PDA

View Full Version : Which would you prefer: 9th ed. WHFB or Age of Sigmar?



Tupinamba
11-06-2015, 22:45
Reading the posts in the rumours discussion, Iīve become curious to know what the majority of warseerites would prefer for the continuation of warhammer fantasy:

1) a normal edition change, with some tweaks, but remaining a mass battle system in the known warhammer world or;

2) the radical change to a skirmish game in a new setting and with different aesthetics.

Simultaneously, Iīd like to use the poll to see if the choices have any correlation to peopleīs ages.

Cheers.

Just Tony
11-06-2015, 23:00
Going solely by what little rumor we have, it seems that there's a shakeup in the core way the rules play. The core rules aren't the problem with WFB. No advertising/support, resculpting models that don't need resculpting, and just shy of a couple of decades of picking up the pieces of failed secondary game launches causing severe price hikes which raise the cost of entry are the reasons the game is failing. I'm of the opinion that the game model is fine, and there is no reason to redo it every 4 years or to scrap it. Dial in the army books, stop resculpting stuff (ESPECIALLY plastic kits) and you'll be fine.

Groza
11-06-2015, 23:37
I think the problems with WHF (at least until recently, and casting aside personal grudges I might have with aesthetical changes) is that GW perceives there to be a problem with it when there isn't. Sure it might not sell as much as they want, as much as videogames or as much as 40k. But that's cause it is warhammer. I understand "a company has to make money" but they have to realize warhammer is what it is and perhaps it only appeals to a very small number of people. Changing it into something else can't save it because it will no longer be "it".
Heck, if they really wanted to save anything they could start by communicating with their fanbase. Just a tiny bit. THE MINIMUM AMOUNT CONCEIVABLE.

@JustTony: I am curious what models you are referring to regarding unnecessary resculpts.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
11-06-2015, 23:38
This thread is absolutely meaningless without more information as to what Age of Sigmar actually *IS*, what the new setting looks like, or....well really much of anything.

For the record I am over 26, I've been playing this game since the beginning of 5th edition, and while happy with 8th am finding it a bit stagnant and am looking forward to whatever shakeup GW has in store for us. If I don't like how it plays then...well...we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. However I'm not going to discount a game/setting that I haven't seen head nor tails of yet.

Vazalaar
11-06-2015, 23:55
Going solely by what little rumor we have, it seems that there's a shakeup in the core way the rules play. The core rules aren't the problem with WFB. No advertising/support, resculpting models that don't need resculpting, and just shy of a couple of decades of picking up the pieces of failed secondary game launches causing severe price hikes which raise the cost of entry are the reasons the game is failing. I'm of the opinion that the game model is fine, and there is no reason to redo it every 4 years or to scrap it. Dial in the army books, stop resculpting stuff (ESPECIALLY plastic kits) and you'll be fine.

That wouldn't earn GW much money and GW certainly should have done more resculpts (empire knights, silverhelms, he archer/spearmen and etc)

Tupinamba
11-06-2015, 23:56
I certainly donīt think the question is meaningless. Itīs about peopleīs preferences in gameplay and in setting. Pretty straight forward.

Mass battle x skirmish.
Traditional Warhammer World x Something new and different

Thereīs absolutely no need for any more details on the concrete AoS stuff to know what your general preferences are. And the reason Iīm asking in this poll is to have a more objective way to gauge how many in the community are looking forward to the cange and how many just wanted their WHFB with small adaptations, besides peopleīs comments in the discussions.

Gorthaur
11-06-2015, 23:58
This thread is absolutely meaningless without more information as to what Age of Sigmar actually *IS*, what the new setting looks like, or....well really much of anything.

For the record I am over 26, I've been playing this game since the beginning of 5th edition, and while happy with 8th am finding it a bit stagnant and am looking forward to whatever shakeup GW has in store for us. If I don't like how it plays then...well...we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. However I'm not going to discount a game/setting that I haven't seen head nor tails of yet.

I agree, this thread should have been made weeks from now. Right now we now next to nothing about what Age of Sigmar is going to contain or be about so how can I make a fair vote. I am keeping an open mind to the change, as I know Warhammer fantasy has been falling in sales for some time now.

Tupinamba
12-06-2015, 00:05
Maybe the problem is with the way Iīve phrased the question.

Itīs: What would you have preferred the next fantasy game from GW to be?

However, considering that Harry, Hastings, Darnok and the Spaniards have all confirmed massive changes in the direction of a radical new setting and a non mass battle gameplay, I consider that we already have more than enough information about AoS to be able to make the proposed comparison.

Just Tony
12-06-2015, 00:53
I think the problems with WHF (at least until recently, and casting aside personal grudges I might have with aesthetical changes) is that GW perceives there to be a problem with it when there isn't. Sure it might not sell as much as they want, as much as videogames or as much as 40k. But that's cause it is warhammer. I understand "a company has to make money" but they have to realize warhammer is what it is and perhaps it only appeals to a very small number of people. Changing it into something else can't save it because it will no longer be "it".
Heck, if they really wanted to save anything they could start by communicating with their fanbase. Just a tiny bit. THE MINIMUM AMOUNT CONCEIVABLE.

@JustTony: I am curious what models you are referring to regarding unnecessary resculpts.

The Beastmen Gors and Ungors. Beast Herd was good models. If anything a simple accessory sprue for bow arms would have been it.
Dark Elf Warriors.
Dwarf Warriors I'm kind of on the fence with, and definitely don't think that Longbeards needed a separate kit.
Night Goblins
If the Orc Boys sprue was redone to make it 5 per frame instead of 4 per frame, sign it up as well
Skaven Clanrats
Empire State Troops
Empire Archers
Vampire Counts Skeleton Warriors
Dire Wolves

That's just plastics, the higher end things. Doesn't even touch the 40K sprues that were redone ad nauseum.


That wouldn't earn GW much money and GW certainly should have done more resculpts (empire knights, silverhelms, he archer/spearmen and etc)

Upgrading the monopose plastics that had pewter command wasn't unnecessary, depending on who you ask. I personally use those for my High Elves, and would have been happy with a plastic command sprue.

Noodle!
12-06-2015, 01:01
If they go the way that most people fear I'm just heartbroken since as of 8th and before it contains one of my absolute favorite settings with the lore and the armies. I love how it tells, I love how it looks and I love how it plays.

I play plenty of 40k as well and I feel the same way about that, but I like the diversity. I've tried smaller skirmish games as well and while they're fun they just don't give me the same feeling.

Note that I've exclusively played with friends and colleagues who are not power gamers or beardy cheese mongers and who tend to care a lot for the fluff, visuals and army background, if that makes any difference.

Gorthaur
12-06-2015, 01:24
The Beastmen Gors and Ungors. Beast Herd was good models. If anything a simple accessory sprue for bow arms would have been it.
Dark Elf Warriors.
Dwarf Warriors I'm kind of on the fence with, and definitely don't think that Longbeards needed a separate kit.
Night Goblins
If the Orc Boys sprue was redone to make it 5 per frame instead of 4 per frame, sign it up as well
Skaven Clanrats
Empire State Troops
Empire Archers
Vampire Counts Skeleton Warriors
Dire Wolves

That's just plastics, the higher end things. Doesn't even touch the 40K sprues that were redone ad nauseum.



