Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 16:45:50
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Deadnight wrote:niall78 wrote:
Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
Reading Wayne's previous posts though, it does seem that, unfortunately for him, the players in his area (and, according to some, American gamers in general, apparently) are completely uninterested in the idea of 'community'. You are an 'opponent' and the relationship ends there. There is no will to take it further. No building. No working together. No 'community'. Just a bunch of disconnected, disinterested individuals. Ultimately self destructive f you ask me, but there are plenty gamers out there like this that can't see beyond the next game and can't see the value in proactive effort, communication, organisation and community building, and instead scoff at these very same ideas.
niall78 wrote:
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
I'm on your side Niall but That's the optimistic view. It's not the universal view, sadly. I think there are a lot of entitled gamers out there. I also think that inertia is one of the greatest problems in the community. In other words, I don't see the majority of gamers putting in the effort. I also don't see people interested in other people putting in the effort for other games, and often, it's the store owners that are unwilling to buy in/stock new product and that often puts a bucket of cold water over the entire thing.
niall78 wrote:
I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.
An interesting counterpoint to think on for you Niall - I would rather play an opponent who only plays one game, but plays it in a huge variety of ways, rather than an opponent who plays hundreds of games but approaches every one with the same mindset. Might be a different language, but the conversation remains exactly the same!
Great post Deadnight - if a little depressing. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I believe a club is vital to allowing multiple games to be played. The benefits are simply enormous.
I've played lots of Bolt Action and Flames of War. I own no forces or terrain for either system. I have guys regularly playing KoW that have no fantasy armies. Without a club such situations are much harder to achieve - in fact probably impossible.
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
Onto your counterpoint - sorry I'll have to learn to break-up posts I'm replying to. I think many gaming tactics are universal no matter the system. Also some games are much deeper tactically than others on the market. Some systems grow stale quickly due to lack of tactical options or lack of force balance or diversity. I've found X-wing and Armada to be very deep - I'm a noob but I love the many options and tactics available and the very decent balance that rewards experimentation in force selection. I play Battletech to an insanely high level after thirty years of table and on line play. WFB was a bit cookie-cutter but still rewarded good play in general - it helped to house-rule it fairly heavily. In my opinion it's great to enjoy your favourites often - especially if they are a rewarding game experience. It's also good to try other things to keep things from going stale - tactics are universal in many cases and it's nice to find ways to implement them in different games.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:04:45
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
niall78 wrote: shinros wrote: TheAuldGrump wrote: Zywus wrote:For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 17:08:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:09:44
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
niall78 wrote:
Great post Deadnight - if a little depressing. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I believe a club is vital to allowing multiple games to be played. The benefits are simply enormous.
I've played lots of Bolt Action and Flames of War. I own no forces or terrain for either system. I have guys regularly playing KoW that have no fantasy armies. Without a club such situations are much harder to achieve - in fact probably impossible.
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
I think this might be better suited to a topic of its own, but in my experience it's more or less that, at least in the US, gamers don't want to do it. I don't quite know a reason but I know I've seen more insular people that "only" play Warhammer and you're a hater/fanboy/etc. if you dare to suggest another game they might like or one that sounds fun. It's very close-minded here, at least what I can tell (others might have varying viewpoints if they are lucky enough to be in an area that isn't that way). People are more likely to be a "Warhammer player" instead of a "wargamer" if that makes sense. Of course GW/Warhammer isn't the only people who suffer from that, I also know Warmachine players that are "only" Warmachine players, unlike myself where I want to be a "wargamer". I want to explore various games, even if it's something I'm not that interested in just to broaden my horizons. You are also exactly right, a game shop centric mentality doesn't allow this, in fact it's generally considered to be extremely rude to show up and not have your own models (if you play the game, that is, not if you're just interested in it), while in a club you can show up and chances are people will have something set up or whatnot so you can still play, even without buying your own force.
