Opinion on GW's History with Story Progression

[Bryan Blaire]

:lol: at the thought that previous editions of 40K (or even WHFB) were somehow more unique than the current or even potentially projected settings - and the idea that a large element dislikes the products... The numbers from GW themselves seem to indicate some disagreement.

 

What Immersturm said is correct though - when an author/owner/controlling interest decides to alter something that you can't control/adjust, you only have a few choices. One of them is fully accept and get to liking the new stuff, one is turn your back on the material and walk away. There are others amongst the spectrums of enjoy/accept/hate, but if folks want to deal with official products going forward, then there is going to have to be a level of acceptance of the new direction.

 

One thing that will remain true: B&C will continue to be based on constructive discussion.

[Khornestar]

at the thought that previous editions of 40K (or even WHFB) were somehow more unique than the current or even potentially projected settings - and the idea that a large element dislikes the products... The numbers from GW themselves seem to indicate some disagreement.

What Immersturm said is correct though - when an author/owner/controlling interest decides to alter something that you can't control/adjust, you only have a few choices. One of them is fully accept and get to liking the new stuff, one is turn your back on the material and walk away. There are others amongst the spectrums of enjoy/accept/hate, but if folks want to deal with official products going forward, then there is going to have to be a level of acceptance of the new direction.

One thing that will remain true: B&C will continue to be based on constructive discussion.

Couldn't agree more.

[Doghouse]

at the thought that previous editions of 40K (or even WHFB) were somehow more unique than the current or even potentially projected settings - and the idea that a large element dislikes the products... The numbers from GW themselves seem to indicate some disagreement.

What Immersturm said is correct though - when an author/owner/controlling interest decides to alter something that you can't control/adjust, you only have a few choices. One of them is fully accept and get to liking the new stuff, one is turn your back on the material and walk away. There are others amongst the spectrums of enjoy/accept/hate, but if folks want to deal with official products going forward, then there is going to have to be a level of acceptance of the new direction.

One thing that will remain true: B&C will continue to be based on constructive discussion.

The numbers are because of a change in marketing strategy and expanding their computer game licensing beyond a single publisher not the popularity of 40k lore though mate. There are profitable releases that are not 40k related and you have to take into account the mobile gaming income.

40k isn't the power house it once was, GW are facing some serious competition now because they faltered and let other games company step up and they are also facing stiff competition from the renaissance that has been happening in the board games industry the last few years. You only have to look at the rise of games like X Wing to see that.

WFB dying wasn't some brilliant marketing plan, they screwed the lore BIG time in End Times and were in a position where they ended up with a product that had nothing really to lose by rebooting it. Battletech did the same thing, pushed the lore, made a mess and ended up falling on it's face.

GW are no longer in a position where they can say if you don't like it then fine go play something else or put up with it. Right now their business is turning around but I have lost track of the number of times in the past when they have skirted around the plug hole only to be saved as a company by the release of something like the plastic Tyranids or plastic Landraider.

[Urriak Urruk]

at the thought that previous editions of 40K (or even WHFB) were somehow more unique than the current or even potentially projected settings - and the idea that a large element dislikes the products... The numbers from GW themselves seem to indicate some disagreement.

What Immersturm said is correct though - when an author/owner/controlling interest decides to alter something that you can't control/adjust, you only have a few choices. One of them is fully accept and get to liking the new stuff, one is turn your back on the material and walk away. There are others amongst the spectrums of enjoy/accept/hate, but if folks want to deal with official products going forward, then there is going to have to be a level of acceptance of the new direction.

One thing that will remain true: B&C will continue to be based on constructive discussion.

The numbers are because of a change in marketing strategy and expanding their computer game licensing beyond a single publisher not the popularity of 40k lore though mate. There are profitable releases that are not 40k related and you have to take into account the mobile gaming income.

40k isn't the power house it once was, GW are facing some serious competition now because they faltered and let other games company step up and they are also facing stiff competition from the renaissance that has been happening in the board games industry the last few years. You only have to look at the rise of games like X Wing to see that.

WFB dying wasn't some brilliant marketing plan, they screwed the lore BIG time in End Times and were in a position where they ended up with a product that had nothing really to lose by rebooting it. Battletech did the same thing, pushed the lore, made a mess and ended up falling on it's face.

