Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't normally do them either, but I backed this one. Partly because I liked the look of it and also because they actually had most of their ducks in a row. I've been tempted by many a KS but decided to wait for retail as I was wary about them. And it turned out to be a good decision. Plenty of them either didn't make it or are a year or more behind schedule. Fingers crossed this one is on time.

I'm hoping at least one of my friends is interested after some test games, but if not, I'll try and get something happening at the FLGS when it hits retail. Otherwise it's waiting a decade to see if the kids might be interested


I got the impression originally and I think this has been backed up by SAS comments since the KS ended, that they wanted to raise money for getting the starter to retail. The more they got, the more they could order and thus get better pricing.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

If you are using kickstarter as a way to promote your product and generate buzz, shouldn't you aim for something more positive than "It's okay that it whiffed. I didn't need your money"?

That's your take on it, not theirs.

The perception that the kickstarter 'failed' because other kickstarters made more money, or because it didn't offer the specific product that certain people wanted, is not grounded in actual reality. The reality is that the kickstarter exceeded 300% of its funding goal.

That's not really a point- if they set their funding goal at $1 they're funding percentage would be even higher. Never look at the funding percent, since it's mostly an arbitrary thing.

It's possible they set it too low to guarentee funding and get the percentage up, or set it high to make it seem like a more high-end product

Funding goals are just about meaningless anymore and are routinely lowballed, in hopes of generating more hype once they're broken and stretch goals pour in.

Just an uninformed opinion from someone watching from the sidelines-

The market is flooded and then some. Not just an ordinary flood, but a surging tidal wave. Created by a combo that is unbeatable. Rich customers willing to spend money on kick starter, and poor employees willing to make stuff for low prices. (China)

This is just my opinion, and I am not really sure why I even bother to type this because on a forum it is sure to be called stupid immediately. Call me stupid if you want, but this is what I think.

To me, there is so much stuff it simply can not keep going like this. As more stuff floods in the amount available to each project is going to go down. Kick starter has also changed from a way for new companies to get funding into a method for existing companies to screw their retailers. As more and more backers get burned (see Defiance), they are less willing to take that risk again. This funnels more money into the existing companies that can offer more stuff for a lower risk.

Dakka seemed to have a well put together campaign. I did not back because I have enough stuff. I am approaching retirement and as I look at my lead pile it will not run out. At least until my life expectancy surpasses human norms and then some. Also, I dropped 28mm sci-fi to focus on building every army for WFB and building 15mm sci fi stuff. The tank ranges just looked too silly for me at 28mm. And I have to have tanks.

I can tell you why I didn't pledge: Not enough freebies!
The cost per model was too high to justify buying more minis. They were cool but not cool enough.
I put in 200 for TGG2 1) because they are wicked cool and 2) because the cost for the models makes it economic to pick up a standardized force.

kenofyork wrote:
This is just my opinion, and I am not really sure why I even bother to type this because on a forum it is sure to be called stupid immediately. Call me stupid if you want, but this is what I think.

To me, there is so much stuff it simply can not keep going like this. As more stuff floods in the amount available to each project is going to go down. Kick starter has also changed from a way for new companies to get funding into a method for existing companies to screw their retailers. As more and more backers get burned (see Defiance), they are less willing to take that risk again. This funnels more money into the existing companies that can offer more stuff for a lower risk.

I don't think that's stupid at all. I think we're already seeing the beginning of the backlash. A lot of posters here have mentioned cutting back on their kickstarter expenditures. The days of running a million-dollar kickstarter with nothing but some ideas and a few drawings are over. The culture of miniatures kickstarters is changing, for sure.

I don't think it is even debatable that the campaign underperformed. Badly. The only real question is why? There may be a number factors to this, but that SAS was better prepared and ran a technically competent Kickstarter compared to many others rules that out as a factor. Some other things then....

1. Kickstarter fatigue - Possibly a factor, and I believe it is real. However, it is undeniable that even today, projects that are far stupider and less competently presented and prepared than Maelstrom's Edge have made buckets of dough more than this did, with its planned, solid campaign...

2. Market misjudgement - Is the world really crying out for a 40K alternative ? Despite what smug Dakka CEO know it all posters routinely blather about on the imminent demise of GW and if only there was something else to play, it's quite obvious they didn't put their money where their running mouths were on a project created by their forum's very owners. So apparently the need for alternatives isn't as bad as it would seem...

3. The hardware - From what we saw the background and rules seem solid enough. The models themselves were somewhat controversial, with some endlessly critiquing them. Perhaps there was a much greater 'silent majority' that agreed and didn't back, or bother to post about it when they didn't. Personally I found the models kind of 'meh'....nothing that really grabbed and said 'gotta have'...

