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.

 xttz wrote:

"The first place that the exact launch date will be confirmed is from a photo taken by the shaky, sweating hands of a dude in a toilet cubicle in Poland, moments before the GW enforcers smash down the door and murder him"

Sure, keep piling on the poor employee guy who you know can't answer you on the official social media unless he wants to be fired. That's a great move showing how mature you are.

Yea.

There's nothing more useless than trying to ask community staff about launch dates. They can't tell it. You have better chance of winning lottery without entering than getting gw staff reveal prelrder date outside sunday article.

Staff...can't...tell...it.

Asking them is wasting everybody's time and getting eyerolls by the staff who has to waste time to answer worthless question.

If anyone has a twitter account and wants a non-worthless question, ask if the new launch box is limited edition or a longterm thing like AoD.

Why bother ? Last time someone did that and the poor guy actually answering, it turned out it was not what happened and the backlash was even fiercer for both GW and the guy in question.

You know their twitter account isn't there for that. It's for engagement, not for answering questions they shouldn't answer for their own good.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I am going to die of old age before LI comes out at this rate.

I already feel needing walking stick when going to pick up the set.

Just think about us Xenos fans who are likely expecting Xenos to possibly maybe make an appearance IF this game does well and IF GW want to do it and IF they do Chaos corrupted stuff first and such.

So we could be looking at 10-20 years!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Yea.

There's nothing more useless than trying to ask community staff about launch dates. They can't tell it. You have better chance of winning lottery without entering than getting gw staff reveal prelrder date outside sunday article.

Staff...can't...tell...it.

Asking them is wasting everybody's time and getting eyerolls by the staff who has to waste time to answer worthless question.

Not only can't they tell there's a good chance that they don't even know the dates. GW keeps a lot of info segmented and the social media might even just a small external firm who gets articles and content from GW and brushes up a few posts for them. So they might not even be in the same building let alone the same full organisation or such.

Regardless they will never say anything that hasn't been officially said elsewhere already. Very occasionally they give out a little more info, but really they are there to deliver and confirm information that is already released and they won't tease out more info than that.

Nothing wrong with asking somebody representing GW for information in my opinion.

You as a customer are within your rights to ask a release date. They can pass the info on asking for info and the company will make a decision.

Keeping customers in the dark...or giving our silly hints like 'sooner than you think' is worse than a customer asking a question imho, so long as its dont politely.

VAYASEN wrote:

Keeping customers in the dark...

Not telling information that isn't confirmed for whatever reason is not "keeping customers in the dark"...it's about not saying something they could regret.

There's nothing worse and unforgivable by customers to give them "false hope" by telling about a release date that turns out not to be that one. Like they did for LI in august, and which is why they're super extra cautious this time. If they gotta be blamed whatever they decide to do, better be it by being cautious, I say.

Sarouan wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:

Keeping customers in the dark...

Not telling information that isn't confirmed for whatever reason is not "keeping customers in the dark"...it's about not saying something they could regret.

There's nothing worse and unforgivable by customers to give them "false hope" by telling about a release date that turns out not to be that one. Like they did for LI in august, and which is why they're super extra cautious this time. If they gotta be blamed whatever they decide to do, better be it by being cautious, I say.

but nobody made them say 'it will be out sooner than you think'

I think most of us thought it would be announced by now.

It wouldnt be THAT hard to make a statement, without thinking about it at all, just typing, to the effect of 'our aim is to have the game release early December but it is very difficult given the busy release schedule and we will update you all within the next few weeks to confirm if this will be the case, or if we will sadly for you, release in early 2024. With a little thought, it could be better obviously.

I

About the boxed infantry, core box, and entry point... and for all of those that after 143 pages still have no idea about the game, about 30K, about 40k or about Heresy: you don't need infantry to play, armoured companies are CORE.

They already slipped the release date, I get them being tepid about any promises/specificity in terms of new release date until it's a certainty. Under promise and over deliver is tough when they've already blown a promise so I get it. In camera sales we'd always give a long shot estimation for product delivery/arrival, so that when it came in a week or two early we'd look like heroes and if it was late, we have made no promises that weren't well within a few missed shipments. So short of it being a supply issue on not logistics on our end, which were very tight, people generally would get their stuff early and be very happy to get that phone call.

