Would Inquisitor still be around if it had been 28mm?

[gloriousbattle]

Yeah, I know this seems very similar to other "28mm Inquisitor" threads, but there is a subtle difference. I am not asking for a value judgment as to which scale is better, as that has been done to death (and I don't care anyway, ALL my gaming in the 40K universe is done in 15mm).

Rather, my question is would Inquisitor have been more likely to survive beyond the afterlife known as Specialist Games if it HAD been in the dominant GW scale?

I can see counter-arguments, and they are plentiful: GW tanks its games after a certain period anyway; the Inquisitor rules were too eclectic to catch a mass market; Inquisitor was not sure whether it wanted to be a wargame or an RPG, etc. However, I believe that it is an interesting niche game, and that [REMEMBER HATAS, THIS IS NOT A VALUE JUDGMENT] 54mm was a marketing blunder, when there was already a massive overload of 28mm stuff on the market in the exact same genre.

YMMV, I'd love to hear opposing views.

[MarcoSkoll]

Inquisitor has survived. I quote Precinctomega (speaking to a group of disbelieving youths who had stumbled upon the 2009 IGT): "Yes, people still play Inquisitor!"

I'm no expert on the other specialist games (although I do occasionally play them, I don't frequent any forums for them), so I don't know exactly how well they're doing, but I can say that Inquisitor isn't that desperate.

However, I believe that 54mm was a marketing blunder

I'm not sure... I think the word to use is "novelty". I think the new and exciting scale helped draw people in in the first place, although that may have worn off with time.

The other thing you have to remember is that GW is a miniatures company. On release, they needed a nice range of different models, and if they were just pumping out models which looked like they could belong in your Imperial Guard army (or that it was a game which you could just take models from your Imperial Guard army), then there would have been an awful lot less profit to be had from the game.

They make their profits on the little bits of plastic and metal, and with Inquisitor needing the fewest models to play, just going with "normal models" wouldn't really have worked for the company.

(As a player whose Necromunda gangs are largely converted from Imperial Guard plastics, I know quite how willing players are to subvert other models for the Specialist Games.)

[gloriousbattle]

The other thing you have to remember is that GW is a miniatures company. On release, they needed a nice range of different models, and if they were just pumping out models which looked like they could belong in your Imperial Guard army (or that it was a game which you could just take models from your Imperial Guard army), then there would have been an awful lot less profit to be had from the game.

[shrugs] YMMV, but the main complaint I heard from people after Inquisitor had gone on to Specialist Games, was that they simply were not going to spend more money when they could play with what they already had. How, then, was the game going to make money on minis in any case? GW isn't stupid, surely they saw this coming?

[Necanthrope]

If Inquisitor had been in 28mm scale it would not have worked as well as a narrative skirmish game. The big models give it a certain feel when combined with the detailed rules that you just don't get with 28mm. While GW may or may not have had long term plans for Inquisitor when they released it, I think they got the scale just right.

The game was aimed at older players, who are more likely to have substantial collections of 28mm models. The new scale encouraged them to buy new models rather than reuse there old ones. Although, if they HAD made Inquisitor in 28mm they probably would have sold a lot of the new models to 40k players. We will never know if that would have led to GW giving longer term support for Inquisitor, but somehow I doubt it would have.

[gloriousbattle]

The game was aimed at older players, who are more likely to have substantial collections of 28mm models. The new scale encouraged them to buy new models rather than reuse there old ones.

Not trying to start a fight, but I just don't understand the logic behind that statement. I am an older gamer, and I am always looking for ways to use my present collection, rather than buy the new fad. Again, YMMV, but that doesn't sound like the older gamers I am acquainted with.

Cheers

[MarcoSkoll]

the main complaint I heard from people was that they simply were not going to spend more money when they could play with what they already had.

You could say that about most specialist games. Mordheim is a far more obvious offender than Inquisitor. Inquisitor did at least produce models for new character classes, like Arcoflagellants (which, admittedly do now have a 28mm equivalent).

To be honest, this is probably the downfall of Specialist Games, the fact that the models were so interchangeable with the normal range. People may well have been buying models for it, but they would often buy from a different range and convert.
My aforementioned Necromunda gangs are an example, as they come down under 40k sales, not Necromunda sales. That said, it sometimes worked the other way - one of the mages for my High Elf army is a Mordheim figure.

Ultimately, there are many gamers who do like to reuse their collections. Equally, there are many gamers who like to buy shiny new models.

Inquisitor was released at a time when GW were a bit more liberal about what they did, doing things more because people in the studio wanted to than because it would necessarily have turned huge profits. They didn't necessarily think of the Specialist Games as big money makers - and I imagine that they just liked the idea of doing big models. It was basically the only way they could have released such a range, other than as "display pieces".

