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.

If I remember correctly, Shinros outed you as never have read the books when you were judging them at "launch day".

Your attitude towards the fluff likely didn't help promote a civil conversation as well. One should want to bother learning lore to enjoy it, not just to debate it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ventus wrote:
The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.

The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.

Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...

One of the worst RNGfests I've ever played. Terminators with garbage armor fight in confines they can't effectively navigate with defective weapons. I own both versions, and out of my massive collection of board games the only one less popular than old Space Hulk is the new one.

RNG?

Random number generator.

It basically means one bad roll by you (or a computer's ai) can ruin all your careful planning and best attempts at winning by no fault of your own.
(Examples being Mordheim or Darkest Dungeon)
It's easier to swallow on tabletop where that's always the case rather than videogames where people feel like they've been cheated.

I think the reason that random dice rolls hit harder in GW games is because its alternate army activations. If its not your turn and a dice roll goes against your favour, your opponent can instantly capitalise on that before you get a chance to counter.

That said there is a balance in random whereby it harms you but doesn't cripple you.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:

To be fair someone shouldn't have to read that much to be enamored with a universe's lore but on the otherhand good luck finding anything but a very small group of AoS haters that bothered to even read the wiki.

Honestly why would they bother, genuine attempts on my part to try and get a handle on some aspects of the fluff that were a sticking point was met with self-righteous posturing and accusations of trolling by the AoS community, the fans are evidently quite happy in their wee bubble branding anyone who wasn't 1000% on-board on launch day as a "hater"

I mean, you kind of where doing trolling, making very pointed statements on the community as a whole based on one comment... out of three pages of helpful info and rather corteous behavior.

 Galas wrote:
If Videogames and Movies can do it, why not GW?

Remakes and reboots? Yeah. Learn from Hollywood

Could be talking about Mario Odyssey and Marvel.

No need to be innovative, just make them fun and awesome even if it is treading on already used paths.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
For me and my group, the rules are not the most important aspect of the game. They are third or fourth in the list of things that make a game fun. However, the clarity of the rule book can make or break a game before it starts. Hence, Space Hulk is one of our favorites, while we never managed to get into 40k.

The 40K rule book is the biggest thing getting in the way of the game (at least in 5th, 6th & 7th editions). We had to stop pretty much once a turn to try and figure out how some special rule interacted with another one. The core mechanics were easy enough, but it was always the special rules interactions that broke our immersion every time.

Baron Klatz wrote:
If I remember correctly, Shinros outed you as never have read the books when you were judging them at "launch day".

Your attitude towards the fluff likely didn't help promote a civil conversation as well. One should want to bother learning lore to enjoy it, not just to debate it.

I don't have a clue what you're on about, so you might want to have a wee delve back into that memory and double check before you throw around accusations.

For the record, I was perfectly civil, open about my prior dislike and my ignorance of the material on the point being discussed, and tried multiple times to genuinely and honestly explain the issue I was trying to wrap my head around(the "nebulous" nature of the realms - I thought that maybe by figuring out some actual, observable, even mappable structure to the reality AoS exists in I could find a "way in"; 40K is much easier to get a grip on because you can just say "mostly our galaxy" and your brain fills in the rest). A few folk were willing to discuss it for a handful of posts but didn't really understand my point and things quickly went to pot as half the thread decided to wander off on a tangent among themselves and the other half resorted to accusations of trolling or PMs basically saying I was just too thick to understand the majesty of AoS' fluff.

You can believe what you like, but the AoS community has just as many toxic and self-righteous gits in it as any other, and lost the moral high ground a fair wee while ago.

I don't have a clue what you're on about, so you might want to have a wee delve back into that memory and double check before you throw around accusations. 

Hmm, perhaps. At the very least it seems it was around 2016 rather than launch day like I thought. I'll check more into it later, maybe it was someone else and for some reason I thought of you, if so full apologies, but it seems so clear...

Anyway, kudos on making that awesome thread! The discussions there were greater than I expected and it even gave birth to the epic inspirational art thread and so many people got questions they needed answered(which brought a few people iffy on the lore back around) while making so many great ideas for races and rpgs!

I'm really sorry that those few guys hassled you because of your heavy anti-AoS past but the grand majority were very friendly, informative and so enthusiastic for the subject with Shinros showing why he's a loremaster.

At least your question was answered and even if you can't connect now there's some really good points there why AoS might bring you back.

And if not, hey, just have a massive Malakai expedition into the chaos wastes with state of the art airships to justify your Overlord purchase.

Being innovative isn't easy, doubly so while also making a well-oiled ruleset. Then, there is no gaurantee it will be popular.

