Jump to content



Photo

Tabletop Rumours


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 McFonz

McFonz

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 04:27 AM

I have heard that there will be rules released to be able to play this as a tabletop wargame as well as on the boards. Can anyone shed any light on this?

To me it would be pretty simple anyway. The squares are three inches by three inches so it makes sense that range and movement is done through a straight forward conversion.

Perhaps vehicles only being able to move in straight lines that avoids contact with impassable terrain for movement.



#2 wildger

wildger

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 05:17 AM

There was but do not hope that it will come out any sooner.  The general desire from players is that the tabletop rule can accomodate the actual WW2 vehicles, not just those walkers in Dust.  Unfortunately, that will increase the complexity since the side and rear armor of a tank is much weaker.  A 1/48 scale tank does not fit well on the grid.



#3 McFonz

McFonz

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 05:35 AM

Tanks havent been released yet but I would guess if this is the case then the side and rear of a tank would be given a different armour value. So its not really changing a lot - just adding aditional dimensions thats all.



#4 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2010 - 12:20 PM

actually , the grigs are 3&5/8 , not 3 .  and adding in the table top rules adds in some complicating issues like unit coherency , LOS (currently based on the square a target occupies as opposed to the models ) rules for elevation , etc.......

 

i dont see the need for those rules , even if the tanks dont fit exactly , close enough will work with the target squares being those that are covered most , or on the larger tanks , a 4 square sized bas , limiting them from squeezing into one square wide paths .



#5 McFonz

McFonz

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 11:13 PM

Out of the extra rules you mention line of sight would perhaps be the most challenging but only slightly.

I say that because the rules make it quite clear that terrain is treated as representational so if your troops occupy a square with cover in it they are considered to be in cover whether the miniature is in front of the cover or not.

Roughly translated that would be any unit with at least half of its number within 1" of cover are classed as being in cover.

As for elevation - it doesn't have to be complicated.



#6 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2010 - 01:39 AM

McFonz said:

Out of the extra rules you mention line of sight would perhaps be the most challenging but only slightly.

I say that because the rules make it quite clear that terrain is treated as representational so if your troops occupy a square with cover in it they are considered to be in cover whether the miniature is in front of the cover or not.

Roughly translated that would be any unit with at least half of its number within 1" of cover are classed as being in cover.

As for elevation - it doesn't have to be complicated.

 

the elevation can become tricky when for determinig LOS , who can see who , who blocks , the game is super simple as is , dealing with hieght runs towad that slippery slope of games like WH40k .

the issue isnt JUST with cover for purposes of LOS , as is , you target an entire squad . so you now have the issues of having to pay attention to issues like being able to see a unit across multiple opposing corners . as is the half a square you can physicaly see is technicaly blocked so the entire squad is safe . you also have to determin how do you decide what area a squade actually occupies for determining LOS , at what point can and cant you see them , at what angels , etc ....... LOS is based from center of square to center of square , so where can and cant you see the opponent to get the cover or blocking ?

combat likewise becomes more abusable as right now the entire squade occupies one square , so all attacks are made based on the number of squares , so who and how do you determin who is in range to attack , how close does every one have to be to use knives ?  

and as i have argued elsewhere , going to the table top rul;es slows the game down with moving and measuring , and lends to some abuse : we have all had to deal with some one that measures a little farther than they should , so a 6 inch move becomes 6 and a smidge , etc ..........

right now this game is simple and pure , and i worry that going off on a tangent to make table top rules will take things in a direction like WH40 , or any of the myriad of other minis games that have come and gone . and i'm sure some would put forth that there are equaly divers groups to support each , but i have yet to see a game company that could produce multiple versions/offerings of the same game universe , and not screw up one or both trying to bost one or both . perfect example , look at GWM , and look at all the games and offerings that they have sold the rights to make or remake to other companies . they are focused on their 3 main game lines , and that is where their focus will remain . any off shoots that they DO release like space hulk , are limited ed. with no real support , except perhaps through one of their off shoot companies like the black library . any larger off shoots or variants that can be released for longer durations , like horus heresy , are being done through other companies .



#7 Shooter

Shooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 November 2010 - 02:17 AM

 

Actually if you watch the video at the link above the very guys that created this game encourage we players to make it into an off the board miniatures game, like WH 40K.