After having backed 10 or so projects, I am done with Kickstarter. I don't care who is making what, I'm done. The games frequently turn out too niche to gain much traction in my area, and frankly, Kickstarter began to disgust me with their lack of morals and responsibility. Anything goes, as long as they get their cut, taken first, of course....

@totalfailure
What do you mean by Dakka CEOs?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@totalfailure
What do you mean by Dakka CEOs?

Evil DakkaDakka overlords? I guess he means the dakkites that are involved in the medge and one is the site owner (i think)

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people that want Warhammer and 40k. Not an alternative. Many of them might choose to simply leave the hobby as a whole rather than put up with GW no matter how much they love the two Warhammers. (This is just my feeling on it) So I think that all these alternatives say "yeah, there is the potential for an alternative here!" but they fail to think about it fully. This coming from someone who enjoys alternatives like Mantic etc, but I still feel the allure of the settings and flavor.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@totalfailure
What do you mean by Dakka CEOs?

Evil DakkaDakka overlords? I guess he means the dakkites that are involved in the medge and one is the site owner (i think)

No, he's talking about 'armchair CEO's', who post on forums as if they know better than those running GW how GW should be run. (whether or not they actually do know better is a whole discussion by itself)

Nothing to do with Dakka's administration .

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@totalfailure
What do you mean by Dakka CEOs?

I believe he means everybody who posts about GW's financials and how their sales are falling. He's calling them armchair experts.

Damn, ninja'd by Insaniak. That man types fast

Looks like it was "Dakka rush hour" down under about a 3 hours ago

 insaniak wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@totalfailure
What do you mean by Dakka CEOs?

Evil DakkaDakka overlords? I guess he means the dakkites that are involved in the medge and one is the site owner (i think)

No, he's talking about 'armchair CEO's', who post on forums as if they know better than those running GW how GW should be run. (whether or not they actually do know better is a whole discussion by itself)

Nothing to do with Dakka's administration .

Ah, Ok, the people who see the revenue and profit in the GW reports decline and say that it troubling, instead of "this is good news!"

Yeah and the banner adds were annoying.

edit answered above sorry.

 totalfailure wrote:
I don't think it is even debatable that the campaign underperformed. Badly. The only real question is why? There may be a number factors to this, but that SAS was better prepared and ran a technically competent Kickstarter compared to many others rules that out as a factor.

Good analysis. It was a competently run campaign. I think that might be part of the problem too.

No one spends money on competency anymore. They want sizzle with their steak!

You can't have a tight, well planned project that also involves a long drawn out responsive development process and loads of extra stretch goals and goodies that add risk and cost to the final objective.

Would be interesting to know what SAS honestly expected from the campaign.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Would be interesting to know what SAS honestly expected from the campaign.

Didn't they have about 13 planned stretch goals? They also said that industry insiders had projected they would take about $500,000, so their expectations might have been a bit higher than the actual result.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Would be interesting to know what SAS honestly expected from the campaign.

Didn't they have about 13 planned stretch goals? They also said that industry insiders had projected they would take about $500,000, so their expectations might have been a bit higher than the actual result.

Not sure about the stretch goals- I do remember the industry experts estimating $500 k though. I'm more interested in what SAS itself thought.

They added/unlocked a bunch of stuff at the end of week 1 when people were complaining about value

so that may well have 'used up' stuff that had originally been planned as stretch goals

 totalfailure wrote:
I don't think it is even debatable that the campaign underperformed. Badly. The only real question is why? There may be a number factors to this, but that SAS was better prepared and ran a technically competent Kickstarter compared to many others rules that out as a factor. Some other things then....
1. Kickstarter fatigue - Possibly a factor, and I believe it is real. However, it is undeniable that even today, projects that are far stupider and less competently presented and prepared than Maelstrom's Edge have made buckets of dough more than this did, with its planned, solid campaign...

KS Fatigue really is a thing. I don't think projects like Zombicide Black Plague making a million in a day or whatever are really good counter-examples, as ZC is an incredibly popular game, published by CMON who for all of their failings are probably the most tuned-in and sharpest at running a campaign in our niche at this point. Also, plenty of Boardgame crossover. Hell, two of my mates who have played ZC with me here have gone in on this as their first KS. Entirely "new" things like ME are in a different ballpark.

I think there is a big difference between Zombicide and a "real" Kickstarter campaign.

Zombicide is a very well known property that has a lot of heritage and proven success. At this stage, new Zombicide add-on Kickstarters are basically pre-orders for a forthcoming product that allow the publisher to optimise their production run. with minimum financial risk. The only risk involved in a new Zombicide pack is that people might be bored of the game and not pre-order it, in which case the KS fails to fund, and CMON don't spend any money printing units.

