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

I think we all saw this coming, and by last year it was becoming obvious with the number of board games GW has released independently of FFG. This all became obvious after Kirby stepped down, and it looks like we should expect GW to make more of an effort with board games and possibly rpgs. The market for boards games is growing exponentially, and it makes sense that GW might want to expand into that market on their own.

Besides, GW becoming more involved with game design and proper rule development, will hopefully improve their miniatures rules as well. So aside from the FFG games now becoming out of print, this might herald the change GW desperately needs, with an emphasis on good game design.

Maybe GW will decided to keep the RPGs (or some of them at least) going, and maybe the workload will be so big they'll have to keep using freelancers.

(/slim hope)

 Zingraff wrote:
So aside from the FFG games now becoming out of print, this might herald the change GW desperately needs, with an emphasis on good game design.

I wouldn't bet anything on it. GW's rules are still as bad as they've always been, so why would anyone expect a new board game or RPG to be any good? I think the much more realistic interpretation of GW's actions is that they're interested in finding alternative ways to milk the cash cow of their existing product lines. Spending a few minutes coming up with a new "game" and bundling it with the same old models they're already selling costs them next to nothing and doesn't require any long-term support (if, like GW, you just dump them on the market one after the other). It's not at all the same kind of thing as a serious investment into the board game market with a whole new product line. So I expect to see more of the same: minimal-effort "games" that people only buy to get more models they can use in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe GW will decided to keep the RPGs (or some of them at least) going, and maybe the workload will be so big they'll have to keep using freelancers.

(/slim hope)

When I win the lottery and buy GW I will do that.

(Hey, it's about as likely as GW doing it voluntarily...)

 Peregrine wrote:
And the GoT license. And Netrunner. And a whole lot of board games. I think it's safe to say FFG has some backup plans available.

On the Mythos side alone, FFG publishes Eldritch Horror, Arkham Horror, Mansions of Madness 2nd edition, Elder Sign, and the upcoming Arkham Horror: The Card Game. That's a lot of Innsmouth gold right there!

As for GW publishing poor games, Warhammer Quest: Tower of Whatever has been well-received on BGG for its dice-allocation system, despite "some assembly required". Space Hulk reached The Hotness whenever it gets printed, and Blood Bowl is coming.

ced1106 wrote:
As for GW publishing poor games, Warhammer Quest: Tower of Whatever has been well-received on BGG for its dice-allocation system, despite "some assembly required". Space Hulk reached The Hotness whenever it gets printed, and Blood Bowl is coming.

Yeah, the "core" games do well, but I'm thinking more of stuff like the knight or flyer "games" where it was just a bundle deal on existing model kits with game rules that nobody cared about and GW forgot about within a week of releasing them. Or, if forum impressions are accurate, the 30k "game" where most of the sales were people buying plastic space marines for their 30k/40k armies and throwing the board game stuff in the garbage. And in all of the cases they had new plastic models for their core miniatures games as a selling point, it's been a long time since GW has done anything with a traditional board game that doesn't include "build and paint it" miniatures.

 Peregrine wrote:
... it's been a long time since GW has done anything with a traditional board game that doesn't include "build and paint it" miniatures.

Bit of an odd criticism to make given the last non-miniature games GW put out (IIRC, and excluding any WD freebies) were the counter-games from the early 90's.

B@C is an excellent rule set. I bought it for the game and we played all the scenarios plus additional from WDs released after the game came out. I wish they'd make additional tile sets and boxed force pairings (e.g., Orks versus SMs or whatever).

DWOK is also a very solid game. We played through all the scenarios for that and were working on building the Imperial Guard to use with an expansion from WD from few months back. The SMs in that game play more like the fluff for most missions and can heal every turn----so you have to hit them with armor save negating stuff or cause 'em to fail and then hit 'em again right after or they come right back.

WHQ is a very fun game that was played quite a lot at the FLGS after its release. People who weren't normally miniatures gamers were in line to get in on a cool multi-player experience. Felt more RPG-ish and had less well-defined rules than B@C or DWOK.

Execution Force was the first game in their recent-ish lineup and the only one I own that I've not played through. That's not because it's bad but because we were too busy playing the other GW games at the FLGS before I moved to my current gaming desert.

