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.

 Zywus wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But the Old World was very limited in scope. To use your examples, we knew all about Altdorf, Barak Varr, Salzenmunda and Lorien. The scale of the setting didn't allow for much change at all.

It was an entire world, that's more than enough scope for anything you want.

Apparently, if you cannot sink entire continents, blow up a bunch of capital cities, exterminate entire races or remove planets, the stories are meaningless.

It's a bit weird, since there's millions upon billions of fictional stories written that takes place in our own real world, where there doesn't even exist simple elves or orcs at all. If one was cynical, one could call that whole "limited scope" of the old world spiel as nothing but excuses by lazy and incompetent/disinterested writers, being parroted by apologists searching for justifications for AoS.

Being a moderator of the Mantic forums, are you required to troll Mantic's competitors (namely GW/AoS)?
I don't mean to pry, I'm just genuinely curious.

motski wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But the Old World was very limited in scope. To use your examples, we knew all about Altdorf, Barak Varr, Salzenmunda and Lorien. The scale of the setting didn't allow for much change at all.

It was an entire world, that's more than enough scope for anything you want.

Apparently, if you cannot sink entire continents, blow up a bunch of capital cities, exterminate entire races or remove planets, the stories are meaningless.

It's a bit weird, since there's millions upon billions of fictional stories written that takes place in our own real world, where there doesn't even exist simple elves or orcs at all. If one was cynical, one could call that whole "limited scope" of the old world spiel as nothing but excuses by lazy and incompetent/disinterested writers, being parroted by apologists searching for justifications for AoS.

Being a moderator of the Mantic forums, are you required to troll Mantic's competitors (namely GW/AoS)?
I don't mean to pry, I'm just genuinely curious.

Yep, I get paid by the post.
The rate is pretty lousy though. Mantic has to recoup those disastrous men-at-arms somehow

(It's somewhat empowering to see that someone is interested enough in me to catalog my presence on various fora)

Trolling the competition and embellishing situations with absurdity is how you win over new fans unfortunately.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Seem to be at the bottom of a Dogpile....not entirely sure why?

You made a laughably incorrect statement on the internet and wondered why people vigorously corrected you and pointed out how silly it was?

Oh sweet summer child...

Not incorrect really as far as being able to change things up to increase interest away from relying on TW:W to do it.

Well, I certainly wouldn't call the Old World limited in scope but it was due for a big shake-up eventually if GW ever wanted to do more than "this hold gets retaken and the Empire temporarily loses a important city".

A post-End Times setting would've been interesting but there would still be flak from the fan-base as GW ruining the setting and the argument about TW:W not recognizing the setting from the game would still be an issue as many major lands and cities were destroyed.

Then there's the idea that GW would still get rid of everything non-copyrightable so Bretonnians, Cathy, Nippon and Ind stay gone and the name changes happen. The Aold Wyrld if you will.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Not incorrect really as far as being able to change things up to increase interest away from relying on TW:W to do it.

It was incorrect. There were vast unexplored regions of the Old World. This is a fact. Unless of course you can point me to the main regions of Ind, Araby, Cathy and Nippon and the major cities and movers and shakers in those areas.

I was actually surprised at the amount of lore the lads in the TW forum were able to dig up about those places from going over their fluff through the editions. Spacebattles.com also had bit discussions that made early Ind and Cathy to be the superior lands of mankind as Cathay was always better in every respect to the western world and Ind's god were once far more powerful than the chaos gods.

There would have had to be major re-writes though if GW was going to make anything for those factions that fit the current Wfb style. "Tzu-Sun" would've been the first thing to go.

Aside from Mermen and Asian beastmen, all that was left to expand on was humans copied from real-life. I can see why GW would want to move in another direction, both for lore diversity and copyright.

Baron Klatz wrote:


Aside from Mermen and Asian beastmen, all that was left to expand on was humans copied from real-life. I can see why GW would want to move in another direction, both for lore diversity and copyright.

I've seen this argument several times now. How on earth can someone say "in this largely unexplored, fictional, universe, totally within the control of the creators, this is all there was left to write about?"

Other people can see the problem with this, right?

True, the Old World could really fit anything they wanted in it.