 

Players are going to tweak the game, that is inevitable and someone will work out a way to make it a full miniatures game that doesn't use the board.  Perhaps FFG will even relase a rulebook to that end.  I like the game as is too.  The core rules are great and offer a great basis from which to work but dogmatically insisting that everyone adhere strictly to the base rules will result in players losing interest.  The game would become predictable and mundane.  Players will find ways to make it more interesting in a number of ways.  They will paint miniatures and come up with creative objects for the terrain and playing surface.  They will add in house rules to the base rules or amend rules to make their battles more interesting and more challenging. I wouldn't be at all suprised if someone converts it from a grid map to a hex map and sooner or later someone will work out a way to make it a full off the board miniatures game.   As expansions come along the rules of those expansions will be incorporated along with new units and new options.  I personally encourage people to make the game your own.  We can all agree that the core rules are the basis from which we play the game but this is more than just a simple board game like Monopoly or something.  It is also a hobby and in that spirit I encourage players to expand that scope of the game, take it in new directions and make it more interesting.  This is the way to make the game a success, not by strict adhearance to the core rules.  It is capable of being more, make it more.  That's where I come out on it.     



#8 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2010 - 05:11 AM

one of the great charms of this game is that it is a minis game being developed and marketed as a board game . i would remind those that want tabel top rules , that if we go down that road to appease the table top gamers , we are in for the new marketing strategies as used by games workshop and the like . i have yet to see a minis game that has stood the test of time as GMW has , and GMW is the biggest single source of negativity when you discuss minis games with a large group of gamers . as i did my demo week , it was brought up by about 80% of the people i talked to . and i had to asure them that i understood their issues , and that this game was not going down that road .

while i am ok with specialty terrain house rules , or house rules to fill spaces till new units come out , this game has 5 planned expansions , and parente only knows how many units , still to be released , there is no reason anyone should get board with this game any timesoon  , especially if you are trying out newer bigger battle fields and such , that are covered in the rules already .

but i would also have to agree that i am sure there will be players who do come up with table top rules , and rules for use on hexes , etc ...... and thats fine , i would be perfectly fine with them having them as fan rules , circulated via the internet or what ever , so that those that want them can have them . it would be a limited release , that wouldnt risk hurting or hindering the base game that so many people are loving .

what i dont want to see is this game , and the developers and marketers behind it , try to persue table top rules as a means to another market . that is a slippery slope , and i for one want to play dust tactics , not warhammer 40k , or even worse  : AT-43 .

as i see it , this game is perfect as it is , at this stage in its developement , i want to see it keep on going along the lines that i bought into it , not all of a sudden become some retarded amalgim of marketing and hinkyness like AT-43 did .

i would also like to point out that to my knowlage , FFG doesnt have a great deal of experience with a table top minis game like GMW does , so there is a big learning curve , and alot of risks to persuing the new marketing strategies that they will have to to remain competative . as it is , yes they have some competition , soley based on the fact that EVERY GAME competes with every other game , simply by being a game , BUT they have littlle or no competition in the format , genre demographic , and age catagories that this game serves . as it is i could easily see dust on the shelves of big box stores , which is something that cant be said for games like WH40k that require a dedictaed local community to explain the rules and support each other . this game can grow sales in way other games cant , and the more they sell , the more they can produce and expand .  

and before some one brings up wings of war , i would like to point out that single airplanes , or small groups , are totaly different than larger ground skirmishes with troops and terrain and all therules that go along with it .

i would rather do without the official table top rules , and keep this game going big and strong , than risk dealing with another money pit . i say let dust be dust , and let GMW worry about the table top minis market . as it is , we have a game that is simple and has the possability of going strong for years to come without risking the slippery slope , that only GMW has truely been able to master .

 



#9 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 20 November 2010 - 05:50 AM

The thing is, when AEG had the game they stated that the tabletop conversion already was developed, but would be released down the line.  Now having played our large game last week, the tabletop rules aren't a requirement, but would be a nice bonus.  And it would really change nothing, but be more of a set of alternate rules.  They don't have to go down some bleak marketing route because they would be keeping the game based as it is with the tabletop rules as alternates on the side.  I have already come up with a small set myself that I'm tweaking and it really just covers movement and terrain issues.