I watched a playthrough of Lost Patrol and decided to skip it. I agree that its gameplay looks very 'meh' and boils down to rolling dice and hoping you're lucky. Gorechosen initially didn't interest me but the promo with rules overview looks better than I thought. I'd play it but wouldn't buy it unless gameplay is really good.

My point is the rules for many of their new board games---at least to our group---were well received. They've got pretty decent ratings on BoardGameGeek, too.

I'd go with that p4h.

WHQ I found to be far to removed from the original though and a bit too easy.

I'd really like to see GW make a conquest type game but suspect with say BFG ships but HW are more about the conflict than resources I think.

As for RPGs it would be good to see BL pick these back up again but with WFRP just no having a background anymore I just can't see it. But haven't they been a bit quiet of late, maybe their writing 40kRPG.....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Bit of an odd criticism to make given the last non-miniature games GW put out (IIRC, and excluding any WD freebies) were the counter-games from the early 90's.

It's not criticism, it's just pointing out that GW hasn't done anything like FFG's licensed products. This is in the context of the idea of GW successfully doing their own versions to replace the FFG stuff. And right now it doesn't seem too likely that GW would do it, or that they would be successful given their disappointing history at branching off into side games.

I think it's more the lack of support than anything.

I mean, it sure was nice to get a lot of extra rules in this month's WD, but aside from that what has GW done to support its various board games?

Hulk was released and forgotten about. Twice. DW Overkill should really be re-titled Deathwatch Overture because it was more a reintroduction of the Deathwatch and Genestealer Cult as active parts of 40K. Renegade? The flyer one whatever it's called? Just miniature packs - good ones, great deals - but nothing more than that. I'd even say that the Horus Heresy one is little more than a vehicle to test out how plastic Heresy miniatures available world-wide in stores would do (very well, apparently).

Silver Tower, a game that is quite a lot of fun, got a miniature expansion and... that's it. There's no real legs to that game, not like original Quest. That was a game we could play for months and never get bored, but Silver Tower? What do you do once you've won? Just play new characters?

And none of these games have any follow up.

I've been reading a number of old WD's recently, all from around the time I started playing (the bit at the end of RT and start of 2nd Ed 40K). During this time there were new releases for Space Marine 2nd Ed coming all the time. Man'O'War launched, and got quite a few releases to support it (including Plague Fleet and Seas of Blood). The edition of Warhammer that came out before the Lizardmen were introduced (I want to say 4th ed?) came out and in that issue they're already saying how 'Battle Magic' is going to expand the game, and within a few months new Army Books were out. Even with 40K the rapidity between the initial release, then Dark Millennium, then Codices Space Wolves, Eldar and Orks all all one after the other was just nuts.

Support, support, support. That's what GW did. They had their core games (Warhammer, 40K and Epic - yes, Epic was core), and they kept up the support. They always had 'extra' games on the go, be it Man'O'War, or Necromunda and so on, and they kept up support. They'd publish swathes of rules in WD straight out of recently released or soon-to-be-released Codices/Army Books so people could try out the new units before jumping into the full release.

I just don't see them doing that now. An extra set of character rules for the free mini on the cover does not constitute 'support' for Silver Tower. A single Hulk mission months after it came out is not 'support'. It's a good way to sell a magazine, no doubt about that but that's about it.




And man that post ended up longer than I intended.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's more the lack of support than anything.

I mean, it sure was nice to get a lot of extra rules in this month's WD, but aside from that what has GW done to support its various board games?

Hulk was released and forgotten about. Twice.

4th ed. Space Hulk had 3 mission packs for Dark Angels, Ultramarines and Space Wolves. That sounds like support to me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
DW Overkill should really be re-titled Deathwatch Overture because it was more a reintroduction of the Deathwatch and Genestealer Cult as active parts of 40K.

Deathwatch Overkill has had 2 new things since release- options to play the campaign as Tempestus troopers, as well as a prelude mission to DWO where they try to make it back to warn someone about the cultists. Additional rules for the new Deathwatch minis.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Horus Heresy one is little more than a vehicle to test out how plastic Heresy miniatures available world-wide in stores would do (very well, apparently).

White Dwarf have done a fair number of additional missions for that so far...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Silver Tower, a game that is quite a lot of fun, got a miniature expansion and... that's it. There's no real legs to that game, not like original Quest. That was a game we could play for months and never get bored, but Silver Tower? What do you do once you've won? Just play new characters?