I think the 18th rumour is seeming more likely with release on the 2nd. Especailly given the sort of round up remind everyone the game is coming warcom article. Which will be a useful resource to send friends still on the fence about splitting a starter as its broken down article by article. There's a question of if they'll hold some of the contents of the starter box back in terms of releasing as their own kits like the infantry. For example, I'd be surprised to see the warhound reboxing with the new sprue initially, the dire wolf perhaps but again it's not in the starter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:
About the boxed infantry, core box, and entry point... and for all of those that after 143 pages still have no idea about the game, about 30K, about 40k or about Heresy: you don't need infantry to play, armoured companies are CORE.

Bit concerned about that, I don't think you're wrong I just really hope for combined arms as like a core army building principle. Giant units of tanks and not much more sounds a bit boring.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
About the boxed infantry, core box, and entry point... and for all of those that after 143 pages still have no idea about the game, about 30K, about 40k or about Heresy: you don't need infantry to play, armoured companies are CORE.

Bit concerned about that, I don't think you're wrong I just really hope for combined arms as like a core army building principle. Giant units of tanks and not much more sounds a bit boring.

Pretty sure that armor units are not Core selections, but that there are formations that just have armor in them. I believe LI classifies Core as basic infantry from what we have seen. I can’t recall if there is anything specific about which units can claim objectives, but I think infantry get a bonus. (And can hide in buildings.)

Hmm, maybe they will give more detailed rule data for Thursday. We can hope.

 vadersson wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
About the boxed infantry, core box, and entry point... and for all of those that after 143 pages still have no idea about the game, about 30K, about 40k or about Heresy: you don't need infantry to play, armoured companies are CORE.

Bit concerned about that, I don't think you're wrong I just really hope for combined arms as like a core army building principle. Giant units of tanks and not much more sounds a bit boring.

Pretty sure that armor units are not Core selections, but that there are formations that just have armor in them. I believe LI classifies Core as basic infantry from what we have seen. I can’t recall if there is anything specific about which units can claim objectives, but I think infantry get a bonus. (And can hide in buildings.)

Hmm, maybe they will give more detailed rule data for Thursday. We can hope.

I believe you're quite correct, it's more the concern that terrain and amount of buildings might be highly variable from board to board and group to group. Tanks aren't the be all end all but without buildings or adequate cover I worry about infantry's ability to tip the scales. Planes might come along and blow up all the tanks, but I just sorta hope people need to "eat their broccoli" and have a bare minimum of infantry and a handful of stuff other than just tanks. Here's hoping.




Also apparenlty the next white dwarf has LI pics, specifically of painted imperial fists

Not an expert in marketing at all, but it seems to me that if you have a big project that gets delayed, the best thing is to just release a statement saying “we have had to delay due to logistical/quality assurance/whatever reason, at this stage we can’t say when the release will be, but stay tuned and we’ll let you know, join the mailing list to be notified”…. then go dark on the project until there’s a more solid release date that can restart the hype train closer to release.

It seems like keeping the hype train rolling while also not giving an indication of release date perhaps just draws the ire of potential customers. Hell, even though I’m not 100% sure I’ll buy into LI, there’s been a couple of other things I didn’t buy thinking “LI is just around the corner”, not that I massively care but it’s money I might have otherwise spent.

GW will never admit they fethed up. Not even new GW

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Not an expert in marketing at all, but it seems to me that if you have a big project that gets delayed, the best thing is to just release a statement saying “we have had to delay due to logistical/quality assurance/whatever reason, at this stage we can’t say when the release will be, but stay tuned and we’ll let you know, join the mailing list to be notified”…. then go dark on the project until there’s a more solid release date that can restart the hype train closer to release.

It seems like keeping the hype train rolling while also not giving an indication of release date perhaps just draws the ire of potential customers. Hell, even though I’m not 100% sure I’ll buy into LI, there’s been a couple of other things I didn’t buy thinking “LI is just around the corner”, not that I massively care but it’s money I might have otherwise spent.

Funny. That's what gw did.

But gw never says concrete date even without delays before sunday comes up. And hype train always starts before that sunday.

