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.

FWIW, I'm having more fun with my MCP purchases than any other system at the moment. The models are fun and quick to paint, large and display well, and get to the table in a timely manner where I get a lot of game time with them. They're a good value, even if they're expensive.

Reading the comments here, it sounds like GB ran into the same problems "lifestyle" games often eventually encounter : high metagame barrier to entry, large number of SKU's to stock, inability to rotate out old models, upper management and bean counters, etc. IMO, The core game design (typically the rules when the game is released, before complexity and bloat from expansions set in) is, compared to boardgames, while critical to game's success, only a small part of it. I imagine anyone considering GB had to weigh the money and time commitment, as well as popularity among their community, against other 'lifetyle" games.

In contrast, KS's "one and done" boardgame model starts with everyone with the same level of knowledge of the game (none, to the point where backers don't even know the final rules), no need for a long-term commitment to or support for the game (because there is no future for the game, anyway), no game store support for tournament play (it's just a boardgame), and no local community buy-in (just bring the game to game night and look for another player). KS boardgames do run into the issue of supply, but only once it hits retail.

Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

 ced1106 wrote:
...Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

The reason I never picked up Guildball is that there was no list-building element; you bought a team and played with those exact models every game unless you wanted to entirely hop factions. I think the fact that you can build different armies for ASoIaF and swap individual units into/out of your force really helps with the longevity of the game.

ASOIAF minis are good quality, great designs, for a reasonable price. And they can work in a variety of fantasy settings. The game itself could cease to exist and people would still have a reason to buy the minis.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
...Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

The reason I never picked up Guildball is that there was no list-building element; you bought a team and played with those exact models every game unless you wanted to entirely hop factions. I think the fact that you can build different armies for ASoIaF and swap individual units into/out of your force really helps with the longevity of the game.

That wasn't really ever true. Even from the beginning you had 7 faction figures and 4 or so Union choices for your 6 man team. New models have bumbed that up to almost 3 times the models that fit in your team, though for list building purposes you take about 2/3rds of them and draft your 6 at game time.

LunarSol wrote:FWIW, I'm having more fun with my MCP purchases than any other system at the moment. The models are fun and quick to paint, large and display well, and get to the table in a timely manner where I get a lot of game time with them. They're a good value, even if they're expensive.

I hope it stays that way for people that enjoy it. Small scale games tend to grow in size of the years. Infinity and Warmahordes are easily double the number of figures they use to be.

ced1106 wrote:Reading the comments here, it sounds like GB ran into the same problems "lifestyle" games often eventually encounter : high metagame barrier to entry, large number of SKU's to stock, inability to rotate out old models, upper management and bean counters, etc. IMO, The core game design (typically the rules when the game is released, before complexity and bloat from expansions set in) is, compared to boardgames, while critical to game's success, only a small part of it. I imagine anyone considering GB had to weigh the money and time commitment, as well as popularity among their community, against other 'lifetyle" games.

In contrast, KS's "one and done" boardgame model starts with everyone with the same level of knowledge of the game (none, to the point where backers don't even know the final rules), no need for a long-term commitment to or support for the game (because there is no future for the game, anyway), no game store support for tournament play (it's just a boardgame), and no local community buy-in (just bring the game to game night and look for another player). KS boardgames do run into the issue of supply, but only once it hits retail.

Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

I think it's is really important to bring up. The industry if very low margin and it can take years to get any real returns on an investment going the traditional route which is made harder by all the competition and distribution changes we've been hearing about. KIckstarters are quick, for the hobby, turn around of maybe 2 years (one year developing one year producing and delivering) and you know roughly what your profits will be before the KSer ends. Companies that do well are just going to attract the interested of investors more and more and we'll probabably see more VC/PE funds investing. This might, in turn, help table top games and it would divert competition to one and done boardgames. I'm curious to see who's still creating traditional wargames in 5 years.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:ASOIAF minis are good quality, great designs, for a reasonable price. And they can work in a variety of fantasy settings. The game itself could cease to exist and people would still have a reason to buy the minis.