Again, it's not specifically a US thing (there are areas that have solid gaming clubs) it's more of a side effect of the idea of pick-up game culture and having a game shop be the "hub" for your gaming.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:13:26
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
niall78 wrote:
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
The tl;dr answer to the question, if you ask me, is that in my opinion, a lot of gamers are generally self centred and lazy and would rather complain about issues that actually step up and do anything about it.
niall78 wrote:
Onto your counterpoint - sorry I'll have to learn to break-up posts I'm replying to. I think many gaming tactics are universal no matter the system. Also some games are much deeper tactically than others on the market. Some systems grow stale quickly due to lack of tactical options or lack of force balance or diversity. I've found X-wing and Armada to be very deep - I'm a noob but I love the many options and tactics available and the very decent balance that rewards experimentation in force selection. I play Battletech to an insanely high level after thirty years of table and on line play. WFB was a bit cookie-cutter but still rewarded good play in general - it helped to house-rule it fairly heavily. In my opinion it's great to enjoy your favourites often - especially if they are a rewarding game experience. It's also good to try other things to keep things from going stale - tactics are universal in many cases and it's nice to find ways to implement them in different games.
I'll clarify. I don't mean tactics. I mean attitudes. If all you want to do with your hundreds of wargames is play brutal, turn-it-up-to-11, take no prisoners, ultra competitive all the time, every time, against every opponent, and cannot even envision the concept of turning it off, or turning it down a notch, then every game is fundamentally the same. Nothing wrong with competitive mind, I am a competitive player, but there are times when it's nice to do something different.
If you can approach your one game as a competitive one some of the time, as a casual one, some of the time, as a narrative vehicle some of the time, with an attitude where exploring all the aspects of the game, all of the features of the game etc, rather than just picking one and running with it. That's what I mean.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:46:03
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Zywus wrote:Davor wrote:Is it GW loss if people play other systems but still keep buying GW minis?
It is actually. Not in the short term and obviously it's a lot better for GW than if people neither play the games or buy the models.
However, a huge competitive edge that GW managed to cultivate (either knowingly or accidentally) was the sentiment among players that GW rules and models are inexorably intertwined. Especially since GW games were the big dog on the market. (Now only 40K retains that position).
Someone playing a GW game will generally first consider the GW models and only if they don't like them they'll consider other manufacturers. Some will even buy GW models they don't like the look of because the connection between the game and the models or for fear they won't be able to use other models pleying in GW stores. Someone playing for instance T9A or KoW with their GW models and decide to expand the army or get a new one will probably consider GW, but those models now need to compete on a lot more even playing field with models from Mierce, Puppetswar, Avatars of War, MOM etc...
Short term at least, GW gets a lot of sales from people using the models in T9A, KoW etc, but they lose a lot of mindshare by people playing other games than the one connected to their minis and that means they eventually lose marketshare since their model sales were propped up by the models being connected to widely played games.
The situation is more dire when it comes to 40K since Space marines is such a huge portion of the sales. There's not really any other popular game that I'm aware of where GW Space Marine models fit in (unless we count 30K), so anyone stopping playing 40K will probably soon stop buying Space Marines.
Good post. Well said.
|
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong". |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:51:16
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
shinros wrote:niall78 wrote: shinros wrote: TheAuldGrump wrote: Zywus wrote:For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
For you this whole case shoulnd matter you like the Vampire counts and religious side of the Empire, if Warhammer would return you wont have any problem making an army.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 17:53:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:53:25
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:niall78 wrote: shinros wrote: TheAuldGrump wrote: Zywus wrote:For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you. At most what's going to happen is GW is going to allow CA to make even more DLC to get more money out of people and it's working. People can use their money however they wish, but in my eyes it's strange to hate a company and still give them your money.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 17:54:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 17:55:35
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:niall78 wrote: shinros wrote: TheAuldGrump wrote: Zywus wrote:For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you. At most what's going to happen is GW is going to allow CA to make even more DLC to get more money out of people and it's working.