Whether the fanbase would be okay with out of the blue things being dropped in it to change everything up is another story.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:


Aside from Mermen and Asian beastmen, all that was left to expand on was humans copied from real-life. I can see why GW would want to move in another direction, both for lore diversity and copyright.

I've seen this argument several times now. How on earth can someone say "in this largely unexplored, fictional, universe, totally within the control of the creators, this is all there was left to write about?"

Other people can see the problem with this, right?

I didn't even mention the massive land mass at the south pole of the map, which is simply mentioned as "The southern wastes" IIRC. There could be literally ANYTHING down there. Maybe it could have been Chaos worshippers too (on some it said "here be daemons"), that looked nothing like their northern cousins, leading to a whole untapped angle on a previously established faction.

The possibilities for what they could have done were massive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baron Klatz wrote:
True, the Old World could really fit anything they wanted in it.

Whether the fanbase would be okay with out of the blue things being dropped in it to change everything up is another story.

As has been mentioned in numerous recent 40k threads- A retcon=/=moving the story forward.

The Old World was a successful fictional world for decades. It was there making up a solid portion of the growth of GW from a UK based concern to a world spanning company. The success of TW:W and Fantasy Flight's board games proves it's utility as a basis for products.

There was something about 6th through 8th edition fantasy that failed the Old World rather than the Old World failing Warhammer Fantasy. My guess is that it was a callous jacking up of the model count and overall cost of the game combined with terrible balance as they cut budgets for development as sales dropped, creating a negative feedback loop.

GW bringing back an Old World based miniature game at this point would probably be a terrible idea though. Age of Sigmar is just getting going and is working for them. If they split their fantasy customer base then fewer locations would have a critical mass of either. And they'd be increasing their game development costs.

What they really should do is make some more stable chunks/realms that bring the Total War:Warhammer themes into Age of Sigmar. Anything can be in these warp bubbles so if they want to make a tie in product for the trilogy of successful video games, they should do it within the confines of AoS.

What they really should do is make some more stable chunks/realms that bring the Total War:Warhammer themes into Age of Sigmar. Anything can be in these warp bubbles so if they want to make a tie in product for the trilogy of successful video games, they should do it within the confines ofAoS.

Haha, that makes me think Warmaster: Lord of the Realms edition.

It'd also help if they'd remove the "no AoS mods" ban. I've already seen several great AoS units that the modders snuck under the radar. They even got the Varanguard in there under the cover of upgraded chaos knights.

I remember talking to a friend about my idea for a AoS TW campaign as well:

Ruin wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
Not incorrect really as far as being able to change things up to increase interest away from relying on TW:W to do it.

It was incorrect. There were vast unexplored regions of the Old World. This is a fact. Unless of course you can point me to the main regions of Ind, Araby, Cathy and Nippon and the major cities and movers and shakers in those areas.

Those were so slowed I'm happy they weren't expanded upon.

morgoth wrote:

Ruin wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
Not incorrect really as far as being able to change things up to increase interest away from relying on TW:W to do it.

It was incorrect. There were vast unexplored regions of the Old World. This is a fact. Unless of course you can point me to the main regions of Ind, Araby, Cathy and Nippon and the major cities and movers and shakers in those areas.

Those were so slowed I'm happy they weren't expanded upon.

Yes, because that's really the appropriate response....

Ruin wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Ruin wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
Not incorrect really as far as being able to change things up to increase interest away from relying on TW:W to do it.

It was incorrect. There were vast unexplored regions of the Old World. This is a fact. Unless of course you can point me to the main regions of Ind, Araby, Cathy and Nippon and the major cities and movers and shakers in those areas.

Those were so slowed I'm happy they weren't expanded upon.

Yes, because that's really the appropriate response....

OF course, it would've been better if they had publicly apologized for that crap and done everything they could to erase everyone's memory of them.
It's like rough riders and some of the worse IG stuff for 40k - when GW adds random garbage to the game it destroys the immersion.

GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Because people play and buy what they like, not what it's better. What never ceases to amaze me is that people keep on missing so thoroughly this point.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Because people play and buy what they like, not what it's better. What never ceases to amaze me is that people keep on missing so thoroughly this point.

Or maybe they're narrow minded people unwilling to branch out on other stuff?