[precinctomega]

Would Inquisitor still be around if it had been 28mm?

INQ is as much "still around" as Necromunda and Mordheim which use 28mm models. BFG is equally "still around" and uses models that are almost completely unusable in other GW games.

In my (not inconsiderable) experience, long-term wargamers (the people at whom the SG range is largely aimed) aren't averse to new miniatures in any scale, whether or not they do or don't fit into their existing collections. In fact, new miniatures in a new scale are more eye-catching and appealing than old, familiar ones.

INQ's miniature range largely failed (and by "failed" I mean got ruthlessly slashed to a handful of models) because the sculpts were often poor quality by comparison with 54mm figures available from other manufacturers - something GW can't be accused of in their other ranges.

INQ's rule system failed (and by "failed" I mean, didn't become a core part of the Games Workshop range) because (a) it was pre-destined to do so, as the Big Three policy had already been determined on its release and (b) because the nature of the game defies easy explanation; I, for one, cannot think of an equivalent game anywhere, ever, in which balance and fairness are discarded in favour of competitive cooperation and the pursuit of a great story. Reviewers failed to understand it and wargamers, brainwashed into expecting warfare to be "fair", dismissed it as "broken".

Nevertheless, it retains a dedicated hardcore of enthusiasts who recognize Gav Thorpe's masterpiece as a flawed diamond, encapsulating a new way of wargaming, ahead of its time in terms of design and vision. In many ways, veterans see it as the true successor of "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader", retaining many of that game's most endearing qualities - fairness and balance being none of them.

R.

[ashc]

It could also be viewed as a precursor to the likes of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and the up-and-coming Deathwatch RPG games. At least, I find myself making the comparisons when playing all the time.

[kaled]

It could also be viewed as a precursor to the likes of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and the up-and-coming Deathwatch RPG games.

The only problem with that is that people think it IS an RPG, and then they realise that it is lacking almost all of the mechanics they expect in an RPG so conclude that it's just a rubbish RPG. It's kind of the opposite side of the coin to people thinking it's a balanced skirmish wargame then realising it's lacking in any balance so conclude that it's just a rubbish skirmish game.

I feel it's better to always stress what Inquisitor is rather than simply comparing it to things that it isn't and thus confusing people. That's always been Inquisitor's problem - it doesn't fit into the categories people have so it tends to get dismissed. The different scale is a minor thing compared to the lack of understanding about the nature of the game IMHO.

[gloriousbattle]

I feel it's better to always stress what Inquisitor is rather than simply comparing it to things that it isn't and thus confusing people. That's always been Inquisitor's problem - it doesn't fit into the categories people have so it tends to get dismissed. The different scale is a minor thing compared to the lack of understanding about the nature of the game IMHO.

I can agree with that, however -and I'm not cracking on Inquisitor, here, I love the game- I always felt that it seemed like a game that had been rushed to market, or maybe that was marketed after a major design shift that did not get sufficient playtesting, and then this flaw got passed off with the line that "the game isn't supposed to be balanced."

The fact is that the Ready Reckoner WAS an attempt at play balance, just not a successful one.

[sigur]

Rather, my question is would Inquisitor have been more likely to survive beyond the afterlife known as Specialist Games if it HAD been in the dominant GW scale?

First off, it's still "around" as much as most specialist games. And I think that this is pretty much the main point. No matter the scale, =I= wouldn't be more or less "around" any more. While using a 28mm scale would have been more clever (classic case of marketing people not getting gamer mentality. A USP [54mm minis] isn't all that important in that case.) and would have gotten them more "across the systems sales" like if they had released weapons and equipment sprues and so on which could have been used in 40k as well as in necromunda and =I=.

Anyhow, still it wouldn't be bigger than it is now in my opinion.

[kaled]

The fact is that the Ready Reckoner WAS an attempt at play balance, just not a successful one.

I'd say it was only really unsuccessful in that it was never actually intended to balance the game. I get the feeling it was included to pacify those people who can't cope without the crutch that a points sytem provides - it's inclusion is basically an afterthought, an attempt to draw in those people who mistakenly believe that such a game is broken if it doesn't include an attempt at 'balance'. Unfortunately by pandering to these people it only served to muddle the issue and confuse people about the nature of the game and hence turn even more people off the game...

[ashc]

The only problem with that is that people think it IS an RPG, and then they realise that it is lacking almost all of the mechanics they expect in an RPG so conclude that it's just a rubbish RPG. It's kind of the opposite side of the coin to people thinking it's a balanced skirmish wargame then realising it's lacking in any balance so conclude that it's just a rubbish skirmish game.