Fine with me. I like game and the setting. It will just show how brain dead their are with thier miniature games, which is their core business.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 17:56:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 18:03:54
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Deadnight wrote:niall78 wrote:
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
The tl;dr answer to the question, if you ask me, is that in my opinion, a lot of gamers are generally self centred and lazy and would rather complain about issues that actually step up and do anything about it.
niall78 wrote:
Onto your counterpoint - sorry I'll have to learn to break-up posts I'm replying to. I think many gaming tactics are universal no matter the system. Also some games are much deeper tactically than others on the market. Some systems grow stale quickly due to lack of tactical options or lack of force balance or diversity. I've found X-wing and Armada to be very deep - I'm a noob but I love the many options and tactics available and the very decent balance that rewards experimentation in force selection. I play Battletech to an insanely high level after thirty years of table and on line play. WFB was a bit cookie-cutter but still rewarded good play in general - it helped to house-rule it fairly heavily. In my opinion it's great to enjoy your favourites often - especially if they are a rewarding game experience. It's also good to try other things to keep things from going stale - tactics are universal in many cases and it's nice to find ways to implement them in different games.
I'll clarify. I don't mean tactics. I mean attitudes. If all you want to do with your hundreds of wargames is play brutal, turn-it-up-to-11, take no prisoners, ultra competitive all the time, every time, against every opponent, and cannot even envision the concept of turning it off, or turning it down a notch, then every game is fundamentally the same. Nothing wrong with competitive mind, I am a competitive player, but there are times when it's nice to do something different.
If you can approach your one game as a competitive one some of the time, as a casual one, some of the time, as a narrative vehicle some of the time, with an attitude where exploring all the aspects of the game, all of the features of the game etc, rather than just picking one and running with it. That's what I mean.
I get you now. I still think multiple systems are better. In Battletech for instance I usually play scenarios. I'm also involved in RPG campaigns for that system. You can't get fluffier. On the flip side I spent a good few years helping run some of the on-line MegaMek campaign servers where Battletech is played at a cut-throat level.
Game style is dependant on what the group wants in many ways. I tend to find multiple systems bring out the fluff better. Nobody is highly motivated being the best at a certain game.
Their investment and interest is spread wider diluting their competitive edge. It's also much less easier to break a game if you aren't playing it year after year - although game quality can help with this issue.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 18:09:59
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:niall78 wrote: shinros wrote: TheAuldGrump wrote: Zywus wrote:For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you. At most what's going to happen is GW is going to allow CA to make even more DLC to get more money out of people and it's working.
Fine with me. I like game and the setting. It will just show how brain dead their are with thier miniature games, which is their core business.
*sigh* okay whatever it's your cash.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 18:31:29
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
Mate, if GW wont bring Warhammer then I wont care. I voting for that universe. If GW dont get the massege I dont bother. I am not buying the TW: W, because of Warhammer universe alone. I like Total War series aswell. If GW goes along AoS, eh whatever, its their business. But the recent success of Total War: Warhammer just shows, that thier are doing it wrong.
By the Fantasy Flight is bringing out a rank and flank miniataure game called Runewars so I guess the absence of Warhammer Fantasy left a void in the market.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 18:34:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 18:36:37
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
TheAuldGrump wrote: Zywus wrote:For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes I remember. That was shameful. Thus my description of the game system as arguably the "crappiest excuse for a game system ever published".
Still, I bet the rules would have been even more reviled if they had cost money as well. That was after all the go-to excuse from the apologists in the beginning. "Would you rather keep paying hundreds of pounds for rules that was unbalanced anyway..." As if bad rules were a universal necessity in this world and the only choice was between eating free excrement and costly excrement. Not between eating free excrement and paying a fiver for a kebab.
Now it seems the excuse has been shifted more towards "Nah, those 'joke rules' rules were just there in the beginning. People lacked humor so GW removed them"
They haven't removed them though. Still to this day in the Chaos Warrior compendium there are the rules for Wulfrik
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Compendiums/warhammer-aos-warriors-of-chaos-en.pdf
Issue your opponent with a challenge of your own – you can be as mocking, rude or insulting as you dare; if your opponent rises to the bait and they change expression, even so much as crack a smile or a glimmer of shock, Wulfrik’s challenge is successful and you can re-roll failed hit rolls for any attacks he makes this phase against enemy Heroes.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 18:44:22
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
herjan1987 wrote:
Mate, if GW wont bring Warhammer then I wont care. I voting for that universe. If GW dont get the massege I dont bother. I am not buying the TW: W, because of Warhammer universe alone. I like Total War series aswell. If GW goes along AoS, eh whatever, its their business. But the recent success of Total War: Warhammer just shows, that thier are doing it wrong.
