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.

Got the Planetstrike book yesterday, and gave it a damned good reading this morning.

And I have to say, between Cities of Death and Planetstrike, I found myself wondering why I would bother playing standard 40k? The Stratagems, the Terrain, and the variety contained within these books should be enough to keep my gaming for a long old time, all the while avoiding the rather dull battles standard 40k offers.

Chuck in the occasional game of Apocaylpse with a few mates to satisfy the stand off dust up, and your giggling.

Was wondering if anyone feels the same way about their gaming? Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an Orky army to write out then purchase over the next few weeks

Your concern would be valid if not for the fact that history has shown us that both of these supplements will be canceled and invalidated in 3-5 years by a new rules edition. Enjoy them now, they won't be around forever...

Cities of Death still plays under the 5th Edition doesn't it?

Haven't played 40k since Cities was released.

CoD and Apocalypse aren't like the old City Fight, these books support kits and as such, are worth keeping round.

Personally while the standard 40k missions are something of a bore they do come in handy every now and then as a base for special scenarios.

I suppose. But I just feel that CoD and PS both encourage what IMHO gaming should be all about, namely the narrative.

For example, it's pretty much second nature to invent which Planet is being attack and why, and of course why that particular city is under attack etc. And it's the narrative that really keeps me spending.

I like having a glorious history for my army, not so much invented from it's conception, but earned over many battles and wars.

And I get what you mean about the standard missions having their uses. Not every battle is going to be a Cityfight or Planestrike after all, but I feel that in my future at least, they will be playing very much second fiddle!

Indeed. With Planetary Empires coming up the writing git (me) and the organizer are throwing ideas onto the table for a nice world under siege campaign along the lines of Dark Crusade. I'm pretty chuffed that they'll be using my bridge assault and slightly modified CoD scenarios.

BrookM wrote:CoD and Apocalypse aren't like the old City Fight, these books support kits and as such, are worth keeping round.

Personally while the standard 40k missions are something of a bore they do come in handy every now and then as a base for special scenarios.

Lots of things HAVE supported things and they still got canned. I love both of these supplements and will play them to death, but I have no illusions that they have a shelf-life any longer then the standard GW side project.

Such releases are dead men walking the second they hit the shelves. The question isn't: "Will they get canned", it is: "how long before they get canned". Sad but true.

As a cautionary note: As much as i love Apoc. I am not spending time nor money building more of any one thing then I can fit into a standard force org. (which means 3 max of most things) Yes it would be cool to own 20 Deff Dreads!!! Cool right up until Apoc. gets gak canned and I have 17 more then I can use in a regular game...

Same goes for funky specialized armies.

No thanks, The wounds from LATD and Genestealer cult still sting enough to reminds me to tread warily around any supplement that deviates from the established norm of game play or isn't a mainstream core codex list.

Uhh...It would take very little imagination to recreate the Apoc rules if they ever got canned. But you are just being cynical so there is little point arguing with you.

I've yet to see an actual Apocalypse game, nevermind COD or Planetstrike. In my gaming group we meet once a week and play a standard game, anything else is nearly impossible to organise. That's the problem with having job/university/school responsibilities that take up most of your time. I have to make a 45 minute drive just to play!

These variations are cool if you've got a lot of people in your area that you can play with, but for some of us they're impracticle.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Uhh...It would take very little imagination to recreate the Apoc rules if they ever got canned. But you are just being cynical so there is little point arguing with you.

It's called being practical and basing one's decisions on an established and documented history on the part of GW in the last 18 years of playing GW games...

Nothing Cynical about it. Lets hope I'm wrong and that against tradition the Apoc and Planetstrike rules survive the transition into the next rules edition (the first major hurdle) and continue to be supported and official for many years beyond (I'm not holding my breathe however: those 18 years have taught me otherwise).

My main point still stands: Enjoy the hell out of them now, because history shows they won't be around forever.

Lastly: obviously anything can be recreated and "house-ruled" over to a current edition, that is irrelevant to the discussion.

An obvious point is that 40K can't technically be obsolete, as you still need the basic rules to run Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike.

I can't imagine these supplements showing up at tournaments either.

Core 40K could be refreshed with a scenario book, or a campaign book.

If it doesn't sell new models GW isn't interested, though.

Jervis has been hinting at a scenario book some time ago.

I don't see the tournament scene abandoning regular 40K anytime soon, and most people played CoD for a bit when it was released and then put it on the shelf.

I'm not that interested in Planetstrike, CoD or Apocalypse.

I'd MUCH rather play a regular game...

With Planetary Empire I will be interested to see how all of the supplements come together.

It's obvious that GW is structuring 40k gaming as a series of "gateways":

AoBR (previously BfM) is the intro to the rules via small-scale scenarios.