Upgrading the monopose plastics that had pewter command wasn't unnecessary, depending on who you ask. I personally use those for my High Elves, and would have been happy with a plastic command sprue.

Am I hearing that you didn't appreciate the desperately necessary resculpts of the clanrats, DE warriors and skeletons? You would have rather they kept the monkey hands clanrats from the 1990s that looked absurd? All of those kits were necessary in my book. As were the 40k resculpts. The re-sculpts removed excess flash, cast them in better quality plastic and crisp detail. Not to mention adding variety in design. All of the kit resculpts/recuts GW has done have been improvements if you ask me...even the space marine tactical squads. Im hoping the Tyranid termagants/hormagants are next, as those are loaded with mold lines, parts that fit poorly etc. I also think the chaos marauders and Saurus warriors are about due for retirement, as they don't hold up to the quality of model kits from GW today.

Just Tony
12-06-2015, 02:11
I hope you get all those resculpts and remolds. And I hope you're happy when a plastic regiment of 10 troops costs $75-90 US, which is what will happen.

Groza
12-06-2015, 05:32
The Beastmen Gors and Ungors. Beast Herd was good models. If anything a simple accessory sprue for bow arms would have been it.
Dark Elf Warriors.
Dwarf Warriors I'm kind of on the fence with, and definitely don't think that Longbeards needed a separate kit.
Night Goblins
If the Orc Boys sprue was redone to make it 5 per frame instead of 4 per frame, sign it up as well
Skaven Clanrats
Empire State Troops
Empire Archers
Vampire Counts Skeleton Warriors
Dire Wolves

That's a bit of a weird selection because some of the stuff you mentioned are absolute fan favorites. I've yet to find a person (other than me) who doesn't prefer the new skeleton warriors or dark elves. Sure, old delves had gorilla hands but that's like a staple of the era for warhammer minis for me, and I frankly don't mind it. They had a nice dynamism to their poses that the new models lack and their armor was a bit cruder which set them apart from the elites.
Same with night goblins, people call them huge and chunky but their hoods and faces were so characterful and, well, gobliny. The new night goblins are a bit too stunted and low-key. I still like them but they should be more outrageous imo.

The empire archer kit I really like. The archers you could make from the militia weren't bad at all, in fact that is one of the finest plastic kits GW has produced but I think the new box is very nice, and it is one of my favs from recent years.

I understand though that your concern wasn't with the actual evolution of the sculpts but more about alocation of resources (?).

Urgat
12-06-2015, 06:26
I hope you get all those resculpts and remolds. And I hope you're happy when a plastic regiment of 10 troops costs $75-90 US, which is what will happen.

So? I buy the new skeletons on ebay for nothing. I get better sculpts for less :p

Avian
12-06-2015, 07:47
At this point, I personally wouldn't mind a skirmish game, but I think that's the wrong way to go for Warhammer.

Antigone1977
12-06-2015, 08:51
I voted for WHFB 9th ed because i) I'm a bit scared of change (probably because I'm over 26 ;) ) and I'm nervous my gaming group will disintegrate if AoS is perceived as no good and ii) Because I never really understood the notion of 'advancing the setting.' The setting, for me, is just that - it's not a story; the games I play with my mates make the story not an arbitrary process (albeit one instituted by the company that makes the game).

I quite like the idea of a skirmish game too, I'm getting into 40K and enjoying it (is that still a skirmish game if I play a Knights army?) but the either / or element to what's coming up is what freaks me out. I know, I know...'You can keep playing 8th ed.' But I can't keep playing 8th ed. on my own!

Horace35
12-06-2015, 09:59
Iīm over 26 years: WHFB as mass battle in traditional setting.

What I would have really liked is 9th with a scaling skirmish game attached in the traditional setting.

Unit sizes reigned back a bit from where they are at in 8th would have been nice too.

theunwantedbeing
12-06-2015, 10:26
I'de prefer an updated 8th edition, ie. with the bugs and issues solved as opposed to more being added.

Skirmish?
I could care less but at the moment I have no idea whether it will be a good game or not so how can I prefer it?

raymon
12-06-2015, 11:23
I think it needs a shake up, because the point of entry for new players is way to high. 40k is expensive, but at least when you buy a box of tactical marines, you have a fully functioning unit that can work on the battlefield. When you want a unit in fantasy, one box of 10 ain't gonna cut it. Saying to players: well before you can get that awesome dragon you have to buy 4 of these and 4 of these. Fresh new 14 year olds will probably look elsewhere.

As long as GW will bring it to a point where new players can get in, while not making my collection obsolete, I probably go with it.

Nightfall Shimmer
12-06-2015, 12:35
Over 26. Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, Scalable Skirmish/Mass Battle Game. (Option wasn't available to choose in the Poll)

WH40K is as much fun and viable at 500pts as it is at 5000. Making a version of Warhammer where you don't need 2000pts worth of troops before you can even show up at a gaming table will be very nice thanks. I hope Age of Sigmar provides this. I might get back into the game again.

Lord Damocles
12-06-2015, 12:50
I'd vote for Hypothetical A over Hypothetical B every time.

SuperHappyTime
12-06-2015, 15:52
I can't answer the question, as I am 26. This is age discrimination. Mods!

I'll have to wait until AoS arrives to know for certain, but I'd kill for a balanced low model count (10-20 troops per unit) game.

Tupinamba
12-06-2015, 17:54
Over 26. Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, Scalable Skirmish/Mass Battle Game. (Option wasn't available to choose in the Poll)



Although a scalable skirmish/mass battle game would have been my personal favourite too, it isnīt an option in the poll because thatīs not what the rumours confirmed by the reliable sources indicate. What weīre going to get with a very high probability is only "AoS Skirmish in new setting", maybe with "temporary token support for the old armies" for a short while.

Tupinamba
12-06-2015, 17:55
I can't answer the question, as I am 26. This is age discrimination. Mods!



Yea, Iīve noticed it too as soon as I had posted it... :shifty: Just choose if you want to be part of the old gits or of the video game generation. :D

lordreaven448
12-06-2015, 21:26
I would personally take the LotR style approach, Skirmish game that can do mass battles (Ranking up, etc.)

popisdead
12-06-2015, 22:23
I'm happy with new.

Why is it one or the other? Why not both? The 3 tiered system sounded good.

The_Real_Chris
12-06-2015, 22:35
Who would have thought warhammer 40k referred to fantasy... I will be amused if it has a lower model count in general than 40k...

I personally want a mass battle game. KoW doesn't do it for me. But on the skirmish side there are systems that leave warhammer fantasy in the dust .

Yes I get it has a lower entry cost but if they have stuck with the fantasy mechanics there is just better out there.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

mdauben
12-06-2015, 22:49
As others have said, its impossible to really say one way or the other without knowing what AOS is, and what 9th ed is.

I'm not wild about the apparent change in the background, but I could live with it. I won't be happy of one of more of my existing armies is dropped from the new game, but if there is something new and cool in terms of army/minis I might start a new army (wouldn't be the first time I jumped on new-and-shinny). I'd actually like if the new game is scalable from 20 figure skirmish up to the current 100+ figure mass battle. If we lost mass battle and unit formations altogether though, I wouldn't be pleased and if we were just left with skirmish... I'd have to at least think about just focusing on another game.

