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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Not even GW could be dumb enough not to realize what a disaster 8th was from a rules perspective.

You're clearly not as cynical as I am.

From someone who knows more about it, what specifically were the issues with the 8th ruleset?

I've heard that Daemons were a massive problem, and have heard that Tzeentch Summoning lists were basically impossible to defeat with all the gak they could bring in during a game (GW are still over compensating for this in AoS, first with the way things like Horrors work in the rules, Rule of 3, and now with that 'Reinforcement Point' bs), but what else caused so many issues?

7th was pretty terrible too in a lot of ways, so it wasn't just 8th. But basically the short version is that the rules started increasingly rewarding broken magic and big massed infantry - like crazy big, 40-60 model big. The game just stopped being fun to actually play, it became a boring slog, made worse by the fact that you could spend 30 minutes setting up and moving huge numbers of models only to remove half of them in a turn as your opponent's wizard went super saiyan all over your army. Armied stopped looking and feeling and playing like armies, they became super gimmicky vehicles for the most broken elements of the rules. WHFB always had a problem with weak mechanics, but at least in earlier editions armies sorta looked and behaved how an army should. In 8th, they stopped even doing that, and it was like - well, what's the bloody point of this game now? It's not fun to play, armies don't look good on the table, the mechanics aren't satisfying. As much as I am still angry at GW for squatting the setting, GW had killed it as a game well before they followed up by killing the setting.

And yeah, there were also terrible balance issues, especially with the daemons book.

Basically it's a question of what wasn't terrible in 8th, not what was.

edit: And how could I have forgotten the stupidity of cannons (especially the movable ones) and the terrain rules? There were so many bad things about 8th it's hard to remember them all at one time...

yukishiro1 wrote:
Basically it's a question of what wasn't terrible in 8th, not what was.

Well, since you're asking. 8th finally did away with the micromanagement of individual cannon and warbeast crew dying. Yea. So there.

I think the thing that really encapsulated how poorly managed Fantasy in its last two editions was how GW kept on releasing these absurdly big centrepiece monster models and put a ton of marketing focus on them... meanwhile the rules discouraged their use completely because 8th basically made you take a unit 80 unbreakable infantry as the core of your army with assorted light cavalry hangers on to protect your flanks.

The start of this problem was 7th, where the rank bonus moved from a 4-width to a 5-width. Not only was this the start of bloating regiment sizes but it really screwed over a load of armies and kits which previously came in 16-man boxes so could be used as 4x4 regiments and still get full rank bonus. Suddenly you weren't even able to buy a minimum effective regiment just for a normal casual game. Obviously most people ran regiments of 20+ anyway, but in terms of just getting people started with usable models and rules it was a really big blow.

In general I do actually think the core rules in 7th were fine and probably an improvement over 6th (I played a lot of 6th and not much 7th though so I could be wrong) but what really killed the edition was the poor quality of the army books. Not only did they lose a lot of flavour from a rules and presentation perspective (reduction in magical items, things like vampire bloodlines being "streamlined" etc) but the balance of the edition was just destroyed by successive busted book releases. There's definite parallels you can make with 9th ed 40k now, but at least we get erratas and FAQ's nowadays. If you were an Orc and Goblin player in 7th then you basically had to eat gak for the entire edition as Daemons and Dark Elves ran over everything.

And here i was hoping they would commbine warmaster and fantasy. Guess this is and will be a new fantasy edtion, so hopefully thouse fans has something to look forward to.

Just to mark it down, the Q and A of this actually pleases me with GW. The fact I kept my old armies intact and just kept the dream alive is great for me. If GW do this right I will actually praise them, but so far this Old World sounds amazing to me. My longbeard self is finally at peace, for now. One less grudge will I hold if they do it right.

Scale was never really in question. The only people thinking this was going to be a smaller scale (10mm) game were the 17 people that actually played Warmaster the first time around hoping that GW would be willing to fail a second time, and the AOS people that have felt their game threatened since W:TOW was announced. Anyone with access to the lexicon knows that Warmaster stopped receiving shelf retail support 6 months after release. That's the fastest birth to hospice care tenure of any GW game.

Squares I was genuinely skeptical about, but it looks like they are indeed sincere about that. Good on them.