GW are no longer in a position where they can say if you don't like it then fine go play something else or put up with it. Right now their business is turning around but I have lost track of the number of times in the past when they have skirted around the plug hole only to be saved as a company by the release of something like the plastic Tyranids or plastic Landraider.

I'm sorry but I actually have a degree in marketing so I kind of have to challenge you here. Revamping a marketing plan is only effective if a customer segment exists that will enjoy the product. Simply spending more on marketing and entering the "internet age" of marketing isn't going to save a product no one wants.

Meaning, people actually do like AoS, though they are certainly different customers than those that enjoyed WFB. Its a streamlined game with few barriers to entry, and it makes sense why GW made it.

Now I completely agree that GW shouldn't screw around with lore by publishing bad writing and twisting it so it doesn't make sense. At the same I completely understand that to compete GW wants to lower the entry barriers for new customers (and to bring old players back). So in 8th edition 40k the rulesets will almost certainly be simplified rules, and promote more use of "Battle Brothers" and sharing of units across armies. Part of the reason X-wing is so successful is that there is no glueing or painting involved, its literally just open box and play.

GW no doubt wants to promote players buying mixes of Imperium armies or Chaos armies or whatever, and should be allowed to justify this in the lore. They need to streamline their games if they want to remain a huge miniatures company, and likely wants to make lore changes to reflect the upcoming rules changes. I think they can do this without nuking what 40k is, but some changes should be accepted if they are done well.

[Bryan Blaire]

Sorry, Doghouse, but based on the last financial report, you'll find that retail sales alone at constant currency grew about 4 million £ (with total sales increase higher), while all royalties only increased approximately 1.8 million £. So there is not just an increase due to a currency change (supposedly adjusted for in the constant currency figures) and digital royalties.

 

This does lead me to believe that people are in fact happy with the new products and new directions of the game lines as a whole (and yes, that will include the boxed games such as the HH stuff as well, but this alone is unlikely to fully account for a sales increase of that magnitude when they had previously been slipping the other way), because just in retail, they are buying more stuff than just six months ago. This includes the entirety of the lore, not just 40K lore, but also the much maligned AoS.

 

If a "large segment" of their sales base was so disgusted with the models and material to keep them from buying, you wouldn't be looking at numbers like this. As Urriak said, it may be new players, but folks ARE buying the new material at a greater rate than a few months ago, so it doesn't seem like a "large segment" is actually abandoning the product lines due to feeling it is poor.

[Doghouse]

No one is saying people are disgusted with the new models and material though, it's just concerns are being expressed and no one is saying people are leaving in droves. A boost in sales after changing the way that they promote and release products doesn't mean that those figures are going to continue climb. That spike isn't solely down to the sales of 40k as they are branching out with splash releases of other games at long last, we've seen a huge revival in fantasy sales, stand alone games like Blood Bowl, etc. 

 

The point is that there is no real concrete evidence to say at this point people are lapping up the new 40k lore or dismissing it in their thousands. GW is doing well right now so that is good for all of us in the hobby, lets just hope that continues to be the case. :) 

[Scribe]

Nothing till the last few books even changed any lore, so recent financials will have no reference to those books.

[Bryan Blaire]

So people aren't disgusted and leaving, they are just buying up stuff they dislike enough to write about it online? Oooookay.

 

It takes a certain level of distaste to complain about something, even online. That someone would also purchase something that distasteful has got to mean something on a personal level that I can't really comprehend.

 

I'm taking issue with the idea that a large hobbiest segment is upset at GW about the lore. I agree a segment is. I dispute, based on sales, that it is large, unless there is a correspondingly large swath of the purchasing fans who are hobby masochists. However, you could be right, maybe there's a huge number of people buying GW product disspite their distaste for the lore behind the games now. I think that unlikely and haven't seen anything presented that would convince me that is the case.

 

Scribe, yes and no. For 40K, see the oft-meme'd Blood Angel-Necro bro-fist, Necrons as a whole, Khorne-GK, and Mat Ward. For more recent (and what sparked this discussion) worry about 40K getting AoS'd, while the current numbers would be directly impacted by the new lore GW has been producing there (and my discussion is taking into account the whole of "progressed GW lore", not just 40K - which will be alright and we'll see directly the next fiscal report what level of "eating up" new 40K stuff may have had).

