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.

 NTRabbit wrote:


Worth reading

Gunna be that guy and say that it's already been discussed.
General consensus is that the negativity is surprising, and kind of sad in multiple ways, to be honest, and that many of us here are still extremely excited by Silver Tower.

Is it the WHQ of old? No. And it doesn't have to be.

 malfred wrote:
Link? What are they talking about?

Not sure if you were talking to me but the Tenebrael Shard and Mistweaver Saih are the two elf heroes in The Silver Tower.

The Tree-Revenants are the picture on the left in this facebook link from the post I quoted
https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/photos/pcb.475067626023369/475067359356729/?type=3&theater

If you squint really hard it looks like it says "Tree-Revenant".

motski wrote:
Is it going to be possible to play this game solo?

Yes.

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's

That is a severely entitled viewpoint. The trade name itself is not a representation that the product will live up to anyone's nostalgia. GW wants to make a dungeon crawler board game leveraging their IP. "Warhammer Quest" is a perfectly appropriate title for that product, whatever a given customer would prefer or might expect. It's easy to tell if someone has a genuine interest in a product because they will look at it for what it is, rather than what it (apparently) "ought" to be.

I despise that word, "entitled", it's such a load of BS and is always deployed to shut down criticism that can't otherwise be refuted.

Almost everything about the way GW are pushing nu-WHQ is based on evoking the nostalgia people have for the original game, and even if it were not GW would have to be literally deaf, dumb, blind, and clinically stupid not to recognise that evoking a brand with a strong emotional component to it IS going to create expectations - it's their job, literally their job, to manage those expectations effectively. If they're incapable of effectively communicating to people what the product they're selling is, that's their problem and it's total horse manure to lay the blame for the fallout of that failure on the heads of potential customers.

If GW were to next "bring back" Mordheim using Mordheim's branding, talk about returning a "classic", repeatedly reference the original in their marketing etc, then you're damn right they would be responsible for creating an expectation that what people would be getting would be close enough to the original to justify such close comparison. If the resulting product wasn't set in Mordheim, had none of the factions of Mordheim, and completely dropped the complex post-game sequence for a much simplified system that barely met the definition of campaign progression, then calling people who react badly to the total disconnect between the product on-offer and the product "sold" to them by the marketing "entitled" is just petty trolling.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product

Wow, entitled much?

When making a new, AoS based, board game, GW had any amount of opportunity to choose a different style or name at the very minimum.

That would be the dumbest move they could do, because they already own the branding for Warhammer Quest. So, make a new Warhammer Quest. What they did was in fact the smartest thing they could do. Use their pre-existing brand that has name recognition.

In which case they must also bear the burden of dealing with the history of that brand and the reasons it has name recognition.

This isn't controversial, it's not some random thing people are inventing for this one release by GW "because they just be AoS haters y'all", creating and managing expectations is literally the whole fething point of marketing. GW can use the brand they own in any way they see fit, but if they choose to use one in a way that substantially departs from what made the brand valuable in the first place and they not only fail to adequately explain those changes but actively play on the original version, they don't get to piss and moan about all the meanie-weenie gamers who're not judging the new version solely on its own merits and it's not faaaaair

Interesting pic


tags added. Reds8n

Spider fang tribes, yay! The Dryad/Elves are AMAZING!

The art is interesting, I wonder if the oddities are a result of the style/artist or an indication of changes that might happen to the model lines in the future(eg heavily muscled Goblins, the different facial structure of the Lizardman, and the cyclopean Minotaur). EDIT: And I would buy the gak out of some "Spiderfang"/Forest Goblin infantry - shame the AoS format makes that kind of release unlikely.