Smooth Boy
13-06-2015, 01:57
Neither, a skirmish game in the continued post apocalypse setting. Maybe a century in the future.

Matthias Thulmann
13-06-2015, 06:52
I don't think we can know what we want until we can sample AOS. Human beings hate change and this poll just proves this and nothing else really.

I think everyone should hold their horses. I understand that people like to express frustration and an Internet forum is probably one of the better places to let off steam. I am excited but apprehensive for AOS. But I'm not going to rant until I know for sure what we are going to get.

Tokamak
13-06-2015, 11:17
That round/square base Lizardmen army is such a mindchuck. I really hope infantry blocks remain. That's how medieval armies fought and look cool as hell. Rounded bases for non-ranked units are great as well, I welcome them, but I want infantry blocks to stay. In the end WFB all boils down to these square units with assorted weirdness surrounding them. If they keep that essence then hell yeah, bring on AoS.


Am I hearing that you didn't appreciate the desperately necessary resculpts of the clanrats, DE warriors and skeletons?

I love the miniatures but I don't appreciate the huge price hike that came with it. The same quality could've been achieved with more static models able to fit more in the same sprue and thus larger units for the same price and production cost.

Nightfall Shimmer
13-06-2015, 14:04
Infantry blocks should stay, but in reality, there was never any such thing as 'ranks' outside the Nepoleonic era due to the use of volly fire for single shot blackpowder weapons. Before then, infantry was large blobs in varying types of Shield Wall or archers, or lines of heavy cavalry. And these would be easily prepresented with round bases in a similar manner as in 40K's assault phase. With infantry blocks having to be in base-to-base contact with 1 or more models of it's own unit to gain say armour bonuses from shields etc. I can see giant infantry blocks working just fine with round bases.

bigbiggles
13-06-2015, 17:13
They might be just fine on rounds, but if you rank them up at the end, why bother? With skirmish games, base shape really does not matter, and the ranked units of fantasy, square bases are just better. Circle bases only look marginally better when placed throughout forests or terrain, as well as not strait lined up fights.

Certainly not enough to make me want to rebase the collection. Many models wont survive, think of all the fragile skinny legs out there. Skeletons, blood letters, daemonettes, ungors, skinks, saurus, ghouls.

Tupinamba
13-06-2015, 18:06
Infantry blocks should stay, but in reality, there was never any such thing as 'ranks' outside the Nepoleonic era due to the use of volly fire for single shot blackpowder weapons. Before then, infantry was large blobs in varying types of Shield Wall or archers, or lines of heavy cavalry. And these would be easily prepresented with round bases in a similar manner as in 40K's assault phase. With infantry blocks having to be in base-to-base contact with 1 or more models of it's own unit to gain say armour bonuses from shields etc. I can see giant infantry blocks working just fine with round bases.

Donīt really agree. If you take a look at ancient warfare, from the Greek conquest of the Persian Empire to the Roman maniples, as well as renaiscence warfare, itīs pretty much a chequerīs board of infantry and cavalry blocks.

For example:

http://www.generationword.com/images/alexander/Battle_issus.jpg

http://www.hannibalbarca.webspace.virginmedia.com/rome-consular-army.htm

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6ia5nczh71ra3azco1_1280.jpg

http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readinghall/THE_THIRTY_YEARS_WAR/images/tyw.jpg


Of course during the battle the units wouldnīd stay exactly rectangular anymore, but the point is that armies were already highly organized entities from a very early period of history on, not only after Napoleon. The unorganized blobs of shieldwall/warbands are the exception for the dark ages, but the traditional Warhammer world mixex stuff from Antiquity to early modern ages.

Plus, I think it greatly enhances tactical gameplay and fun. :cool:

dalezzz
13-06-2015, 19:18
I suppose the priority for me is that big battles remains thing (units of 10-20 men does not make a big battle , ranked or not) probably because of lack of options , Kings of war is all i can think of (rules seem decent of course) whereas i see no point in another skirmish game , of got about 10 of the bleeders in my cupboard right now , with only really Malifaux getting much love as i love the setting . GW could have maybe managed something similar but ... well we all know what ;) instead we are getting what (so far, if what im reading is true) sounds pretty poor

Just Tony
13-06-2015, 19:19
Interesting fact, modern military units are still trained to maneuver in regiment formations. Typically these formations aren't used in combat, mainly crowd control.


I love the miniatures but I don't appreciate the huge price hike that came with it. The same quality could've been achieved with more static models able to fit more in the same sprue and thus larger units for the same price and production cost.

And let me add that it's not that I don't like the new minis, I just don't like new minis if the old ones are fine. We've seen prices increase steadily to the point where what used to cost $20 for 16-20 models (12 in the case of Chaos Warriors) to double or more of that for 10 models on average. This is caused by both unnecessary resculpting of minis and failed games like Warmaster which drives up the price of things that ACTUALLY sell to make up the difference.

Tarquinius
13-06-2015, 19:30
26+. Ill take age of sigmar plz and get 9th in a year or 2😆 a new skirmish game with new models sounds ok to me.
Tarquinius

Sephillion
13-06-2015, 19:35
I feel we don't have enough info to decide (besides I'm not Fantasy player). Age of Sigmar could be a rehauled 9th edition by another name; or so different it has no resemblance; there's too many unknowns or uncertainties to tell. And a 9th edition would have the potential to suck or not.

DinDon
13-06-2015, 19:50
What about the option EOS large battles?Rumormongers suggested that larger battles will be availlable.If what they said is true you should add that option aswell.

The_Real_Chris
13-06-2015, 23:53
This is caused by both unnecessary resculpting of minis and failed games like Warmaster which drives up the price of things that ACTUALLY sell to make up the difference.

So GW shouldn't have experimented with the other games? Those other games helped them establish themselves as the brand in non historical war gaming and have them 'in's' across the board. I think when looking at the costs of the other games they just didn't understand the network effect. Of course they don't with their main games either as chasing new money is fine but they forgot they need an ecosystem of gamers with armies for these guys to play against...

Funnily enough war master is a far superior rules system to warhammer for playing multiple manoeuvre units and is one of the rare systems that can seemingly handle any period of warfare with the various ports into historical settings and sci-fi.

Though from all accounts 40k is the big beast in the company accounting for a majority of sales.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Just Tony
14-06-2015, 00:20
Warmaster simply didn't bring anything to the table except harder to paint minis and a completely different ruleset. Same with Inquisitor, but different specifics. Now BFG I can't understand why it failed because it was new, different, and filled a niche nicely.

Now, as far as experimenting with new games: if they weren't spending resources redoing models for the OTHER systems simultaneously I wouldn't have such a negative impact on pricing if it fails.

Spiney Norman
14-06-2015, 00:48
A shakeup of the game may, or may not be warranted, but in my opinion they have chosen precisely the wrong way to shake it up.

Throwing away the setting (which has always been warhammer's greatest selling point) and ditching the style of play that the game has run on for decades is imo a huge mistake, trying to copy the success of rival games like Malifaux and Warmahordes which already do the skirmish game thing to a prety high standard is a huge risk for GW to take, it's moving your fishing rod to a pool that is already overcrowded by expert fishermen, I'm not sure what they expect to catch there.