[Doghouse]

Mate :D

 

No one is saying a large portion of the player base are upset so please don't worry about that. People are just simply expressing concerns at this stage about the direction of the lore it's really nothing to worry about. ;)

 

The customer base exists and chances were sales have been down preciously because people, just like in fantasy, have had no massive incentive to buy new stuff and now GW are selling products because of a change in how they release stuff. :) 

[Doghouse]

 (and my discussion is taking into account the whole of "progressed GW lore", not just 40K - which will be alright and we'll see directly the next fiscal report what level of "eating up" new 40K stuff may have had).

 

Exactly. :)

 

So if we want to base the success of the game on sales figures then all we have to do is wait and see what impact it has. :)

 

(apologies for the over use of smilies but I'm just trying to show I'm not being antagonistic or anything and we are all on the same side here)

[Scribe]

I know I've said this before, but we are not the great unwashed masses of players. The VAST majority of players do not know this board exists, do not care, and do not know that I, the most righteous Scribe, exist.

 

Lets look at it objectively.

 

Despite how 7th is played, they HAVE sold more product in this last report.

 

Let that sink in. The game to MANY on this and other boards is a travesty, the worst gaming experience one could ask for, and it still sells millions of dollars of product.

 

GW could do a lot 'wrong' in the eyes of this forum, and keep on trucking, especially if they keep making good models, at a fair price point (relative to say...5 Avengers for $35 being a NOT fair price point).

[Damo1701]

Here we go...

 

Based on previous behaviour exhibited by Games Workshop, am I worried about the future of a games system I've been playing with for most of my life? YES.

 

Based on a discussion I've had, the majority of people who want AoS style formatting and rules brought to the 40K setting are those who don't care about the lore, the setting, and have zero patience with actually creating something from their games.

 

In my group, we have a saying "If the rules don't support a fluff event, we'll make arrangements."

 

Want a Marine Librarian who is a master at summoning daemons to do his bidding? Sure! We use that one often when my Grey Knights come out, as my opponent likes a story as much as I do.

Want a traitor guard company, but can't afford the Forgeworld book? Sure! Use the Astra Militarum codex, and deploy amongst your Chaos Marines!

 

We have toyed with many ideas, some of which aren't board appropriate in nature, however if you are after a conversation about them, PM me for sure. However, there is ALWAYS a fluff based reason behind stretching or breaking things like the Allies Matrix. Nothing touches the core of the game.

 

We are seeing story progression, new books and models, with rumours saying Loyal Primarchs might be returning (Which if in plastic would be cool), much the same way as End Times occured.

 

Does 40K NEED anyting approaching an AoS style reboot? No. Not at all. Sure, some of the special rules need looking at, and how they interact with each other. However, that's the most it needs. The current edition has everything we could want to represent the stories we are telling on our tables. From a patrolling Imperial knight encountering allies and enemies, to a named character leading an assault on their opposing counterpart.

 

I've had discussions and arguements with people who don't care about the lore, or tellign a story, they just want a game they can play once or twice, and move on. My suggestion to them has always been teh same. Want simple rules that are fast to play? Play Chess or Snakes and Ladders. 40K is an immersive hobby, very creative, and can be extremely cinematic. Forcing people who enjoy all aspects of teh hobby to put up with chess-simple rules, just because new gamers don't have the patience to learn about their hobby is wrong. For every new hobbyist with the attention span to learn, there are 3 or more impulse buyers who play with AoS style rules for a little while, then forget about it and move on to the next thing.

 

It honestly feels like we are racing to the bottom here. What we might eventually end up with is Snakes and Ladders, with models we paint outselves. Is that what we really want?

 

Main points in summary:

 

1) 40K is both the lore and the game.

2) Simple rules don't always work.

3) Want games you can "just play", play chess and snakes and ladders.

4) You get out what you put in.