I'm more than a little worried that incredibly dumb rules from older editions may migrate in, but I'm also hopeful that there's a decent amount of 6th thrown in there to make it more balanced. I'm also elated about army support as far as rules. Models? I sincerely doubt GW has gotten rid of the mold plates, so seeing some battalion style boxed sets will more than likely happen. I just wish they'd throw out some square bases for sale now.




Also as a side note, it's adorable the number of AOS players who've come into this thread explicitly to fling poo. You have your game to enjoy, why is it so important for you that we don't get the same?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Really what is the playerbase here? I can't imagine there being a lot of grognards left who haven't either rebased their army or set it on fire.

Lots of 9th Age folks

Just to chime in, old grognard here, still have my fantasy armies and never changed the bases to play AoS. I doubt I'm alone in that either.

 Just Tony wrote:
Scale was never really in question. The only people thinking this was going to be a smaller scale (10mm) game were the 17 people that actually played Warmaster the first time around hoping that GW would be willing to fail a second time, and the AOS people that have felt their game threatened since W:TOW was announced. Anyone with access to the lexicon knows that Warmaster stopped receiving shelf retail support 6 months after release. That's the fastest birth to hospice care tenure of any GW game.

Warmaster is so unpopular that sculpting 10mm fantasy minis is a day job for half a dozen 3D artists.

 Olthannon wrote:
I'm so glad they clarified the scale and square bases. We knew that it was going to be like and yet a shocking amount of people in this very thread were trying to say it was smaller scale.

I'd like to momentarily take this opportunity to say haha .

No one was trying to say it was a smaller scale, we were just discussing how 10-15mm could be cool, and could also be a way for GW to recreate a RNF game with a broad range without investing a huge amount (i.e., manufacturing one sprue could create several regiments, reducing the mould cutting time needed to support a faction).

No one seriously believed that was the road GW was going down, just simply an option that was being discussed.

Though it's interesting GW have specifically addressed the scale issue, it shows at least they are reading forums and whatnot to some extent and directly addressing those sorts of discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Really what is the playerbase here? I can't imagine there being a lot of grognards left who haven't either rebased their army or set it on fire.

Lots of 9th Age folks

Just to chime in, old grognard here, still have my fantasy armies and never changed the bases to play AoS. I doubt I'm alone in that either.

Changing bases honestly just sounded like a terrible experience, maybe something I would have done as a broke teenager who couldn't afford new models, but there was no way in hell I was going to rebase hundreds of Night Goblins, Orcs, Saurus, Skinks, etc,.

If anything I think it'd be more likely that old WHFB just shelved their models rather than either rebasing them or destroying them.

With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).

Like most posters here it seems my favourite time for WFB was 6th and early 7th. Late 7th was ruined by bad army book design that didn't stay true to the paradigm set by the first books. The demon book is an embarrassment. But I thought the core rules were alright, a bit clunky in some places but overall gave satisfying games.

8th edition I know is pretty popular but I don't really understand why. Giant infantry blocks and super wizards made for a tedious game with a huge set up time and very little emphasis on actually playing the game tactically. I had 3 fully painted fantasy armies going into 8th and was working on a 4th and I just stopped playing. It was just too much hassle for such an unfun game. The fixes to make it more fun would be relatively straightforward.

It's really interesting to read this thread though because I remember in the aftermath of AoS there was a strong and vocal group who say 8th as the best edition and wanted to keep it going, and were scornful of people who preferred 6th. Seems like the people interested in this project are more interested in 6th edition.

Late 6th had the best gameplay for sure. It was horrid to get into, however. The rules writing was atrocious, coupled with the then-new RAW approach and lack of official FAQs whatsoever, meant months of mentorship just to learn the accepted rules, not even talking about the tactics.

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

WHFB was GW's firstborn, and their flagship game for many years. The fact that they're revisiting it is much less surprising than the fact that they completely canned it to begin with.

And a lot of 40K players from a particular decade came into the game through Dawn of War. It's entirely possible for the same to happen with WHFB.

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

It's presumably a similar story to the Specialist Games. First they drop them because they're not profitable enough, then they bring them back because they realize it's a share of the market they aren't covering, and they'd rather fill the gap themselves than have another company do it. While AoS appears to be pretty successful, both the setting and game don't appeal to the same people WHFB did, or not fully at least. Maybe they also hoped more people would transition eventually, rather than stay grumpy or just look for their fix elsewhere. Perhaps the alleged failure of 8th means they invest little in the relaunch until knowing more about how successful it's being, while presumably also being part of the reason they are looking at a rewrite using all older editions as a basis, and not just reprinting 8th with some tweaks. (And thank Isha for that!)