Warhammer 40k is the standard FOC, which supports basic battles; this is the odd man out, as it is the only flavor that doesn't tie to narrative gaming. As it lacks any story, it is the tournament default.

Planetstrike expands the FOC by doubling the Elite, Fast, and Heavy slots to 6 each, and introduces narrative scenario gaming.

Apocalypse throws away the FOC and removes all limits on forces, moving to pure cooperative narrative gaming. And amazing cool stuff like Titans and Superheavies.

Planetary Empires forms a campaign to weave the narrative events together, step by step.

Within this structure, 40k will always have a place, as it forms the rules baseline, but it is clear that GW intends for players to grow their armies from one stage of play to the next.

Due to the way that things are set up, I can't see GW cancelling Apoc or PS because they all link together step by step. Without PS, there's no intermediary to Apoc with increased sales. Without Apoc, there's no ultimate goal of unlimited armies to drive unlimited sales, much less Superheavies. Without PE, there's no glue between games to drive the next game and the game after that.

In particular, GW has monetized Apoc and PS, with kits specific to each set. One imagines that GW will have a way to monetize PE with expansions of some sort.

Regardless, this is a fine time to be playing 40k.
____

With all of the above, it looks like 40k will be driving more than half of all release slots for the foreseeable future with ongoing 40k maintenance, Apoc updates, PS kickoff, and PE kickoff.

Cha-ching!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flashman wrote:I can't imagine these supplements showing up at tournaments either.

Of course not. That is because GW couldn't give a rat's ass about tournament play, now that Apoc drives more sales than their GTs ever did.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:Core 40K could be refreshed with a scenario book, or a campaign book.

Most likely, any scenario / campaign books will be tied to Planetary Empires.

You left out CoD (which has specific kits) but included Apoc as a game that has specific kits (which it doesn't).

CoD and Apoc were written for 4th Ed, and both of them require an agreement between players to work in 5th Ed (the second Apoc book even says as much, with Jervis' big "Ooops! We didn't think of that!" box where he commits to not commiting to a firm ruling on 5th Ed scoring vs Apoc). Planet Strike will have the same problems in 6th Ed.

I don't think they'll cancel any of these games, but they will re-issue them like any other Codex.

I think it's much, much simpler than that.

Planetstrike is a blatant push to sell more models. Please refer yourself to the BRAND NEW SPEAR OF SICARIUS BOX SET!!! It's a full Planetstrike-ready game set for the low, low price of $1,200!

I think it will be largely unsuccessful due to the contradictory nature of the supplement itself.

Planetstrike includes:

--Rules for Walls and Fortifications
--Rules for Walls and Fortifications that are completely negated by the simple fact that every fething unit deep strikes.

Does anybody else see a problem with this? You don't create a massively expensive kit line for the building of impregnable fortresses and then include an overarching rule that COMPLETELY CIRCUMVENTS the very thing you're trying to sell.

I sat in my game store with this book for a good hour, looking for what I was "missing" with regards to why I would buy $400 worth of walls and towers that my opponent just jumps over. If you have found it, please tell me, because I sure don't see the fething point.

As to all the rubbish about an over-arching narrative, you don't need an "official rule set". The overweight, mouth-breathing, not-nearly-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are Dungeons and Dragons players have been creating over-arching narratives for decades. If you're going to create rules, then try tightening up the crappy rules you've already put out.

I just don't see how this is going to be a financial success for GW. Terrain models provide little to no in-game advantage. What has every other game system to have ever existed taught us? People pay money for in-game advantage. Pay $300 for terrain sets to build a Fortress of Doom that players break themselves upon while I laugh megamaniacally? I'll do it twice. Pay $300 for a Fortress of Doom that dies to Deep Struck fusion guns on turn 1 (that my BS2 wall mounted autocannon failed to kill)? Ha. HAHAHA!. feth it.

Planetfail is definitely not going to pull GW out of its financial tailspin. It's simply another chunk of 'This is how you play it' 40k being clumsily manhandled into the product line that the majority of gamers will ignore.

sourclams wrote:Planetstrike is a blatant push to sell more models.

No more blatant than Apoc was. I don't see what the difference is.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You left out CoD (which has specific kits) but included Apoc as a game that has specific kits (which it doesn't).

So the Baneblade, Shadowsword, and Stompa Kits aren't Apocalypse kits?

Because I could swear the only way to use them was to use Apocalypse rules.

If not, what are they, then?

40K has had rules for Baneblades and Shadowswords for years now. We didn't need Apoc to use Super-Heavies before, why is that different now?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

sourclams wrote:Planetstrike is a blatant push to sell more models.

No more blatant than Apoc was. I don't see what the difference is.

The difference is you can play a big scary tank and it's always a big scary tank.

With Planetstrike rules, you can make a big scary wall, and then 1500 pts of your opponent's army teleports over it.