[Volt]

There is zero reason to have progression, but there is even less reason for a setting to have a plot. It's a bloody setting. Nations may rise and fall and even the world may be destroyed, but the universe will be uncaring and may exist for infinity, literally never-ending, or existing in a cycle of rebirth and death. Regardless of the nature of our reality, having a setting "die" is beyond stupid and something like the end of times is, well as I can't say some words on here, let's just leave it at incredibly stupid. Needing to blow up galaxies or universes to make something seem dangerous is just poor writing and shows that you can't properly exhibit horror, which seems to be a great problem with GW. They have to escalate Chaos, and many other factions too, in order for anybody to take them seriously. And they only do so because they're scared gakless that they might lose their armies.

 

Personally I'd favor active light progression.... like any other story or simple real life.

 

Characters die. Factions fall and are rebuilt, but the core group is never lost. Rome may have fallen, but the Romani (Italian) race and culture remained and blossomed into the future Italian communes. Chapter Masters should be killed off in campaigns, same with Abaddon, with a new Warmaster being crowned ever odd century/millennium. Ground is taken and lost. Factions may even fall, but the people and culture in that faction will simply rebuild something similar. Etc.

[Bryan Blaire]

There's nothing that indicates that the 40K setting is going to die at this time. That is an assumption made based on other game products which need not apply here. It's time we move past that as a certainty in discussions, since it is a fallacy. It is only one event that could happen. Brother Tyler already let everyone know that they need to not focus on AoS here.

 

Let's also move past acting as if GW is a single entity, or that something is beyond all members of their staff. It is very possible that the writers are fully capable of writing many things, but have been instructed to follow a specific path due to "company needs". We can disagree with the path they take in this, but denigrating capability is not going to be tolerated.

[the jeske]

As someone who is probably never going to play w40k or any GW I will say this. W40k fluffwise would be killed within 6-18 months, if GW decided that it would  not lower their sells[so considering AoS, I doubt that they would ever do the no point cost thing] and/or protect their IP better. And we kind of a do get miniscule examples of it, like lets say the naming conventions of codex/factions.

 

Now as far playability goes. While again I doubt GW will ever do  something like the no points thing, who knows what GW will do in the future?

If the game ends up more like epic light[or stright up becomes epic with bigger models], how many people will stay? On the other hand [and again this is just an example], if GW decided to go more main stream gaming ,  how will people that got used to their gladius/baron courts react[as in will they stay and buy stuff], because if the transition from WFB to AoS shows us anything, then the reaction would be to leave.

[BrotherAtrox]

 

Does 40K NEED anyting approaching an AoS style reboot? No. Not at all. Sure, some of the special rules need looking at, and how they interact with each other. However, that's the most it needs. The current edition has everything we could want to represent the stories we are telling on our tables. From a patrolling Imperial knight encountering allies and enemies, to a named character leading an assault on their opposing counterpart.

 

I don't think the issue is the lack of narrative on the tabletop. I think the issue is the lack of consistency between the tabletop and what you get in the lore. How you get that consistency without a hard reset of 40K as a whole is beyond me.

[Race Bannon]

I'm in agreement with Volt's idea above.  I really think GW needs to tell it's story from within the 9,000 years from the Heresy to before yesterday.  There are some factions that are very young (relatively speaking; Tyranids, Tau, etc.), but the rest are as ancient as the Imperium itself.  We don't need all these blurbs about right now.  That just leads to "what's going to happen next?"

 

So, don't progress the story, per se.  Just tell a story, any story and at any time within the VERY WIDE RANGE available.  What happens next should be left for the fans to decide.

[the jeske]

Young? tyranids are older then necron, and the old ones. Not that some sort of early/mid empire game could not be awesome.

[Race Bannon]

Let's not get technical :P

[Bryan Blaire]

But Race, getting technical is our speciality...

 

I don't mind at all the setting time frame advancing, but I would also really like to see some campaign stuff from GW set in 34-36K. Not all the IP re-establishment needs to happen in 999999.M41 at 23:59.47, plus it would give the opportunity to do some additional introductions of units or something that could have been make-shift, stop-gap, or subsequently lost (but it's possible your special snowflake army still has one or two). The lore doesn't have to be "new to be new.

[Khornestar]

I think I'm missing something. What's stopping players from taking part in any period of the timeline they choose? In what way does advancing the story change a person's army (short of removing characters, etc., that is straightforward)? I'm not talking about killing the setting, because the changes caused by that are obvious.