As an example, I knew somebody who wouldn't buy PVA glue from an art store because it didn't have the GW logo on it.

Despite it being the same stuff, cheaper, and a bigger bottle, he opted for the GW product.

I nearly went blue in the face trying to explain to him that he paid more for the exact same thing

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Because people play and buy what they like, not what it's better. What never ceases to amaze me is that people keep on missing so thoroughly this point.

Or maybe they're narrow minded people unwilling to branch out on other stuff?

As an example, I knew somebody who wouldn't buy PVA glue from an art store because it didn't have the GW logo on it.

Despite it being the same stuff, cheaper, and a bigger bottle, he opted for the GW product.

I nearly went blue in the face trying to explain to him that he paid more for the exact same thing

So your counter-argument is anecdotal evidence? Apparently people can only play one game system now in order to "branch out".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Great PR (in recent years), customer service, brand and IP recognition, high street presence, and a strong diverse range of products spanning three core games and several boxed games, several of which are modern iterations of famous and very popular classics.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Great PR, customer service, brand and IP recognition, high street presence, and a strong diverse range of products spanning three core games and several boxed games, several of which are modern iterations of famous and very popular classics.

I could get that at Toys R Us




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Because people play and buy what they like, not what it's better. What never ceases to amaze me is that people keep on missing so thoroughly this point.

Or maybe they're narrow minded people unwilling to branch out on other stuff?

As an example, I knew somebody who wouldn't buy PVA glue from an art store because it didn't have the GW logo on it.

Despite it being the same stuff, cheaper, and a bigger bottle, he opted for the GW product.

I nearly went blue in the face trying to explain to him that he paid more for the exact same thing

So your counter-argument is anecdotal evidence? Apparently people can only play one game system now in order to "branch out".

Opinion is not prohibition. The smiley face i.e this = the person making a light hearted remark or joke.

People always seem to be ready to jump down people's throats at the slightest opportunity.

Round my way, GW is the dominant force.

At the club there's around 8 Infinity players, and around 10 X-Wing players - most of whom also play various GW games.

And that's a hard position to assail.

Sure, I could probably get a decent mix of X-Wing or Infinity for less than a GW army - but that doesn't help if I just want to add a single unit to an existing GW army - why spend £60-£70 on a new game, when I could spend £40 to refresh an older army?

Momentum. That's the trick. They grew to be the biggest due to a total lack of credible completion. And when the credible competition finally arrived, GW still had thousands of gamers with valid armies - so whilst one might go and play another game for a long old time, the GW army still exists. Give that person an excuse to play again, and they're back at it.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
GW seem to be doing ok, and a lot of people obviously enjoy their products, and good luck to them, but having made the switch away from GW a few years back, it never ceases to amaze me that GW are still hanging in there.

There are better and cheaper paints/games/rulesets out there, and yet, GW manage to survive. Very strange.

Because people play and buy what they like, not what it's better. What never ceases to amaze me is that people keep on missing so thoroughly this point.

This surprises you?
How much fruit and vegetables have you eaten today?
I have eaten 1 Banana and some Pineapple, which is not exactly nutritionally optimal.
People eat what they like, not what is best and the consequences of such choices are more severe than if they support GW or some other hobby company.

GW is making some good stuff these days, when they make good stuff I will buy it.

Total War Warhammer is great and a long battle is about 20 minutes. It takes me about 20 minutes to put together 1 plastic Cavalry Mini.

I think the main miss opportunity was cashing in on the Legendary Lords from Total War.

Ladies and gentlemen. The debate has concluded. Age of Sigmar seems to be contributing quite heavily to the growth of the company:


http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Age of Sigmar is the 4th best selling game in the north-american table top miniatures market (the part not controlle by GW anyways). Still not as good as old Fantasy (top 3) in its heyday but it's a tendency and it certainly shows a noticeable growth in the game, since they didn't feature in the previous top 5s.

It's pretty obvious WHFB was not doing much for GW. Evidence is simple - when WHFB was killed and AoS got, shall we say, "lukewarm" initial response, did GW revenue collapse by 50%? Did it collapse even by 10%? No. Ergo, WHFB's enormous range was selling very little.

