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.

X-wing started with less.

But X-wing has fantastic gameplay while AI is so shallow GW doesn't even get its usual pass on bad rules.

I figure both AN and AT have suffered from the success of Necromunda. You can kinda see how as one game got a lions share of attention and marketing and funding the other two have fallen back a bit. AN a lot, AT somewhat though I still worry that AT really needs to push forward and get some Chaos titans out - get something other than Imperial

I like Necromunda, LOVE AT, & really really want AI to get more love. But totally agree that AI has gotten the shaft on the funding/development side.

 Overread wrote:
I figure both AN and AT have suffered from the success of Necromunda. You can kinda see how as one game got a lions share of attention and marketing and funding the other two have fallen back a bit. AN a lot, AT somewhat though I still worry that AT really needs to push forward and get some Chaos titans out - get something other than Imperial

You can't really blame GW for supporting what sells, but you can blame them for bad ressoure allocation - at a certain point a game that is not supported or almost not supported withering on the vine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. AT at least gets a slow, painful, burning trickle of stuff...

Its a shame as some of the AI miniatures are lovely. The Ork range in particular, loved putting together the Grot bombers, they are a wonderfully characterful design.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I figure both AN and AT have suffered from the success of Necromunda. You can kinda see how as one game got a lions share of attention and marketing and funding the other two have fallen back a bit. AN a lot, AT somewhat though I still worry that AT really needs to push forward and get some Chaos titans out - get something other than Imperial

You can't really blame GW for supporting what sells, but you can blame them for bad ressoure allocation - at a certain point a game that is not supported or almost not supported withering on the vine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. AT at least gets a slow, painful, burning trickle of stuff...

You can blame them for writing terrible rules (even though they had an existing set of rules that wasn't too bad).

As cool as the models are for AI, it isn't one of GW's typical games that can survive on cool models but crap rules. It needed to have good rules to build a solid community.

Does it really matter if GW never "supports" a terrible game? If you want a good 40k air combat game all you have to do is break free from the new content treadmill. AI 1.0 is one of the best games GW has ever published and is a complete game with no further need for expansions and as long as the AI 2.0 models remain available to buy that's all the support we need.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Does it really matter if GW never "supports" a terrible game? If you want a good 40k air combat game all you have to do is break free from the new content treadmill. AI 1.0 is one of the best games GW has ever published and is a complete game with no further need for expansions and as long as the AI 2.0 models remain available to buy that's all the support we need.

Well, they aren't doing a great job keeping the models available, I haven't been able to buy a Thunderhawk in Australia since soon after it first released.

But the problem is popularity and accessibility. It's never great to be trying to introduce a new player to a game and you have to say "sooo, the current version sucks, we'll play the version that was discontinued a decade ago and you can no longer buy the rulebooks". Some people like playing dead games, for many others it's a big negative.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Does it really matter if GW never "supports" a terrible game? If you want a good 40k air combat game all you have to do is break free from the new content treadmill. AI 1.0 is one of the best games GW has ever published and is a complete game with no further need for expansions and as long as the AI 2.0 models remain available to buy that's all the support we need.

Well, they aren't doing a great job keeping the models available, I haven't been able to buy a Thunderhawk in Australia since soon after it first released.

But the problem is popularity and accessibility. It's never great to be trying to introduce a new player to a game and you have to say "sooo, the current version sucks, we'll play the version that was discontinued a decade ago and you can no longer buy the rulebooks". Some people like playing dead games, for many others it's a big negative.

''If you are an expert in the setting an scrounge about on seven different unrelated auction plattforms, 3D-printing forums and websites you never heard of before for a couple of months you can acquire reasonable proxies for 4/5ths of the models that have rules in our favorite fanmade ruleset that was hosted on a defunct bulgarian soccer site's comment section for 15 minutes in 2008'' is not the compelling proposition to invest in yet another game that some people may think it is

Fan versions and community editions are all fine and dandy, and i greatly respect the labour and knowledge that usually go into them, but in some ways they're the equivalent of the grey-haired dude in a faded tie-died shirt hanging around in the back of the record store - they are an absolute delight if you want to talk about their hyper-specific niche of an already narrow genre, but they're not exactly non-intimidating for new people that you want to introduce to the hobby.

If it's playing a dead game with a local community it's better than not playing at all.

For some reason a lot of people in the GW bubble think if you're not playing the #1 smash hit record breaking top dog you might as well melt everything in your collection down and shred your rulebooks.

 Arbitrator wrote:
If it's playing a dead game with a local community it's better than not playing at all.

For some reason a lot of people in the GW bubble think if you're not playing the #1 smash hit record breaking top dog you might as well melt everything in your collection down and shred your rulebooks.

Alternately, they're using the same logic you just did: they're playing the one active game in the local community, rather than not playing at all.

 Arbitrator wrote:
If it's playing a dead game with a local community it's better than not playing at all.

For some reason a lot of people in the GW bubble think if you're not playing the #1 smash hit record breaking top dog you might as well melt everything in your collection down and shred your rulebooks.

These are 2 player (or occasionally more) games and unlike your typical board game they tend to require significant time and money investment.

It's much easier to find another player, or convince a new player to start, if it's an active community.

I'd say that's a pretty big potential negative for a game.

It's like playing a newer release video game with many active players in the servers versus some old game that might be better but the servers are dead. Sure, maybe you can find some dude on the other side of the world willing to play at 3am for a few hours, or some person who never stopped playing the game and is so freakishly good you lose instantly, but often the better game is simply the one you can find more people to play with.

I get that, but usually the reaction to that ends up being "well none is taking your rulebooks away, none is stopping you playing!!!" when GW take a game out to pasture.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
These are 2 player (or occasionally more) games and unlike your typical board game they tend to require significant time and money investment.

So why not provide the models for both players? It's a game with 5-10 models per side, that should be pretty easy to put together multiple forces so all a new player has to do is show up and start the game. And if they like the game GW sells all the miniatures they need.

Arbitrator nailed it 100% though. The only issue with AI is the weird attitude that if you aren't on the treadmill of new content every month regardless of whether or not it's good content it's not worth playing a game. Break free of that attitude and AI 1.0 is a complete game that doesn't need more content. The books are easy to find online and as long as GW keeps the AI 2.0 miniatures in production buying new armies is just as easy as buying stuff for any other GW game. The only thing AI 1.0 lacks is a new mandatory $50 book every few months and who wants that nonsense?

 Arbitrator wrote:
I get that, but usually the reaction to that ends up being "well none is taking your rulebooks away, none is stopping you playing!!!" when GW take a game out to pasture.

The problem isn't GW took *my* rulebooks away, it's that if I want to get other people in to the game they can't buy rulebooks for themselves. Even current AI has that problem of course because GW don't keep the rules in stock, the only option is digital rules and many people (me included) don't own an appropriate portable electronic gizmo for using digital rules. So it's a complaint that's valid for both playing old editions and also playing the current editions

And playing outdated editions of a game can in some ways be worse than if GW simply didn't release the game again at all, as it splinters an already small community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
These are 2 player (or occasionally more) games and unlike your typical board game they tend to require significant time and money investment.

So why not provide the models for both players? It's a game with 5-10 models per side, that should be pretty easy to put together multiple forces so all a new player has to do is show up and start the game.

That's what I do, but it makes the game more expensive and isn't as fun to show up with the same 2 forces trying to find an opponent versus an opponent showing up with their own unique force to play against your own unique force.

And even though AI doesn't require many models, it's still fecking expensive, and I still spend a couple of hours painting each model. If you buy the starter sets as your starting point, you probably want 2x starter sets + 1 other box for each squadron you want.

It's just not an appealing prospect. Sure, you can buy two squadrons and treat it like a board game looking for opponents to play one of your squadrons against you... but it's a far cry from being able to find genuine opponents, maybe find a few people playing different squadrons, maybe be able to play a tournament or a campaign, etc etc.

 Pacific wrote:
Its a shame as some of the AI miniatures are lovely. The Ork range in particular, loved putting together the Grot bombers, they are a wonderfully characterful design.

You can still use the V1 rules. They were great!

Granted, I know doing so is problematic in the modern world.

I have a review and some resources here:
http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/02/review-aeronautica-imperialis-forgeworld.html

GW Instagram teased BFG again yesterday.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW Instagram teased BFG again yesterday.

We also got/get suspiciously many artworks of ships with that whole Arks of Omen thing - it need not mean anything, but then...

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW Instagram teased BFG again yesterday.

Can't view anything there without an account, what did they say this time?