GW has huge problems iwth the second part - rules. Many of their games only retain playability due to the RND factor of their rules, rather than any sort of strategizing. The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No". Contrast that to Heroes of Normandie, if you will, which is an entire cardboard boardgame/wargame.

Of the recent games I have played, both Lost Patrol and Stormcloud Attack are glaring in how the rules were written on a napkin to push the models sold within. Lost Patrol isn't even fun and Stormcloud is an example on how NOT to build an X-Wing knockoff.

Their other boardgames, Calth and Prospero, are only replayable due to the RNG factor of the mission cards - the base rules are easily exploitable and it would be easy to master each mission without the RNG to throw some curveball into the mix.

Back in the 80's and 90's, GW's style of game design served them well. People would play their games and generally enjoy them. Nowadays, their rule sets are so abysmal that their sets are bought for the minis and the games themselves go unplayed and ignored. If you want proof, just look at the e-bay prices for the boxed sets sans the models.

People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.

But you just made a rules argument: people are buying the boxes, but don't feel one bit of regret about giving up the rules for cheap. If the rules were worth playing then people would hold onto them, even if they aren't the primary reason they bought the box.

It seems an odd argument to raise the question of the value of the book for the rules within when the typical argument is that most games should make rules free and just profit from model sales - a valid tactic several other games companies have worked with (online releases at least).

So its no shock; the rules for any game tend to be on the cheaper end (if anything GW rules are the more expensive so long as we take Dungeons and Dragons out of the picture with their legion of books). Even if the rules were top notch I doubt you'd see the rule packs from spit boxed sets go up much if anything in price on the second hand market



Also don't forget ebay is supply and demand - models not made outside of boxed sets; models cheaper sold in boxed sets are going to be lower supply higher demand than rules which are sold in multiple formats and are easily bought.

 Stormonu wrote:
The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No".

I am not saying that you are entirely correct, but I can say that I have played games of Kings of War with units represented by cardboard rectangles cut to the right size.

One of the best ways to learn if I will enjoy the play style of a given army, and it will fit in a lunch box. (I have also used PDF 'miniatures' for portable games of KoW.)

I don't think I have ever done that with a GW game, but I could be wrong. Aaaannnd as soon as I wrote that, I remembered playing several games of Battlefleet Gothic that way. Timing is indeed the heart of comedy.

Battlefleet Gothic played just fine with cardboard ships.

The Auld Grump

Yeah, Ican see Space Hulk, Warhammer Quest and at least Battlefleet Gothic being games people would easily play with cardboard components. Bloodbowl too (I have played that with paper stand ups), maaaybe Necromunda. When I was talking about GW's games, I primarily was referring to their newer ones. Their games from the 90's feel as though they generally had more thought in them - until the got into the likes of Crunch!, Lost Patrol and Space Fleet.

 Stormonu wrote:
Being innovative isn't easy, doubly so while also making a well-oiled ruleset. Then, there is no gaurantee it will be popular.

GW has huge problems iwth the second part - rules. Many of their games only retain playability due to the RND factor of their rules, rather than any sort of strategizing. The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No". Contrast that to Heroes of Normandie, if you will, which is an entire cardboard boardgame/wargame.

Of the recent games I have played, both Lost Patrol and Stormcloud Attack are glaring in how the rules were written on a napkin to push the models sold within. Lost Patrol isn't even fun and Stormcloud is an example on how NOT to build an X-Wing knockoff.

Their other boardgames, Calth and Prospero, are only replayable due to the RNG factor of the mission cards - the base rules are easily exploitable and it would be easy to master each mission without the RNG to throw some curveball into the mix.

Back in the 80's and 90's, GW's style of game design served them well. People would play their games and generally enjoy them. Nowadays, their rule sets are so abysmal that their sets are bought for the minis and the games themselves go unplayed and ignored. If you want proof, just look at the e-bay prices for the boxed sets sans the models.

I guess no one read my earlier post. James Hewitt said directly that GW spent several years directly saying that the standalone game rules were a deliberate miniature delivery system with the designers encouraged not to waste too much energy on the rules. It seems that even warhammer quest was pitched by the management as this, but he went away and tried to make a real game out of it. According to Hewitt this attitude has changed and the first game made with the new attitude was Shadespire.
So the answer to the op's question is that GW did lose the ability to make new games for a while, but they might be getting it back. (Shadespire is the highest rated GW game on boardgamegeek ever.)
P.s. I have seen Pics on Twitter of Shadespire being played with my little ponies.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.

But you just made a rules argument: people are buying the boxes, but don't feel one bit of regret about giving up the rules for cheap. If the rules were worth playing then people would hold onto them, even if they aren't the primary reason they bought the box.

