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.

Square counters with corner edges remind me the old counters before the era of cheaper cutting tools, their inherent problem was they flaked easier as the corner got destroyed easily and stabbed fingers trying to pick them up, when the printers managed to get cheaper cutting tools, rounded corners helped overcome the above issues, and companies started embracing custom shapes to make their counters stand that bit more out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jerram wrote:
Thanks buzz and lego for the commentary.
Also its interesting you use relic knights and KOW, can anyone honestly say that if they had shown pictures of production models during the KS there would not have been a significant hit in the final funding for those projects ?

It would as it would for sedition wars, but, if they had, the backlash would have steered them to find a better solution, that would also help them on the long run.

Assuming they listened of course.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Square counters with corner edges remind me the old counters before the era of cheaper cutting tools, their inherent problem was they flaked easier as the corner got destroyed easily and stabbed fingers trying to pick them up, when the printers managed to get cheaper cutting tools, rounded corners helped overcome the above issues, and companies started embracing custom shapes to make their counters stand that bit more out.

Honestly, I can't say I've encountered either of those problems, and I'm still using tokens from 2nd edition 40K.

Maybe it's just more of a problem with cheaper-grade cardboard?

I was interested up until the model release. I cannot say they excite me. The last part was the lacking upfront game play footage to see how a game is played. I'll forgive models if they dice rollin' is legit. I own some less than savory PP minis (or fixed many) to play good units, I would do the same for any game I enjoyed.

The pricing wasn't bad, it's just the aesthetic was bland. I largely lost interest in the first few days, so I never followed it after that. The big beastie is very reminiscent of old school GW beasties, IMO, and not a look I'm going for. It should be noted I've only ever backed Creature Caster and well, we know where that's at.

Thanks buzz and lego for the commentary.
A good read and an honest view on it all.

And now I am above all interested in the future of ME, because that is the time that i might join in.

I did not pledge, but i never pledged anything on Kickstarter and this was one of the few times i hesitated.

I was and still am above all interested in a new and good game system which i WILL get into if at least 1 other player in my vicinity gets into it.
In regard to the miniatures: they are quite allright IMO.
And I do love the drones and would (or will?) buy them seperately if they become available seperately.

Miniatures are important, but there are several games that i don't have because the game system is IMO just nothing that i want to play. A low price or a high quality miniature does not change that for me.

The reason why i never pledge on Kickstarter:
I want to wait to see if something will actually come to live and stay alive before i get into something.
I already have thousands of miniatures, many games and not the time to paint and play them all.

I think SAS were quite conservative with this Kickstarter, but honestly, as a new company just starting out, I think this is actually sensible.

There were probably ways they could have made a bigger pledge total- increasing add ons, increasing value to backers, putting concepts up for minis they would do in the future. In the short term, this would have given them KS success in terms of a high end goal. Certainly this is good for KS as they get a bigger whack of percentage from SAS.

However, my experience with KS (which is pretty much 1 Mantic KS, a bunch of RBG KS and a few software ones) suggests to me that these "big winner" KS can be a noose for a company that does not have the infastructure to cope with the production demands. Promising too much has nearly sunk some promising companies, and blackened their reputation in the community. Mantic, Sedition Wars, Raging Heroes- all companies with a lot more hype, "value", concept art and all of that, but who have alienated potential fans with poor delivery or long delays. RBG KS1 nearly sank the company (thank god it didn't, as I am a superfan).

I was happy to see SAS hold the course with their achievable aims of a fairly contained box game made better by stretch goals. It looks to me like the pledge total is enough to deliver what they have promised in a timely manner (they did not over promise) which hopefully will mean their customers will still be satisfied and enthusiastic enough to get out and play the game.

We'll see if the strategy pays off. If SAS want to be a long term thing, I am hopeful they made the right calls during the KS. If they wanted to be 1 million dollar flash in the pan, they could have promised a lot more, shown a lot more concept art, and generally acted more like some bigger "KS companies", to their detriment.

