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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
What you think "dead" means and what dead actually means when used colloquially are two entirely different things. The sooner you can wrap your head around that the better off you will be.

I mean, this seems like it could go the other way. Your use of "dead" to mean only in reference to lifestyle games is just one use of it, and not necessarily that widely understood. Not everyone on dakka solely - or even mainly - plays lifestyle games.

And sure, on the one hand it's kind of silly for the rest of us to care about what people who only play lifestyle games think about everything else, but it sometimes crops up in casual discussion where people are speaking past each other and then everyone's mad so this sort of thread ensues.

Id never refer to Castles in the Sky, Johnny Reb, Crossfire, Aeronef, etc as "dead" games. They were never really "living" (which is an actual term formally applied to many games by their publishers, but also applies to games who's publishers don't apply the term to their games as well) to begin with. Some of those may be out of print or out of production, but that's a different term with a different meaning. Some of them are still played regularly enough, others might not be played much if at all, again doesn't really make a difference.

Games like Mustangs & Messerschmitts or Chef de Bataillon or Hind Commander likewise I would never refer to as dead for the same reason - they are all to the best of my knowledge out of print/production (or something close to it), and probably aren't played at all (or only played so rarely as to effectively not have a community or active playerbase). Again, they were never "alive" to begin with, even if they may have been games with active playerbases and communities at one point.

Dust 1947? Dead game. There once was ongoing support from the publishers, now theres no ongoing support for it from the publisher, its out of print/productuon, not much in the way of community support though it's still being played actively by small pockets.

Star Wars Armada? Dead game. There's no ongoing support for it from the publisher, its out of print/productuon, a lot of community support for continued unofficial development with an active playerbase (which I consider myself part of). It's been a dead game for 2+ years now, even though it was in print AMG wasn't really supporting it. The occasional balance patch and rapid reinforcement pack amounted to life support if you want to get technical, but "dead" was an accurate enough descriptor that it would be quibbling to split those hairs, abd which side of the line you fell on was basically "political" with regards to whether or not you believed AMG would ever actually put any effort to releasing new products for it.

Halo Fleet Battles? Dead game. Publisher doesn't even exist anymore. There's an active playerbase for it, enough to host tournaments at adepticon, there's entire waves of fan made expansions that have been released. Community support is great, but doesn't change the fact that it's a dead game as not everyone opts to engage with that content and there's even competing community rulesets (also seems to be true of Star Wars Armada based on the differentdirections membsrs of the community are going in), at that point its hard to say that its even the same game anymore.

WHFB? Dead game. I regard TOW as a different game. If you consider it the same game, then your perspective will differ. I consider WAP, 9th age, etc to be different games at this point as well, so even though I regard WHFB as dead, I consider 9A and WAP living(ish).

Warmachine/Hordes up to Mk3? Dead game - Mk4 is functionally a new game built on the same engine. A sequel if you will, but that itself is basically quibbling and I probably wouldn't bother debating the point with anyone unless I was really bored.

Etc.

I hope that illustrates how the term is generally used sufficiently enough for folks to get a grasp of it. Also that it's a term which applies more widely than just "the warhammer hobby".

chaos0xomega wrote:

I hope that illustrates how the term is generally used sufficiently enough for folks to get a grasp of it. Also that it's a term which applies more widely than just "the warhammer hobby".

The examples in this very thread prove this definition is not universally accepted.

Dead simply means different things to different people. You call Armada dead, for example, but many people wouldn't because it still has an active community, the rules are still available and many of the ships are still available. Maybe in a year or so that will change and Armada may well be referred to as a dead game by the majority of people. Right now, many would disagree. Blood Bowl had a huge scene for over a decade despite nt being in production. It was very far from dead.

For me, a dead game has some combination of lack of players, lack of availability of models and lack of rules availability. Except perhaps in the case of no players, I don't think any single factor determines whether a game is dead or not. Regional variations also apply. WM/H is pretty much dead where I am, for example, but I know other locations have a thriving scene.

It's simple. The definition of "dead game" is meaningless until you're trying to beat people up and convince them to play with you.

Because the important questions for a game are:
- How accessible are the pieces you're going to need to get to play it?
- How accessible are the rules you're going to need to know to play it?
- Who will play this game with me?

If you're dealing with a discontinued or unsupported game, then the answers to those questions become complicated. Do you have to make an alliance with the Great Sage to gain access to their archive for true version of the game? Or do you have to join the Yellow Court because their vision for the game is the true one?

 solkan wrote:
trying to beat people up and convince them to play with you.

You're meant to assault potential opponents? This is why I don't have anyone to play with.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:

 solkan wrote:
trying to beat people up and convince them to play with you.

You're meant to assault potential opponents? This is why I don't have anyone to play with.

How else do you convince roving war gamers to play a particular game?

chaos0xomega wrote:


What you think "dead" means and what dead actually means when used colloquially are two entirely different things. The sooner you can wrap your head around that the better off you will be.