So the question is who read the actual rules themselves?

I'm willing to bet so many people just bought those and Calth to supplement their Marine armies with older armor. That isn't anything having to do with rules quality. I bought 3 Prospero and a Calth and didn't read either ones rules once because models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People are just selling those for cheap because it's that good a deal for the models and that's all they cared about: Mk3-4 Power Armor and brand new old armor Terminators in plastic, ya know, things that have been requested for a long time. Not sure if a rules argument can be made for that bit at all.

But you just made a rules argument: people are buying the boxes, but don't feel one bit of regret about giving up the rules for cheap. If the rules were worth playing then people would hold onto them, even if they aren't the primary reason they bought the box.

So the question is who read the actual rules themselves?

I'm willing to bet so many people just bought those and Calth to supplement their Marine armies with older armor. That isn't anything having to do with rules quality. I bought 3 Prospero and a Calth and didn't read either ones rules once because models.

*Raises hand*

I bought Calth complete, but I actually bought the Prospero box sans minis so I'd have the boardgame. Mostly because I was curious if the rules were any good and it was only $20. Glad I didn't pay more, probably paid more than I should have.

If Hewitt is GW's great white hope for future games there maybe a problem as he left 3-4 months ago.

Last I read he seemed to think they were reworking titanicus so Necromumda is probably his swan song.

SeanDrake wrote:
If Hewitt is GW's great white hope for future games there maybe a problem as he left 3-4 months ago.

Last I read he seemed to think they were reworking titanicus so Necromumda is probably his swan song.

People really don't read my posts do they? Hewitt has one more stand alone boardgame coming out for GW and Adeptus Titanicus was delayed to make plastic Titans, not to change the rules.
As for the great white hope for GW; it is the new philosophy exemplified by Shadespire. It will also be interesting to see if Dave Sanders can be more than a one trick pony.

 Stormonu wrote:
Being innovative isn't easy, doubly so while also making a well-oiled ruleset. Then, there is no gaurantee it will be popular.

GW has huge problems iwth the second part - rules. Many of their games only retain playability due to the RND factor of their rules, rather than any sort of strategizing. The sniff test is if any of GW's games would sell if the models were replaced with cardboard chits - and the answer to that is a resounding "No". Contrast that to Heroes of Normandie, if you will, which is an entire cardboard boardgame/wargame.

Of the recent games I have played, both Lost Patrol and Stormcloud Attack are glaring in how the rules were written on a napkin to push the models sold within. Lost Patrol isn't even fun and Stormcloud is an example on how NOT to build an X-Wing knockoff.

Their other boardgames, Calth and Prospero, are only replayable due to the RNG factor of the mission cards - the base rules are easily exploitable and it would be easy to master each mission without the RNG to throw some curveball into the mix.

Back in the 80's and 90's, GW's style of game design served them well. People would play their games and generally enjoy them. Nowadays, their rule sets are so abysmal that their sets are bought for the minis and the games themselves go unplayed and ignored. If you want proof, just look at the e-bay prices for the boxed sets sans the models.

This argument works fine if you stop just before WHQ (both Silver Tower and Hamerhal) and perhaps above all, Shadespire. These games have all been well received for their rules by the board gaming community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
If Hewitt is GW's great white hope for future games there maybe a problem as he left 3-4 months ago.

Last I read he seemed to think they were reworking titanicus so Necromumda is probably his swan song.

He’s freelance now and still does work for them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.

And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.

And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.

And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.

I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.

BUT, and it's a big but...

These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.

Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.

They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?

What's dakka's view on this?

I've loved Shadow War: Armageddon, Gangs of Comorragh was a fun little game, Deathwatch: Overkill was very cool. Never played Assassinorum but I heard that was also pretty solid.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.

And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.

And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.

And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.

I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.

BUT, and it's a big but...

These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.

Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.

They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?

What's dakka's view on this?

I've loved Shadow War: Armageddon, Gangs of Comorragh was a fun little game, Deathwatch: Overkill was very cool. Never played Assassinorum but I heard that was also pretty solid.

That is the worst thing about GW's one and done policy that they have wasted so many good ideas. Gangs of a comorragh was a good game a half dozen pages short of being a great game. All it needed was a fuller advancement system and campaign rules with rules for other flying units such as beastmasters, scourge and even the jet fighters for a one v many scenario.

Shadow wars was another missed opportunity they could have ran with that for longer with new warbands and a more in depth campaign system and scenario. Not sure it would have even stepped on Necros toes given some people would just want to play there favourite race rather than random human gang.

