original price in 2009. At $100, it seems like a good value. At $125, it makes the choice much harder for me personally. It's still a brilliant boardgame, though.

Whilst I think that €100 price tag is bit steep for the Assassin game (it was passable for Space Hulk), in fairness to GW their components are top notch, even better than in FFG games. It is of course down to individual how much value this gives him/her - deep down the game is of course same even if everything was cast from solid gold.

For long I've been preaching for GW to make board games with dual-use minis - play the game until you're bored, then use them for 40k/WHFB. Finally they have listened my advice. Now, for a 'gateway game' this is somewhat steeply priced but at least it's a step for right direction. I hope they keep this up and don't go all Dreadfleet with this.

Am I the only one that feels like the Vindicare is out of whack some how? He has the look of an adolescent that found his dads ninja gimp suit and is sneaking in on the fun, his body proportions just seem off.

Backfire wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
For the record, $125 for a boardgame with dual-use minis isn't completely off the reservation. But I think it has to be all original. There can't be recycled minis or low production value. I regret not picking up Space Hulk at its original price in 2009. At $100, it seems like a good value. At $125, it makes the choice much harder for me personally. It's still a brilliant boardgame, though.

Whilst I think that €100 price tag is bit steep for the Assassin game (it was passable for Space Hulk), in fairness to GW their components are top notch, even better than in FFG games. It is of course down to individual how much value this gives him/her - deep down the game is of course same even if everything was cast from solid gold.

I personally like the cultist models and stuff so i have no issue with that. i wish the generic spacemarine models would of been a bit more epic

Now if the game is actually "Fun" then i have no issues at all.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Am I the only one that feels like the Vindicare is out of whack some how? He has the look of an adolescent that found his dads ninja gimp suit and is sneaking in on the fun, his body proportions just seem off.

He's just depressed since a cramped dungeon probably isn't optimal environment for a guy with a long range sniping rifle.

Backfire wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Am I the only one that feels like the Vindicare is out of whack some how? He has the look of an adolescent that found his dads ninja gimp suit and is sneaking in on the fun, his body proportions just seem off.

He's just depressed since a cramped dungeon probably isn't optimal environment for a guy with a long range sniping rifle.

lol, well that is totally his posture but his larger feet and long lanky arms aren't helping either.

If GW had thought this through they could have made the tiles more generic and released further mini expansions of cards/tokens at the same time they released a new army.

The Rules seem interesting but I'm not sure if they will stay fresh.

 Medium of Death wrote:
If GW had thought this through they could have made the tiles more generic and released further mini expansions of cards/tokens at the same time they released a new army.

The Rules seem interesting but I'm not sure if they will stay fresh.

If they want to do that, then they still can.

Just because they didn't make it generic does not preclude that eventuality.

If the other Standalone Game rumor from Hastings is correct as well - and why shouldn't it? - there will be a Horus Heresy boardgame released later this year. We have no hints about its rules yet but the minis will be new plastic ones - later used for a GW 30k game - replacing Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit in the shops