A company owning a label is free to use it any way they want. In such use, they are no more responsible for your expectations than you are responsible for their expectations. If the staff at GW have decided to not reprint a complete copy of the original, it's probably because they feel the game, theme or mechanics are dated. They probably expect customers to be put off by such a thing - gaming is at a high right now, and there are no shortage of fresh, interesting ideas available for a consumer. To put it simply, maybe nostalgia alone isn't enough to sell a game nowadays.
So GW decides to update the mechanics, throw in a dash of AOS and try for something that's not nearly three decades old (cuz you know, the market has changed...) They expect to sell to a new wave of gamers, and possibly some old veterans.
In what area of this are you responsible for their decisions? None. Not a single one.
To argue that a well-used label, brand, insignia, device or title makes the owner 100% responsible for meeting the expectations of anyone who has ever come into contact or experienced the subject, regardless of whether or not that is their intent, is asinine.
Consumers must have realistic expectations of a product - that is your responsibility as a consumer. It is in no way the company's fault if you purchase something assuming you know what it is based on the brand or label alone. That just makes you an idiot for failing to properly research what you are working for.
The idea that just because GW is using the name they own to sell a product line they own to customers who may be interested, but not using the name to cater to customers from over three decades ago, and that is in fact somehow wrong, can be described as a form of entitlement.
Customers are 100% responsible for their purchases and expectations.
Companies are 100% responsible for their sales and marketing.
These are not interchangeable.
P.S, also, no one has heard any whining from GW because 'meanie weanie gamers.' Just the old bloods. Not as if that's new or anything, this being a thread about warhammer.

The art looks really cool. The mortal realms are really coming to life. I hope we see these on the not too distant horizon. In the storyline Alarielle is now a "seed" buried under the ground somewhere (I don't really follow it haha) so I guess we'll see these fey alongside a massive Alarielle centrepiece once she is "reborn" as it were.

Gonna place my guesses on after the Summer Campaign.

The new game is called Warhammer quest silver tower not warhammer quest second edition. It is fine to be dissapointed by that. It is fine not to buy it, but it it seems a liitle excessive to denounce it out of hand for not being the game that we already have ( which we can still play) Every games workshop store has sample copies. Soon enough there will be reviews everywhere.

The buzz I have heard from those who have played it is pretty positive. It is not like the old warhammer quest, but neither is it a one and done game like time stories. I am looking to playing through the trails a few times with different characters and different enemies. I must admit though that I am sold on the prospect of painting those miniatures, even if the game turns not to be great

What time does WarhammerFest start by the way? I'm eager to see the shiny new things. .

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's

That is a severely entitled viewpoint. The trade name itself is not a representation that the product will live up to anyone's nostalgia. GW wants to make a dungeon crawler board game leveraging their IP. "Warhammer Quest" is a perfectly appropriate title for that product, whatever a given customer would prefer or might expect. It's easy to tell if someone has a genuine interest in a product because they will look at it for what it is, rather than what it (apparently) "ought" to be.

I despise that word, "entitled", it's such a load of BS and is always deployed to shut down criticism that can't otherwise be refuted.

I mean its a tad hard to refute a temper-tantrum, given that its intangibility outside of the speaker's own head. But really now, you are decrying Games Workshop as a failure because they made a sequel to one of their old games, which doesn't live up to such a concrete and objective concept of "that legacy".

If you want to get into a verbal pissing match then please answer the following question: what does "that legacy" even mean? And no you can't just say "WHQ's kegacy" or "but WHQST doesn't have X mechanic". Actually explain what it's legacy is?

Got that? Cool, then we can count how many times you appeal to tradition and emotion. It's a classic DakkaDakka word search!

Almost everything about the way GW are pushing nu-WHQ is based on evoking the nostalgia people have for the original game,

Oh man, I too hate it when additional entries into a series share anything in common with the previous releases.[sarcasm in case you didn't catch it]

Seriously you are now accusing the entirety Games Workshop's of targetting the exact demographic that you occupy. If not entitled then that's at a minimum pretty self-centered.

and even if it were not GW would have to be literally deaf, dumb, blind, and clinically stupid not to recognise that evoking a brand with a strong emotional component to it IS going to create expectations

Well I have no emotional connection to WHQ, but even I have expectations. GW marketing going above and beyond to capture that non-Yodhdrin demographic.

(Also if you're curious, my expectation is that there better be post launch support or else I'll turn the tiles into a bloody wind chime)

Though do you seriously need someone to lecture you on the purpose of product branding?

By your own logic the entire capitalist economy has been conning us for years since they fail to punish Coke for not rebranding when they changed from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup.

- it's their job, literally their job, to manage those expectations effectively. If they're incapable of effectively communicating to people what the product they're selling is, that's their problem and it's total horse manure to lay the blame for the fallout of that failure on the heads of potential customers.

Its not their job to cure you of your self-centrism.

The message has been loud and clear, "this game is a new boxed game which mechanically (though clearly not narratively) a sequel to Warhammer Quest."

Or did they forget to add a trigger warning for "some stages of grief required"?