I feel it's better to always stress what Inquisitor is rather than simply comparing it to things that it isn't and thus confusing people. That's always been Inquisitor's problem - it doesn't fit into the categories people have so it tends to get dismissed. The different scale is a minor thing compared to the lack of understanding about the nature of the game IMHO.

I kind of saw it as wanting an out-of-game RPG part bolted on to it, but never rubbished it for that; I suppose it depends on the sort of person you are as to how you view it.

[MarcoSkoll]

...then this flaw got passed off with the line that "the game isn't supposed to be balanced."

Nooo, not at all. It's clear that the game isn't meant to be balanced in any conventional manner - the source of balance is obviously the GM.

Unfortunately, what they didn't foresee was how much control the players would end up exerting over the GM - namely by turning up with models which, frankly, were an unfair choice.
Ultimately, while the GM does have control over which models make it to the table, some players can be argumentative - refusing to play at all if they don't have certain models.

The fact is that the Ready Reckoner WAS an attempt at play balance, just not a successful one.

Again, no. The introduction to it says things like "rough guide" and "experience will prove to be the best guide in this respect." It's clearly not meant to be taken as anything even vaguely hard and fast.

It was a nod to play balance (and one I rather wish hadn't been made). It was not however, a serious attempt to produce play balance.

[gloriousbattle]

Again, no. The introduction to it says things like "rough guide" and "experience will prove to be the best guide in this respect." It's clearly not meant to be taken as anything even vaguely hard and fast. It was a nod to play balance (and one I rather wish hadn't been made). It was not however, a serious attempt to produce play balance.

I don't mean to be snarky, but I think the English translation of "rough guide" and "experience will prove to be the best guide in this respect." is "we really didn't think this through, but the marketing guys said it was more than our jobs were worth if we didn't throw in a point system. So, we took the last fifteen minutes while the delivery truck was getting ready to ship it to the printers, and..."

[MarcoSkoll]

I don't mean to be snarky...

... if you honestly think that the RR was added as an afterthought, then it would follow that the game was originally designed without any points system.

You can't really combine "this flaw got passed off with the line that "the game isn't supposed to be balanced."" and "So, we took the last fifteen minutes while the delivery truck was getting ready to ship it to the printers...", because one implies that they wanted the game to be balanced but they didn't have the resources to make it so, and the other implies that they didn't want the game to be balanced but they had to at least pretend it could be.

[precinctomega]

Actually, I rather tend to agree with gloriousbattle, here, in several respects.

I think the game did suffer in many respects from inadequate playtesting. That doesn't mean it wasn't brilliant in conception, but we've had ten years to discover that the way the game plays most consistently in the community is not the way it was necessarily designed.

One-day campaigns, one-off pick-up games, informal linked narratives... whilst all of these were implicit in the original rules, Gav never foresaw that they would become the principle means by which his game would be played and so didn't specifically gear the game to accommodate those ways of playing.

It's often forgotten that, of all the Specialist Games, INQ is the only one in its first edition (oh, except for BOFA, but who plays that?) and, of all of them, it is the one that leaves the interpretation of the game most in the hands of the players.

I also agree that the RR feels like a late addition to the rules. I never asked Gav (although I might, if I see him again), but I suspect it might well have been inserted late in development as a way of easing the transition from points-based games to this more innovative (and, in the truest sense, radical) approach.

R.

[MarcoSkoll]

Actually, I rather tend to agree with gloriousbattle, here, in several respects.

I'd agree that it was perhaps under playtested and the RR was a late addition...

... but I do not agree as far as "not balanced" being an excuse that they slapped on to explain a lack of playtesting. The inverse might be true - in that they might have thought they could save on the playtesting because they didn't intend to balance it, but that's a different matter.

INQ is the only one in its first edition (oh, except for BOFA, but who plays that?)

True, but I'd say that GW's former experience with similar games would mean that BOFA's 1st edition is considerably less experimental than Inquisitor's is.

It is the one that leaves the interpretation of the game most in the hands of the players.

I can't remember the original quote any more, but something to the effect of the following once graced my local GW: "There's the rules - there's the window - there's the rules going out of the window - now get playing"

[gloriousbattle]

I think the game did suffer in many respects from inadequate playtesting. That doesn't mean it wasn't brilliant in conception...

Agreed. In fact, I think that, strangely enough, the most brilliant things about it are the design ideas most often ignored, such as the campaign system, which was truly awesome.

[precinctomega]

What campaign system?

I do not agree as far as "not balanced" being an excuse that they slapped on to explain a lack of playtesting.

I agree that the lack of balance in terms of player choice was entirely deliberate (and is, indeed, a fundamental element of the game's attraction). But I would say that the rulebook did rather fail to point out many of the downsides of overpowering your choices or spelling out in detail how a GM can level a playing field.

R.