By the Fantasy Flight is bringing out a rank and flank miniataure game called Runewars so I guess the absence of Warhammer Fantasy left a void in the market.
If at least quarter(or less) of those people who bought that game bought the models instead of just reading about the universe it would still be here. I was one of them only read the books due to the price of doing a count army was silly so I did not do the table top. Of course it was axed I was sad but it did not surprise me. Considering the streamed event that just finished I think people are interested in AOS considering the amount of attendee's and the SCGT. Not only warhammer fans bought that game I suspect TT players and those who like the fluff are just a small margin.
GW don't care about the people who only like the universe or fluff they want people to buy models. Honestly I think people underestimate how many people actually like it but what ever opinions are opinions, not everyone likes the same thing.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 18:49:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 18:48:32
Subject: Re:Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
To add something here more that has some substance:
Warhammer Fantasy units were good in many reasons. Since the minis could be used for multiple games. Want to have some nice skeletons: Choose the TK or VC skeleton sprue. want some Arthurian knights go pick up some bretonnians. Want some renaissance age soldiers: pick up empire units and so on and so forth.
Its was also good since people could get hooked in a lot ways, because the range was diverse enought that people would find something that they like. The way that I look it AoS has only 2 steoreotypes, when come to the new models:
- Fantasy 40k
- Muscle bound 80s people
Thats not a lot to be honest.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 19:27:25
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
shinros wrote:....not everyone likes the same thing.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
The big problem with AoS is they killed WHFB to make it, so guess what, you're going to get a lot of WHFB fans canning it.
And as you said, not everyone likes the same thing, which is why it would have made sense to maintain WHFB and add AoS instead of killing WHFB.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 19:48:30
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote:
Mate, if GW wont bring Warhammer then I wont care. I voting for that universe. If GW dont get the massege I dont bother. I am not buying the TW: W, because of Warhammer universe alone. I like Total War series aswell. If GW goes along AoS, eh whatever, its their business. But the recent success of Total War: Warhammer just shows, that thier are doing it wrong.
By the Fantasy Flight is bringing out a rank and flank miniataure game called Runewars so I guess the absence of Warhammer Fantasy left a void in the market.
If at least quarter(or less) of those people who bought that game bought the models instead of just reading about the universe it would still be here. I was one of them only read the books due to the price of doing a count army was silly so I did not do the table top. Of course it was axed I was sad but it did not surprise me. Considering the streamed event that just finished I think people are interested in AOS considering the amount of attendee's and the SCGT. Not only warhammer fans bought that game I suspect TT players and those who like the fluff are just a small margin.
GW don't care about the people who only like the universe or fluff they want people to buy models. Honestly I think people underestimate how many people actually like it but what ever opinions are opinions, not everyone likes the same thing.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
Mate the problem is that I didnt know Fantasy existed in the first place. I know about GW and 40k for about 7 years, but I know about Fantasy about a year ago. I think I am not the only one that is in a similar situation.
The closest thing that I got to Warhammer Fantasy was the "Mark of Chaos" trailer, but even then I was wtf Warhammer is in space. Total War: Warhammer brought me into Fantasy, simular way like Dawn of War to the 40k universe.
About TW:W there are some good numbers to estimate the Warhammer fans. Rome 2 sold around 120k in the first week. Total War: Warhammer 500k.
I wont go around pricing of Warhammer, because thats a really old topic, but it was and still is an issue with GW.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 19:51:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 19:52:48
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:....not everyone likes the same thing.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
The big problem with AoS is they killed WHFB to make it, so guess what, you're going to get a lot of WHFB fans canning it.
And as you said, not everyone likes the same thing, which is why it would have made sense to maintain WHFB and add AoS instead of killing WHFB.