That said, I am also more of a fan of realistic proportions on my miniatures, but completely accept that this is harder to do in multi part plastic. Only GW's recent LOTR stuff combines multipart with realistic proportions properly, and they are undoubtably the field leaders with hard plastic.

I will also say that I am personally happy to avoid assembly with miniatures and like to pick up single piece minis these days for easy of painting and storage. Assembly is a chore for me, painting and gaming are what I enjoy.

But I don't think it was the minis that "doomed" the project (had an impact sure) but more the perception that it wasn't a crazy bargain you HAD to get in on, and that's simply because SAS decided not to make it one, for understandable reasons.

Hope I'm not putting words in your mouths there, guys.

Interesting to read the inside and outside perspectives in one thread. Any chance we can have a thread on the rules, so I can read those? I've read the rules on the ME site, but it would be interesting to hear/read about their design process and philosophy.

Nomeny wrote:
Interesting to read the inside and outside perspectives in one thread. Any chance we can have a thread on the rules, so I can read those? I've read the rules on the ME site, but it would be interesting to hear/read about their design process and philosophy.

There'll be an area on dakka to talk about the rules when the beta rulebook goes out to the Kickstarter backers.

Hmm. I think I've been told that before. Any idea when that'll be? Are those rules going to be different from what's up on the ME site?

Nomeny wrote:
Hmm. I think I've been told that before. Any idea when that'll be? Are those rules going to be different from what's up on the ME site?

I don't have the exact date, but it won't be too long. The beta rulebook will be the entire rulebook, as it will appear in the in the box set (minus some artwork and fluff, and any changes made in response to the beta).

It's sad that this campaign did so poorly, as I have great respect for the team, and I didn't want to gak on their efforts while the campaign was running, but I guess now I can say my piece.

I was pretty hyped for the campaign, but when it launched, I took one look at it and dropped it immediately.

The miniatures just don't look good, guys. It really is that simple. You might have HIPS tech with good detail, but... this stuff looks pretty much like the games that tried to go up against 40k in the 90s - Warzone, VOID, Urban War, etc. And they're all dead for all intents and purposes, and for good reason.

The aesthetics are lazy and uninspired. Here, have some generic soldiers and some generic power armour. Then some random bat monsters for no good reason. In awkward, static poses. No matter what your tech quality is, this sort of thing just looks cheap. The tiny sprues with just 2-3 guys on them reinforce that feeling.

I would say the only thing that impressed me at all was the terrain sprue, but $12 for some doors and windows isn't great compared to Mantic's battlezones. I suppose the 15mm crowd might latch on to the mechs, as there's a bit of a dearth in that department.

And finally, anything less than 4 factions at launch is a huge no-no, as Neil from Spartan Games likes to emphasize. A big license like Star Wars or Halo might get away with that kind of thing, but not someone trying to set up a new setting.

That's about all I have to say. Good luck in the future.

Why does Neil from Spartan Games like to emphasize at least 4 starting factions? Got a link or something? That sounds interesting.

I'm pretty sure he brings it up every time he's on the D6G.

Cool, thanks.

I think 4 factions is a good minimum to create enough variations in opposing forces- gives you six unique match-ups (ignoring same forces on opposing sides). It helps recruit new players in that (a) more factions opens opportunity for people to find a theme they latch onto, and (b) it keeps the games from feeling the same between multitudes of different players.

GW got themselves in a good spot by having a faction in Space Marines that they could color-code to different themes (vampires, Vikings, monks, Paladins, etc.)and people would feel satisfied with the difference, but I think this was a unique occasion.

As others had said, interesting alien races would be a huge boon for additional factions, it just requires the difficult job of developing said faction.

How many Kickstarters have been done containing four factions?

I was actually sold on this Kickstarter based on three primary points.

1. The Epirian models will require almost no conversion work to be used as Tau Empire Human Aux. forces. They are close enough to a GW aesthetic that they'll blend right in.

