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.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Replacing a turd with a bigger turd will only attract the applause of Coprophiliacs

Shrug, I thought Age of Sigmar was absolutely utter gak until I saw others playing it, and then played it myself, and realized it's a really goddamn fun little skirmish game. It's the first fun thing GW has made since shedding all of their veteran games designers in the late 2000's.

More power to you

 Manchu wrote:
It is certainly easier to remember something fondly when it's gone. I feel a kind of nostalgia for the Old World now completely unsupported by any affection for it circa 2014.

To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

I personally said my good-byes five years ago. Warhammer 8 was like a bizarre Weekend at Bernie's, watching a handful of people having fooled themselves into thinking it was still alive and responsive.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Hey! I didn't say I liked it. I said I didn't mind
I mean it still had potential for further genocide and it's still better than blowing up the entire fething world....

True! In the context of the wider carnage it wasn't much, but it could still have been handled better. I get the image of GW as a guy, hat and coat on, stuffing as much office stationary into his briefcase as possible before he runs out the door and away from the wastepaper fire he just started:

"Almost done... what's that? The elves? The sundering? Well, er... um... Malekith was king all along. Byeee!"

RoperPG wrote:You only have to look at the perpetual cycle of litigation between Apple, Samsung and Google for an example of IP policing that only really benefits lawyers.

Well they had to fix up something when the hog farming fad died off.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW have trademarked the newly invented name "Ratiocinator" for a new type of Sigmarine for the Games and Toys category.

Not sure if serious.

Google.

Okay then.

judgedoug wrote:Regardless, WTF is Chapterhouse doing in this thread?

An example of how shortsighted GW was and how it might have contributed to their current apparent shortsightedness?

The best thing to happen to Warhammer was the End Times and Age of Sigmar. Otherwise we would have had the same stagnant Warhammer world that we've had since 1982 whose only advancement would be in how many times any plot advancement could be quickly hushed and forgotten

Who needed advancement? The Empire itself had about 2,500 years of grimdark history and battles to explore, and the rest of the world a few thousand years before that, too. Arguably more than historical gamers have to play with. (Although it's balanced by Warhammer cultures being a bit less diverse and a lot more static.) One of the most interesting White Dwarf articles in my short time as a WFB fan was a two-parter potted history and scenario campaign about the War of the Beard. Also the 6th/7th ed revisits of the Battle of La Maisontaal; the Return of the Lichemaster; various articles about Lustria, including campaigns and rules for amazons, norse settlers, vampire pirates; lots of variant army lists; Warhammer Chronicles, The Wayfarer's Companion, Olde Weirde's Incunabulum...

and how many new regiments/unit types could suddenly appear out of nowhere - oh gak, well of COURSE the Empire always had demigryph knights! The Empire always had clockwork steam powered steeds!

Well, can't argue there. Even with steam tanks, clockwork horses, griffons (jade or otherwise), battle wizards etc., I thought demigryph knights was when the Empire jumped the shark from relatable, struggling, stoic humans to just another fantasy race with big, goofy, vaguely WOW-ish stuff.

Though I'd suggest it's because GW's attitude of 'they'll buy anything we sell, that's the hobby' turned round and bit them on the arse. They had to keep releasing new stuff for all armies, running out of space in their shops etc. because the players had been conditioned to expect it. For all the sniggers at the idea of the GW hobby = buying GW products, I've seen a few people express how that's what they look forward to for each new edition or army book.

Although I'm not totally with judgedoug on this, I can see where he's coming from.

Warhammer Fantasy was officially killed off in 2014, but in truth, I have to admit the Warhammer Fantasy I came to love had been dead for a while when the AoS hammer struck. In fact, my feeling of near-absolute disconnexion with what Fantasy had become in its 8th edition is perhaps the reason I wasn't truly bothered by the End Times and what came after that.

 Vermis wrote:

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Hey! I didn't say I liked it. I said I didn't mind
I mean it still had potential for further genocide and it's still better than blowing up the entire fething world....

True! In the context of the wider carnage it wasn't much, but it could still have been handled better. I get the image of GW as a guy, hat and coat on, stuffing as much office stationary into his briefcase as possible before he runs out the door and away from the wastepaper fire he just started:

"Almost done... what's that? The elves? The sundering? Well, er... um... Malekith was king all along. Byeee!"

