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.

I started with Cygnar in Mk1 Warhmachine but quickly switched to Trolls in Hordes once it came out because the style of the Troll sculpts was much cooler to me. The problem they had was maintaining scale and style within the range - some of the Troll sculpts were scaled completely differently to each other and didn't look good next to each other. But top heavy was definitely a big part of the look even for Hordes.

Their ranges were crazy with the number of units. Each faction had more units to keep in stock than Space Marines in 40k! Back then you could have tactical, assault, devastators, terminators, bikes, scouts and scout bikes, comamnd squad and heroes and rhino, predator, whirlwind, vindicator, land raider and land speeder and you had the whole range. And Marines were the most diverse range!

Just for Trolls you had Kriel Warriors, Scattergunners, Champions, Scouts, Runeshapers, Fennblades, Bushwhackers, Burrrowers, Long Riders, Krielstone, Thumper various attachments for these units, then you had the Mauler, the Earthborn, Mulg, the Blitzer, the Pyre Troll, Impaler, Bouncer, Axer, Swamp Troll, Winter Troll, Slag Troll, Storm Troll and 30 or so Solos and Warlocks, before you get to mercenary units. It was just a huge range, and it got even bigger, and Trolls weren't especially big as a range - most ranges were at least that size for Hordes and the WM ranges were even bigger! It became impossible for shops to keep it all in stock and it can't be underestimated how difficult it was to get some units in Europe at times. I just never had a Krielstone because I could never find one in stock anywhere when I was playing, and it was considered a key Trollblood unit.

Now, as a player I loved that every faction got equal attention and simultaneous updates, but I can't deny it created a massive supply chain headache for PP and the shops.

 Da Boss wrote:
8th edition I think had serious problems despite having a very passionate fan base. I had a fully painted army which was the right size to play with, but I just found the game pretty unfun to play at the time - you'd spend ages setting up your painstakingly painted units only to have them mostly removed in turns 1 and 2 by mega spells blasting them off the board. It wasn't satisfying at all in my view and a downgrade on 6e and 7e despite some good changes like Step Up and simplifying some of the sillier rules. And a beautiful and inspiring rulebook.

Things like step up compounded some of the issues and changed the dice rolling relationship. It's shocking how few dice you rolled in 6th and 7th for a battle, which also meant there was more variance; step up and the encouraged larger units meant more normalised results and also a grind so you had the dichotomy of units actually fighting never went anywhere, just ground down and vanishing completely under spells. The larger units was also off-putting for potential players because there was just more work to do and more to buy; the game had to increase in points size beucase larger units meant fewer 'drops' in deployment meaning a smaller feeling game at the same points, in terms of choices in the game, but becuase of the grinding nature, doesn't facilitate in making it flow faster or smoother.

One thing always keeps me peaking into Warhammer games, is there ability to let you carve out your own niche of it and tell your own stories there.

Sure, there are several named and storied Space Marine chapters, Chaos Legions, and Eldar Craftworlds, Ork Klans, etc. but you don't have to use any of that. If you want to carve out your own little space of the GW-verse and make it all your own.

They have systematized it a lot, but there is still always blank space to play in. You could also tell all scales of stories from grim personal stories all the way up to Epic, world-shattering events all in the same universe and on the tabletop. That is what keeps me in the GW orbit, even if I am inactive the majority of the time.

However, I am still convinced the main factor was being first to market in Sci-fi/Fantasy in a meaningful way. Like I have said before, whole books have been written about this advantage in business.

 Easy E wrote:
One thing always keeps me peaking into Warhammer games, is there ability to let you carve out your own niche of it and tell your own stories there.

Honestly I always find this a little odd because telling your own story is something ANY wargame lets you do. Unless you're recreating historical games for accuracy, you can tell your own stories with your own models in any game.

You can convert; proxy; have narrative campaigns and all with pretty much any game. Most games feature commanders and general models that are generic or you can even just name regular units as named characters and give them some unique details. You can do it in any game setting you don't need a "whole universe" or "realms bigger than the whole of the earth" to do so.




Now granted I 100% agree GW presents their lore really well and makes it quickly and easily engaging to a point where you don't have ot hunt around for "was printed once" books or comments in forums by creative staff that were said that one time or such. Plus there's loads of 3rd party summary sites to get quick catchups on. So its very accessible lore at the casual end.