So for all products you think gw should start hyping only after sunday announcement? Note how for all products beside LI now there's been hype before sunday so guess all that should also be moved to post-sunday announcement?

Agree with AllSeeingSkink there that just putting it back in a box for a while might have been more sensible. But perhaps they didn't know how long the delay would be initially, and the rule reprints and repackaging are taking onger than expected?

SU-152 wrote:
About the boxed infantry, core box, and entry point... and for all of those that after 143 pages still have no idea about the game, about 30K, about 40k or about Heresy: you don't need infantry to play, armoured companies are CORE.

Yes you are right in principle, but have you ever seen an Epic army that didn't feature any infantry at all? I think I have seen one game, in about 30 years, and that was some people messing about with an all-titans Vs Gargants game at a store event after Titan Legions was released.

One of the main components of Epic is combined arms, the scale lets you have everything that you can imagine from the HH book battles on the tabletop at once, so I think releasing the game without easily obtainable infantry is unlikely to happen.

It's not a problem to have core units of vehicles if the rules incite you to still have infantry. Reason why the latter was still present in old Epic lists that didn't have an infantry obligation in them is simply because there are terrains only infantry can enter. Put an objective in it, and suddenly the need of infantry becomes crucial. So people included infantry "just in case".

Some titan lists did only have titans / armored vehicles in them. They obviously had the firepower for them, but lack of infantry was an intended weak point. If the players could fit some in their lists, they would have done so because old versions of Epic weren't just about destroying the opponent's army. This version of LI looks very much the same, given the previews and the battle report in the White Dwarf. It's also not a hazard if most of LI terrain is buildings and ruins, terrains typically made for infantry fights.

Just another proof that list building out of scenarios is useless, and how clever rule design give the player choice instead of removing it for "artificial balance".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:
About the boxed infantry, core box, and entry point... and for all of those that after 143 pages still have no idea about the game, about 30K, about 40k or about Heresy: you don't need infantry to play, armoured companies are CORE.

Bit concerned about that, I don't think you're wrong I just really hope for combined arms as like a core army building principle. Giant units of tanks and not much more sounds a bit boring.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Not an expert in marketing at all, but it seems to me that if you have a big project that gets delayed, the best thing is to just release a statement saying “we have had to delay due to logistical/quality assurance/whatever reason, at this stage we can’t say when the release will be, but stay tuned and we’ll let you know, join the mailing list to be notified”…. then go dark on the project until there’s a more solid release date that can restart the hype train closer to release.

It seems like keeping the hype train rolling while also not giving an indication of release date perhaps just draws the ire of potential customers. Hell, even though I’m not 100% sure I’ll buy into LI, there’s been a couple of other things I didn’t buy thinking “LI is just around the corner”, not that I massively care but it’s money I might have otherwise spent.

Funny. That's what gw did.

Nah, that's not what they did. From memory they said it's coming in August (or maybe that was a rumour? I don't remember, but I remember having the expectation from somewhere it was coming in August), again from memory I think they then let it simmer for a while until people were starting discuss the release window (much like we are now!) then when it was delayed they released another hype article, at the very end of which for those few who read through the whole article they said "While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon."

Rewording that to be more consistent with what I suggested, what they COULD have said was maybe "While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, we've encountered problems with XYZ. Don't worry, the mail order trolls are on the job and doing their best, but unfortunately we can't give a release date yet, but stay tuned and we’ll let you know, join the mailing list to be notified . the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.".

They then kept releasing hype articles while people are eagerly waiting that "little later in the year" announcement to come out (opposed to my suggestion of going dark on it until they had a better idea of the release window).

Then they had that other article with the "sooner than you think!" in late September. But of course everyone who was paying attention was thinking it'd only between a month and a few months later because they already said "a little later in the year". Wording is important, because it's what sets expectations even if they didn't say "we'll release it on October 20th!" people would have been thinking around about then because "a little later in the year" from August sounds like October-ish to November-ish.

You might say I'm being pedantic, and maybe I am, but the goal with customer relations is to NOT piss off a potential customer, so little details like how sentences are constructed are important.

But gw never says concrete date even without delays before sunday comes up. And hype train always starts before that sunday.