 

Other than Traitor Legions and Traitor's Hate, I haven't bought any of the books, because IMO the story isn't worth my money. The game matters more to me, so I'd prefer to pay for rules and minis.

 

I like reading spoilers and summaries because I can go, "Oh, cool!" On one hand, the background (for me) is just about providing inspiration for creating an army and fleshing out the in-game universe. I can build my army however I want, paint them however I want, and even write background for them to be whatever I want. There is no downside. On the other hand, I know players who want their armies to be "fluffy" in the sense that their representation, paint scheme, composition, tactics, and so on must match whatever has been written about them by GW. I have no problem with this. Why would I? It would be absurd. However, I have also heard them claim that "non-fluffy" armies break their immersion and they enjoy the game less. To me, that sounds more like, "I want other people to play and think like I do, because I can't get past the idea that my version of toy soldiers is the right one." Fundamentally, I have a problem with this.

 

So, I'm sure it's been somewhat discussed and I may have overlooked it, but I believe in trying to understand people with a different point of view, rather than condemning them. If someone has the time and the inclination, can you please point out what I'm missing? The crux of my philosophy is that it's our hobby, we can approach it however we choose.

[Arkangilos]

Yeah, the problem with filling out history is that it can invalidate what you have created as the historical backdrop for your army. Going forward doesn't do that, it only opens up an official doorway to new possibilities. It expands the setting.

[Lay]

As if.

 

It's not whether the timeline moves forwards or backwards, it's about whether sweeping changes are made to major parts of the setting for the sake of novelty.

 

Remember that the events of the original 13th Black Crusade campaign were followed by the Fall of Medusa campaign, which was a small scale conflict. It focused on a single planet that was doomed one way or another while the outcome of the campaign mostly affected the faction leaders there.

By contrast, look at the massive changes that were introduced retroactively by the Horus Heresy series. Not to mention that GW has a history of changing parts of the background without a narrative (Templars, Newcrons).

 

That  being said, some of the best 40k material that I've read didn't try to reinvent the setting, but rather immersed me in parts of it that had already been established. Forge World's Imperial Armour or Fantasy Flight Games RPG books for example. War Zone Fenris and Fall of Cadia on the other hand? Those I read because I want to keep up with the lore.

[the jeske]

 

So, I'm sure it's been somewhat discussed and I may have overlooked it, but I believe in trying to understand people with a different point of view, rather than condemning them. If someone has the time and the inclination, can you please point out what I'm missing? The crux of my philosophy is that it's our hobby, we can approach it however we choose.

When people say they like/accept/are interested in different point of views, it means they are interested in different views of the same kind of views they have. Two people can/may want to talk about stuff like merit of 1850games[when they play 1500 exclusivly] or what shade of red trims should a 36k 4th IF company assault sub section have on their left boot. Other way... it kind of a doesn't work, because the base of any argument is different. At best you can get one of the sides forcing its narrative based on higher social standing, or taboo and that is more or less it.

[Servant of Dante]

I think I'm missing something. What's stopping players from taking part in any period of the timeline they choose? In what way does advancing the story change a person's army (short of removing characters, etc., that is straightforward)? I'm not talking about killing the setting, because the changes caused by that are obvious.

Well, for me, I want to have my personal force exist in the setting's "present" so that I don't know what's coming next, so that I can feel like they are part of the action, part of moving history forward (regardless of whether the timeline actually moves). The issue is, if GW does move the timeline forward, and I don't like it (by that I mean that a change is made to the setting as a whole that makes it hard for me to enjoy that setting), I have to then either play in the "past" of the setting, which reduces my enjoyment personally, or ignore the new fluff, which just alienates me from the larger 40K community, which is small enough as it is. So, this is why I do not prefer plotline advancement.

Now, maybe some of the Fall of Cadia events were corny, but it sounds like there were some epic scenes. Personally, I can't get into the Celestine presented in that book (a major issue), which has led me to kinda just ignore it in general. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that means for me. I suppose I'm interested to see what happens, but I'm certainly skeptical. For instance, I will not buy any Sisters of any kind fighting alongside xenos. Period. Which means that I have to tell people I don't include said hypothetical fluff in my headcanon, which puts a divide between me and the wider community, imo. So, mixed feelings Hopefully this helps explain why I have reservations.