Now that it's confirmed old models should be useable, it makes it realistic that they'll at least do some Made to Order waves perhaps. Seems like the most practical way for them to sell old models without having to have even a fraction of the massive old range permanently in stock. Hopefully they'll spread it out a bit (not have an army's full range in a single week), or better still, communicate a roadmap of re-releases in advance so you know what will or won't become available for e.g. the next half year. I suppose the only real similarity is Blood Bowl (relaunched game with rules for old teams and occasional MtO for the old sculpts which haven't received updates yet), but the sheer size of the WHFB miniatures range changes things considerably of course.

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
Maybe they also hoped more people would transition eventually, rather than stay grumpy or just look for their fix elsewhere..

To be clear, it certainly wasn't all just people being grumpy. I had no problem with AoS existing, it's just not a type of game I'm remotely interested in. So it was no more appropriate a 'replacement' for WHFB than, say, Man'o'War would have been.

They'll make some sales from me if they do some made to order stuff.

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).

They really think the video-game people will swarm to spend up to $1k to buy and glue plastic toy soldiers. The game will no doubt drag in all the battered housewives of WHFB because this time it won't be so bad, but I don't know how many vidya-only gamers they will capture with their pricing model.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
I'm so glad they clarified the scale and square bases. We knew that it was going to be like and yet a shocking amount of people in this very thread were trying to say it was smaller scale.

I'd like to momentarily take this opportunity to say haha .

No one was trying to say it was a smaller scale, we were just discussing how 10-15mm could be cool, and could also be a way for GW to recreate a RNF game with a broad range without investing a huge amount (i.e., manufacturing one sprue could create several regiments, reducing the mould cutting time needed to support a faction).

No one seriously believed that was the road GW was going down, just simply an option that was being discussed.

Though it's interesting GW have specifically addressed the scale issue, it shows at least they are reading forums and whatnot to some extent and directly addressing those sorts of discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Really what is the playerbase here? I can't imagine there being a lot of grognards left who haven't either rebased their army or set it on fire.

Lots of 9th Age folks

Just to chime in, old grognard here, still have my fantasy armies and never changed the bases to play AoS. I doubt I'm alone in that either.

Changing bases honestly just sounded like a terrible experience, maybe something I would have done as a broke teenager who couldn't afford new models, but there was no way in hell I was going to rebase hundreds of Night Goblins, Orcs, Saurus, Skinks, etc,.

If anything I think it'd be more likely that old WHFB just shelved their models rather than either rebasing them or destroying them.

this is a 100+ page thread.
Plenty of people seemed to be saying it would be warmaster scale/ should be warmaster scale. No idea why but this argument was brought up enough to warrant GW to axctualy clarify.
Do you think GW would have clarified if the question wasnt being asked?

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

I seem to recall those estimates of WHFB being a small percentage relative to 40k was...

a ) When they were barely releasing anything for WHFB and GW's sales mostly came from new releases, as highlighted by sales figures that got released during the Chapterhouse lawsuit,

and,
b ) Everything was a small percentage relative to Space Marines, so while WHFB might have been a small portion sales relative to 40k, 40k as a whole was only small relative to Space Marines.

I think to some extent GW have realised they need to diversify away from Space Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
this is a 100+ page thread.
Plenty of people seemed to be saying it would be warmaster scale/ should be warmaster scale. No idea why but this argument was brought up enough to warrant GW to axctualy clarify.
Do you think GW would have clarified if the question wasnt being asked?

No one was saying it "would" be Warmaster scale. At least I don't think so, if you want to find some posts to prove me wrong, go for it. But from my recollection we were simply discussing the possibility that an option for GW, however unlikely, was that they could go for a smaller scale, and how that could be a good idea.

That caused some whackos to blow an aneurysm as if folk genuinely posited that was what GW were doing, rather than just wishlisting and theorising.

Cronch wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).

They really think the video-game people will swarm to spend up to $1k to buy and glue plastic toy soldiers. The game will no doubt drag in all the battered housewives of WHFB because this time it won't be so bad, but I don't know how many vidya-only gamers they will capture with their pricing model.