At the same time, antagonising their best advertisers (veteran) by forcing them to rebase or buy new armies to continue playing whilst simultaneously shredding the background they have all based their armies and imaginations on for the last 30 odd yrs is incredibly foolish in my opinion.

All things considered this move seems unnecessarily high-risk (especially given their abysmal recent record for designing *new* games - Dreadfleet and execution force) when there were a few obvious, yet subtle changes they could have made that would have made the game much more marketable.

mhsellwood
14-06-2015, 05:01
I have not voted for the same reason as was mentioned earlier: I don't believe that you have included a perfectly valid third option: over / under 26 and Age of Sigmar as a scale-able game enabling both skirmish and mass battle. Although the current rumours may not support this, it is not impossible, and it is at least as likely asthe first option of traditional WHFB mass battle (as this currently does not seem to be what is happening with Age of Sigmar) .

In terms of how actual battles look, here are some pictures.

215264215266215265

The carefully regimented and professional infantry unit is largely an invention of the Greeks and the Romans. Prior to that is largely warband type infantry often poorly trained and only useful as support to the cavalry or (earlier) chariot riding nobles. Post the fall of the Roman Empire we once again see the warband / shieldwall type of combat until the rediscovery of classical ideas in the late medieval period / early renaissance period. Even in periods where armies and infantry were professional and disciplined (Hans Holbein is illustrating early renaissance combat of two pike blocks, i.e. disciplined infantry versus disciplined infantry) the actual sharp edge of combat is a mess - it is not two carefully organised lines grinding against each other, it is as depicted in the pictures attached (two of them being contemporary illustrations to the events depicted, and intended to actually show a battle). Warhammer accepts this, and so we see certain abstractions such as individuals being able to inflict more kills than just the models in base to base, described in the book as being the character getting into the enemy formation and striking around.

Warhammer does a good job of allowing us to be generals, but in a lot of ways it does not support warband / individual combat and I would like to see a fantasy game that allows me to play out the kind of small scale battles that I have read about in various military histories in a setting that resonates.

The_Real_Chris
14-06-2015, 09:20
Warmaster simply didn't bring anything to the table except harder to paint minis and a completely different ruleset. Same with Inquisitor, but different specifics. Now BFG I can't understand why it failed because it was new, different, and filled a niche nicely.

I concur the departure in scale was a mistake given today's mindset - back then though I think it was part of the attempt to get the brand to different sorts of gamers.

(Note most find smaller scales easier to paint because you don't feel so compelled to do the complex stuff beloved on the larger models.)

Warmaster bought a far better mass combat system. One that is now used for 5 or 6 other periods. If it had been released as a kind of warhammer apocalypse that might have been a better tie in with the core game. I know people that use it as such and have more fun than KoW.

Inquisitor changing the scale was probably a mistake but it was actually a collectors range of models. Something GW insists they make. Of course it also sold like a range of collectors models :) it is fairly popular today with certain people including John Blanche who ironically was sticking his models for it in white dwarf after the files were pulled from the GW website.

BFG was a sorta success. GW sales data showed that while it raised sales 40k sales dropped by almost as much with greater overall cost to the company.

Personally I don't understand why the games aren't all spun off into a separate company and put into the wild to compete with GWs competitors without distracting core GW customers.

Hell for that matter doing the same with the discontinued back catalogue.

Anyway way off topic.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Gorbad Ironclaw
14-06-2015, 10:05
This is the first time I've been vaguely interested in anything GW are doing for years. I don't have the interest in investing the money and effort in getting forces together of the scale they want people to play. Now I would have no problem with a game that scales to both, but WFB have never been very good for small games (IMO). If that changes it will be more interesting. Also, it might, just might be a chance for GW to finally ditch their ancient rule system and possibly producing a decent ruleset? Now I don't really have much hope of that happening, GW by and large no longer produce the type of rules I enjoy and the rumours that everything will continue to be compatible sort of suggest we are not getting the radical change it would take to make me really interested, but the chance is higher than if they just tweaked Warhammer again.

Urgat
14-06-2015, 10:20
Warmaster simply didn't bring anything to the table except harder to paint minis and a completely different ruleset. Same with Inquisitor, but different specifics. Now BFG I can't understand why it failed because it was new, different, and filled a niche nicely.

Some niches are just too small to make a market out of. Take Dreadfleet. Didn't appeal to most people, and sure it was perfectible, but the rules were solid and the models ace. It probably was GW's greatest failure. That GW doesn't know what advertising or marketing means certainly didn't help, but I guess DF was just too much of a niche game.

Back on topic.
After pondering about it a lot, AoS it is for me. I didn't plan on switching to a possible 9th ed anyway. Buying the books again, learning the books again... I'm content with 8th ed being the Final mass battle system. AoS is another game to me, that I may or may not try. WFB is 8th, and 8th will stick around. Just wish they did pre-ET Brets, skavens and beastmen AB first.


Interesting fact, modern military units are still trained to maneuver in regiment formations. Typically these formations aren't used in combat, mainly crowd control.



And let me add that it's not that I don't like the new minis, I just don't like new minis if the old ones are fine. We've seen prices increase steadily to the point where what used to cost $20 for 16-20 models (12 in the case of Chaos Warriors) to double or more of that for 10 models on average. This is caused by both unnecessary resculpting of minis

Don't think new sculpts have much to do with it. Good old orcs got reboxed and went from old cheap to new expensive just like any new sculpt.

Kyriakin
14-06-2015, 11:21
Edit: Sorry, didnt read the poll correctly

Gobskrag 'Eadbasha
14-06-2015, 11:24
Gah! I am 26! For what its worth, 9th. However, I am intrigued by AoS.

Tokamak
14-06-2015, 11:38
And let me add that it's not that I don't like the new minis, I just don't like new minis if the old ones are fine. We've seen prices increase steadily to the point where what used to cost $20 for 16-20 models (12 in the case of Chaos Warriors) to double or more of that for 10 models on average. This is caused by both unnecessary resculpting of minis and failed games like Warmaster which drives up the price of things that ACTUALLY sell to make up the difference.

Yes! And it was completely unnecessary. Infantry doesn't need so much posing options. It was just a really wasteful production process. Producing small costly kits for something that was expected to be fielded in large blocks in the game broke the game. Small armies with big monsters, expensive lords and elite units were already easier to collect but due to the expensive core troops it only skewed the metagame even further.

I know people whine about the price a lot, but in this case it's more about how the costs of different kit-types compare to each other. GW would've sold more kits (both core and special) and made the game more popular if the core troop prices matched the ruleset better.

Tupinamba
14-06-2015, 13:50
I have not voted for the same reason as was mentioned earlier: I don't believe that you have included a perfectly valid third option: over / under 26 and Age of Sigmar as a scale-able game enabling both skirmish and mass battle. Although the current rumours may not support this, it is not impossible, and it is at least as likely asthe first option of traditional WHFB mass battle (as this currently does not seem to be what is happening with Age of Sigmar) .

In terms of how actual battles look, here are some pictures.