If GW were to next "bring back" Mordheim using Mordheim's branding, talk about returning a "classic", repeatedly reference the original in their marketing etc, then you're damn right they would be responsible for creating an expectation that what people would be getting would be close enough to the original to justify such close comparison.

Yes, repetedly referencing the original is a common symptom of a sequel.

Also what part of "we took our fantasy game and made an RPG spin-off where you move through randomly generated boards to gain loot while fighting NPC enemies" not close enough to the original.

Seriously if you want to whine about cherry-picked mechanical differences as the arbitrary sand line, then just about every major pen-and-paper/table top game has done this in at least one of its releases.

If the resulting product wasn't set in Mordheim, had none of the factions of Mordheim, and completely dropped the complex post-game sequence for a much simplified system that barely met the definition of campaign progression

Is the post game really the sticking point here for you? Because Mordheim to me has always been more about the dense board, small model count, and one model per unit skirmishy (?) gameplay.

And I'm going to be quite blunt here, you do not have the privilege of defining what qualities demarcate one game from another, Not for me nor anyone else.

, then calling people who react badly to the total disconnect between the product on-offer and the product "sold" to them by the marketing "entitled" is just petty trolling.

Uh, it was users from Dakka who called you entitled, and last I checked the voices of said valuation were not employed by GW. (In fact I'm still waiting on the check Plumbarum told me I would be receiving in the AoS launch thread.)

So how you are blaming GW for that is beyond even my biting, sarcastic wit.

Edit: forgot to close a quote tag

Let's make sure we aren't being rude and saying other users are trolling. It's not polite, and therefore is against rule 1. Keep it civil, keep it constructive. Thanks

 Yodhrin wrote:
The art is interesting, I wonder if the oddities are a result of the style/artist or an indication of changes that might happen to the model lines in the future(eg heavily muscled Goblins, the different facial structure of the Lizardman, and the cyclopean Minotaur). EDIT: And I would buy the gak out of some "Spiderfang"/Forest Goblin infantry - shame the AoS format makes that kind of release unlikely.

The Lizardmans facial structure in the art is basically an exact copy of the Oldblood from the Carnosaur kit, and I believe the cyclopean Minotaur is a Cygor. So I think the muscled goblin is just a stylistic/artistic licence thing.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I despise that word, "entitled", it's such a load of BS and is always deployed to shut down criticism that can't otherwise be refuted.

Almost everything about the way GW are pushing nu-WHQ is based on evoking the nostalgia people have for the original game, and even if it were not GW would have to be literally deaf, dumb, blind, and clinically stupid not to recognise that evoking a brand with a strong emotional component to it IS going to create expectations - it's their job, literally their job, to manage those expectations effectively. If they're incapable of effectively communicating to people what the product they're selling is, that's their problem and it's total horse manure to lay the blame for the fallout of that failure on the heads of potential customers.

If GW were to next "bring back" Mordheim using Mordheim's branding, talk about returning a "classic", repeatedly reference the original in their marketing etc, then you're damn right they would be responsible for creating an expectation that what people would be getting would be close enough to the original to justify such close comparison. If the resulting product wasn't set in Mordheim, had none of the factions of Mordheim, and completely dropped the complex post-game sequence for a much simplified system that barely met the definition of campaign progression, then calling people who react badly to the total disconnect between the product on-offer and the product "sold" to them by the marketing "entitled" is just petty trolling.

It's been done before, and examples were given here as well. Space Hulk was changed between editions. Rogue Trader, 40k 2nd Edition and 40k 3rd Edition are distinct, and different games to what came before. Especially 3rd. WHQ was a long time ago, and it having new/changed rules is a very reasonable thing. I actually missed out on the original, and didn't want to pay $400 on eBay so was looking forward to a straight re-release, but... I'll still take this, since it looks good on its own merits.

I've been following this thread without commenting, and aside from the obvious question (Why is a GW standalone Fantasy boardgame release thread bizarrely embedded into an AoS thread, despite being it's own thing - unlike DW:O, or Renegade, or even piddly little Last Patrol??) It seems that you're mostly here for a fight, since you appear fixated on having the same pointless circular argument about it not being a straight re-release of the 21-year old original. Are you the same poster who mentioned that you had major issues with the ridiculous pantomimes embedded in the legacy model rules when AoS came out due to ASD-specific discomfort? That's a serious question, asked deadpan with no emotion or judgement embedded in it.