Assuming sales keep investors happy. Considering that CMON doesn't have a warehouse anymore and Asmodee isn't probably wanting to keep a lot of stock to remain competitive with other distributors it could suffer the same fate as GB. If no one can buy is it any different then no one wanting too as far as the stock market is concerned?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
...Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

The reason I never picked up Guildball is that there was no list-building element; you bought a team and played with those exact models every game unless you wanted to entirely hop factions. I think the fact that you can build different armies for ASoIaF and swap individual units into/out of your force really helps with the longevity of the game.

Unless something changed later on, that’s not how it worked - you picked a Captain, a mascot and 4 other players from the faction for a team. There were just no points or anything, every model was ‘equal’ in terms of list building.

At the end of guild ball you were looking at a list of 3 Captains, 2 Mascots, and ~10 Players for a Major Guild, and a Captain, Mascot, and 4 Players for a Minor Guild. 2 specific Players from the Major and 2 from the Minor could also play up/down. Lots to choose from for the Majors to build your list, much less so for the Minors but they then got other bonuses to compensate. Four Minor Guilds will not see release.

I was actually quite good at the list building aspect, and had some teams that really annoyed opponents and did stuff they weren’t expecting.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
...Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

The reason I never picked up Guildball is that there was no list-building element; you bought a team and played with those exact models every game unless you wanted to entirely hop factions. I think the fact that you can build different armies for ASoIaF and swap individual units into/out of your force really helps with the longevity of the game.

GB never really needed list building as its six / seven models at most and the pre-game draft when players alternated choosing players stopped a fair bit of rock/paper/scissors, it was a bit harder at the very beginning with each team having limited numbers but even then having a mercenary faction whose players could be used by every team was a handy fix

 Monkeysloth wrote:

ced1106 wrote:Reading the comments here, it sounds like GB ran into the same problems "lifestyle" games often eventually encounter : high metagame barrier to entry, large number of SKU's to stock, inability to rotate out old models, upper management and bean counters, etc. IMO, The core game design (typically the rules when the game is released, before complexity and bloat from expansions set in) is, compared to boardgames, while critical to game's success, only a small part of it. I imagine anyone considering GB had to weigh the money and time commitment, as well as popularity among their community, against other 'lifetyle" games.

In contrast, KS's "one and done" boardgame model starts with everyone with the same level of knowledge of the game (none, to the point where backers don't even know the final rules), no need for a long-term commitment to or support for the game (because there is no future for the game, anyway), no game store support for tournament play (it's just a boardgame), and no local community buy-in (just bring the game to game night and look for another player). KS boardgames do run into the issue of supply, but only once it hits retail.

Makes me wonder what the long-term future is for CMON's ASOIAF.

I think it's is really important to bring up. The industry if very low margin and it can take years to get any real returns on an investment going the traditional route which is made harder by all the competition and distribution changes we've been hearing about. KIckstarters are quick, for the hobby, turn around of maybe 2 years (one year developing one year producing and delivering) and you know roughly what your profits will be before the KSer ends. Companies that do well are just going to attract the interested of investors more and more and we'll probabably see more VC/PE funds investing. This might, in turn, help table top games and it would divert competition to one and done boardgames. I'm curious to see who's still creating traditional wargames in 5 years.

I agree with all of that, but then you look at the success of GW, which is 90%+ "lifestyle" games, so there's clearly still a market for it in the general sense. It's not that the popularity of lifestyle games are declining in general, it seems that GW has sucked up more and more of it at the moment to the point anyone else struggles in that specific market segment. But yeah chucking out a boxed game with an IP paint job slathered on it once a year is an easier path to the quick cash.

There's still space for non GW lifestyle games from other companies, now and in the future. But they can't be just average, they'll need to be good games and more importantly have a good, well run company behind them that are committed to competing in that space, with all it entails. Guild ball was a very good ruleset, and it could have easily had a 2nd edition (yes, even if it did piss off the "competitive" crowd) but clearly SFG did not have the chops nor the will to handle the product and supply chain and that's a real shame.

Not entirely on topic but kinda related, i do see an increasing challenge in future for US & UK companies that are completely reliant on manufacturing in China. It's already hard enough to get your stock out there with that sort of supply chain (SFG and CMON being good examples) but the cost/benefit ration made it worth it. With increasing anti-China sentiment, COVID related unemployment, and politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something", there's certainly scope for more and more barriers being put into place for Western-China trade in the future. Forward looking companies i would expect to be taking steps to mitigate that risk.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
ASOIAF minis are good quality, great designs, for a reasonable price. And they can work in a variety of fantasy settings. The game itself could cease to exist and people would still have a reason to buy the minis.