What I mean is that it isn't a "project" in the usual definition of the term, it is business as usual, whereas a brand new game by a new and unproven company has a variety of inherent risks such as characterise any "real" project.

One of the problems with Kickstarter is that a lot of people have come to regard it as a pre-order system, and have been caught out when an actual risky project like say Sedition Wars or Robotech, goes wrong. Then they lose faith in the system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think there is a big difference between Zombicide and a "real" Kickstarter campaign.

Zombicide is a very well known property that has a lot of heritage and proven success. At this stage, new Zombicide add-on Kickstarters are basically pre-orders for a forthcoming product that allow the publisher to optimise their production run. with minimum financial risk. The only risk involved in a new Zombicide pack is that people might be bored of the game and not pre-order it, in which case the KS fails to fund, and CMON don't spend any money printing units.

Exactly my point.

In that, I think KS Fatigue is a real thing, and specific super-campaigns like ZC (and even CMON's stock-in-trade boardgames) are very much a bushel of apples compared to the bag of oranges that projects like ME are.

There are a number of reasons why I didn't back this project.

1. What's in it for me?
The basic and most mercenary reason is that the game didn't have any appeal to me at all; I felt that as a small startup venture it was doomed to fail next to the GW, so why should I come away from 40K and play Maelstrom's Edge, which would probably have a few hundred players worldwide? What was the lure - the draw - what was the compelling, screaming reason that I should join what would be an incredibly small niche?

2. The miniatures.
Everyone loves bashing GW models. The fact is, I feel GW consistently offers the best miniatures, the best packaging, and sometimes even the best prices - everyone always moans about GW prices but almost no-one is offering the same or better miniatures for less money. In many cases the dramatic and beautiful GW-alternatives are so expensive it drains all the blood from my body and turns my hair white - feth that! Maelstrom's miniatures... were not that inspiring. Every army had the exact same number of models, so I'm guessing they play similarly, and they just didn't stand up next to Guard or Space Marines. In fairness though, they were nowhere near as dreadful as that crap-looking Epic rival whose name I don't remember.

3. That Witch Hunter picture
The one with the bloke dressed like a cowboy witch hunter facing the giant robots: faith in the sci-fi old west has been done to death, and I am personally jaded by pictures of a lone human standing in front of massive death-robots. If I want faith with my sci-fi, I've got the immense 40K mythos.

EDIT:

4. Yet another Kickstarter? Really?
This one isn't anyone's fault as such, but I am personally getting sick of Kickstarter this, Kickstarter that. It used to be a valuable tool, now everyone and his mate is on the bandwagon trying to get money. I'm not saying the Maelstrom team's goals weren't noble, I'm saying that there are literally tons of projects and there is zero guarantee that any of them will be successful no matter how much money they raise - it's fine to get support on Kickstarter, but once the Kickstart campaign is finished, how much support will remain?

 NoPoet wrote:

The basic and most mercenary reason is that the game didn't have any appeal to me at all; I felt that as a small startup venture it was doomed to fail next to the GW, so why should I come away from 40K and play Maelstrom's Edge, which would probably have a few hundred players worldwide? What was the lure - the draw - what was the compelling, screaming reason that I should join what would be an incredibly small niche?

The obvious response being that it only stays an incredibly small niche if people approach it from the point of view that it is doomed to failure, so why bother playing it...

Every army had the exact same number of models,...

I think you miscounted, there .

And I'm not really sure why you would assume that a similar number of models means that they would play the same. To take an obvious example , A Blood Angel army and a Space Wolf army have a similar number of models. .. But potentially play very, very differently.

Yeah you've got good points, those were just my reasons, I didn't fancy a game where every army had (for example) six men and six small robot things. The actual composition of starter Blood Angel and Space Wolf armies might be more different. However I respect this is just my personal opinion and not a statement of ultimate truth.

 NoPoet wrote:
Yeah you've got good points, those were just my reasons,

And that's totally fine. You're more than welcome to your opinion

I didn't fancy a game where every army had (for example) six men and six small robot things. The actual composition of starter Blood Angel and Space Wolf armies might be more different. .

For what it's worth, the starter set forces are just that - starters. They're not representative of a 'complete' force, and they were put together based more on model count than on in-game balance (because the rules haven't been finalised yet). So while I'm sure that they'll put some effort into making the two starter forces playable against each other, you won't see every force having similar numbers of models because, as with 40K, a lot depends on the specific units you choose to take.

Similarly, all of the Warmachine and Hordes starter boxes include a similar number of models. They just give you a foundation to build your force on, but even before that you have mini-forces that play very differently because of their individual rules.