2. SAS seems to have approached this entire process from a very stable and conservative viewpoint. I'd rather have fewer models on time than more models late. As they say, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

3. I pay where I play. DakkaDakka has provided me with an invaluable hobby resource over the years. I can't put a dollar amount to it, but I know 90USD + shipping is a pittance. Even if the game had looked terrible, I probably would have bought in as a thank you to support DakkaDakka.

This has been a most interesting discussion. I feel the criticisms are by-and-large accurate and well-intentioned; nobody here seems like they're complaining just to complain nor are they doing it without some sort of facts behind them.

While SAS certainly could have made more money by doing X, Y and Z, was that ever really their realistic goal to make infinity dollars? They posted all the stretch goals at the beginning, never hinted at "and many more to come" and they did things that were obviously intended to throttle the pledge amount per backer. Chief among these was not really offering any sort of add-ons; you could be A, B or C and as many of D as you want and that was about it. The guys running this were not stupid and would have to know that limiting the ways of giving money was going to limit the amount of money given. You don't need a KickStarter expert to tell you that, or if you do you have no business running a footrace let alone a KS campaign.

So for me the question when discussing under-performance is "what was the creator's goal?" If their goal was to make a shed-load of money with a KS, then yes, they under-performed *incredibly*. If their goal was to raise about 70k, get a decent-sized community for a starting point and begin to build their corporate reputation in the market (a reputation which six months ago did not exist), then they're off to a pretty good start. Could they have done better? Sure, but you can point at anything and say that could have been better. If they ticked the boxes they wanted to tick, then it performed fine, IMO, even if I see where something done differently might have gotten better money. It would boil down to how one defines performance I suppose, to make a short story long.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How many Kickstarters have been done containing four factions?

Deadzone/Dreadball, at least.

I think four factions is a lot for a new company, but its also a valid critique of a new skirmish wargame.

Kickstarter was pretty clearly not a major part of the playbook for SAS. I think they saw this campaign as a way to inject a bit more capital and get some preorders out there. From the perspective of having a game ready to launch anyway, this was mostly gravy.

I'm not surprised at the conduct of the kickstarter, or in the rebuttal to Buzzsaw's points. Responding to critique by giving a familiar chuckle and telling somebody "if you knew everything we knew, you'd see how awesome we really are" is basically a Dakka Dakka limit break.

Ronnie at Mantic also believes you need 4 factions at launch. It gives you good variety in visuals, gameplay and background to draw people in and make it interesting for gaming groups.

@Polonius: Sorry, what's a "limit break"?

Fallen Frontiers had 4 factions as well.

Nomeny wrote:
@Polonius: Sorry, what's a "limit break"?

Do a Google search. It's a video game turn... basically a finishing move.

Nomeny wrote:
@Polonius: Sorry, what's a "limit break"?

I'm admittedly not as up on my Kickstarter-Fu as I would like to be, but why are so many people calling this Kickstarter a failure? Did it not get 40k more than the minimum needed to fund the project? Even $1 more than the minimum would be a success, right? If they put the minimum at 20k but really needed 100k to get the project off the ground than why put such a low minimum? I ARE CONFUSE

weeble1000 wrote:
[And the fact that people still buy Cadian Shick Troops in droves is honestly not, in my view, a good justification for the aesthetic choices of MEdge, unless SAS wants to litterally siphon off GW's extant customer base.

There is still a lot of money to be made doing just that. Just ask Warlord! <Rimshot!>

Kriswall wrote:
2. SAS seems to have approached this entire process from a very stable and conservative viewpoint. I'd rather have fewer models on time than more models late. As they say, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

This is a very good point. In the sense that I think SAS listened to perhaps the biggest gripe that affects a lot of KS projects, and is also one of the biggest factors stopping people from returning to that company for future KS, is projects that over-promise and then under-deliver.