Yes, for now. Plus if Sad Panda is anything to go by (which he is, since he's on the money 100% every time) we'll be seeing some Undead expansion stuff for that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just don't see them doing that now. An extra set of character rules for the free mini on the cover does not constitute 'support' for Silver Tower. A single Hulk mission months after it came out is not 'support'. It's a good way to sell a magazine, no doubt about that but that's about it.

If the new White Dwarf is anything to go by, we'll be seeing a lot more content for those titles. As for your above argument that they haven't been adding support, just shows you haven't really been paying attention. The only real point you have there is with Renegade and the dogfighting game.

If that inside source from the previous page is true, and I've no reason to doubt it, then it's further proff that ending my involvement with GW was the right move.

Who are they to lay down the law to another company on what they should and shouldn't do?

GW should be making their own RPGs at any rate, like what they used to do, rather than outsource to somebody else.

That would be the smart move.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If that inside source from the previous page is true...

I very much doubt this. I mean, GW may think that they invented the grenade launcher, skulls and arrows (and they are on the record as saying as such), but I doubt they're deluded enough that they can tell another company what they're allowed to produce with IP that is not GW's, and that that company will somehow roll over and do as they are told.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If that inside source from the previous page is true...

I very much doubt this. I mean, GW may think that they invented the grenade launcher, skulls and arrows (and they are on the record as saying as such), but I doubt they're deluded enough that they can tell another company what they're allowed to produce with IP that is not their own, and that that company will somehow roll over and do as they are told.

I shouldn't really be replying to somebody on my ignore list

but GW are messing with one of my favourite companies, and this will not stand. This aggression will not stand.

There are ways to get back at GW. Next time I'm in WH Smith (British shop that sells magazines)

I'm going to hide all the copies of White Dwarf behind the women's magazines. Take that Games Workshop!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

GW should be making their own RPGs at any rate, like what they used to do, rather than outsource to somebody else.

They will need much better rules writers first.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

GW should be making their own RPGs at any rate, like what they used to do, rather than outsource to somebody else.

They will need much better rules writers first.

They used to have an abundance of good rules writers at one time, and if they're serious about getting back on track, that should be a top priority for Rountree.

Rules writers are incredibly specialist, and tend to be quite independently minded. I mean, if you're working for a specific client with their own IP or established ruleset, you obviously follow the brief and fit in with the other members of the team and avoid being a prima donna or auteur type. But that's quite different from the kind of blind loyalty (or at least, blinkered loyalty -- the outside world does not exist!) that the GW corporate culture demands, and that IMO is the enemy of creativity.

Unless Rountree has turned around one of the central pillars of GW recruiting, i.e. that attitude is more important than skills or experience because if you have the right attitude we can train you (can we? who at GW is going to train up the next generation of rules writers?)...

Unless he has sacked or retrained the entire HR department...

GW will not recruit good rules writers. They no longer know how to recruit good rules writers. They would not know a good rules writer if they tripped over one. They would struggle to recognise a good rule.

Edit: just to clarify, I am more than happy to give Rountree and GW credit where it's due: the last, what, 18 months or so, have marked a major turnaround, for the better, at least in terms of model releases. But the 40K rules are a giant mess, getting bigger and messier with each new release.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Rules writers are incredibly specialist, and tend to be quite independently minded. I mean, if you're working for a specific client with their own IP or established ruleset, you obviously follow the brief and fit in with the other members of the team and avoid being a prima donna or auteur type. But that's quite different from the kind of blind loyalty (or at least, blinkered loyalty -- the outside world does not exist!) that the GW corporate culture demands, and that IMO is the enemy of creativity.

Unless Rountree has turned around one of the central pillars of GW recruiting, i.e. that attitude is more important than skills or experience because if you have the right attitude we can train you (can we? who at GW is going to train up the next generation of rules writers?)...

Unless he has sacked or retrained the entire HR department...

GW will not recruit good rules writers. They no longer know how to recruit good rules writers. They would not know a good rules writer if they tripped over one. They would struggle to recognise a good rule.

Edit: just to clarify, I am more than happy to give Rountree and GW credit where it's due: the last, what, 18 months or so, have marked a major turnaround, for the better, at least in terms of model releases. But the 40K rules are a giant mess, getting bigger and messier with each new release.