You seem to have a lot of contempt for people...

Here is the thing:

I know many gamers who will spend £200+ on 1 computer game because it comes with some tacky, cheap, made-in-china "limited edition" figurine. Getting several of these games a year.
I can certainly see some gamers buying some of the big centre pieces. Especially when WHTW3 hits... I think some people might be interested in a blood thirster or some cool Ice Beardzilla..

DOW games are an excellent case study and support the idea that a sucess of a game can translate into miniatures sales.

They may buy a centerpiece, but do you really think they will buy a 100 infantry dudes to make into an army, read the archaic rules (since they'll be taken from multiple editions of WHFB, not something written from clean slate) and then haul it all to a game vs...idk, playing the game on their screen and getting better and more balanced experience?

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

It's presumably a similar story to the Specialist Games. First they drop them because they're not profitable enough, then they bring them back because they realize it's a share of the market they aren't covering, and they'd rather fill the gap themselves than have another company do it. While AoS appears to be pretty successful, both the setting and game don't appeal to the same people WHFB did, or not fully at least. Maybe they also hoped more people would transition eventually, rather than stay grumpy or just look for their fix elsewhere. Perhaps the alleged failure of 8th means they invest little in the relaunch until knowing more about how successful it's being, while presumably also being part of the reason they are looking at a rewrite using all older editions as a basis, and not just reprinting 8th with some tweaks. (And thank Isha for that!)

Now that it's confirmed old models should be useable, it makes it realistic that they'll at least do some Made to Order waves perhaps. Seems like the most practical way for them to sell old models without having to have even a fraction of the massive old range permanently in stock. Hopefully they'll spread it out a bit (not have an army's full range in a single week), or better still, communicate a roadmap of re-releases in advance so you know what will or won't become available for e.g. the next half year. I suppose the only real similarity is Blood Bowl (relaunched game with rules for old teams and occasional MtO for the old sculpts which haven't received updates yet), but the sheer size of the WHFB miniatures range changes things considerably of course.

They could do it like Lotr which is also comparable. The Lotr range is too large to keep in stock apparently so they move models in when they fit the current release of a book and move models out of production to make room, with a warning before. They also produced models that were going for insane prices on ebay and even some models that never made it past prototypes. There are additional made to Order waves as well, where some favorites even appeared two times.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

I seem to recall those estimates of WHFB being a small percentage relative to 40k was...

a ) When they were barely releasing anything for WHFB and GW's sales mostly came from new releases, as highlighted by sales figures that got released during the Chapterhouse lawsuit,

and,
b ) Everything was a small percentage relative to Space Marines, so while WHFB might have been a small portion sales relative to 40k, 40k as a whole was only small relative to Space Marines.

I think to some extent GW have realised they need to diversify away from Space Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
this is a 100+ page thread.
Plenty of people seemed to be saying it would be warmaster scale/ should be warmaster scale. No idea why but this argument was brought up enough to warrant GW to axctualy clarify.
Do you think GW would have clarified if the question wasnt being asked?

No one was saying it "would" be Warmaster scale. At least I don't think so, if you want to find some posts to prove me wrong, go for it. But from my recollection we were simply discussing the possibility that an option for GW, however unlikely, was that they could go for a smaller scale, and how that could be a good idea.

That caused some whackos to blow an aneurysm as if folk genuinely posited that was what GW were doing, rather than just wishlisting and theorising.

I'm pretty sure mods had to lock this thread a couple times coz people were very adamant in their arguments and things were getting heated..
Maybe I'm misremembering, not going to go digging through this thread, so if im wrong Id be happy to accept that.

Anyway, water under the bridge, whatever the case, it doesn't matter anymore.
That argument is in the bin (finaly)

Cronch wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).

They really think the video-game people will swarm to spend up to $1k to buy and glue plastic toy soldiers. The game will no doubt drag in all the battered housewives of WHFB because this time it won't be so bad, but I don't know how many vidya-only gamers they will capture with their pricing model.

I don't expect many exclusive video gamers to get into WHFB, but I imagine there'll be a bunch of ex-WHFB who have been reinvigorated by TWW to want to jump back in and buy some models.

I know TWW has on several occasions given me the urge to start a new army, if it weren't for the fact WHFB is dead.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
I'm pretty sure mods had to lock this thread a couple times coz people were very adamant in their arguments and things were getting heated..
Maybe I'm misremembering, not going to go digging through this thread, so if im wrong Id be happy to accept that.

Anyway, water under the bridge, whatever the case, it doesn't matter anymore.
That argument is in the bin (finaly)

I think it was just locked because the thread was going off topic with pages discussing wishlisting and theories rather than actual news and rumours, but yeah, not fussed, it was just a bit baffling to read posts of "haha, told you so" as if anyone had actually been positing it as a likely option, when I only ever recall it being raised as wishlisting or an off the cuff theory on how GW could afford to support what was a very broad game with many many SKUs.

Cronch wrote:
They may buy a centerpiece, but do you really think they will buy a 100 infantry dudes to make into an army, read the archaic rules (since they'll be taken from multiple editions of WHFB, not something written from clean slate) and then haul it all to a game vs...idk, playing the game on their screen and getting better and more balanced experience?

I'm not stating there will be legions of gamers in the millions suddenly getting into TOW minatures... but many might?
Board games and table tops are really on the up trend culturally. Its not that hard to take that leap..

these barriers didn't stop some DOW players picking up minatures...

Also, why would they not ? Why does anyone go into miniature hobbying in the first place?
Maybe they will want a new hobby that is isn't gaming.. Its the most positive exposure possible for GW in any case.

If you know much about WHTW then im not sure how you can call the game a balanced experience; Doom stacks and missle unit spam are not possible in table top.
Its a totally different thing... The rule of cool exists on the table top that just does not translate into the game environment IMO.

We have no idea how bad the rules are going to be (I think we agree they will be bad coz GW but maybe not where on the spectrum of bad they will fall). You never know, the rules might be bearable...

The existence of the video games with surely act as a pathway to some people. How many is debatable. I got into 40K from the Space Hulk computer game back in the 90s.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

I seem to recall those estimates of WHFB being a small percentage relative to 40k was...

a ) When they were barely releasing anything for WHFB and GW's sales mostly came from new releases, as highlighted by sales figures that got released during the Chapterhouse lawsuit,

and,
b ) Everything was a small percentage relative to Space Marines, so while WHFB might have been a small portion sales relative to 40k, 40k as a whole was only small relative to Space Marines.

I think to some extent GW have realised they need to diversify away from Space Marines.

c) 40k has always been much more popular than WHFB in the US, while in Europe 40k could not top WHFB until the decline in releases and support and increase in prices during 7th Edition and the start of 5th 40k (which was ridiculously cheap to start with the Black Reach Box compared to Fantasy)

 Arbitrator wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
MD Open AoS was sad. 100+ for 40k, 2 for AoS.

"Selling Fast!"
.

To be fair, MD Open was marketed strictly as a 40K event. The AoS tourney was only advertised April 29, around two weeks prior to the event.

For what its worth, they are planning a 100 person AoS two day event next year. So there is something there, at least.

 Argive wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
With how unprofitable 8th edition was for GW (I’ve seen several sources claim it made less than 10% what 40k did), it is weird to see GW take another stab at it. I’ve seen a lot of people say it’s because TW has been popular, but 99% of the people that play it are computer gamers and won’t touch a miniatures game, much less an extremely expensive, time consuming (to get to table) game like WHFB.

Maybe they will just make new rules and bundle up some of the old models in bundles with an occasional FW release?

I am pretty interested to see what they do with it. I hope the game is more like 6th, which I greatly enjoyed, and less like 8th (which I hated).

They really think the video-game people will swarm to spend up to $1k to buy and glue plastic toy soldiers. The game will no doubt drag in all the battered housewives of WHFB because this time it won't be so bad, but I don't know how many vidya-only gamers they will capture with their pricing model.

You seem to have a lot of contempt for people...

Here is the thing:

I know many gamers who will spend £200+ on 1 computer game because it comes with some tacky, cheap, made-in-china "limited edition" figurine. Getting several of these games a year.
I can certainly see some gamers buying some of the big centre pieces. Especially when WHTW3 hits... I think some people might be interested in a blood thirster or some cool Ice Beardzilla..

DOW games are an excellent case study and support the idea that a sucess of a game can translate into miniatures sales.

I don't know why people forget how much attention Dawn Of War brought to Warhammer 40k. I think it's fair to say it wouldn't be as well known a brand as it is without that game.