You're missing the point that "dead" in this context is only a colloquial term, and therefore has no fixed meaning and means different things to different groups and/or localities. Your definition of a dead game is the one familiar to you, but this thread very clearly shows others have a different interpretation, and labelling that purely as contraryism because it doesn't fit your experience is very prescriptive. This forum alone is covering people from across the English-speaking world, plus quite a few with English as a second language. So until the International Convention on Tabletop Handbooks (ITCH) lays down the official global definition of "dead" for tabletop games, you're stuck with humans being messy.

It's quite interesting really. Would such a discussion be happening over, say, the meaning of "biscuit" as a term? Or about the use of the word "p*ssed"? It's just localised differences, there isn't a universal meaning.

 Haighus wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So until the International Convention on Tabletop Handbooks (ITCH) lays down the official global definition of "dead" for tabletop games, you're stuck with humans being messy.

It's quite interesting really. Would such a discussion be happening over, say, the meaning of "biscuit" as a term? Or about the use of the word "p*ssed"? It's just localised differences, there isn't a universal meaning.

Arguments over biscuit certainly happen because America has a different meaning to the UK.



Also don't forget even if the ITCH comes out with an official definition, the GWA (Global Wargamers Association) will then form with its own interpretation and who knows what the heck the UFOG (United Federation of Gamers) will do.

 Overread wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
So until the International Convention on Tabletop Handbooks (ITCH) lays down the official global definition of "dead" for tabletop games, you're stuck with humans being messy.

It's quite interesting really. Would such a discussion be happening over, say, the meaning of "biscuit" as a term? Or about the use of the word "p*ssed"? It's just localised differences, there isn't a universal meaning.

Arguments over biscuit certainly happen because America has a different meaning to the UK.



Also don't forget even if the ITCH comes out with an official definition, the GWA (Global Wargamers Association) will then form with its own interpretation and who knows what the heck the UFOG (United Federation of Gamers) will do.

Pah! The GWA and UFOG aren't up to scratch with ITCH!

Little did you know I'm actually the chairman of ITCH.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Little did you know I'm actually the chairman of ITCH.

Sounds unpleasant. Have you tried any lotions?

Yeah, but what have the Romans every done for Tabletop Wargaming?

 Haighus wrote:
Would such a discussion be happening over, say, the meaning of "biscuit" as a term?

Given the Americans keep trying to insist that a scone is a biscuit and a biscuit is a cookie... yes?

Not to mention Jaffa Cakes, where McVities & Customs and Excise went to court over whether they were cakes or biscuits... (they're cakes, and no VAT is payable)

stroller wrote:
Not to mention Jaffa Cakes, where McVities & Customs and Excise went to court over whether they were cakes or biscuits... (they're cakes, and no VAT is payable)

Well of course. They go stale, not soggy. Clearly cakes.

But what is considered a 'dead biscuit'?

@Cap'n Facebeard

https://kitchenmason.com/ginger-dead-men-halloween-biscuits/

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
But what is considered a 'dead biscuit'?

Rich tea. Dead not in terms of its production, but definitely dead for flavour. Cardboard has a better taste.

Get rekt!

Rich Tea is best for dunking in your cuppa, you foul heretic of the most foulest of heretical kind!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Garabaldi. There’s a dead biscuit for you. Despite being quite nice to be honest.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Get rekt!

Rich Tea is best for dunking in your cuppa, you foul heretic of the most foulest of heretical kind!

For dunking?! Any rich tea that goes vaguely near a nice, steaming cuppa instantly turns to mush at the bottom of the mug...

Get a proper dunker, like a choccy hobnob or a crunch cream.

There are people that called 40k a dead game five editions ago.

Nomeny wrote:
There are people that called 40k a dead game five editions ago.

There's always someone saying something stupid.

I had a middle-aged neckbeard in the mid nineties go on to me about how Magic the Gathering was ruined by the Mirage expansion and would be dead within a year

To me a Dead Game would be one which does not have any new content produced for it and with no re-prints being done.
There are still a lot of games that have miniatures lines still available and rulebooks and such can be still found in shops or Ebay.
Vor The Maelstrom and Rezolution being two of which i really like.
Clan War has a fan base but with miniatures being hard to find it makes it hard for anyone new to get into the game.
I am sure like many on here have games and miniatures ranges for lots of different systems from Years of collecting.

I think you can draw a distinction between a game being actively supported or not, and also whether anyone still plays it. It's only really the latter I would describe as a 'dead' game, if there is no playing community and the game has been forgotten.

For the long period of GW not supporting their specialist games range, even though they were not officially supported, they had active communities and events. In the late 00s and early 10s there were Bloodbowl tournaments in Europe with hundreds of attendees - the NAF rules community updating and publishing games and a garage industry of companies making new miniatures. So the game was very much alive and kicking.

Nowadays I would place games like BFG, or old WHFB editions, in the same boat - there are still many people actively participating in the community, rules councils updating rules and publishing them online etc.
All of the Epic editions still have a fervent following, despite the release of Legions Imperialis, you can still play in Epic Armageddon events for example.

If your concept of a 'living' game is just what you can collect and buy from new in a hobby store, or is featured in the pages of a white dwarf, maybe you might view things a little differently. But I think social media, forums,.FB communities, mean that in actual fact there are very few genuinely 'dead' games while even only a few people still enjoy and remember them.