So for all products you think gw should start hyping only after sunday announcement? Note how for all products beside LI now there's been hype before sunday so guess all that should also be moved to post-sunday announcement?

They can start the hype train years before, that's fine, the problem we're talking about is the specific case of having an set an expectation, breaking that expectation, and then bumbling along with the hype train anyway while giving misleading queues as to when they might be able to buy it. Better just to be straight with people and say "we can't say when it'll release, but we'll let you know!" not "little later in the year", "very soon", "sooner than you think!".

It's hardly a new phenomenon, video game developers often have to deal with delays that push back release dates and then have to manage the hype monster they're trying to generate.

There's lots of ways to manage a hype train, ranging from announcing years in advance to announcing days in advance, no problems there.

But, at least we've all overanalysed it now, that's the most important thing

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
when it was delayed they released another hype article, at the very end of which for those few who read through the whole article they said "While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year..."

There was an additional notice about the delay on the main WarCom page too. It was one of those little box pop-up things they normally use to announce FAQs.

However I agree communication could have been a lot better, with two points in particular:
There should have been a distinct and clearer article regarding the delay (or at least mention it again on that empty Sunday article in August when most people were expecting to see LI)
Don't use phrases like "sooner than you think!" if the release isn't coming literally the following week

SU-152 - are you talking about Armageddon right? If so those vehicle-only lists are more common or plausible in that system (although again, and this might vary by gaming group, it is not something I have seen in practice)

However this game is based off of Epic SM/2nd edition, it's much harder to not include infantry in that system, as I said to the point where I only saw it once. The battle report they showed had a lot of infantry and they are kind of central to the Epic gaming concept. So I can't contemplate them releasing this game without some sort of 'infantry company' box which is just a copy of the sprue from the main game?

I will be honest I have lost track now why we are even having this discussion

We are free falling like the marketing for hte game all waiting for the release date and going in circles.


Honestly considering the back end of this game it might be that they've had and moved several release dates for it. Which could explain why they didn't have a clear message because Marketing might well have been told "next week for sur....oh no wait" several times over now.

 Overread wrote:
We are free falling like the marketing for hte game all waiting for the release date and going in circles.


Honestly considering the back end of this game it might be that they've had and moved several release dates for it. Which could explain why they didn't have a clear message because Marketing might well have been told "next week for sur....oh no wait" several times over now.

We had rumours about November for a while now so i think that was always the plan but the specific week in November has been changing with time with the current one being the 25th for release on the 2nd December so could be the case

 Overread wrote:
We are free falling like the marketing for hte game all waiting for the release date and going in circles.


Honestly considering the back end of this game it might be that they've had and moved several release dates for it. Which could explain why they didn't have a clear message because Marketing might well have been told "next week for sur....oh no wait" several times over now.

I think it's better to just tell people you don't have a date right now, otherwise folks are trying to decipher something that's not there.

Though maybe they thought they had a date and said "sooner than you think!" then figured out that it wouldn't be that date, but to me it more feels like they knew the date is a while off (maybe they don't know it exactly) and instead of pausing the hype train and picking it up later, they're trying to keep people in the edge of their seats waiting for it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Overread wrote:
We are free falling like the marketing for hte game all waiting for the release date and going in circles.


Honestly considering the back end of this game it might be that they've had and moved several release dates for it. Which could explain why they didn't have a clear message because Marketing might well have been told "next week for sur....oh no wait" several times over now.

I think it's better to just tell people you don't have a date right now, otherwise folks are trying to decipher something that's not there.

Though maybe they thought they had a date and said "sooner than you think!" then figured out that it wouldn't be that date, but to me it more feels like they knew the date is a while off (maybe they don't know it exactly) and instead of pausing the hype train and picking it up later, they're trying to keep people in the edge of their seats waiting for it.

I can see justifications on both sides. I do agree I'd prefer fixed firm dates on the future, but GW is really resistant to that and whilst they'd started doing roadmaps and such just before/during the early part of the Pandemic; I get the feeling that since the Pandemic there's enough general Chaos that GW really doesn't want to do it because they'd be slip sliding all the time.