Movement would be in 4" increments (so a move, move would be 8")

Borrowing some good rules from AT43, you're leader model in the squad would be the point of measuring range, movement, and such and would become the "center dot" of the tile, everyone else would keep no more than 2" away from the leader model. 

Line of sight would be a "center dot" to "center dot" or leader to leader line and if that line cuts through any piece of terrain you're line of sight would be obstructed.   Ranges would be in 4" increments as well.

Terrain classified as cover would give the unit the cover benefit if they are within 1" of the piece of terrain (terrain classifications agreed upon by both players before setup) 

Thats the basics.  Again, not changing the game per se, just tweaking it to allow it to be played in more freeform.  Not everyone is going to have enough tiles to play as large a game as they'd sometimes like, so it would really be nice to have the tabletop rules so that you can play whenever and wherever you'd like.



#10 McFonz

McFonz

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 20 November 2010 - 08:08 AM

Lets also remember that the gaming table is also part and parcel of the hobby. I only asked to confirm a rumour in fairness.

However my pennies worth: I think it would be great to have a free-form and the current version of the game. The main problem people will face with squares is that the squares limit the amount of units you can have on the board at any one time. It has its strengths in that tournaments for it are going to be dead easy, there don't appear to be any loopholes or issues, the game as it is is nice and fast paced. But going by the starter set it can already get quite congested with the units in there on the grid available.

A free-form game would allow more space for units in larger games - and I would see it as a sort of 'advanced' expansion/add on. At this point I would agree that it is too early to inject this idea into things as they have a lot of other units etc to release. However I do think there is probably a unit limitation in relation to the size of a board which could be quite limiting.

I have no problem with the game as it is at the moment. It's great. Its a miniature wargame on a preset board system. Nice, simple and yet very tactical, like a game of chess.



#11 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2010 - 08:02 PM

how does the grid limit the number of squads that can be on the board ? in the standard #x# , i guess you would be limited to 18 squad/wakers in some missions , a great deal more in others , but that would require you to buy4 starters to have enough units to fill the area , at which point you would have 45 board sections so i'm just not sure how you are coming to that conclusion .



#12 Shooter

Shooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 07:41 PM

Frankly I think a squad should be allowed to occupy two squares, 3 guys in one square and 2 in the other and they must be adjacent.  This opens up more lines of sight and could enable the squad to survive longer in combat.  Obviously both squares would not be allowed to fire on a target unless both squares can draw a line of sight to that target, but the same would be true when be fired on.  If the square with 2 men loses 1 of them then the surviving soldier must rejoin the 3 man group immediately.  It is a free move.  The same is true if the 3 man squad loses two men, the surviving man must immediately join up with the two man square.  If both parts of the squad are being fired on at the same time and the end result leaves 1 man in each squad then the controlling player must pick one square of the other for the two survivors to rally in. 

 

See also total confusion or WTF in dictionary.  LMAO. 



#13 McFonz

McFonz

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 11:03 PM

GrandInquisitorKris said:

how does the grid limit the number of squads that can be on the board ? in the standard #x# , i guess you would be limited to 18 squad/wakers in some missions , a great deal more in others , but that would require you to buy4 starters to have enough units to fill the area , at which point you would have 45 board sections so i'm just not sure how you are coming to that conclusion .

If this is being solely marketed as a board game (which it is only if you consider the FFG part of the franchise - don't forget Parente's site with alternative stuff) then you have to also consider that it was mainly designed to be played on something like a dining room table.

I am lucky in that I have a board 6'x4' although its in segments so I play 4'x4' normally. If you are restricted in the size of area you can place the boards in you will be limited in how many units it is ideal to use.

By that I mean sure you could go all apoc on it and set up with say only one square between you but that's not tactical nor much of a challenge, its an initiative fest.

As for having to re-market it - why? If they make the rules free to download or relatively cheap then I think you will find the only people that will buy them will be people that have a collection already anyway. The nature of the beast is that they will make more money out of the individual units than the starter sets and considering that all of the rules for the said units come on their cards linking to the main rules its not like people could avoid getting the same sets that are out.

I just think that there will be a lot of table top gamers out there that will have already bought this set and will be toying with converting it over anyway. By releasing a set of conversion rules and charging say - $5-$10 for a pdf I think it would make sound buisiness sense.