I think for a long time GW's biggest issue has been lack of ambition due to corporate having too much control over the creative side.

SeanDrake wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
First and foremost, I don't play GW games anymore. Historics is more my thing these days, but I still keep one eye on GW developments.

And as people know, the new Necromunda is with us. And it looks fantastic.

And the re-launch of Space Hulk a few years back, brought a tear to my eye. The miniatures and tiles were amongst the best I've ever seen.

And Blood Bowl looks pretty damn good. And if they do Mordheim, I've no doubt that will look good as well. And play good.

I used to play these games when they first came out, and the gameplay is superb.

BUT, and it's a big but...

These are remakes. And no matter how wonderful they are, they're remakes.

Where are the game designers and the talent to give us new games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Necromunda. For all its faults, GW used to be pretty good at trying something new in the 1980s and 1990s.

They can't keep doing remakes forever, and maybe there is a new game I've overlooked?

What's dakka's view on this?

I've loved Shadow War: Armageddon, Gangs of Comorragh was a fun little game, Deathwatch: Overkill was very cool. Never played Assassinorum but I heard that was also pretty solid.

That is the worst thing about GW's one and done policy that they have wasted so many good ideas. Gangs of a comorragh was a good game a half dozen pages short of being a great game. All it needed was a fuller advancement system and campaign rules with rules for other flying units such as beastmasters, scourge and even the jet fighters for a one v many scenario.

Shadow wars was another missed opportunity they could have ran with that for longer with new warbands and a more in depth campaign system and scenario. Not sure it would have even stepped on Necros toes given some people would just want to play there favourite race rather than random human gang.

I think for a long time GW's biggest issue has been lack of ambition due to corporate having too much control over the creative side.

The big problem is that GW has no idea whether any of these games will do well when it hits - their philosophy seems to be to throw as much at the wall and see what sticks, so they have a hard time planning to follow up on a hit, and by the time they can, the iron has cooled. But they have done some follow-up, see their follow-on for Warhammer Quest (Shadespire?) and *sorta* with Burning of Prospero following Calth (in ththe HH theme, unfortunately not the rules). We may see some more for Shadow War - the boxed set seemed to do well, even if the "revised" rulebook didn't seem to be as big a hit (but that may have been a "too soon" situation).

I'm not sure they can do an awful lot to fix this - either they commit to pre-planning a follow-up line whether it's a bad seller or not and risk throwing good money after bad, or they'll have to paper-napkin a follow-up in a month or so that will likely tank because it hasn't been tested and just repacks other existing models into some quick-printed box. On the later a serious, thought out add-on would take 6-12 months to properly vet and manufacture all-new models for release.

Let's be honest here. Necro, Mord, and Gorka are all practically the same game and build exenstively off of Warhammer 2nd edition.

Therefore, GW has never been that "innovative" and I am ok with that. Innovativion is over-rated.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It sells more than Warhammer managed by all accounts?

This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?

There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I have to go 100% with Peregrine on this.

The only reason anyone plays 40k 8th and AoS is inertia. If they had been published by anyone else, they'd have a smaller player base than the average free pdf on Wargame Vault. That anyone would defend any aspect of their rules design boggles the mind.

I don't think the facts on the ground support this assertion. 8th edition is bringing people back to 40k after long absences, and also new players continue to join. 8th edition 40k or AOS aren't going to win any awards for best miniature game ever, but people are having gun and are excited, which is very different from the mood in 6ht/7th.

If you're arguing that GW simply has the advatnage of being well established and in every shop, with a rich lore and massive model range, then of course, yes, GW's rules are not it's strength. But the inertia you describe is built on far more than personality quirks, but on the very real advantages of playing GW games.

No.

If you like 8th, there's something wrong with you.

Apparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through

They both have advantages and disadvantages in terms of accessibility. AoS is much easier to just start playing, despite it's reliance on silly names. WHFB requires hundreds of dollars and a ton more time in terms of preparation, simply due to the scale and regiment-nature of the thing. But Orcs and Elves instead of Orruks and Aelfar or whatever.

WHFB lost me long ago in 5th edition (Herohammer) but Kings of War got me into fantasy again - using mostly my old GW models, but also a TON of others from a pile of manufacturers. I occasionally play AoS as well as a Skirmish alternative, but - like my KoW games, they're set in The Old World (to me, anyway) that has a few mental tweaks of head-canon to allow for models from new AoS factions, LotR factions and Historical factions - so no more a stretch than The Old World was anyway. I'm ok with people being into the Mantica and/or AoS lore, and it being developed and all that, but I've personally just got no interest in learning much about them or exploring either in any depth at all.

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.