Spot on, good Ser. Spot on

 judgedoug wrote:
To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

I personally said my good-byes five years ago. Warhammer 8 was like a bizarre Weekend at Bernie's, watching a handful of people having fooled themselves into thinking it was still alive and responsive.

I also pretty much stopped playing Warhammer in 8th. I had high hopes for what they would do with "9th edition"... but like you said, I had already made my peace with it, and am happy to move on to Kings of War personally (since my group is, along with the tourney circuit, which is something I always aim for with large army projects).

However, even though you apply the terms to yourself, I really think terms like "pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing" is the kind of thing that polarizes the argument so much. You (and I) had already said our goodbyes, and so were fine - but for others who felt gut-punched (and had, say, bought everything in End Times leading up to AoS, and suddenly no longer had a group that wanted to play) of course they had a strong reaction (again, just like how you felt in 2010). So no need to use belittling language like that towards those who had not yet "said goodbye" to fantasy, just because you / I / some others had!

It is actually a bit of a wider warning in my mind, that GW is willing to basically can anything that isn't 40k (LOTR, specialist games, and now fantasy - although it's fantastic specialist games might see some sort of new life after a long time in the "unsupported" grave). This is also why I'm hesitant to pick up AoS - I can see GW is highly committed to it and investing in it, but that doesn't mean they won't remove support for it or go in another direction if things don't work out, just like with fantasy. I personally think they'll stick with it for a long time, and the dwarf release should really help show where they want to go with it outside of marines / khorne, but I am not going to take the chance... same reason I don't use most GW paints after they kept making key paints OOP that I was using and I had to panic-buy up a lifetime supply

GW management decided they needed more narrativeplay and the design studio thought a story arc is what happens when you drive the plot bus off a cliff.

Thus WHFB died.

I guess they ended up with two settings on the WHFB dial: nothing happens and everything happens/ends. By contrast, a story of sorts is unfolding in the AoS campaign books although the plot is necessarily a setting for miniatures battles campaigns.

judgedoug wrote:fun little skirmish game

Well, that's the problem. I've seen people say its a fun, quick, little game, and that it's great to play with their kids, and so on, and I don't doubt them.

But you could say the same of Snakes 'n' Ladders or Ludo.

judgedoug wrote:To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

I personally said my good-byes five years ago. Warhammer 8 was like a bizarre Weekend at Bernie's, watching a handful of people having fooled themselves into thinking it was still alive and responsive.

I said my goodbyes before that, sometime during 7th edition. Though I had already lost most of my interest in 6th ed, ironically the same edition I jumped in on. But like I said - despite clunky rules, staggering prices, and the increasing OTT nature of the fluff - there was still a lot of explorable background, interesting models, and 'true' hobby potential to hook me and keep me hooked in that short time.

Why am I still here, pouring out my nerd tears and gnashing my geek teeth? There are plenty of other, deeper, sleeker, cheaper, better games out there. I guess it's because, like others, I haven't said all my goodbyes and I am still hooked. I don't know if GW really chases the young-teen starter-set crowd, or if that's who really propped up GW; but there was always a little bit of hope that GW would haul itself out of the stupor it was in, and recognise that a big chunk of it's (lapsed) fanbase were older gamers, who still liked the background, might prefer more tactical, less chromey rules, and didn't like being jerked around with rules churn and insulting prices.

Warhammer was in bad shape at the end of 8th, but it only died because GW killed it. There were some basic, fundamental issues that GW could have recognised and improved. (And no, that's not the mythical hundred-and-one contradictory power boosts that an 'unpleasable'* fanbase screamed and wishlisted for) If the last few editions of WFB were meandering downhill, in the opposite direction of those issues, then AoS was like jumping off a cliff. Not only did they make the rules even less tactical and a lot more chromey, and the prices even goofier despite the unsustainable smaller starting point, they even wiped out almost the whole background that had successfully hooked gamers since 1982. As stagnant as it might have been. And somewhere down the line, the old world minis we might use in other games, whether from ebay or elsewhere, will soon disappear. The Warhammer world disappeared in the fluff, and it might soon fade away in the real world too. Some of us with a little hope left, suddenly have a lot less.

Now a lot of it is just watching GW's ford escort careening down the road, right into the path of that 8-wheeler roaring in the other direction. Will they straighten up in time and avoid that almost inevitable, morbidly fascinating crash? With a Sigmarine at the wheel...?

*If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years.

 Vermis wrote:
*If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years.

Perfect example of unpleasable fan comment.

 Vermis wrote:
background that had successfully hooked gamers since 1982

Or maybe had not successfully hooked gamers since 2002?

The conversation cannot move forward until posters realize that (a) AoS is not being designed for the kind of people who hate it for not having points, being too "chromey," or having OTT fluff and (b) saying AoS is not enough like the product line it replaced is an argument in favor of AoS.

Can you report a mod for trolling?

If you're going to sit there and mock me, give me a better reason for it than the extremely lame "ho ho ho that's just what someone like that would say". Don't just snort at one throwaway line; pick my whole post apart. Tell me all the magical, excellent stuff that GW has done recently, that has outweighed horrible rules, horrible prices, horrible business practises, horrible behaviour, and sent their sales figures soaring into the stratosphere.

 Vermis wrote:

I said my goodbyes before that, sometime during 7th edition. Though I had already lost most of my interest in 6th ed, ironically the same edition I jumped in on. But like I said - despite clunky rules, staggering prices, and the increasing OTT nature of the fluff - there was still a lot of explorable background, interesting models, and 'true' hobby potential to hook me and keep me hooked in that short time.

Why am I still here, pouring out my nerd tears and gnashing my geek teeth? There are plenty of other, deeper, sleeker, cheaper, better games out there. I guess it's because, like others, I haven't said all my goodbyes and I am still hooked. I don't know if GW really chases the young-teen starter-set crowd, or if that's who really propped up GW; but there was always a little bit of hope that GW would haul itself out of the stupor it was in, and recognise that a big chunk of it's (lapsed) fanbase were older gamers, who still liked the background, might prefer more tactical, less chromey rules, and didn't like being jerked around with rules churn and insulting prices.

Warhammer was in bad shape at the end of 8th, but it only died because GW killed it. There were some basic, fundamental issues that GW could have recognised and improved. (And no, that's not the mythical hundred-and-one contradictory power boosts that and 'unpleasable'* fanbase screamed and wishlisted for) If the last few editions of WFB were meandering downhill, in the opposite direction of those issues, then AoS was like jumping off a cliff. Not only did they make the rules even less tactical and a lot more chromey, and the prices even goofier despite the unsustainable smaller starting point, they even wiped out almost the whole background that had successfully hooked gamers since 1982. As stagnant as it might have been. And somewhere down the line, the old world minis we might use in other games, whether from ebay or elsewhere, will soon disappear. The Warhammer world disappeared in the fluff, and it might soon fade away in the real world too. Some of us with a little hope left, suddenly have a lot less.

Now a lot of it is just watching GW's ford escort careening down the road, right into the path of that 8-wheeler roaring in the other direction. Will they straighten up in time and avoid that almost inevitable, morbidly fascinating crash? With a Sigmarine at the wheel...?

*If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years.

Very well put.

I believe that a lot of people who had left Warhammer in 7th/8th still "cared" (so to say, of course) because they would be coming back if the rules had been improved as long as the fluff remained. Regardless of the stale taste that it had acquired, and for all the flak it takes, the Old World fluff was good enough to keep a quiting player's attention even after the game itself proved not to the player's liking - it kept them on the outskirts of the Warhhamer "thing".

Well "GW never even tries to please me" really is exactly what an unpleaseable fan would say. I mean, it's impossible to manufacture a more scathing parody (and it's not a parody; you actually posted that!) of the worldview which assumes you are the target of a series of releases that you don't like and that you not liking something means no one else possibly could.

 Manchu wrote:
Well "GW never even tries to please me" really is exactly what an unpleaseable fan would say. I mean, it's impossible to manufacture a more scathing parody (and it's not a parody; you actually posted that!) of the worldview which assumes you are the target of a series of releases that you don't like and that you not liking something means no one else possibly could.

"GW never even tries to please me" =/= "If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years."

Juuuuust sayin'.

Right, they are not the same exact words, it's merely the same exact sentiment. If someone does not even consider themselves a fan then they have even less reason to speak for all so-called fans.

 Manchu wrote:
The conversation cannot move forward until posters realize that (a) AoS is not being designed for the kind of people who hate it for not having points, being too "chromey," or having OTT fluff and (b) saying AoS is not enough like the product line it replaced is an argument in favor of AoS.

I've posted this before:

There's a very strange relationship between character/plot development and maintaining the status quo. Changing said status, if done poorly, may result in a Dork Age. A Dork Age is a period in a franchise, especially Long Runners, where there was a dramatic change of concept or execution, usually to stay current, and it simply did not work.

This fundamental change is often an attempt to attract new fans. Unfortunately, that usually does not work. Worse, the change does not go over well with the established fans. Generally, the more dramatically something diverts from its basics, the more likely it's the beginning of a Dork Age.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DorkAge

It sums up AoS perfectly for me. I agree that AoS is not built for me and gamers like me. That's the problem. GW didn't have to go chasing mythical new customers (more of a myth than points systems!) who so far don't seem to flocking to the product. (We'll see in a couple of years) They just had to turn one eye towards legions of existing gamers who have an eye turned towards them.

Oh, and:

saying AoS is not enough like the product line it replaced is an argument in favor of AoS

In what universe does that make sense, even if the AoS line turned out a little more restrained than it did?

 Vermis wrote:
In what universe does that make sense

The one in which we live. One reason GW felt it could so drastically change gears with AoS is likely that there was nothing to lose.

That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan. It's possible to make an observation like that without being a part of it, just like I could say "Warmachine caters to a competitive player base" without being competitive myself.

 Manchu wrote:
Right, they are not the same exact words, it's merely the same exact sentiment. If someone does not even consider themselves a fan then they have even less reason to speak for all so-called fans.

No, they are not - you are deliberately twisting what he said to make him sound like a whining fan when he's pretty much just points out a possible reason for the recurrent loss of sales experienced by GW these last few years.

If you bring customers in by giving them X or Y product (in this case a game that they enjoy) and then suddenly change to Z while keeping the façade that it's still X or Y, and pretty much keep selling them Z, guess what will happen? Your customers will be unpleased, will stop buying and your sales will drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
In what universe does that make sense

The one in which we live. One reason GW felt it could so drastically change gears with AoS is likely that there was nothing to lose.

Translated: "Suck it up".

Good'un boss...

 Vermis wrote:
I agree that AoS is not built for me and gamers like me. That's the problem.

This is the perfect summary of what I have been talking about, the problem with trying to figure out how AoS is doing or will fare by reading Dakka Dakka. Just think about it from a completely generic angle. An existing customer base is by definition shrinking. If new customers are "mythical" then no product line could ever survive. Brands survive precisely because they are refreshed and reinvented. Whenever this happens, it tends to alienate some existing customers. There is a positive correlation between the risk of alienating existing customers and the size/profitability of the existing customer base. Rather than assume GW is run by witless clowns, I think it is more reasonable to guess that the drastic change AoS represents tells us a lot about just how poorly Eighth (and likely Seventh) were doing.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Translated: "Suck it up".

Not intended and in any case, seems inapplicable as Vermis has already explained he has been mostly over Fantasy for a while now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I agree that AoS is not built for me and gamers like me. That's the problem.

This is the perfect summary of what I have been talking about, the problem with trying to figure out how AoS is doing or will fare by reading Dakka Dakka. Just think about it from a completely generic angle. An existing customer base is by definition shrinking. If new customers are "mythical" then no product line could ever survive. Brands survive precisely because they are refreshed and reinvented. Whenever this happens, it tends to alienate some existing customers. There is a positive correlation between the risk of alienating existing customers and the size/profitability of the existing customer base. Rather than assume GW is run by witless clowns, I think it is more reasonable to guess that the drastic change AoS represents tells us a lot about just how poorly Eighth (and likely Seventh) were doing.

No. It really shows that GW is run by witless clowns - only fools would sacrifice at least half of their Fantasy customer base and create massive negative word of mouth towards their new product in the vain hope some 40k-turned-fantasy will be so smashing it will turn that shot in the foot into some sort of Holy Grail.

Edited for clarity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As I said before, if GW had any idea of what to do (aka was not run by witless clowns) they would make the change an inclusive experience for all customers - instead of this antagonistic change - in order to keep the existing playerbase and add more to it through positive word of mouth.

And they could do that. They just didn't care enough to do it.

How was it? "otiose"

I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

 RiTides wrote:
That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan.

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:Regardless of the stale taste that it had acquired, and for all the flak it takes, the Old World fluff was good enough to keep a quiting player's attention even after the game itself proved not to the player's liking - it kept them on the outskirts of the Warhhamer "thing".

Heck, the fact that Oldhammer is a thing, has to count for something. There are people who quit in 3rd-4th ed, who still love the setting!

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:"GW never even tries to please me" =/= "If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years."

Juuuuust sayin'.

This. This so much. Trying to gloss over the blindingly obvious, creaking deficiencies of GW as a whole, as - what? - somebody whining that their favourite unit got nerfed? That the book for my favourite army had changes in it? It's... just...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM

No. I'm far enough removed from the fiddly nitpicking and hyped model releases to see a bigger picture. Not all of it, but plenty. It looks like a mess to me.

And another blindingly obvious thing is I'm not the only one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
How was it? "otiose"

Ha.

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

 RiTides wrote:
That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan.

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

It pleased them, once.

Actually, it pleased them enough to get them playing.

That being said, it shouldn't be hard for them to keep at it, if they knew what they were doing to begin with...

I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path. But hey...

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product.

And again, that's the problem.

I'd much rather be skipping merrily into the GW store to buy a nicely priced box of minis to play a nice, tactical, streamlined game of Warhammer with, than sitting here watching your arguments squirm around like an eel, and wondering why I'm doing it when I already said I gave up, that time. But the demographic GW apparently tried to concentrate on is people who'll pay anything for minis, to play a random, convoluted game with. (WFB 8th or AoS, take your pick)

(a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is

It didn't have to be.

(b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

There's that 40K thing again. Why do you think everyone on this board is 40K focused, let alone the people criticising AoS? The most I've heard from some dedicated 40K players here, is that they were spurred to finally try out fantasy because of AoS, and all those marines in it...

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

Tell me why they won't be able - or weren't able - to please those fans. 'Cos that just sounds like exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW can rely on to excuse everything they do.

(Oh gee, this dismissive, sweeping generalisation thing is easy.)

To be honest the fact that GW didn't care enough to even bother asking their customers what they felt about destroying 30 years of hobby shows the amount of business sense they have... in that otiose kind of way, you know?

It's really hard to keep customers happy when you don't listen to them. And hey, happy customers are spending customers.

C'mon GeeDubs, have you never played a Tycoon/Theme series game??

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated ?Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

 Vermis wrote:
Why do you think everyone on this board is 40K focused, let alone the people criticising AoS?

I think (actually, know) the board is 40k-focused; I am not talking about any given user.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated ?Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

You know very well I'm talking about the Fantasy brand, not as a whole. Drop that.

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

I think that in AoS, GW wasn't trying to please the broadest demographic at all; but rather, tap into non-traditional wargaming demographics, which is why so much angst with certain players. GW basically didn't care about what people who wanted competitive pickup games thought... now, since I fall into neither of those categories (I don't enjoy highly competitive lists, and almost never play pickup games), it's no skin off my back, but I do get why some peple are miffed.

Not that I don't think it wasn't a good idea or experiment. I think AoS as it is attracts a certain type of player, and is acceptable to certain other types of players. Over time, we'll see if it's a successful strategy for GW, both in terms of a sustainable ecosystem and a profit machine.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan.

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

I think that the whole idea that GW doesn't try to please its fanbase is silly. The proof is in 40k -- the game has migrated *exactly* where fans have asked for it to with their spending. Tanks do well? Make more tanks. Space marines do well? make more space marines. Flyers do well? More flyers. People buy titans? More Titans. People want bigger titans? Bigger Titans.

Essentially, GW's game direction has gone exactly where fans choose to spend their money on models. I'm sure if people bought tons of infantry-sized models and no giant robot kits, that's what we'd see a lot more of. Instead, you see a lot of excitement around giant centerpiece models, so we get Knights, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel, Ta'unar, etc. $100 Primarch sells? Make the other 17. People spend big bucks on Cities of Death, so you get Wall of Martyrs, Sector Imperialis, AoS terrain kits, Khornetress, Tidewall, etc.

In a way, I would say that GW tries to please its fans to a fault -- a lot of what they do doesn't really make the game a better game, it just gives incentives to buy the models that people really wanted an excuse to buy anyways.

 Vermis wrote:
Tell me why they won't be able - or weren't able - to please those fans.

Not able? That's an interesting question, you can always please someone in a "fanbase" but likely only one at a time.

In all seriousness, my theory is GW chose a larger customer base over a smaller one. To what degree that larger base is actual or potential or merely hypothetical is an open question.