Of course there will be some whfb fans that will dislike the new game but they canned it to focus on a new game due to low sales you can't focus on two systems there is limited shelf space etc and along with the new AOS releases. So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad? It's too soon to say according to some people. Plus whats stopping you from playing 8th? Did GW take away your army books? Your miniatures? Mini war gaming still does bat raps for 8th. Maybe forge world might make a horus heresy like game in the future? who knows?
Still there are plenty of alternatives for those who liked whfb like KOW or 9th age. The whole point of my posts it's understandable why people are upset but there are other options out there like no longer giving them your money or finding a company that supports rank and file games. I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
According to the current stream they are interested in feedback to improve things for the game they are supporting like the general's handbook matched play and are planning to make the general handbook yearly with updated stuff going by certain results from tournmanets and feedback. Now if this game is not for you? Plenty of other stuff out there.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 19:56:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:01:23
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:03:05
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
Right, don't see this going anywhere cya then.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:06:05
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
shinros wrote:If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT?
Because GW fethed up and made it unappealing to buy. 8th edition simultaneously pissed off a lot of vets and also encouraged larger games at high model prices which made it hard for new players to get in to it. So you neither have the old fans buying in to it because they don't like the rules and potential new fans get put off by the insane price.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:07:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:06:33
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Gun Mage
|
The discontinuation of Imperial Knight Renegade makes me seriously question if GW has learned anything about pricing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:06:40
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
Right, don't see this going anywhere cya then.
Cool, don't let the door hit you on the way out I guess.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:07:01
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:08:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:09:59
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:10:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:11:55
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would you played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:17:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:16:54
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
shinros wrote:I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
Pro tip, you don't need to tell us you're not going to argue with someone and you are leaving the discussion, you can just not argue and leave the discussion. That's a wonderful thing about internet forums, unlike real life it's not impolite to simply stop replying
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:17:30
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
herjan1987 wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
Sooo you are telling me I chickened out? Sure buddy whatever you think. I am quite sure you make good arugments when you still give money to a company that has screwed over the thing you love several times. I am quite sure you know how to be a good consumer. As I said before I am done with the topic because I don't see the discussion going anywhere it does not matter if it has 30 years of lore if it's not making money in terms of models.
edit:Now honestly? If I had the choice between the two I would go with AOS because when I bought a few models I disliked ranking up because it prevented me from putting together the model how I wished. Plus I like converting how the game played largely got in the way of that since I like the more narrative battles for my armies and personalizing my stuff.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:22:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:20:53
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
Sooo you are telling me I chickened out? Sure buddy whatever you think. I am quite sure you make good arugments when you still give money to a company that has screwed over the thing you love several times. I am quite sure you know how to be a good consumer. As I said before I am done with the topic because I don't see the discussion going anywhere it does not matter if it has 30 years of lore if it's not making money in terms of models.
Who says I buy my stuff at GW? GW didnt screw me over. If you read my posts carefully. Can you answer my question?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:21:54
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: shinros wrote:So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shinros wrote:herjan1987 wrote: shinros wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
Sooo you are telling me I chickened out? Sure buddy whatever you think. I am quite sure you make good arugments when you still give money to a company that has screwed over the thing you love several times. I am quite sure you know how to be a good consumer. As I said before I am done with the topic because I don't see the discussion going anywhere it does not matter if it has 30 years of lore if it's not making money in terms of models.
Who says I buy my stuff at GW? GW didnt screw me over. If you read my posts carefully. Can you answer my question?
You are because you bought total war and possibly DLC through that you are still giving them money. What do you think GW are going to do with all those lovely royalties you gave them? Last post on the matter.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:24:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/11 20:25:50
Subject: Why do so many players demonize GW?
|
 |
Armored Iron Breaker
|
shinros wrote:
You are because you bought total war and possibly DLC through that you are still giving them money.
Sure, but its a Total War game aswell. Can you answer my question?
Would you play a VC army in a WHFB low model count skirmish game?
And I said you chickened out since you dont see that obvious points that people are making here. Just look at End Times, they released new models and WHFB was selling better again.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 20:26:00
|
|
 |
 |
|