I always wanted to play WHFB but never got around it and my Fantasy playing pals were dumping it. Reason was simple - cost of entry was too high. Part of the blame obviously rests on GW pricing but community was also to blame, estabilished players were playing each other with their bloated armies. Too hard for newbies to get in it. I read a story of a kid wanting to start WHFB and being told that sure he could, but he would need to buy, build, paint and base full 2500 point army before anyone would play with him. Well, no surprise he didn't. Also, people seemed tired of the tournament scene which needed tons of comp to balance armies out. At that time, 40k was usually comp-less and was widely seen as "well balanced" compared to Fantasy!
Well, that's just an outsiders view, feel free to disagree. The point is that WHFB needed a reboot.

I was pretty invested to Old World in RPG form, and AoS does not interest me in the slightest, even though many people speak highly of the game. Why? It's because Old World felt like a real world with real people. Bulk of the armies was made up of everyday people (dwarves, clan rats etc) called up for war. Then there were smaller elites who were led by heroes and monsters who seemed ever so badder because they contrasted with everyday schmucks.

AoS universe is a vaguely defined group of dimensions where everyone is toughest, most vicious and badass, elitest of the elite, best of the best of the best and completely detached from any kind of real counterpart. It is just so TIRESOME. Here is a hint for fantasy writers: when everything is super, nothing is super.

Easy now....

The ICV2, whilst interesting, isn't completely reliable where GW are concerned, because GW themselves don't partake.

I went over this in another thread, so I can remember some of the specifics.

In North America, a little over £11,000,000 of GW's income was through third parties.

But, a little over £7,000,000 was from GW retail sales.

And to add intrigue? Their third parties (defined as 'Trade' on the annual report) includes sales direct to retailers, as well as through distributors - so we don't even know if the full £11,000,000 is included.

Ignore the Warmachine comment - I was having a thick.

It's Armada that's dropped off.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen. The debate has concluded. Age of Sigmar seems to be contributing quite heavily to the growth of the company:


http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Age of Sigmar is the 4th best selling game in the north-american table top miniatures market. Still not as good as old Fantasy (top 3) in its heyday but it's a tendency and it certainly shows a noticeable growth in the game, since they didn't feature in the previous top 5s.

Well now, here's a very pleasant turn up. Maybe this argument can finally be put to bed now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Easy now....

The ICV2, whilst interesting, isn't completely reliable where GW are concerned, because GW themselves don't partake.

I went over this in another thread, so I can remember some of the specifics.

In North America, a little over £11,000,000 of GW's income was through third parties.

But, a little over £7,000,000 was from GW retail sales.

And to add intrigue? Their third parties (defined as 'Trade' on the annual report) includes sales direct to retailers, as well as through distributors - so we don't even know if the full £11,000,000 is included.

Though interesting that Warmachine has dropped off, but not Hordes. I'd have figured (through assumption, nothing more) that Warmachine was the bigger seller out the two.

I changed my point to "seems", since I remembered it to not be 100% reliable. Still, it's an interesting and usable (but not surefire) way of gauging the non-gw retailers.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen. The debate has concluded. Age of Sigmar seems to be contributing quite heavily to the growth of the company:


http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Age of Sigmar is the 4th best selling game in the north-american table top miniatures market. Still not as good as old Fantasy (top 3) in its heyday but it's a tendency and it certainly shows a noticeable growth in the game, since they didn't feature in the previous top 5s.

Lol.

*someone uses ICV2 to show AOS hasn't been selling well*
GW Defenders: "Yeah, but ICV2 is a flawed system."
*ICV2 shows growth in AOS*
GW Defenders: "Look, ICV2 shows AOS is growing!!"

It's Armada that's dropped off.

Yeah, not really a surprise, FFG seem to have run out of steam with that one. One thing that history shows us is a game needs support to keep going, and Armada hasn't had a release of note in what feels like a looong time.

Still a puzzle why they categorise WM and Hordes differently too. There's odd licensing issues from way back when, but from a sales point of view it doesn't seem to make sense.

True that - again provided it reaches most suppliers etc, who then respond.

I'd love to see a more indepth breakdown. Even if it's ultimately a bit shonky for evidence, it would be an interesting read!