So whereas superheavies in Apoc have intrinsic value, the walls and fortifications in Planetstrike don't.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

sourclams wrote:Planetstrike is a blatant push to sell more models.

No more blatant than Apoc was. I don't see what the difference is.

There is no difference. Apoc wasn't an answer and neither is planet strike. When apoc was first released in my local game store, it was played for about 3 months. I've seen it played maybe a half dozen times total since then.

I've yet to see one game of planet strike played.

It's total, epic fail in my neck of the woods.

That's his point.

Perhaps GW could roll out of it's doldrums if it actually produced and marketed things people would actually buy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

sourclams wrote:Planetstrike is a blatant push to sell more models.

No more blatant than Apoc was. I don't see what the difference is.

The difference is you can play a big scary tank and it's always a big scary tank.

With Planetstrike rules, you can make a big scary wall, and then 1500 pts of your opponent's army teleports over it.

So whereas superheavies in Apoc have intrinsic value, the walls and fortifications in Planetstrike don't.

They still don't, except to a very small part of 40k players. When was the last time you saw an actual apoc game at the shop?

Fair point. Never. Our store figured out Apoc sucks balls. Doubt Planetstrike will be any different.

sourclams wrote:Fair point. Never. Our store figured out Apoc sucks balls. Doubt Planetstrike will be any different.

And I will be pointing out your post to your boss at GW so you don't get your bonus!

And doood! I am so going to pro-paint that lrc you loaned me!

sourclams wrote:
I sat in my game store with this book for a good hour, looking for what I was "missing" with regards to why I would buy $400 worth of walls and towers that my opponent just jumps over. If you have found it, please tell me, because I sure don't see the fething point.

That's because you're looking at it in the wrong way. Instead of thinking "what should I do to win", think "what would be fun."

Terrain is cool. Terrain makes or breaks the game. If you have good terrain, you can create a story out of any game. If you have good terrain, people's imaginations start working.

Whatever else planetstrike is (and I haven't played a game yet, but I will give it a go), it's got cool terrain.

I just don't see how this is going to be a financial success for GW. Terrain models provide little to no in-game advantage. What has every other game system to have ever existed taught us? People pay money for in-game advantage. Pay $300 for terrain sets to build a Fortress of Doom that players break themselves upon while I laugh megamaniacally? I'll do it twice. Pay $300 for a Fortress of Doom that dies to Deep Struck fusion guns on turn 1 (that my BS2 wall mounted autocannon failed to kill)? Ha. HAHAHA!. feth it.

And yet, look at the success they've had with the other terrain kits that they've sold. Cities of death terrain kits provided neither player with any advantage, but it is a good enough seller that it retains wall space at even small mall shops. Would they even have bothered making more terrain kits if the ones they had already made bombed? It doesn't matter if the bastion can be killed, or even nuked from orbit, at the end of the day, games are more fun with terrain, and people will pay for it.

As a top-level tournament player (referring to the top-level GT/Adepticon style tournament, not my ability) , terrain kits provide me an easy way to make interesting display boards for my armies. As a basement beer&dice player, my friends and I get more variety in our weekend games. Terrain kits even appeal to grandma and auntie, who don't want to buy little johnny more soldiers, but want to get him something for his game.

I bought a few of the combo (2 bastion/3 wall) sets because I love different terrain. I'll use it whether I end up playing Planetstrike or not. The $25 book that came with it? If I get a few games out of it, okay. If not, it's still got some cool inspiring terrain pics in it.

Planetfail is definitely not going to pull GW out of its financial tailspin. It's simply another chunk of 'This is how you play it' 40k being clumsily manhandled into the product line that the majority of gamers will ignore.

I am not convinced that they're in a financial tailspin, looking at recent results, but that's an entirely different topic. I don't think you really understand the nature of the expansion. People get bored playing the same game over and over. Planetstrike costs very little for them to produce, and yet provides a way to change up the game just enough to make it feel different. If that keeps a few players within the 40k community, it probably succeeded in its goals.

I think the terrain sales alone will cover the costs of producing it. They have enough analysts to know whether terrain kits are successful or not that they wouldn't do it otherwise. I think anything on top of that is gravy.

Redbeard wrote:

And yet, look at the success they've had with the other terrain kits that they've sold. Cities of death terrain kits provided neither player with any advantage, but it is a good enough seller that it retains wall space at even small mall shops. Would they even have bothered making more terrain kits if the ones they had already made bombed? It doesn't matter if the bastion can be killed, or even nuked from orbit, at the end of the day, games are more fun with terrain, and people will pay for it.