215264215266215265

The carefully regimented and professional infantry unit is largely an invention of the Greeks and the Romans. Prior to that is largely warband type infantry often poorly trained and only useful as support to the cavalry or (earlier) chariot riding nobles. Post the fall of the Roman Empire we once again see the warband / shieldwall type of combat until the rediscovery of classical ideas in the late medieval period / early renaissance period. Even in periods where armies and infantry were professional and disciplined (Hans Holbein is illustrating early renaissance combat of two pike blocks, i.e. disciplined infantry versus disciplined infantry) the actual sharp edge of combat is a mess - it is not two carefully organised lines grinding against each other, it is as depicted in the pictures attached (two of them being contemporary illustrations to the events depicted, and intended to actually show a battle). Warhammer accepts this, and so we see certain abstractions such as individuals being able to inflict more kills than just the models in base to base, described in the book as being the character getting into the enemy formation and striking around.

Warhammer does a good job of allowing us to be generals, but in a lot of ways it does not support warband / individual combat and I would like to see a fantasy game that allows me to play out the kind of small scale battles that I have read about in various military histories in a setting that resonates.

Actually, I think we agree. Iīm not argueing that the actual battle, when contact with the enemy is reached, would be the totally controlled blocks Iīve posted pictures off before. Battle is chaotic, I recognize that. However, even than "regiments" (or whatever the name of large semi autonomous organizational units) remain important, receive differente orders etc. and would act together.
But battle it also is organized, particularly while still manouvering, deciding when to apply reserves etc. The block mechanic in historical games and WHFB is an abstraction off course. But one that makes it possible to play a battle.

In the end it comes back to what kind of battle the game is meant to represent. Traditionally, itīs been mass battles, hence the block mechanic and the abstraction that a movement tray with 30 guys represents a real life unit of 300 - 1000+ guys. For smaller engagements, where individual movement and positioning is relevant, one needs skirmish level rules.

I must say, if the rumours are true, I can simply not understand why GW didnīt just do an additional skirmish level game for Warhammer, fully compatible and scalable, maybe using the excellent LOTR mechanics. Thatīs pretty much what I see everybody clamouring for.

Ramius4
14-06-2015, 15:16
I must say, if the rumours are true, I can simply not understand why GW didnīt just do an additional skirmish level game for Warhammer, fully compatible and scalable,

Because GW doesn't do market research. They literally have no idea that this is what people would have went nuts for. WFB didn't need to be thrown out. It needed some tweaking and better scaleability.

mdauben
14-06-2015, 16:23
Warmaster simply didn't bring anything to the table except harder to paint minis and a completely different ruleset. Same with Inquisitor, but different specifics. Now BFG I can't understand why it failed because it was new, different, and filled a niche nicely.

Now, as far as experimenting with new games: if they weren't spending resources redoing models for the OTHER systems simultaneously I wouldn't have such a negative impact on pricing if it fails.
Warmaster brought the ability to field truly large armies and
Monstrous creatures, without needing a basketball court to have proper maneuvering room and a rules system that many consider better than any edition of WHFB. The Warmaster system has actually been ported over for historical ancients, American Civil War, modern and other genres because it is so good.

Inquisitor was a totally different game set in the 40K universe that combined elements of both true skirmish and role playing. It was only slightly more like 40K than BFG.

Really, none of the Specialist games "failed". They were all good rules. AFAIK none of them lost money. All of them still have players. GW just dropped them because they just didn't make as much money as the two core games so the bean counters didn't want to waste time and resources on thrm.

Nkari
14-06-2015, 16:51
Since we have NO solid info about Age of Sigmar I can not give an answer, but if Im to speculate id prefere a skirmrish one vs the 100-200 models you need today to have a nice army.

Especially since I nowdays paint all my minis to the best of my ability, not just "tabletop" standard.

Ben
14-06-2015, 18:32
Also none of the specialist games were having new miniatures made for them while the models being discussed were being resculpted. None of this has anything to do with specialist games whatsoever.

The questions are meaningless because of GWs secrecy. It is a choice between two unknowns. Come back in a month when it is a choice between an unknown and a known.

The age barrier in the question is also at best ropey. You want a how long have people been playing the game, because 1st to 3rd ed was more warbandy, especially 1st and 2nd.4th-8th was mass battle with escalating large units. I remember in 4th though you wouldn't generally get any units larger than 20 for infantry or 5 for cavalry.

A better question might be who has children or a relationship. Because those will get in the way of people painting hundreds of miniatures.

Just Tony
14-06-2015, 23:06
I concur the departure in scale was a mistake given today's mindset - back then though I think it was part of the attempt to get the brand to different sorts of gamers.

Warmaster bought a far better mass combat system. One that is now used for 5 or 6 other periods. If it had been released as a kind of warhammer apocalypse that might have been a better tie in with the core game. I know people that use it as such and have more fun than KoW.

Inquisitor changing the scale was probably a mistake but it was actually a collectors range of models. Something GW insists they make. Of course it also sold like a range of collectors models :) it is fairly popular today with certain people including John Blanche who ironically was sticking his models for it in white dwarf after the files were pulled from the GW website.

BFG was a sorta success. GW sales data showed that while it raised sales 40k sales dropped by almost as much with greater overall cost to the company.

Personally I don't understand why the games aren't all spun off into a separate company and put into the wild to compete with GWs competitors without distracting core GW customers.

Hell for that matter doing the same with the discontinued back catalogue.

Anyway way off topic.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

If anything, I attribute the failing of BFG to less support, the failing of Warmaster was a combination of size models, nothing new really added, and a different combat system that, while some feel is superior, is essentially just GW saying "Here, just try different rules with the same game." and it didn't take. Inquisitor could have gone on as a book set for existing 40K minis, but I think GW isn't one to readily admit a mistake. They'd rather scrap and move on.


Some niches are just too small to make a market out of. Take Dreadfleet. Didn't appeal to most people, and sure it was perfectible, but the rules were solid and the models ace. It probably was GW's greatest failure. That GW doesn't know what advertising or marketing means certainly didn't help, but I guess DF was just too much of a niche game.

I wasn't gaming back when it was out, but doesn anyone remember Man O' War? Wasn't it like a WFB version of BFG essentially? Except with more races than Dreadfleet? I'm shocked they didn't try something like THAT again, but with plastics.


Don't think new sculpts have much to do with it. Good old orcs got reboxed and went from old cheap to new expensive just like any new sculpt.

It did, and it didn't. Some stuff hasn't been resculpted yet, but is indeed repackaged, I'll give you that. The stuff that WAS redone in WFB was at least an instance where other weapon options were included, or the Command added to the sprue itself. However, a single command sprue with extra weapon arms would have sufficed there. Did they ever get around to Great Weapons or Halberds for the (not so) new Chaos Warriors? The worst offenders are the 40K plastics that were getting upgraded for no reason. Marines and Chaos scream the loudest, but any rate, it's all part and parcel of the GW whole, and prices were raised as a whole to compensate.


Yes! And it was completely unnecessary. Infantry doesn't need so much posing options. It was just a really wasteful production process. Producing small costly kits for something that was expected to be fielded in large blocks in the game broke the game. Small armies with big monsters, expensive lords and elite units were already easier to collect but due to the expensive core troops it only skewed the metagame even further.

I know people whine about the price a lot, but in this case it's more about how the costs of different kit-types compare to each other. GW would've sold more kits (both core and special) and made the game more popular if the core troop prices matched the ruleset better.