#14 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 November 2010 - 11:15 PM

Shooter said:

 

Actually if you watch the video at the link above the very guys that created this game encourage we players to make it into an off the board miniatures game, like WH 40K.

 

    

 

actually ..........thats not parente , thats the head of FFG , and thus its a slippery slope , which game will they favor , and which figs will suck in which version as their rules and abilities favor one version over the other . and how does FFG intend to last in the minis market , since only GMW has managed to really make it profitable , and had earned alot of disgrunteled EX-players in the process .

 

this is probably gonna be a money pit like WH40k , and will eventually leave just a bad a taste in the players mouthes as either  both versions end due to poor development and sales kill what started as a great game (which is what happened to how many hundreds of other great minis games ? ) , or one version or the other is cast aside and FFG earns just as many enemies as GMW has  for persuing just a vile of a "scew the player , there are plenty more where he came from " sales model .



#15 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 November 2010 - 11:37 PM

McFonz said:

 

GrandInquisitorKris said:

 

how does the grid limit the number of squads that can be on the board ? in the standard #x# , i guess you would be limited to 18 squad/wakers in some missions , a great deal more in others , but that would require you to buy4 starters to have enough units to fill the area , at which point you would have 45 board sections so i'm just not sure how you are coming to that conclusion .

 

 

If this is being solely marketed as a board game (which it is only if you consider the FFG part of the franchise - don't forget Parente's site with alternative stuff) then you have to also consider that it was mainly designed to be played on something like a dining room table.

I am lucky in that I have a board 6'x4' although its in segments so I play 4'x4' normally. If you are restricted in the size of area you can place the boards in you will be limited in how many units it is ideal to use.

By that I mean sure you could go all apoc on it and set up with say only one square between you but that's not tactical nor much of a challenge, its an initiative fest.

As for having to re-market it - why? If they make the rules free to download or relatively cheap then I think you will find the only people that will buy them will be people that have a collection already anyway. The nature of the beast is that they will make more money out of the individual units than the starter sets and considering that all of the rules for the said units come on their cards linking to the main rules its not like people could avoid getting the same sets that are out.

I just think that there will be a lot of table top gamers out there that will have already bought this set and will be toying with converting it over anyway. By releasing a set of conversion rules and charging say - $5-$10 for a pdf I think it would make sound buisiness sense.

 

so how does getting rid of the squares allow you to put more units out ? they still block LOS , unless targeting a walker , so ?

 

you bring up table size , if my table doesnt fit , i throw a sheet down on the floor , and we can battle there , as big as we please .

 

and the issue with marketing is that to put table top rules out , they have to add in things like unit coherency , new measurements for move and range , etc.......... by having the 2 systems , they have to cater to one or the other , OR release 2 stat cards for each unit , one for each system . other wise you end up with units that have abilitries that dont translate , to one system or other  . so how do the cost them to be fair to both ?

the ranges and moves and etc have to be changed to cover those larger fields as per player demands , which means if they dont stat the figs for BOTH game types , they will make older units with lower ranges less desirable . so that great deal in the starter , becomes a huge loss .  

and yes , they will make additional money doing the table top games , but go down to your FLGS , and watch a table top minis game , they play with massive armies . the marketing isnt about getting what you want , it becomes about getting the biggest , best , newest , most broken unit you can and throwing it on the field . thats what minis games companies like GMW do to keep going , and it screws players . ask other gamers how they feel about GMW . there is alot of people who hate them , and the money pit they foster . 

GMW's marketing strategy isnt about expanding the game world , or building their player base , its about getting new players at the expense of old ones , thus they are in their 5th edition , with only 4 new races added to the game , but 30 or 40 army books , designed to make the players buy new stuff each time to replace the figs they can no longer use .

ask the people who work at your FLGS about all the minis games that have come and gone , and how many have lasted anywhere near as long as GMW , you will find there are none . at best properties like battle tech , have been bought and sold from failing company to failing company , with alot of lost material along the way . while you are there , ask them about the differences in marketing for a miniatures game versus a board game .

the game as is scales up because of the lack of coherency rules , simple LOS rules , etc...... that allow players to move and engage fast , even on larger game fields with short range weapons . the grid just makes things better .

market history shows the additional money they might make doing table top rules , is likely short term , as would be the game itself , once you burn out players , they tend not to come back , and trying to get players birned by other games to give it a chance , just gets harder . as a result , they either become a clone of GMW , or they likely fail , noone has yet proven other wise over the long haul .  