As a top-level tournament player (referring to the top-level GT/Adepticon style tournament, not my ability) , terrain kits provide me an easy way to make interesting display boards for my armies. As a basement beer&dice player, my friends and I get more variety in our weekend games. Terrain kits even appeal to grandma and auntie, who don't want to buy little johnny more soldiers, but want to get him something for his game.

Irrelevant. A new codex and supporting model line would make far more, as anyone wishing to start a new army has to buy multiple boxes with a minimum cost of $35. You'd need 10 people to buy terrain for every 1 person that wanted to start up that army fresh. Grandma and Auntie have no clue what they're looking at. If they're going to get Timmie something for his game, they're going to spend X dollars regardless.

As to whether or not I'm looking at it the wrong way, in-game advantage makes money. Vehicles are now flying off the shelves because they provide in-game advantage. You don't create a new model line and then invalidate it with your rule set. My point isn't 'Don't build Terrain, and don't make terrain models for the terrain builders'.

I am not convinced that they're in a financial tailspin, looking at recent results, but that's an entirely different topic. I don't think you really understand the nature of the expansion. People get bored playing the same game over and over. Planetstrike costs very little for them to produce, and yet provides a way to change up the game just enough to make it feel different. If that keeps a few players within the 40k community, it probably succeeded in its goals.

When they begin consistently hitting a reasonable RoGI beyond breakeven, I'll believe that they're a financial success. The way you keep players from leaving the hobby isn't to convince them to build incredible terrain boards and then play games with rules that ignore the bonuses that those terrain boards are supposed to provide.

Planetstrike dispossesses the new gamer by creating new force org chart restrictions at high point levels that either invalidate some of their unit purchases or set the point ceiling too high, and dispossesses the veteran gamer by giving him a poor rules set for everything that he was already doing anyways.

I wanted this expansion to be ultra cool because I enjoy 40k and I want to find new ways to keep playing it. I didn't get anything from the structure of GW's expansion and won't be spending money on it as a result.

They have enough analysts to know whether terrain kits are successful or not that they wouldn't do it otherwise. I think anything on top of that is gravy.

Well, I am an analyst, albeit not in the gaming industry, and I see this expansion as GW still missing the point. Their rules set is the demand driver that generates sales for their models. Planetstrike rules are montonous, poorly executed, and poorly balanced. This certainly didn't have to be the case, and as a result they lost revenue that they could have generated from me personally and from anyone else with a similar mind set. In my industry, if you make $25 when you coulda/shoulda made $50, you're not exactly a star performer.

sourclams wrote:Planetstrike is a blatant push to sell more models.

As to all the rubbish about an over-arching narrative, you don't need an "official rule set".

I just don't see how this is going to be a financial success for GW. Terrain models provide little to no in-game advantage.

No, really? GW is trying to sell more models? You don't say!

No, we don't. But GW throwing something on the wall sure makes it easier for those of us who'd rather not have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to do a siege scenario. It allows us to adapt or modify things, or run larger events with some level of known consistency.

Terrain models provide terrain, something that everybody needs in addition to armies. At least, those of us who don't want to always fight on featureless plains. Yes, it's possible to make your own terrain, but it's a *lot* harder than slapping together a GW terrain kit. The GW Manor and Castle are perfect example of this. Can I make a Fantasy building? Yes. Can I do it cheaper? Probably, if I my time wasn't worth more than minimum wage. Would it be "better" in detail and looks? Absolutely not.

The point is that things like Apoc, PS, and terrain accelerate gaming in the same way as not having to scratch-build Vehicles back in the RT days. It allows the players to focus on things that they want, rather than having to invest so much effort in creation from scratch.

As for expansions needing updates over time, I fail to see why that is a problem. If we accept that the base 40k rules require updates, along with Codexes needing updates, why cannot Apoc and PS and PE require updates over time?

If you actually read my entire post, you'd see that I take no issue with GW selling terrain pieces, it's with GW's usual incompetence with rules writing that actually make it detrimental to build a huge fortress.

I want GW to make more money so that they can design more games and make 40k viable for longer time periods.

Planetstrike does not do this because there is no in-game reason to buy cool buildings. They are losing money because they wrote crappy rules. Again.

As for expansions needing updates over time, I fail to see why that is a problem. If we accept that the base 40k rules require updates, along with Codexes needing updates, why cannot Apoc and PS and PE require updates over time?

If updates are indeed mutually exclusive, then they're wasting time creating poor rules for a market that, according to you and Redbeard, is already alive and craving even more buildings.

If updates aren't mutually exclusive, then the incredibly low quality of the finished Planetstrike system is amazing. As a demand driver, it does nothing extra for the insatiable gamer. How many people are going to buy Planetstrike buildings? Some, not all. How many more are going to buy Planetstrike buildings because they can play Planetstrike? Far fewer.

Planet Strike *is* an update to Apocalypse. It's just got walls and a ham-fisted approach to a Force Org chart.