I don't think GW thinks far enough to Year 2 of the mold is solid profit. They want profit within the 1st month of sales. Barring that, they want to sell us the same regiments over and over since they don't think we'll collect several armies each.


Warmaster brought the ability to field truly large armies and
Monstrous creatures, without needing a basketball court to have proper maneuvering room and a rules system that many consider better than any edition of WHFB. The Warmaster system has actually been ported over for historical ancients, American Civil War, modern and other genres because it is so good.

Inquisitor was a totally different game set in the 40K universe that combined elements of both true skirmish and role playing. It was only slightly more like 40K than BFG.

Really, none of the Specialist games "failed". They were all good rules. AFAIK none of them lost money. All of them still have players. GW just dropped them because they just didn't make as much money as the two core games so the bean counters didn't want to waste time and resources on thrm.

First off, I addressed most of this above. Well, except for the Mostrous creatures part. You could do that in WFB anyway. How many units/war machines/creatures can you name that were unique to Warmaster that you couldn't simply do in WFB? I think there was an army that had flying carpets, but that may have been when it moved to Specialist Games and nobody gave a **** anymore. And as far as size, my gaming group fit 4,000 point armies on a 5X6 table all the time. You'd be amazed what an effect 18" deployment zones have.

If the game design/rules was so superior, how come companies that base off of it aren't toppling WFB? Sure, we're down on sales, but there's nothing showing that any of the game systems that ape Warmaster's rule set come close to touching WFB's sales, as low as they are.

Also, if the Specialist Games WERE successful/didn't lose money, they'd still be around.


Also none of the specialist games were having new miniatures made for them while the models being discussed were being resculpted. None of this has anything to do with specialist games whatsoever.

The questions are meaningless because of GWs secrecy. It is a choice between two unknowns. Come back in a month when it is a choice between an unknown and a known.

The age barrier in the question is also at best ropey. You want a how long have people been playing the game, because 1st to 3rd ed was more warbandy, especially 1st and 2nd.4th-8th was mass battle with escalating large units. I remember in 4th though you wouldn't generally get any units larger than 20 for infantry or 5 for cavalry.

A better question might be who has children or a relationship. Because those will get in the way of people painting hundreds of miniatures.

Yes, the failure of Specialist Games DOES have a direct effect on overall pricing of every game. Look at your taxes. If a department overspends in our government, do they simply discontinue that department and continue on with the same or lower taxes? Nope, raise raise raise taxes. A company is no different. If they invest resources on something that fails while something else is successful, they will increase cost of successful thing to mitigate loss from the unsuccessful thing. THAT is how it affects pricing and why it is indeed relevant.

Ben
15-06-2015, 00:06
GW eliminated Specialist Games because of opportunity cost and perceived dilution of customer spending. The belief that every pound spent on Gothic would be spent on marines and GW could discontinue that line.

They're wrong, because what they did enabled a number of other companies to slide into that empty market space and start developing, and Age of Sigmar may represent an attempt to take back the skirmish game market that GW was integral in creating through Mordheim and Necromunda.

As it stands now the 3 largest shares of GWs revenue comes from 40k, paint and hobby supplies and Forgeworld. Fantasy doesn't even make the top three.

So it finds itself where Specialist Games was, making more than was being spent on it, but producing a much smaller return on investment than the big three.

This is what Age of Sigmar may be designed to deal with, the lack of players and lack of sales.

Between the end of Specialist Games production of new minis and their cancellation, you have the LOTR bubble. This made GW big returns, which they spent in a variety of ways (including Tom Kirby getting huge bonuses, but also on the new plastics technology used to create the newer kits).

This is why Specialist Games is completely irrelevant to this, it was out of the picture before LOTR, and GWs best years in terms of returns were the LOTR bubble. You can't say investment in specialist games before 2002 caused this, because that is 13 years ago and the LOTR bubble is after that.

Specialist Games was set up 13 years ago, and operated on an incredibly shoe string budget. It made profit, but not enough for GW. And Specialist Games was squatted in 2012.

KalEf
15-06-2015, 03:43
The block mechanic in historical games and WHFB is an abstraction off course. But one that makes it possible to play a battle.

itīs been mass battles, hence the block mechanic and the abstraction that a movement tray with 30 guys represents a real life unit of 300 - 1000+ guys. For smaller engagements, where individual movement and positioning is relevant, one needs skirmish level rules.

I must say, if the rumours are true, I can simply not understand why GW didnīt just do an additional skirmish level game for Warhammer, fully compatible and scalable, maybe using the excellent LOTR mechanics. Thatīs pretty much what I see everybody clamouring for.


Because GW doesn't do market research. They literally have no idea that this is what people would have went nuts for. WFB didn't need to be thrown out. It needed some tweaking and better scaleability.

... Or they are going all "NETFILX" on us, and they have a game plan. a couple of years of age of sigmar, pull in some players and make money on selling the new models, and then release the new edition that is amazeballs and pulls everyone back in! Age of sigmar pulls the planet out of the warp or even almost everyone makes it to the new planet :)

I know they say they don't do research... I think that is just a crappy cover for they often back the wrong horse... The changes that happened in 8th might have pushed a lot of people away, but they were definitely the changes the community was asking for (and I disliked 8th lol). The end times might be devastating but the community sure was upset about the storm of chaos meaning nothing!

I am probably being to optimistic right now lol

mdauben
15-06-2015, 04:03
If anything, I attribute the failing of BFG to less support, the failing of Warmaster was a combination of size models, nothing new really added, and a different combat system that, while some feel is superior, is essentially just GW saying "Here, just try different rules with the same game." and it didn't take. Inquisitor could have gone on as a book set for existing 40K minis, but I think GW isn't one to readily admit a mistake. They'd rather scrap and move on.



I wasn't gaming back when it was out, but doesn anyone remember Man O' War? Wasn't it like a WFB version of BFG essentially? Except with more races than Dreadfleet? I'm shocked they didn't try something like THAT again, but with plastics.



It did, and it didn't. Some stuff hasn't been resculpted yet, but is indeed repackaged, I'll give you that. The stuff that WAS redone in WFB was at least an instance where other weapon options were included, or the Command added to the sprue itself. However, a single command sprue with extra weapon arms would have sufficed there. Did they ever get around to Great Weapons or Halberds for the (not so) new Chaos Warriors? The worst offenders are the 40K plastics that were getting upgraded for no reason. Marines and Chaos scream the loudest, but any rate, it's all part and parcel of the GW whole, and prices were raised as a whole to compensate.



I don't think GW thinks far enough to Year 2 of the mold is solid profit. They want profit within the 1st month of sales. Barring that, they want to sell us the same regiments over and over since they don't think we'll collect several armies each.



First off, I addressed most of this above. Well, except for the Mostrous creatures part. You could do that in WFB anyway. How many units/war machines/creatures can you name that were unique to Warmaster that you couldn't simply do in WFB? I think there was an army that had flying carpets, but that may have been when it moved to Specialist Games and nobody gave a **** anymore. And as far as size, my gaming group fit 4,000 point armies on a 5X6 table all the time. You'd be amazed what an effect 18" deployment zones have.