I don't know what the exact finances are behind the Kickstarter, whether it's performed in-line with expectations or below, but to me this represents a solid start. If the rules/minis arrive on schedule, and they are as good as they seem to be, any future releases and projects will probably do even better.

lord_blackfang wrote:
And finally, anything less than 4 factions at launch is a huge no-no, as Neil from Spartan Games likes to emphasize. A big license like Star Wars or Halo might get away with that kind of thing, but not someone trying to set up a new setting.

'From the tiniest of acorns'.. I'm sure in an ideal world the game would launch with more. But, production costs and times, I'm sure that two were the most factions that they thought could be done in time for release.

'Needs must' is another phrase I will throw in there

I had planned on backing this, but held out to see the Angel. As the signature model, I was hoping it was going to be amazing, as I like the Karist humanoids, but the tiny angels were, well, disappointing.

On the whole, I think ME did two things great, humanoids and robots. But I think the monsters failed.

Anyway, hope to see more factions soon so hopefully I can find one that suits my tastes as the game rules and model quality really have me interested.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I'm admittedly not as up on my Kickstarter-Fu as I would like to be, but why are so many people calling this Kickstarter a failure? Did it not get 40k more than the minimum needed to fund the project? Even $1 more than the minimum would be a success, right? If they put the minimum at 20k but really needed 100k to get the project off the ground than why put such a low minimum? I ARE CONFUSE

I think it comes down to a mistaken perception created by kickstarters in the past. People look at the game, and think to themselves 'Huh. That game must require at least £150,000 to break even by using HIPS. And many other projects using HIPS have gotten considerably more money. This must mean that the Kickstarter was a failure'.

Logically, such a viewpoint does hold together, but only if you work with the assumption that 1) the Kickstarter was deliberately crafted in such a way as to make maximum money at any cost, 2) that the Kickstarter funds are the only funds that the project has to rely upon, and 3) that the larger sums are the norm against which all other projects must be measured instead of outliers.

In the case of MEdge however, the creators have stated very clearly that they were not prepared to maximise KS revenue at the sake of added complication (namely, add-ons). The project was also funded by the creators prior to the launch (implying that the creators have the funds to treat this more as a pre-order/marketing/partial recouping of initial investment costs), as opposed to needing the money in order to create the product. When you throw in the realisation that the studio is aiming at a slow, steady, and reliable set of releases aimed towards a standard retail product as opposed to a one-shot/one-product Kickstarter, it becomes apparent that you can't quite judge the success of MEdge by the above criteria.

On a personal note, I believe that what it ultimately comes down to is the liquidity of the studio. The product is high quality (technically speaking), and SAS has a solid retail plan and bases in the US/UK for distribution. Assuming that the funds are available to pump cash in for another two years or so of operations and steady releases in HIPS, I would not be surprised (and think it likely) to see MEdge become one of the staples of the wargaming world alongside GW/Warmachine.

 theFNGuy wrote:
I had planned on backing this, but held out to see the Angel. As the signature model, I was hoping it was going to be amazing, as I like the Karist humanoids, but the tiny angels were, well, disappointing.

On the whole, I think ME did two things great, humanoids and robots. But I think the monsters failed.

Anyway, hope to see more factions soon so hopefully I can find one that suits my tastes as the game rules and model quality really have me interested.

This makes me think of another reason for limited backing to this Kickstarter: what's the urgency?

We were basically told the game is getting made anyway, and the value, while good, wasn't amazing, particualry with the lack of free shipping.

How many gamers looked at the sweet spot pledge, thought about it, and decided to wait and buy the box for 10-20% off from Miniature Market. Admittedly with less goodies, but for cheaper with less lag time between payment and delivery?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How many Kickstarters have been done containing four factions?

Fallen Frontiers had 4 (got $110k)
Wrath of Kings had 5 (got $720k)
Relic Knights had 6 (got $910k)
Deadzone started at 4 and finished with 6 (got $1.210k)

These are all the proper wargame KS that I backed. And apart from the first one, I bought all the models for all the factions.

I think the Heavy Gear KS did okay with 2 factions and 2 semi-factions?

2 factions = board game, IMHO