#16 Shooter

Shooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 11:57 PM

GrandInquisitorKris said:

Shooter said:

 

 

Actually if you watch the video at the link above the very guys that created this game encourage we players to make it into an off the board miniatures game, like WH 40K.

 

    

 

 

 

actually ..........thats not parente , thats the head of FFG , and thus its a slippery slope , which game will they favor , and which figs will suck in which version as their rules and abilities favor one version over the other . and how does FFG intend to last in the minis market , since only GMW has managed to really make it profitable , and had earned alot of disgrunteled EX-players in the process .

 

this is probably gonna be a money pit like WH40k , and will eventually leave just a bad a taste in the players mouthes as either  both versions end due to poor development and sales kill what started as a great game (which is what happened to how many hundreds of other great minis games ? ) , or one version or the other is cast aside and FFG earns just as many enemies as GMW has  for persuing just a vile of a "scew the player , there are plenty more where he came from " sales model .

 

It doesn't really matter which one of them said it to me.  As for the game being a money pit, I don't know what your estimation of value is but probably most of us that have bought this game just paid a hundred bucks for 4 mechs, 30 guys, 2 heros and some cardboard pieces.  I mean the cost to make the game I suspect was nowhere near the price we paid for it.  But I'll put it like this, and I have believed this to be true ever since I worked in a hobby store that sold a great deal of 40K stuff.  We even hosted tournaments.  It's a toy.  You don't have to have it.  It's a luxury.  It's something that occupies your time when you aren't working to put a roof over your head and food on the table.  If they charged 600 bucks to buy it and there were enough guys that figured their free time was worth the 600 dollar investment, they'd get 600 bucks for it.  These items will bring the price that the market will bear.  If someone feels it's not worth the price, don't buy it.  Personally I thought the price was just fine.  When they release these first expansions it's basically going to be 20 bucks for what?  Five miniatures and a data card?  That's alright with me though and I'll pay that price.  I never met a "disgruntled" 40K player at my old shop.  All of them shared the same attitude about it that I have.  It's just a game and the cost is either worth it to you or not.  For them it was more about the fun of playing the game with their friends and how do you put a price tag on that?  You can't.  Sure some guys came in and took a look at how much money it cost to get a 40K army up and running and said no thanks.  I personally never played 40K for that very reason, I didn't want to spend the money and I didn't think it was worth it.  But that was because I had other hobbies that I did spend a lot of money on.  I get that it makes guys upset that GW raises the prices on their stuff quite often.  If it gets too expensive and you feel it's not worth it, don't buy it.  When enough guys don't buy it, guess what, the prices will come down.  This notion that you might end up "disgruntled" or an "enemy" of FFG over a game is just silly to me.  It's a game, its not that deep.  Either you feel the price is worth it or you don't.  



#17 McFonz

McFonz

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 12:03 AM

I think this argument is going to different ways - one is way off target in saying that if they go down the route of a table top game option they will flop which really is an assumption and not really what the thread is about. I didn't want to argue whether they should or shouldn't, rather that it has been mentioned that they 'will' and wanted to shed more light on it.

As for the having to have a totally new set of rules - I reckon you could fit a conversion set of rules on 1 or 2 A4 sheets.

Like I said, there is an argument here that shouldn't be. Several areas have been gone over several times with people ignoring parts of them. I don't really want to get into that because it will end up getting nasty! It's just gone seriously off topic.



#18 Shooter

Shooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 12:26 AM

McFonz said:

 

I think this argument is going to different ways - one is way off target in saying that if they go down the route of a table top game option they will flop which really is an assumption and not really what the thread is about. I didn't want to argue whether they should or shouldn't, rather that it has been mentioned that they 'will' and wanted to shed more light on it.

As for the having to have a totally new set of rules - I reckon you could fit a conversion set of rules on 1 or 2 A4 sheets.

Like I said, there is an argument here that shouldn't be. Several areas have been gone over several times with people ignoring parts of them. I don't really want to get into that because it will end up getting nasty! It's just gone seriously off topic.