If the game design/rules was so superior, how come companies that base off of it aren't toppling WFB? Sure, we're down on sales, but there's nothing showing that any of the game systems that ape Warmaster's rule set come close to touching WFB's sales, as low as they are.

Also, if the Specialist Games WERE successful/didn't lose money, they'd still be around.



Yes, the failure of Specialist Games DOES have a direct effect on overall pricing of every game. Look at your taxes. If a department overspends in our government, do they simply discontinue that department and continue on with the same or lower taxes? Nope, raise raise raise taxes. A company is no different. If they invest resources on something that fails while something else is successful, they will increase cost of successful thing to mitigate loss from the unsuccessful thing. THAT is how it affects pricing and why it is indeed relevant.

I'll agree, SG were a lot more popular when GW supported them. When they were in stores and in WD every GW gamer I knew was playing at least one of them. Once they went direct only and stopped pushing them in WD new players dropped off, but they never stopped even today.

As far as army size and table size of WM vs WFB, we will have to disagree. I think 2500 pts in WFB is pushing it on a standard 4x6 table. I can comfortably play armies four or five times that size in WM with plenty of room to maneuver.

As far as losing money, I heard from more than one source when they axed SG it was not because they were losing money, it was because the profits were not as high as for 40K and FB so they didn't want to waste resources on them. There was also some talk about a belief they were leaching sales from the core games although I personally think it was more a synergy.

The fact that there are other companies successfully selling what are in effect replacements for many on the discontinued SG games, or replacements for the OOP miniatures, seems to indicate there is still a market for these games that GW has abandoned.

Still, there gone and no matter how successful or not they were I don't see GW ever reissuing them, especially after the Dreadfleet debacle. And none of this has anything to do with AoS or 9th Ed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

mhsellwood
15-06-2015, 06:24
Actually, I think we agree. Iīm not argueing that the actual battle, when contact with the enemy is reached, would be the totally controlled blocks Iīve posted pictures off before. Battle is chaotic, I recognize that. However, even than "regiments" (or whatever the name of large semi autonomous organizational units) remain important, receive differente orders etc. and would act together.
But battle it also is organized, particularly while still manouvering, deciding when to apply reserves etc. The block mechanic in historical games and WHFB is an abstraction off course. But one that makes it possible to play a battle.

Agreed, if you want to represent manoeuvre then the grouping of bodies and troops and concern about flanks / rear and decisions about where to commit reserves then grouping bodies of troops into blocks or squares or whatever makes sense. So, it comes down to what are you representing with Warhammer? Is it glorious combat between massed armies with you the player being the general and doing the careful manoeuvre of the army and the high level decision making? Or are you the mighty hero leading your kith and kin against the invaders of your land, and so you know (and need to know) that old Thargrim has a good eye and a crossbow, while Njal is almost suicidally brave?


In the end it comes back to what kind of battle the game is meant to represent. Traditionally, itīs been mass battles, hence the block mechanic and the abstraction that a movement tray with 30 guys represents a real life unit of 300 - 1000+ guys. For smaller engagements, where individual movement and positioning is relevant, one needs skirmish level rules.

Warhammer started as a skirmish game (compare WHF to say DBx: each model in WHF has a stat line, each unit has different special rules, different equipment etc. all of which is relevant to a skirmish game. In DBx a unit of Roman Legionnaires is the same mechanically as a unit of Viking hirdmen, and the rules are very much big battle focussed) and has become a mass battle game because of business need. As it currently stands Warhammer creaks a little when big battles happen but it can handle them at the cost of losing a lot of scaleability with rules as written.


I must say, if the rumours are true, I can simply not understand why GW didnīt just do an additional skirmish level game for Warhammer, fully compatible and scalable, maybe using the excellent LOTR mechanics. Thatīs pretty much what I see everybody clamouring for.

I think that from what leaks we have GW are aware of the current buy in barrier, and are looking to deliver a skirmish game that will be expandable to a big battle game. So I think that we are likely to have what seems to be the main preference - a set of rules that are designed from the ground up to be able to handle games that are a couple of units versus another unit and scale up (maybe with some rule changes at 'break points' of game size) to regiments and monsters and war machines and super magic etc. For all we know currently GW will deliver what many people are saying they want - basically the current rules with some tweaks to enable small scale games such as reduced minimum unit sizes, skirmish formation for all, redesigned army lists etc. (in some ways this is actually very feasible - if AoS only has a pamphlet per Harry, then that is not enough for a complete rule system rewrite) and then full games played effectively with the current rules with some tidying up around the nuke spells and relative balance of armies. Or it could be completely new, but still with a view to enable players to start at skirmish and grow and play their armies. Either way, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they want to produce something that I will want to buy.

Whirlwind
15-06-2015, 10:32
If anything, I attribute the failing of BFG to less support, the failing of Warmaster was a combination of size models, nothing new really added, and a different combat system that, while some feel is superior, is essentially just GW saying "Here, just try different rules with the same game." and it didn't take. Inquisitor could have gone on as a book set for existing 40K minis, but I think GW isn't one to readily admit a mistake. They'd rather scrap and move on.

Warmaster failed because of lack of support towards the end too. All the specialist games failed for this reason. Lack of interest was not one of them otherwise we would never have had the variety of armies produced for all the games (including ones not in WHFB like Kislev and Araby). As it was said earlier Specialist Games was designed as a niche market on a small budget but exceeded expectations. No the problem was two fold; firstly towards the end there was no desire to transfer them into finecast (and probably wouldn't have worked either for the smaller models at all). Secondly it was viewed that they were cannibalising Warhammer sales. At a time when they were trying to get customers to supersize in Warhammer and 40K they had other products that fit that bill better. If you wanted to play huge games you could easily switch to Epic or Warmaster and achieve this much more cost effectively (as well the game rules being well designed to accommodate this scale of battle). So rather than purchase 3 boxes of Warhammer for upwards of Ģ50 you could buy one whole unit for less than Ģ10. At the other end of the scale if you just wanted a skirmish less than 15 unit warband game you had Mordheim/Necromunda/Gorkamorka. Hence Warmaster and other specialist games did really well for what they were designed to do (they even had their own magazines) but unfortunately in some ways did too well hence lowering the overall profitability of the big two. BtW if you haven't tried a full game of Warmaster I would recommend it - it is beautiful set of rules and GW made them freely available online.


I wasn't gaming back when it was out, but doesn't anyone remember Man O' War? Wasn't it like a WFB version of BFG essentially?

Yes and no. The principle is the same but the game design is completely different. Unlike BFG, ships had could be damaged in mulitiple areas (sails, deck, waterline). Damage was handled with lots of cards and icons etc. Good game but got out of hand with the expansions which made some fleets too powerful and unbalanced the whole game. Different scale to Dreadfleet though. It's good for a laugh if ever you get a chance.

HelloKitty
15-06-2015, 14:09
I remember that where I am, all of the specialist games sat on shelves and nobody would touch them, save for Battlefleet Gothic. For BFG we had about 9 or 10 solid players in a competitive league that ran for three years before the necrons came out and everyone rage quit.

I own four warmaster fantasy armies and I had to drive to chicago to play with them because nobody here would touch it. Same with EPIC 40k, I have a few armies of that but again no local players ever wanted to touch it. It was frustrating and is also why it takes a great effort for me to pick up another game system because I don't want models laying around the house that can never be used.