From Warhammer Fest - pic taken by HeelanHammer on Twitter




Edit: Could someone please put the huge pic posted earlier on this page into spoiler tags. Thanks

Warhams-77 wrote:
Fom Warhammer Fest - pic taken by HeelanHammer on Twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiZwYPvWEAAtVZr.jpg

Awesome! Should make a cool model. You can see one of the Fey down in the left corner two alongside the dyrads. Seems reasonable to suspect the Sylvaneth of becoming a fully blown faction too.

That Alarielle on the giant beetle would make one hell of a model if it looks anything like that art (which is undoubtedly one of the coolest AoS pieces in general)...

Really can't wait to see what they do with the Aelves going forward, they all became a bit homogenised towards the end of WFB but it looks like they could really start becoming their own thing again.

Pre-order is up for the UK. £95, very happy with that

Cant wait to use that (possible) beetle (model) as a mount for a Nurgle Lord

Very cool looking figures in WQ:ST, will wait for a review of the playability, but it does actually look like it might make my purchase list.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's

That is a severely entitled viewpoint. The trade name itself is not a representation that the product will live up to anyone's nostalgia. GW wants to make a dungeon crawler board game leveraging their IP. "Warhammer Quest" is a perfectly appropriate title for that product, whatever a given customer would prefer or might expect. It's easy to tell if someone has a genuine interest in a product because they will look at it for what it is, rather than what it (apparently) "ought" to be.

I despise that word, "entitled", it's such a load of BS and is always deployed to shut down criticism that can't otherwise be refuted.

Almost everything about the way GW are pushing nu-WHQ is based on evoking the nostalgia people have for the original game, and even if it were not GW would have to be literally deaf, dumb, blind, and clinically stupid not to recognise that evoking a brand with a strong emotional component to it IS going to create expectations - it's their job, literally their job, to manage those expectations effectively. If they're incapable of effectively communicating to people what the product they're selling is, that's their problem and it's total horse manure to lay the blame for the fallout of that failure on the heads of potential customers.

If GW were to next "bring back" Mordheim using Mordheim's branding, talk about returning a "classic", repeatedly reference the original in their marketing etc, then you're damn right they would be responsible for creating an expectation that what people would be getting would be close enough to the original to justify such close comparison. If the resulting product wasn't set in Mordheim, had none of the factions of Mordheim, and completely dropped the complex post-game sequence for a much simplified system that barely met the definition of campaign progression, then calling people who react badly to the total disconnect between the product on-offer and the product "sold" to them by the marketing "entitled" is just petty trolling.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product

Wow, entitled much?

When making a new, AoS based, board game, GW had any amount of opportunity to choose a different style or name at the very minimum.

That would be the dumbest move they could do, because they already own the branding for Warhammer Quest. So, make a new Warhammer Quest. What they did was in fact the smartest thing they could do. Use their pre-existing brand that has name recognition.

In which case they must also bear the burden of dealing with the history of that brand and the reasons it has name recognition.

This isn't controversial, it's not some random thing people are inventing for this one release by GW "because they just be AoS haters y'all", creating and managing expectations is literally the whole fething point of marketing. GW can use the brand they own in any way they see fit, but if they choose to use one in a way that substantially departs from what made the brand valuable in the first place and they not only fail to adequately explain those changes but actively play on the original version, they don't get to piss and moan about all the meanie-weenie gamers who're not judging the new version solely on its own merits and it's not faaaaair

its their product. They do whatever they want with it. they can even cn a 30yrs old line if they see fit.

only things you can do is like it, dont like it, support it or move on.

oh, you can keep compaining too, ofc.

but, no, you cant demand anything.

To argue that a well-used label, brand, insignia, device or title makes the owner 100% responsible for meeting the expectations of anyone who has ever come into contact or experienced the subject, regardless of whether or not that is their intent, is asinine.

It's not asinine, because anybody who buys expensive sports cars such as Ferrari, Porsche etc etc know exactly what they're getting when they buy one, and legacy is a big part of that, and the manufacturers use this legacy as a selling point, as you would with such iconic brands.

GW, IMO, have shamefully traded on their historic WHQ brand to lure people into a false sense of security. By linking it with AOS and hedging their bets on a galactic scale, GW have wilfully misled people on this. As always with GW. one step forward, two steps back.