 

 

 

Maybe so.  The general rule of forums regardless of subject matter is that the topic of a thread is pretty much resolved in the first 2 or 3 posts and everything after that is just banter and differing points of view.  It's just the nature of conversation.   People do the same thing when conversing face to face in a group, they'll do it on a forum too. 



#19 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2010 - 01:34 AM

Shooter said:

GrandInquisitorKris said:

 

Shooter said:

 

    It doesn't really matter which one of them said it to me.  As for the game being a money pit, I don't know what your estimation of value is but probably most of us that have bought this game just paid a hundred bucks for 4 mechs, 30 guys, 2 heros and some cardboard pieces.  I mean the cost to make the game I suspect was nowhere near the price we paid for it.  But I'll put it like this, and I have believed this to be true ever since I worked in a hobby store that sold a great deal of 40K stuff.  We even hosted tournaments.  It's a toy.  You don't have to have it.  It's a luxury.  It's something that occupies your time when you aren't working to put a roof over your head and food on the table.  If they charged 600 bucks to buy it and there were enough guys that figured their free time was worth the 600 dollar investment, they'd get 600 bucks for it.  These items will bring the price that the market will bear.  If someone feels it's not worth the price, don't buy it.  Personally I thought the price was just fine.  When they release these first expansions it's basically going to be 20 bucks for what?  Five miniatures and a data card?  That's alright with me though and I'll pay that price.  I never met a "disgruntled" 40K player at my old shop.  All of them shared the same attitude about it that I have.  It's just a game and the cost is either worth it to you or not.  For them it was more about the fun of playing the game with their friends and how do you put a price tag on that?  You can't.  Sure some guys came in and took a look at how much money it cost to get a 40K army up and running and said no thanks.  I personally never played 40K for that very reason, I didn't want to spend the money and I didn't think it was worth it.  But that was because I had other hobbies that I did spend a lot of money on.  I get that it makes guys upset that GW raises the prices on their stuff quite often.  If it gets too expensive and you feel it's not worth it, don't buy it.  When enough guys don't buy it, guess what, the prices will come down.  This notion that you might end up "disgruntled" or an "enemy" of FFG over a game is just silly to me.  It's a game, its not that deep.  Either you feel the price is worth it or you don't.  

acually it does , if FFG told you this then it means the after developemnet guys are looking for a short term cash cow to bet the bank on .

as some one who started in the hobby over 20 years ago playing battle tech , and quickly was drawn into 40k first edition , i have watched as numerous companies have come and gone .

i spent alot of money on my WH40K armies . first ed was great , i had a couple sizable armies , second ed came out , and i had to let go of alot of my stuff , and buy new items and units to stay competative . at my high point i had 60,000 points of painted chaos , which to explain it to some one like you who has never been in the game , its A LOT . third ed came out and 20,000 points of my army dissappeared over night , and thats when i got out . the GMW idea is to make things bigger and stronger so that in order to stay in a game , you HAVE to buy new units . it is the ultimate game for rules lawyers and broken armies . i watched a game a while back just after the newest space wolf codex was released where a guy dumped a unit of 20 troopers out of a tank into close combat and rolled 80 dice to attack a unit of 5 troopers , and every codex released has to have just a rediculously over powered units and rules to beat the last broken one . thats what the game has become .

there is a ver TINY core of hard core 40k players that have suck with it , but each week i have gone to the game store , the faces have changed . i dont think i have seen more than 5 or 6 people stay with it more than a year , and most dissappear after about 6 months .

a number of the people i have talked to about the game , and several of the demos , were to people who started out against the idea , because of their experiences with games like WH40k . if you think i am the only gamer who doesnt like GMW , go to BGG and and ask around , they are generaly seen as the nazi's of the game world , and there are endless stories of people like me that got out because they got tired of all the crud GMW does .

GMW's model isnt based on keeping gamers , their key demographic is younger new gamers . they believe that it doesnt matter that they lost X # of gamers this week , they will get new gamers to replace them . they dont care about laoyalty

my FLGS is a remnant of what was once the largest retailer of games west of the missippi (wargames west ) . so they have had plenty of games pass through their doors .

and you are KINDA right , when enough people dont buy , the prices do go down , cause the game line is killed or sold to another company to remake and people are dumping their stock . you said you have worked in a game store , so name any other minis game that has lasted as long as WH40k , and name an example of a game that got cheaper because people didnt buy it and didnt die as a result .