Whirlwind
15-06-2015, 15:17
That's a pity as I had some truly great games with them. Maybe they were just more popular in the UK? There are still EPIC tournaments that are run at a local store.

Lol, yes I remember the storm over Necrons, think someone should have play tested them better!

Just Tony
15-06-2015, 15:21
I remember that where I am, all of the specialist games sat on shelves and nobody would touch them, save for Battlefleet Gothic. For BFG we had about 9 or 10 solid players in a competitive league that ran for three years before the necrons came out and everyone rage quit.

I own four warmaster fantasy armies and I had to drive to chicago to play with them because nobody here would touch it. Same with EPIC 40k, I have a few armies of that but again no local players ever wanted to touch it. It was frustrating and is also why it takes a great effort for me to pick up another game system because I don't want models laying around the house that can never be used.

It wasn't just your area. In the Lafayette and Ft. Wayne areas the only Specialist Games that got any traction were BFG and Mordheim. And Mordheim only got traction when they had Town Crier which gave rules for existing Warhammer models to be used as warbands. BFG had quite a bit of traction, but fell out of favor after a few years. Past that, we had one guy who got into Warmaster with an actual army, two people who had the book but didn't get minis (me being one of them), and three Epic players who could never get a game in apparently. I know that the local stores all had armies for each system, but nobody would ever play. Epic at least had a bit of a draw because there were several units/machines you could only take in Epic. That's changed since Forgeworld, and moreso since superheavies are commonplace in 40K.

HelloKitty
15-06-2015, 15:29
It wasn't just your area. In the Lafayette and Ft. Wayne areas the only Specialist Games that got any traction were BFG and Mordheim. And Mordheim only got traction when they had Town Crier which gave rules for existing Warhammer models to be used as warbands. BFG had quite a bit of traction, but fell out of favor after a few years. Past that, we had one guy who got into Warmaster with an actual army, two people who had the book but didn't get minis (me being one of them), and three Epic players who could never get a game in apparently. I know that the local stores all had armies for each system, but nobody would ever play. Epic at least had a bit of a draw because there were several units/machines you could only take in Epic. That's changed since Forgeworld, and moreso since superheavies are commonplace in 40K.

Yep which is a shame because I love the game systems. I also love the LOTR system. Based on past experience with warmaster, epic, and LOTR - a game system's strength is not what dictates what people will play but rather the number of people playing will garner who plays (its a catch-22).

Tupinamba
15-06-2015, 15:46
Yep which is a shame because I love the game systems. I also love the LOTR system. Based on past experience with warmaster, epic, and LOTR - a game system's strength is not what dictates what people will play but rather the number of people playing will garner who plays (its a catch-22).

Yea. In my personal opionion, itīs rather the other way round. The better the game, the worse it sells: specialist games > lotr/wotr > whfb > 40k > apocalypse.

mdauben
15-06-2015, 15:53
I remember that where I am, all of the specialist games sat on shelves and nobody would touch them, save for Battlefleet Gothic. For BFG we had about 9 or 10 solid players in a competitive league that ran for three years before the necrons came out and everyone rage quit.

I own four warmaster fantasy armies and I had to drive to chicago to play with them because nobody here would touch it. Same with EPIC 40k, I have a few armies of that but again no local players ever wanted to touch it. It was frustrating and is also why it takes a great effort for me to pick up another game system because I don't want models laying around the house that can never be used.
Where were you located, HelloKitty? Our group in the south of Chicago had a strong following for WM, BFG, BB, and Mordheim. There were also a couple people into Epic and Inquisitor. I think Necromunda was the only SG I didn't see played in the local independent FLGS.

HelloKitty
15-06-2015, 17:52
Northern KY / Cincinnati area. Thats why I had to drive to Chicago to get in a game of WM ;) there were groups up there and at the time I was part of the large attempt at getting a "national circuit" going (with guys like the dire wolf club in michigan, the groups in chicago, st louis, ohio, etc)

I miss the GT circuit because that was when I got to play epic and WM. Other then that locally we tried about a dozen times to get it going and no one would touch it (because no one else was playing it) but they'd sit around buying 40k and fantasy while griping about what a poor game it was and how expensive it was (and realize this was 1998 - 2002ish)

Tau_player001
15-06-2015, 20:59
Yep which is a shame because I love the game systems. I also love the LOTR system. Based on past experience with warmaster, epic, and LOTR - a game system's strength is not what dictates what people will play but rather the number of people playing will garner who plays (its a catch-22).

It's more about specialist games being more specialized and thus filling a niche in the market of wargaming, instead of being a complete part of the market by themselves. Nowadays skirmish games are way more prevalent than in the past.

HelloKitty
15-06-2015, 21:07
No doubt. Skirmish games from my perspective are nearly all that is played anymore. Which makes me sad but thems the breaks.

benvoliothefirst
15-06-2015, 21:24
I voted for 26+, Age of Sigmar. I'm all for whatever drastic change they make to Warhammer, and if I don't like it, I'll take the best parts and throw away what I don't like, just like I've done with every iteration of Warhammer. I LOVED the End Times, and I'll be writing fluff and playing campaigns in that setting for a long time, because it's so dynamic.

I just really hope that they finally give up on the current horse scale, and just start releasing horses that are bigger and more in scale with the "standard" human. Maybe some updated rules that give horses more of a battlefield role. I just think they're currently under-represented, and I think that would be a great start to a new Bretonnian army!

The_Real_Chris
16-06-2015, 09:23
If the game design/rules was so superior, how come companies that base off of it aren't toppling WFB? Sure, we're down on sales, but there's nothing showing that any of the game systems that ape Warmaster's rule set come close to touching WFB's sales, as low as they are.

Also, if the Specialist Games WERE successful/didn't lose money, they'd still be around.

Very briefly - do you think game rule quality is important for success? 40k is pretty awful rules wise. But it has engaging background and accessibility.

There are many games you would find more enjoyable than fantasy, but how would you learn about them?

I think the age thing in the poll is important because the older you get the more aware of alternatives you get. Now GW used to be the big entry point, but other companies are encroaching on that.

Can AoS win them back? Rules quality will be a factor, something PP traded on, but not the only factor.

And competition wise I think you are unaware of the size of the historical war games market. A friend runs a painting factory in Asia. He dropped GW support because of the high overhead (lots of different models) and went fully historical. He routinely gets orders of over Ģ20,000. For painting. These guys buy their models elsewhere. Check out the 6mm WW2 or moderns scenes using blitzkrieg commander and Cold War commander. Not saying bigger than 40k but warhammer ain't that big anymore...

Money wise plenty of discussion around on it here, but in brief it did not make a high enough return (companies want more than profit, they want a good profit) and was seen as taking money and interest from core lines. Very standard business thinking.

So - if GW brings out for the first time since epic Armageddon a great rules set I will give it a go. If it is average, well the warhammer world is gone. I quite liked it in all those WFRP descriptions. I haven't seen anything so far that makes me want to like the replacement. Let's hope they have hidden the best till last. Because that would be the only other thing to get me in. Otherwise it is off to God of battles with my fantasy forces. Yo to foundry fantasy.