The point is, if the game ceases to exist, the miniatures will stop being sold.

So that means if you don't have the miniatures already, you will have a harder time to find them afterwards.

It's only "good" for those who have bought everything. But it's not a good point in itself...it's just common sense that if you have them already, of course you can use them for whatever you want.

Any game stopping is not a good thing for fans of that game. Sure, BB has a great community to make it survive all these years and plenty of alternative sculptors jumping on the opportunity, but Guild Ball isn't Blood Bowl (and CMON's support is known to be fickle). Nowadays, all games like this are just dieing faster - the days of games able to live on dozens of years are clearly a thing of the past, and the Blood Bowl case is more an exception than the main rule. The attention of players is just way too much sollicitated by so many new games / kickstarters constantly, especially in the chaos of boardgames !

Blood Bowl was very much the exception to the rule, there's 1000 games out there that pretty much disappeared not long after official support ceased. BB is a rare case indeed

MaxT wrote:

I agree with all of that, but then you look at the success of GW, which is 90%+ "lifestyle" games, so there's clearly still a market for it in the general sense. It's not that the popularity of lifestyle games are declining in general, it seems that GW has sucked up more and more of it at the moment to the point anyone else struggles in that specific market segment. But yeah chucking out a boxed game with an IP paint job slathered on it once a year is an easier path to the quick cash.

Except GW games arent' really lifestyle games. There's no huuuuuge amount of combos and tricks to learn. Once you learn how your own army works you have feasible chance and can win against armies you haven't played before. Less weirdo combos and the ones that are are more obvious(it doesn't long figure out aggressors that shoot twice move or stand still shoot hell of a lot). More result from dice rolls as well. More focus on list building rather than in game. If you have built your own list well you are well on way to victory depending on random.

Not that skill effect isn't there but unless you are playing on tighest of the tight competition top spots(which is tiny majority of games) you won't be totally screwed as long as you didn't screw yourself in list building. You have chance to win. Even if you don't know opponent's army inside out.

In warmachine etc there's lot more combos and interactions you need to know or you get vaporized.

GW games are lot more casual step in, have fun, step out games.

I was extremely disappointed and a bit annoyed about the announcement from Steamforged, although I wasn't surprised. Covid19 didn't cause this, nor did the competitive players, it was just down to money and bad decisions.
I've been playing since the beginning and now have 8-9 teams complete, including the alternate versions of players. I'm no great player but will admit the more skilful and knowledgeable player will always win, but surely this is as it should be.
Going forward I hope someone else picks up the Guildball ip but as I hear it that's not going to happen. No other game plays quite like it and although I have everything I need to play, knowing there won't be any new players models or rules makes me kind of sad and many existing players will surely move away as a result.

I doubt SFG would be stupid enough to sell off the IP. Right now they'd just get pennies on the dollar. Better to keep it in their back pocket for a potential future relaunch if and when the market looks like it's suitable, and they've sorted their own gak out.

But you never know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

MaxT wrote:

I agree with all of that, but then you look at the success of GW, which is 90%+ "lifestyle" games, so there's clearly still a market for it in the general sense. It's not that the popularity of lifestyle games are declining in general, it seems that GW has sucked up more and more of it at the moment to the point anyone else struggles in that specific market segment. But yeah chucking out a boxed game with an IP paint job slathered on it once a year is an easier path to the quick cash.

Except GW games arent' really lifestyle games. There's no huuuuuge amount of combos and tricks to learn. Once you learn how your own army works you have feasible chance and can win against armies you haven't played before. Less weirdo combos and the ones that are are more obvious(it doesn't long figure out aggressors that shoot twice move or stand still shoot hell of a lot). More result from dice rolls as well. More focus on list building rather than in game. If you have built your own list well you are well on way to victory depending on random.

Not that skill effect isn't there but unless you are playing on tighest of the tight competition top spots(which is tiny majority of games) you won't be totally screwed as long as you didn't screw yourself in list building. You have chance to win. Even if you don't know opponent's army inside out.

In warmachine etc there's lot more combos and interactions you need to know or you get vaporized.

GW games are lot more casual step in, have fun, step out games.

Warmahordes is a particularly brutal example due to its caster kill rules, but 40K has plenty of multi rules/strategem combos that can very much mess you up if you're not aware of them. Not to the same extent ofc. But if you've not really read up on the latest codex/hotness to come out, you're very much at a disadvantage if you play them in a matched play setting. Not in narrative, but that's where 40K shines!

MaxT wrote:

Warmahordes is a particularly brutal example due to its caster kill rules, but 40K has plenty of multi rules/strategem combos that can very much mess you up if you're not aware of them. Not to the same extent ofc. But if you've not really read up on the latest codex/hotness to come out, you're very much at a disadvantage if you play them in a matched play setting. Not in narrative, but that's where 40K shines!

Yes you are at disadvantaged but to the extent that you are quaranteed loss? I don't think so. I keep running into new things. I don't play every tournament out there and there are not even one every week. Generally I play 1 game a week plus maybe 1 tournament a month and even that isn't quaranteed. Means there by definition going to be new armies and tricks I have yet to face. Even with 40k I have played only 1 game vs death guard, once against custodians, never ynnari etc. In AOS I only started this...january? and have played 1 meeting engagement and 1 regular tournament. Have maybe faced 7 factions in total(and from those obviusly not all sub factions).

Yet I dare to maintain I have higher chance to win 40k/AOS against never heard thing than I would have had WM that as you say is brutal. First AOS tournament I ran into 2 new factions in 3 games. Sylvaneth sure I did get massacred but was of course against player who does dominate finnish AOS scenes so that was one of the games where I faced tough opposition. Also failing the priority roll on turn 2 was game over. On 3rd game I faced yet another new faction(Idoneth) that I knew in advance a) they get bonus based on turn(but wasn't sure what it was though recalled remembering turn 3 was most nasty one) b) eels are supposedly deadly.

Result? Won last game. Despite improvizing against new faction I had very little idea of what each unit even does...Good luck doing that on warmachine! I played warmachine for a while starting shortly before 2nd ed public testing started, playing quite a lot during it(vassal was also used a lot so I played more of WM than usual for miniature games during that) and for a while during WM2. I learned out there was huuuuuuuuuge amount of stuff I could not realistically catch up with my schedules and new stuff just kept appearing...In short for me it was simply unfeasible.

GW games are much more easy to come in and have something other than always losing without playing tons of games all the time. Game a week you can get games and win if not half the time or more at least more often than once in a blue moon.

MaxT wrote:
I agree with all of that, but then you look at the success of GW, which is 90%+ "lifestyle" games, so there's clearly still a market for it in the general sense. It's not that the popularity of lifestyle games are declining in general, it seems that GW has sucked up more and more of it at the moment to the point anyone else struggles in that specific market segment. But yeah chucking out a boxed game with an IP paint job slathered on it once a year is an easier path to the quick cash.

Well, GW, WotC, and, to some extent, HeroClix and D&D were all "first to market, best to market". Each of these "lifestyle" game companies are pretty much all of their market. (Arguably, Pathfinder a large player in the RPG market, but its customer base was originally D&D. This is very different from most "lifestyle" games which attempt to start from no customer base.) I dunno how well each "lifestyle" game market is doing, though. (Honorable mention to Gloomhaven which has carved its own position in the fragmented boardgame market.)

MaxT wrote:
There's still space for non GW lifestyle games from other companies, now and in the future. But they can't be just average, they'll need to be good games and more importantly have a good, well run company behind them that are committed to competing in that space, with all it entails. Guild ball was a very good ruleset, and it could have easily had a 2nd edition (yes, even if it did piss off the "competitive" crowd) but clearly SFG did not have the chops nor the will to handle the product and supply chain and that's a real shame..

True, but I don't see any companies doing this to the point of taking much market space from that dominate their market. I think companies, like FFG and CMON, which *could* support a "lifestyle" game went with other games (eg. boardgames) instead. Hence, CMON dropping Wrath of Kings and Dark Ages, and FFG dropping Runewars (and, arguably, Battlelore). CMON's ASOIAF is quite popular, though, alhough its supply problems; I'm definitely interested in its future.

MaxT wrote:
Not entirely on topic but kinda related, i do see an increasing challenge in future for US & UK companies that are completely reliant on manufacturing in China. It's already hard enough to get your stock out there with that sort of supply chain (SFG and CMON being good examples) but the cost/benefit ration made it worth it. With increasing anti-China sentiment, COVID related unemployment, and politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something", there's certainly scope for more and more barriers being put into place for Western-China trade in the future. Forward looking companies i would expect to be taking steps to mitigate that risk.

Actually, with 3D printing, we may be able to solve the production problem of miniature games, but not others that block adoption of a new "lifestyle" game, such as buy-in from a local community. To a good extent, RPGs are an example, as they can be distributed by PDF, bypassing any need for a printing company, and thus allowing thousands of RPG's (including free ones). Yet, D&D is still the most popular RPG game, though Pathfinder is a definite contender.

Still on the fence if I should back Massive Darkness 2 to pillage for Gloomhaven miniature proxies...

 LunarSol wrote:


It's not really being out of range that creates issues. It's the opportunity to intentionally set myself out of range where things break down. Where I think Legion and MCPs widgets matter is that they are precise while also reducing the value of precision. In part, this is because the lack of a tape measure means you can't really check beyond a single action for "total threat" but it also has to do with how the range bands offer less minute ranges.

In GB and WMH notably, having a 11-12" threat puts you at an enormous advantage over a 10" threat. You can line up 10.1" away, they can't hurt you and you get to destroy them. Part of the reason that works though is because 1" advantages in threat can be leveraged without really sacrificing board position. It becomes a binary positioning issue rather than a tactical choice.
....

...
The other option you see is threat range options. One of WMH's biggest issues is that models deal the most damage when they use their longest threat. There's no real choice in this compared to say, Malifaux 3E, where if something is out of your range, you can sacrifice an attack

Well, ranges and alpha strikes in Warmachine aren't as insurmontable as you're painting them. Agreed, going first is huge advantage that should be balanced better, but you definitely can counter better threat ranges with layered defense, jamming, planning scenario play. Only yesterday I read a report from our National Championships that perfectly shows this scenario.

The Cryx player gets first turn, casts Mobility and runs his warjack-heavy army to the middle of the table, pushing past scenario elements with charges threatening 13" from his opponent's ( the reporting player) table edge which equals "you can move no more than 3" out of your DZ if you don't want to come into charge range".

http://momentofclarity.eu/constance1-vs-asphyxious3-polish-team-championship-round-4/

Spoiler - the Cryx player loses the game on scenario, alongside his entire army even though his opponent is playing a relatively slow melee army with hardly any shooting.

Having said that, the idea of sacrificing efficiency for ranges is an excellent one and I would love to see it implemented! Warjacks paying 1 FOC and losing 1 attack as a result but getting boosted charge damage roll is a really small price and other range bonuses have even smaller price quite often.

It's a shame to read about this. I never played Guildball, but I heard some good things about it. I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned here for those who are so quick to decry GW, and how you go about striking a balance between competitive vs casual, order vs variation, easy-to-learn vs tactical depth / difficulty curve for new players; and doing all of which while also trying to make money, and keep people interested.

Honestly I'd feel quite content if they said "look, GB isn't pulling it's weight, we'll commit to the rules for the last four teams we discussed and the we'll call it a day."

Then produced PDFs of the players for the last 4 minor teams, even if they charged for the download, and left players to proxy models.

But as it stands, the GB show has been cancelled after part one of a two part season finale, because the audience was watching it wrong.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But as it stands, the GB show has been cancelled after part one of a two part season finale, because the audience was watching it wrong.

Now that had me laughing.

Game of thrones,
Star Wars,
Guild ball,

Don't blame the creators, it's the audience that got it wrong!

Sounds like the sort of random subject Mad Doc Grotsnik would create in off topic just to get a conversation started.

 Henry wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But as it stands, the GB show has been cancelled after part one of a two part season finale, because the audience was watching it wrong.

Now that had me laughing.

Game of thrones,
Star Wars,
Guild ball,

Don't blame the creators, it's the audience that got it wrong!

And Star Trek
and mainstream comics
and Doctor Who
and Ghostbusters
and Terminator...

Just to name a few.

Seems weird they would just outright give up on it instead of trying to reboot into Guild Ball 2 or something first. Or just leave Guild Ball as-is and make like "Guild Ball journeyman's league" - with a less competitive minded rule-set.

Schmapdi wrote:
Seems weird they would just outright give up on it instead of trying to reboot into Guild Ball 2 or something first. Or just leave Guild Ball as-is and make like "Guild Ball journeyman's league" - with a less competitive minded rule-set.

I think with any of those options it would still be taking away valuable time from any other projects. Dropping it completely right now gives them the chance to see what peoples reactions are, and maybe get revitalized and come up with a new plan. Maybe the community will be big enough to carry it for a short time on life support while they re-evaluate or find someone to take over.

Schmapdi wrote:
Seems weird they would just outright give up on it instead of trying to reboot into Guild Ball 2 or something first. Or just leave Guild Ball as-is and make like "Guild Ball journeyman's league" - with a less competitive minded rule-set.

It's because they got a 5 million pound investment from a Private Equity firm that then loaded the board of directors with their people. Guild Ball didn't bring a high enough return of investment to them so it was killed. GB2, if it ever happens, is more likely to be due to the IP sold to the creators and them leaving SFG and starting a new company for as long as the KSer boardgame money keeps coming in that's what SFG will be doing. Once that stops the PE will part out the company for more short term gains and close down what's left.

Biggest problem with all that licensed content is that while it may get you a lot of free advertising, it also comes with a higher cost to produce, and constant delays dealing with approvals.

They'll need to have a better balance of licensed to original IP to continue. But I suspect they're just looking to sell to Asmodee in 4-5 years.

I never played this game but was aware of it. Heard good things, but fantasy football isn't my thing. Couple of points after reading this thread:

1. They are not interested in long term support for games, hence the focus on high dollar, high name, Kickstarters. Sure, they will make stuff after the KS is done with, but everyone knows that is just aimed at the people who backed in the first place. If someone happens to see a box on the shelf and buy it, that's gravy. The real money and focus is the Kickstarter itself. If the game dies afterwards, no big deal.

2. LOL @ the whole "Our game was so perfect we had to end it.". Give me a break.

3. Blood Bowl was kept alive for so long because WHFB was still a thing. Same for Mordheim.

Despite what they said in the announcement, the reasons for killing the game were almost certainly purely financial, and likely planned well before covid - 19 and lockdown. Guildball just wasn't making enough money, especially compared to the video game related kickstarters. They would have been under severe pressure from the new investors to get rid of it, and money talks.

 Phobos wrote:

3. Blood Bowl was kept alive for so long because WHFB was still a thing. Same for Mordheim.

the BB community had not much to do with WHFB and NAF runs on its own anyway

there was no one who invested time into BB because WHFB was played (rather the other way around, BB saw a little boost after it was the only active community left using the Warhammer setting)

2. LOL @ the whole "Our game was so perfect we had to end it.". Give me a break.

it sounds funny, but the problem is, a good game runs into 2 problems, it does not need updates and people are not raging about it on the internet

how many topics to get there on dakka because of 1 bad unit in 1 faction book of AoS/40k
if there would be nothing to complain about how bad the game is, the amount of posts about AoS/40k would much less (and with that also the impression that there is an active community)

and a lot of people want regular updates on a monthly bases
if there are no problems to fix and not constantly adding new factions, there is no need for an update
so people think the game is dead (it is also the main complain about Mantics Deadzone, an update once a year with new Scenarios, new Models and adjusted points is considered as "no support from the company")

so if there is no long term plan on how the keep the game running without writing yourself in a corner, you have a problem if the game is too good

writing a bad game and just relase hotfixes and take you time by updating the faction rules (instead of doing all at once) is much easier and keeps the impression that the company cares much more


Guildball itself was dead the moment GW got itself back into BloodBowl.
AS long as it was the only Fantasy Sports game with "official" company support it had its niche.
while people here saw it as the "game for those who don't have enough time for Warmachine/Hordes" the casual players were gone the instant a new BB box hit the shelfs
I am just suprised that they managed to keep it alive so long

Ive been pondering this for a while and am frankly quite grumpy at the blame shifting.

Maybe I played it wrong with my thinking a bit before rolling the dice, but the ongoing supply and other issues which the playerbase tolerated out of a love of the game and wanting to support a smaller company is what killed it

Im done with SFG