One thing about the IPs - several competitors are still around today, but it seems a famous IP, Star Wars, is more like a death sentence to a game's longevity rather than helping it.

 Daba wrote:
One thing about the IPs - several competitors are still around today, but it seems a famous IP, Star Wars, is more like a death sentence to a game's longevity rather than helping it.

I'm not sure that's so much the case as just how FFG managed their games. Their reliance on so many physical components really limited how their games could be curated and I don't think anything they made really survived all that long, Star Wars or otherwise.

 Daba wrote:
One thing about the IPs - several competitors are still around today, but it seems a famous IP, Star Wars, is more like a death sentence to a game's longevity rather than helping it.

That's honestly the same as many other big firm IPs.

They can kill in a variety of ways
1) They sell really well BUT outstrip a firms production causing them to have to invest more to catch up whilst at the same time having to pay for the licence. So they get less profits per sale; and have to invest heavily to keep up and if their customer base burns out whilst they are resolving the supply issue that can kill them.

2) At any point the licence can be taken away or have the costs raised. Granted contracts mean its not at "Any" point; but any point of renegotiation or rolling contract means that they could easily just see the parent firm end the project even if sales are good; or up the costs. The parent firm might expect sales way higher than realistic; they might expect returns way higher or they might just shelve it because of their own internal politics; shifting product focus or a billion other reasons. Heck they might even decide you did so well they are taking it in house to do themselves or pass onto another firm that offers to do the same for way less.


So whilst you can take on a big IP, many times its a huge risk for a firm; esp in the wargaming/model sector where customers and companies move much slower. It's not like a one and done video game or such where you just need that one big burst of sales; wargames and such are slow moving beasts. Customers wnat something that lasts for decades; firms need them to last for decades to grow etc...

 Overread wrote:


Honestly I always find this a little odd because telling your own story is something ANY wargame lets you do. Unless you're recreating historical games for accuracy, you can tell your own stories with your own models in any game.

You can convert; proxy; have narrative campaigns and all with pretty much any game. Most games feature commanders and general models that are generic or you can even just name regular units as named characters and give them some unique details. You can do it in any game setting you don't need a "whole universe" or "realms bigger than the whole of the earth" to do so.

Now granted I 100% agree GW presents their lore really well and makes it quickly and easily engaging to a point where you don't have ot hunt around for "was printed once" books or comments in forums by creative staff that were said that one time or such. Plus there's loads of 3rd party summary sites to get quick catchups on. So its very accessible lore at the casual end.

Yeah but it gives you a storytelling framework, and not all games do that.

For example, Bushido or Arena Rex or Marvel Crisis Protocol generally do not give you such a free hand. Heck, even Historical games don't really. You are using named characters with X abilities in this place doing this thing. They are always at model-vs-model scale. Yeah, you could always paint Doctor Doom Pink and Gold, but could you? You cant have the British Army of North Africa fight the British Army of North Africa without some odd contortions. You couldn't have Batman and Wolverine together in a MCP game? But you can have a reason for Blood Angels and Necrons team up in Warhammer. Heck, in the very old days you could even have Galactic Empire Stormtroopers face off against Zoats against High Elves!

Their universe just lends itself well to creative story-telling more than other universes.

 Overread wrote:

 Daba wrote:
One thing about the IPs - several competitors are still around today, but it seems a famous IP, Star Wars, is more like a death sentence to a game's longevity rather than helping it.

That's honestly the same as many other big firm IPs.

They can kill in a variety of ways
1) They sell really well BUT outstrip a firms production causing them to have to invest more to catch up whilst at the same time having to pay for the licence. So they get less profits per sale; and have to invest heavily to keep up and if their customer base burns out whilst they are resolving the supply issue that can kill them.

2) At any point the licence can be taken away or have the costs raised. Granted contracts mean its not at "Any" point; but any point of renegotiation or rolling contract means that they could easily just see the parent firm end the project even if sales are good; or up the costs. The parent firm might expect sales way higher than realistic; they might expect returns way higher or they might just shelve it because of their own internal politics; shifting product focus or a billion other reasons. Heck they might even decide you did so well they are taking it in house to do themselves or pass onto another firm that offers to do the same for way less.


So whilst you can take on a big IP, many times its a huge risk for a firm; esp in the wargaming/model sector where customers and companies move much slower. It's not like a one and done video game or such where you just need that one big burst of sales; wargames and such are slow moving beasts. Customers wnat something that lasts for decades; firms need them to last for decades to grow etc...

In addition there's only so much you can do with licensed IPs. For ex; No one making a SW minis game is adding anything NEW by themselves. Sure you'll get all kinds of mechanics. But no new characters/ships/equipment/or lore.

Eh, I'm not sure I buy that. Sure, comic team-ups are a dime a dozen, but once upon a time Spider-Man teaming up with Wolverine was a big deal event. Blood Angels and Necrons are the same kind of story as far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty sure Doom has teamed up with the Avengers in gold armor as the heroic "Victor" a few times at that.

40K is good at absorbing pop culture stuff of course. You can make a Space Wolf named Logan with Lightning Claws team up with an Warp Spider named Petyr or something, but comics do this all the time. There's a reason The Brood exist after all.

 Easy E wrote:

 Overread wrote:


Honestly I always find this a little odd because telling your own story is something ANY wargame lets you do. Unless you're recreating historical games for accuracy, you can tell your own stories with your own models in any game.

You can convert; proxy; have narrative campaigns and all with pretty much any game. Most games feature commanders and general models that are generic or you can even just name regular units as named characters and give them some unique details. You can do it in any game setting you don't need a "whole universe" or "realms bigger than the whole of the earth" to do so.

Now granted I 100% agree GW presents their lore really well and makes it quickly and easily engaging to a point where you don't have ot hunt around for "was printed once" books or comments in forums by creative staff that were said that one time or such. Plus there's loads of 3rd party summary sites to get quick catchups on. So its very accessible lore at the casual end.

Yeah but it gives you a storytelling framework, and not all games do that.

For example, Bushido or Arena Rex or Marvel Crisis Protocol generally do not give you such a free hand. Heck, even Historical games don't really. You are using named characters with X abilities in this place doing this thing. They are always at model-vs-model scale. Yeah, you could always paint Doctor Doom Pink and Gold, but could you? You cant have the British Army of North Africa fight the British Army of North Africa without some odd contortions. You couldn't have Batman and Wolverine together in a MCP game?

1) Most often when I'm playing something Historical I DON'T have any "Named Characters" in the force.
Sometimes my "force" doesn't even have historically accurate unit makings. Sure, by the yellow markings, #s, & equipment you'll be able to tell that these Shermans are meant to represent a unit that fought in North Africa (assuming you know your history). But looking closer you won't actually be able to match them up to any RL unit.

2) Of course I can paint Doom up in pink & gold.
It'll be a homage to all those knock off action figures - you know, the ones where some suspect Asian toy company rips off the legit figure, casts/paints it up oddly, gives it an axe for some reason, & gives it a name like Doom Trooper....

3) I assure you that we Historical minis players very often have non-historical match ups. Without batting an eye.

4) Ok, Batman + Wolverine doesn't happen in MCP. Not without homebrewing Batman anyways. But over in HeroClix....

 Daba wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
8th edition I think had serious problems despite having a very passionate fan base. I had a fully painted army which was the right size to play with, but I just found the game pretty unfun to play at the time - you'd spend ages setting up your painstakingly painted units only to have them mostly removed in turns 1 and 2 by mega spells blasting them off the board. It wasn't satisfying at all in my view and a downgrade on 6e and 7e despite some good changes like Step Up and simplifying some of the sillier rules. And a beautiful and inspiring rulebook.

Things like step up compounded some of the issues and changed the dice rolling relationship. It's shocking how few dice you rolled in 6th and 7th for a battle, which also meant there was more variance; step up and the encouraged larger units meant more normalised results and also a grind so you had the dichotomy of units actually fighting never went anywhere, just ground down and vanishing completely under spells. The larger units was also off-putting for potential players because there was just more work to do and more to buy; the game had to increase in points size beucase larger units meant fewer 'drops' in deployment meaning a smaller feeling game at the same points, in terms of choices in the game, but becuase of the grinding nature, doesn't facilitate in making it flow faster or smoother.

The double edged sword of a long term successful game. It needs to have a base rules set which will allow Sad Old Gits (like me!) field all, or at least the majority of, an army I may have been collecting for decades in a single battle, without it all grinding to a snails pace. But, at the same time? It needs to work as an experience for much smaller armies.

40K pulled that off, by and large.