And another thing, aside from the fact they are a games company, why do GW keep churning out these stand alone games? I ask this because for the last 2 years, we've heard nothing but GW cost cutting, GW losing money etc etc

So here's a bunch of stand alone games, that will need new moulds and other design costs, and yet, nothing about how much money this will cost GW to set up. Very strange

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

To argue that a well-used label, brand, insignia, device or title makes the owner 100% responsible for meeting the expectations of anyone who has ever come into contact or experienced the subject, regardless of whether or not that is their intent, is asinine.

It's not asinine, because anybody who buys expensive sports cars such as Ferrari, Porsche etc etc know exactly what they're getting when they buy one, and legacy is a big part of that, and the manufacturers use this legacy as a selling point, as you would with such iconic brands.

GW, IMO, have shamefully traded on their historic WHQ brand to lure people into a false sense of security. By linking it with AOS and hedging their bets on a galactic scale, GW have wilfully misled people on this. As always with GW. one step forward, two steps back.

And another thing, aside from the fact they are a games company, why do GW keep churning out these stand alone games? I ask this because for the last 2 years, we've heard nothing but GW cost cutting, GW losing money etc etc

So here's a bunch of stand alone games, that will need new moulds and other design costs, and yet, nothing about how much money this will cost GW to set up. Very strange

When you buy a Ferrari, you don't expect it to be the exact same car as one from 20 years ago.

Haha, I had just read Lady Atia's blog about the life goddess riding a giant beetle before looking at this thread!

So much to look forward to!

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

To argue that a well-used label, brand, insignia, device or title makes the owner 100% responsible for meeting the expectations of anyone who has ever come into contact or experienced the subject, regardless of whether or not that is their intent, is asinine.

It's not asinine, because anybody who buys expensive sports cars such as Ferrari, Porsche etc etc know exactly what they're getting when they buy one, and legacy is a big part of that, and the manufacturers use this legacy as a selling point, as you would with such iconic brands.

GW, IMO, have shamefully traded on their historic WHQ brand to lure people into a false sense of security. By linking it with AOS and hedging their bets on a galactic scale, GW have wilfully misled people on this. As always with GW. one step forward, two steps back.

And another thing, aside from the fact they are a games company, why do GW keep churning out these stand alone games? I ask this because for the last 2 years, we've heard nothing but GW cost cutting, GW losing money etc etc

So here's a bunch of stand alone games, that will need new moulds and other design costs, and yet, nothing about how much money this will cost GW to set up. Very strange

When you buy a Ferrari, you don't expect it to be the exact same car as one from 20 years ago.

True, but neither do you expect it to be horse drawn either!

The point is this: Silver tower has some wonderful minis, you'll get no argument from me, but when you have rival companies producing minis to a similar quality, then the only thing IMO that can sell a game, is the uniqueness or the quality of the rules.

Rightly or wrongly, WHQ has a certain set of rules which people enjoy, and which they associate with the brand. Now, if I'm a veteran who sees the WHQ brand on this game, I would assume that GW are being true to this ethos.

If they're not being true to the ethos, then people have every right to feel cheated IMO.

To use the sports car analogy again, if I buy a new Ferrari, yes, it will be different to previous ones, but I still expect high speeds, quality finish, the best materials etc etc. I don't expect to pop open the hood and see the engine being powered by hamsters on a wheel!

The Fey silvaneth is really nice concept. Dark and creepy. But Alarielle really look like a bad concept from a kitsch high fantasy game.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Cant wait to use that (possible) beetle (model) as a mount for a Nurgle Lord

Had the same thought. If it was 50€ (with discount, whatever) I'd do just that. That won't happen though

I also have a sudden urge to buy a box of DE Mandrakes and a box of dryads and build some of those fey elves.

Having seen the official pics on the GW site now I'm disappointed that the Cultists and Gors are tw sets of pure clones, I was still hoping for something like the AOS starter where you had command bits (or even whole sculpts) on one of the non-duplicate sprues. Meh.

Those goblins are absolutely dreadful. Wrathmonger levels of bad -and those were just too blinged out, not plain bad sculpts. WIll have to inesctify them and have a small Nurgle mutant incursion in Tzeetch's tower, I bet he'd love that

PS: All those cool new monsters and GW still managed to screw up the coolest of them all, the Manticore. Sigh.

New Fimir noble coming soon:

@Binabik15

Look at bitsshops and ebay for the beetle Needs patience but these things can be found cheap after a while