There's bound to be good freelancers out there they can hire?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I shouldn't really be replying to somebody on my ignore list

Forgive me. I will refrain from attempting to have reasonable conversations with you over topics I enjoy in the future. How embarrassing!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but GW are messing with one of my favourite companies, and this will not stand. This aggression will not stand.

They're not really 'messing' with anyone. It's two companies who are bringing a partnership to a close. To attribute malice (or really any sort of motive beyond the most mundane) is somewhat of an overreaction.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There are ways to get back at GW. Next time I'm in WH Smith (British shop that sells magazines)

I'm going to hide all the copies of White Dwarf behind the women's magazines. Take that Games Workshop!

Alrightythen. You do that! God's speed.

Very sad news. FFG, not GW, was what got me into the 40K universe.
Without playing in that toy box, I wouldn't be now playing in GW's. :(

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's bound to be good freelancers out there they can hire?

Sure. I mean they could hire Eric Lang and he would produce a 40K ruleset that would put GW dominating the market for miniatures games again (rather than just miniatures). But they don't seem to work like that. They would rather promote someone from the warehouse who has a really good attitude, and hope for the best.

Rick Priestley worked in the warehouse before he was given a chance to write for GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Bit of an odd criticism to make given the last non-miniature games GW put out (IIRC, and excluding any WD freebies) were the counter-games from the early 90's.

It's not criticism, it's just pointing out that GW hasn't done anything like FFG's licensed products. This is in the context of the idea of GW successfully doing their own versions to replace the FFG stuff. And right now it doesn't seem too likely that GW would do it, or that they would be successful given their disappointing history at branching off into side games.

I've been a registered user of BoardGameGeek for 11 years, and an unregistered user for nearly 15 years, and their rating system is trustworthy and reliable. Three of the five board games GW has released since 2015, are all getting solid reviews on BGG; Betrayal at Calth gets an average rating of 8.1, based on 87 ratings, Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower gets an average of 7.9, based on 379 ratings, and Deathwatch Overkill gets 7.6 based on 69 ratings.

Games that get ratings approaching or surpassing 8.0 on BGG are usually exceptionally well-made, and ratings of 9.0 or more are almost entirely unheard of. I don't need to explain the basics of statistics to you, but an average of nearly 8.0 based on almost 400 individual ratings is significant on BGG. Claiming that GW can't make good board games, or that their games are just mindless bundles of miniatures, is clearly incorrect, - but GW is not FFG and you shouldn't expect GW to start publishing FFG-style board games. It's good that GW sets out by basing their games on their expertise in miniatures because this sets GW apart from everyone else, if they had begun to publish the sort of games FFG creates, they would have been overlooked by the community. The "dudes on a map"-type board games GW has focused on, have been sorely missing from the board game market for a number of years, and the games GW is making both stands out and gets impressive reviews.

As for those of you saying GW should start to publish the games FFG developed under the GW license; such as FFG's Forbidden Stars, then IP-laws prevent that from happening. The GW imagery is obviously GW IP, but the actual game mechanics are also protected by IP-laws and are the property of FFG. In the future FFG could decide to re-release Forbidden Stars, but they would need to re-theme the game. If GW wanted to publish to Forbidden Stars, they would have to legally obtain the board game patent from FFG. This also explains why Fury of Dracula is a GW intellectual property, and how the game could be leased to FFG. The Dracula character is obviously not protected by copyright laws any more, but the FoD game has been the IP-property of GW since 1987.

It's mainly sad news because when this sort of stuff happens I am never in position to buy the games I want. Boo and hiss!

I am looking forwards to seeing what FFG do next, and where GW takes things.

My understanding is that game mechanics themselves are not copyrightable...but rather the specific expression of those mechanics (the exact words used).

https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/copyright.php

Also, what patents do you think FFG have for Forbidden Stars? Are you incorrectly using the term patent? If there is one on the game and I'm mistaken, can you post the number or a pic of the patent pending statement? It should be on the box.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Inside scoop, Source is on first name basis with Christian Petersen:

FFG was aware that they would lose the license "more than a year ago", the way it was said made it seem like it was more like 2+, though it wasnt an "official" thing so much as it was "were probably not going to be renewing it".

FFG developed a game for a GW IP and reskinned it to another setting and released it, source wouldnt reveal what game but I *think* he subtley implied that Armada started out as a Battlefleet Gothic game.

It was more of a mutual decision than anything else, as FFG and GW couldnt find agreeable terms. GW was unhappy with the success of FFGs XWing and Imperial Assault, and began to view FFG as a direct competitor in the marketplace. Word is that GW demanded that FFG cease production of those product lines with the threat that they wouldnt renew the license if FFG did not comply. FFG, naturally, said "hell no". This was quite some time ago and is the reason why FFG "knew" they would be losing the license, further work on all unannounced GW products was halted at this time, with the exception of those that were well into the development and/or production process, such as Conquest, they didnt want to leave the last cycle incomplete. They also didnt want to take the chance that GW would relent when the terms came up for renegotiation (sometime in the past 3 months), so they felt it better to continue work on something that was viewed as low cost and low risk in the event that the license was pulled.

FFG is going to be taking a bit of a hit as a result of the loss of the license, or would have if they werent now part of Asmodee. Prior to acquisition, GW IP accounted for something like 10-20% of FFGs revenue (possible hyperbole?).

Believed Rune Wars was developed in part to spite GW, not so much because there is resentment, but more because of incredulity over GWs demands that FFG drop some of its biggest sellers and GWs belief that FFG was now a competitor. Something like "We'll shoe them what competition really looks like."

Lol what an absolute load of complete and utter rubbish.

"Yes! Let us make a capital ship combat game based on a pretty obscure GW game from 20 years ago, and *not* a spin-off from our insanely popular spaceship game based on the biggest and most popular science fiction IP in the entire world! bFG all the way baby!" Hahaha, no chance.

As for GW making "demands" of FFG to drop Their biggest selling SW licenses? I don't even

 notprop wrote:
Rick Priestley worked in the warehouse before he was given a chance to write for GW.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm absolutely not saying that warehouse workers shouldn't be given the chance to write, or design rules. I've done plenty of manual labour jobs myself and even if I hadn't I wouldn't think any the less of people who do.

It was just an example.

In this case, you don't want your lead game designer for your main game to be *just* promoted from warehouse worker, though, unless they also have a pedigree of successful game design on the side. Not when there are more experienced people out there, as there are these days (but weren't so many in the early 80s). Hiring Rick right now, after three decades of game design experience, would be a fine move (if, again, one GW probably won't make).

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Rick Priestley worked in the warehouse before he was given a chance to write for GW.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm absolutely not saying that warehouse workers shouldn't be given the chance to write, or design rules. I've done plenty of manual labour jobs myself and even if I hadn't I wouldn't think any the less of people who do.

It was just an example.

In this case, you don't want your lead game designer for your main game to be *just* promoted from warehouse worker, though, unless they also have a pedigree of successful game design on the side. Not when there are more experienced people out there, as there are these days (but weren't so many in the early 80s). Hiring Rick right now, after three decades of game design experience, would be a fine move (if, again, one GW probably won't make).

Sticking my neck out here.

if you wanted more of the same old from GW then yeah, re hiring Priestly would be a good move.

If you expect GW rules sets to move on with a robust set of rules with writing everyone can benefit form then someone like RP needs to be given a proper brief.

A lot of the mess that Gw finds itself in ruleswise is because of decisions made 30 years ago that no one has felt the need to challenge.

I woild find it hard to believe that Armada could be a "re-skin" of Battlefleet Gothic. I just bought extensively into Armada, and have owned several fleets for Battlefleet Gothic since it came out, and Armada has the feel of starting out right away as a Star Wars game.

The Armada rules would have made for a pretty different BFG game- almost every other fleet-scale game on the marlet is more like BFG than Armada, which really only shares the ponderous cruiser theme. The squadron phase alone is like the best of both worlds of BFG escort squadrons and fighter/bombers combined.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


but GW are messing with one of my favourite companies, and this will not stand. This aggression will not stand.

As has already been said, there's no real reason to attribute malice or ill-will to it. GW likely knew when X-Wing took off that the days of the license were limited, as did FFG. The request was very likely pro forma and both sides knew what the outcome would be long before the request was made; some things are done in the business world just for the sake of saying that they were done. The notice was given, the box was checked, and now they split ways.

If GW had immediately revoked the license or either side was talking about lawsuits, then that would be signs of aggression. Likely this has been coming for a while now, and is just how business works at times. FFG didn't have that opportunity when they got the 40k license, then they did, and now they're both moving on. As has been said it likely hurts GW far more than FFG, but it's their license to hand out or not.