WHFB sadly didn’t. 8th worked really nicely for getting as much of my army not just on the board, but actually having a say in the battle. And for me? That was glorious. Except….it did nothing to address the Genuine Fact that, due to the base mechanics focussing on manoeuvres and positioning as much as kick in heads, it just didn’t really work that well below 1,000 points. And didn’t really Become Its Potential until around 2,000 or so. Which pushed the entry price up. No, not perceived entry price. The game just didn’t, and hadn’t for a number of editions, really worked at or under 1,000 points.

ccs wrote:


In addition there's only so much you can do with licensed IPs. For ex; No one making a SW minis game is adding anything NEW by themselves. Sure you'll get all kinds of mechanics. But no new characters/ships/equipment/or lore.

Not just nothing new, but it also means having a 3rd party breathing down your neck potentially and slowing development at certain stages because you can't just create something on the fly.

Also another one - security and stuff. GW had to do a LOAD of security changes and such to run the Middle Earth game with the movies. All those super secret scenes and such that could not leave the building and so on.


So running another firms IP can come with restrictions, slower work rate; less creative flare/options and a bunch of other things. Now of course there are boons; getting to work with Starwars means that you can make something and have a HUGE instant market. You launch a Starwars game that's half good and you'll have a market that top end independent creators will spend possibly decades building up toward if they ever even get there. And you didn't have to do lift a finger ot make that Starwars Market.


So there are boons to working with other IP - but it has restrictions and limits and other aspects that can make it a challenge.

Also, licenses come with a time period.

Even if your game is popular. Even if it’s turning a tidy profit for you and the IP owner? They can and will pull it when it suits them, even if they don’t have someone else waiting in the wings.

 Daba wrote:
One thing about the IPs - several competitors are still around today, but it seems a famous IP, Star Wars, is more like a death sentence to a game's longevity rather than helping it.

Stuff like Star Wars though isn't great for longevity because you have 2 sides. You can stretch it, but really you end up with one galactic power, one group of insurgents, then similar pirates, etc. That really limits the options. Historical games unless they are a particular conflict, have a lot more variety. 40k and fantasy grew out of a bunch of history fans transporting our world into fiction.

The other thing that I think GW did (especially in 40k), which I love, is the fact that the "canon," really isn't set in stone.

The stories from the magazines, novels, games, etc. are almost guidelines for games.

Outside of a few instances, you can set your army when you want, centered around who you want, and replay any battle with the intent of, "this is how it probably happened."

In so many games, including IPs based on famous battles or properties, we know the historical outcome.

The Empire/First Order loses. General Longstreet will follow General Lee's orders. The British army will defeat the Afrika Corps in Tunisia, etc.

In GW there is no finality to any conflict. I have a buddy who built his Orks when Codex: Armageddon was released, and he still plays battles set around Armageddon and it fits with the narrative.

I've found very few games that offer that freedom.

The early special characters first cropped up in WD sample army lists, and/or battle reports.

Ghaz? Sample Goff Army, ‘Ere We Go. Same with Mad Dok Grotsnik.

Nazdreg? Sample Bad Moons Army, Freebooterz

Tycho, and his melty face, WD Battle Report.

Calgar nearly dying to Tyranids, WD Battle Report. (Although it was a drifting spore mine, and Calgar had been hiding behind scenery most of the game)

That was also a period where the ratio of creative staff to others was far higher. Its amazing how much today goes back to that early period.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
The other thing that I think GW did (especially in 40k), which I love, is the fact that the "canon," really isn't set in stone.

The stories from the magazines, novels, games, etc. are almost guidelines for games.

Outside of a few instances, you can set your army when you want, centered around who you want, and replay any battle with the intent of, "this is how it probably happened."

In so many games, including IPs based on famous battles or properties, we know the historical outcome.

The Empire/First Order loses. General Longstreet will follow General Lee's orders. The British army will defeat the Afrika Corps in Tunisia, etc.

In GW there is no finality to any conflict. I have a buddy who built his Orks when Codex: Armageddon was released, and he still plays battles set around Armageddon and it fits with the narrative.

I've found very few games that offer that freedom.

Thanks Lathe, that is what I was trying to say too. However, it appears to be a controversial take for some folks, even though I did not articulate it nearly as well as you did.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Yes there was a sales vision behind it, and Bryan Ansell as owner has the final say, but it all points to a collaborative effort.

It seems like Ansell was far more willing to let artists get on with things than later owners. That he was back as a game consultant on a few titles shows a level of mutual respect that you don't really see elsewhere in GW after Ansell's ownership.