Which can be a reason a firm doesn't give dates - they simply don't know and things are slip sliding along and getting nudged about. So they don't want to put out a promise of a future date and then go and miss it. Even if its just by a week. Much easier ot just keep the hype going; keep a few cryptic messages out and keep people on the edge of their seat. That way if it slips by a week you just keep it going; and if it lands a week earlier than planned BOOM it fits

If the developers don't manage to deliver on the hype, they could end up alienating customers and damaging the reputation of the game. There are many games here http://www.emedia.am/en/

 Pacific wrote:
SU-152 - are you talking about Armageddon right? If so those vehicle-only lists are more common or plausible in that system (although again, and this might vary by gaming group, it is not something I have seen in practice)

However this game is based off of Epic SM/2nd edition, it's much harder to not include infantry in that system, as I said to the point where I only saw it once. The battle report they showed had a lot of infantry and they are kind of central to the Epic gaming concept. So I can't contemplate them releasing this game without some sort of 'infantry company' box which is just a copy of the sprue from the main game?

I will be honest I have lost track now why we are even having this discussion

I am talking about Epic Armageddon, Epic 40k, Epic Heresy, SM1 &2, and NetEpic Gold. All have armoured armies, pretty common.

I don't know if GW is going to release infantry out of the "core" box. I am just saying it is not compulsory to play, that's all. In fact, my army for LI will be a Solar Auxilia Armoured Batallion

 Overread wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Overread wrote:
We are free falling like the marketing for hte game all waiting for the release date and going in circles.


Honestly considering the back end of this game it might be that they've had and moved several release dates for it. Which could explain why they didn't have a clear message because Marketing might well have been told "next week for sur....oh no wait" several times over now.

I think it's better to just tell people you don't have a date right now, otherwise folks are trying to decipher something that's not there.

Though maybe they thought they had a date and said "sooner than you think!" then figured out that it wouldn't be that date, but to me it more feels like they knew the date is a while off (maybe they don't know it exactly) and instead of pausing the hype train and picking it up later, they're trying to keep people in the edge of their seats waiting for it.

I can see justifications on both sides. I do agree I'd prefer fixed firm dates on the future, but GW is really resistant to that and whilst they'd started doing roadmaps and such just before/during the early part of the Pandemic; I get the feeling that since the Pandemic there's enough general Chaos that GW really doesn't want to do it because they'd be slip sliding all the time.

Which can be a reason a firm doesn't give dates - they simply don't know and things are slip sliding along and getting nudged about. So they don't want to put out a promise of a future date and then go and miss it. Even if its just by a week. Much easier ot just keep the hype going; keep a few cryptic messages out and keep people on the edge of their seat. That way if it slips by a week you just keep it going; and if it lands a week earlier than planned BOOM it fits

I don't think they needed firm dates, I think they either give a date, or they don't, avoid the half dates and the implied dates and just flat out tell people "we have no date as we need to resolve the issues and don't want to rush it out if those issues take a while to solve". If it's too unsure, then don't. And I think if they do give a date and have to delay, that's not inherently a problem, they just can become a problem if poorly managed.

The problem with keeping people on the edge of their seat, they can irreparably lose interest or just drive home the annoyance of the delay, that's why I think it's better to go dark after announcing a delay, let people not think about it for a few months, then ramp up fresh again.

As much as it pains me to say it, they DON'T want people thinking too much about a product. If people think too much about it, they're more likely to think "hmm, actually, I don't need this". I reckon that's what happened with Cursed City, it sold out, people wanted it, but by the time it rolled back around people who originally wanted it decided they don't actually want it any more and the restock seems like it hasn't moved as many copies as there were pining for it after the original sell out.

I don't think "just go dark" is a good plan for marketing. You go dark and suddenly the next thing is people would assume its cancelled outright and move on. You keep it hyped; you keep doing articles to confirm that it is most certainly going to be coming out. The longer the delay the more you need to keep communicating that the thing is coming.

Going dark is what Kickstarters do when they either run out of cash or get a huge delay and not many updates. It always results in people getting annoyed, angry and wanting to file refunds. Those KS that keep up steady and constant communication and keep talking about the product are the ones that often ride it out far better.

The ones that go dark - those are the ones that get a community turn toxic on them.







As for if they talk about it too much people move on - eh those were customers who were going to move on because of the delay no matter what. They might not even have bought in on launch day because it was too costly or such.