#20 Shooter

Shooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 02:19 AM

GrandInquisitorKris said:

 

 

acually it does , if FFG told you this then it means the after developemnet guys are looking for a short term cash cow to bet the bank on .

as some one who started in the hobby over 20 years ago playing battle tech , and quickly was drawn into 40k first edition , i have watched as numerous companies have come and gone .

i spent alot of money on my WH40K armies . first ed was great , i had a couple sizable armies , second ed came out , and i had to let go of alot of my stuff , and buy new items and units to stay competative . at my high point i had 60,000 points of painted chaos , which to explain it to some one like you who has never been in the game , its A LOT . third ed came out and 20,000 points of my army dissappeared over night , and thats when i got out . the GMW idea is to make things bigger and stronger so that in order to stay in a game , you HAVE to buy new units . it is the ultimate game for rules lawyers and broken armies . i watched a game a while back just after the newest space wolf codex was released where a guy dumped a unit of 20 troopers out of a tank into close combat and rolled 80 dice to attack a unit of 5 troopers , and every codex released has to have just a rediculously over powered units and rules to beat the last broken one . thats what the game has become .

there is a ver TINY core of hard core 40k players that have suck with it , but each week i have gone to the game store , the faces have changed . i dont think i have seen more than 5 or 6 people stay with it more than a year , and most dissappear after about 6 months .

a number of the people i have talked to about the game , and several of the demos , were to people who started out against the idea , because of their experiences with games like WH40k . if you think i am the only gamer who doesnt like GMW , go to BGG and and ask around , they are generaly seen as the nazi's of the game world , and there are endless stories of people like me that got out because they got tired of all the crud GMW does .

GMW's model isnt based on keeping gamers , their key demographic is younger new gamers . they believe that it doesnt matter that they lost X # of gamers this week , they will get new gamers to replace them . they dont care about laoyalty

my FLGS is a remnant of what was once the largest retailer of games west of the missippi (wargames west ) . so they have had plenty of games pass through their doors .

and you are KINDA right , when enough people dont buy , the prices do go down , cause the game line is killed or sold to another company to remake and people are dumping their stock . you said you have worked in a game store , so name any other minis game that has lasted as long as WH40k , and name an example of a game that got cheaper because people didnt buy it and didnt die as a result .

 

 

 

What version of rules is Dungeons and Dragons on now?  I had a set that was in a red book labled "basic rules" and a blue book labeled "expert rules" somewhere around 1981.  That's gotta be about seven or eight generations of D&D ago.  People are still playing.  I played all the way until 2003, buying new rules and books all along, because I wanted to.  I didn't get upset becaue they evolved the game and it was no longer the same thing I bought five years ago.  Many are even using "miniatures" just like we did back in 1981.

How many variants of Axis & Allies have there been over the years?  7?  8?  People are still playing.  I have like four different A&A games here.  Still playing.

To be accurate the first edition of WH40K was really a game called "Space Marine" and it was a much smaller scale. It came complete with orcs and eldar.  I know because I had the game and the rule book even laid out the whole history of Horus.  Five man squads were mounted on 1 inch squares and a  land raider was about half the size of a matchbox car.  So yes, I know what a 60,000 point army is.   28mm miniature WH40K actually grew out of a game called Space Hulk, a variant of the Space Marine universe.  Space Marine was circa 1989 / 1990.  People are still playing, it's just 40K now.

People play a game and then move on to other things.  It's not because of some failure on the part of the company or the product but more often because they just move on to other things.  We sold a lot of RC cars and trucks and guess what, most of the guys that got into it didn't stay with it for more than six months to a year. It's just the way it is. 

Games evolve over time. If they don't, people get bored with it and they'll find something else to entertain themselves.  There's a number of reasons why guys don't stick with WH40k for a long time and they certainly aren't all just because GW changed the rules or the armies or the prices.  Some guys quit because they find a game they like better.  Some quit because they get married, have kids and need their expendable cash for other things.  Some quit because they couldn't find enough guys to game with often enough and didn't want to play just once a month or once every six weeks.  There's probably a thousand different reasons why guys move on to other things, it's not all GW's fault.  In fact most to the time it's not GW's fault.  I think the same will be true for Dust Tactics. 

 

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS