3.0: failed or not?

[Antarius]

2 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

3. I have peaked behind the curtain at GW, they do have some great designers, but they are often under many constraints such as....short windows of time to produce rules, limited number of staff to produce rules, some compartmentalized staff not always talking to the other, etc.

Yeah, this is the big one, I would say.

It would definitely help all of their games if they fixed this, but HH3 in particular seems like it's so bad because of lack of a shared vision or a vision changing halfway through and not enough time to properly follow through. I don't know this, of course, but it would definitely be my guess.

[Lathe Biosas]

It would also help if the Warhammer stores supported it. When I asked about learning Horus Heresy I was told that I could find a game at another FLGS, that's a couple towns over from where I live.

 

No demos, no help all. Guess that's why I never bought anything.

[Brofist]

14 hours ago, Antarius said:

I don’t know about that. I have a hard time thinking of wargamers as a group that doesn’t complain enough 

 

idk, can you imagine the storm what GW would get if they were a video game company and pulled their 'normal' sort of stuff in that space?

 

Edited yesterday at 09:26 PM by Brofist

[kabaakaba]

49 minutes ago, Brofist said:

 

idk, can you imagine the storm what GW would get if they were a video game company and pulled their 'normal' sort of stuff in that space?

 

But they ain't video game company. You could get bunch of enthusiasts good idea and kick starter and make video game(vampire survival is a good example, or maincraft). And the moment you start listen loud minority in the internet you are doomed. DOOOMED. 

You can't go same way with miniature game. You need produce plastic/resin it's not same like make another render. 

Once GW go listening people who want something outside THEIR course they just loose money and a lot of people who don't like thas changes. 

Don't like 3.0, then play 2.0. no one to play around cause everyone moved to 3.0? Congratz, You loud minority. 

 

And again we see endless references to 3ed 40k and fb and common guys,  those roles are great at THAT time. Because there is nothing this cool. Yet. Now they looks like bloated hell. We just getting older and don't like changes out of nostalgia. Current rules for every GW systems are way better then we have from very start.

[TheTrans]

1 hour ago, kabaakaba said:

But they ain't video game company. You could get bunch of enthusiasts good idea and kick starter and make video game(vampire survival is a good example, or maincraft). And the moment you start listen loud minority in the internet you are doomed. DOOOMED. 

You can't go same way with miniature game. You need produce plastic/resin it's not same like make another render. 

Once GW go listening people who want something outside THEIR course they just loose money and a lot of people who don't like thas changes. 

Don't like 3.0, then play 2.0. no one to play around cause everyone moved to 3.0? Congratz, You loud minority. 

 

And again we see endless references to 3ed 40k and fb and common guys,  those roles are great at THAT time. Because there is nothing this cool. Yet. Now they looks like bloated hell. We just getting older and don't like changes out of nostalgia. Current rules for every GW systems are way better then we have from very start.

What happens when the move to 3.0 just completely kills the community in ones local area? What do we do then? Are we a silent minority now?

As someone who plays a lot of 3rd ed 40k (and played a lot of WHFB6th before ToW nixxed it) as well as Mordheim, all rules of a similar time frame. While I'll agree that yes, the rulebook does have more pages of rules than current 40k or AoS (Not HH3.0 or ToW which are massive tomes!), I don't know how you could consider said rules bloated compared to the stuff we have nowadays. Most Codexs (sans 3.5 Guard and Chaos) had maybe 15..maybe 20 pages of rules including characters, units and gear. Most units of that time do what they say on the tin without relying on whatever weird bespoke rule each unit has nowadays. Same with weapons, most weapons profiles did the work as well, instead of Lethal X or Mortal Y or whatever happens nowadays. 

So I do find it wild you think GW is less bloated now.... 

[Antarius]

Like I said recently, if they released N95 now, I am 100% certain that it would be criticised for being “dumbed down for the kids”. Some of their games are definitely more complex/bloated now than they were in earlier editions. Sometimes this has obvious reasons (Blood Bowl being basically the same game with a ton of little extra details added over the years), sometimes it’s more of a mystery (HH3 being, well, whatever it is that it is). In general I think there’s more mental load involved in playing a modern GW game (some of this is about age too, of course, but still).

 

That being said, I don’t think any game designer or company should be listening too much to random complainers on the internet. Be aware of the reception of your products and solicit feedback on specific things? Definitely. Backtrack if something turns out to be wildly unpopular? Sure. But if you want to create something, you need to trust your own vision. You can’t design by comittee, especially not in a field such as this, because GW gamers have complained about everything for at least the 33 years I’ve been in the hobby. Sometimes these complaints are justified, but let’s not kid ourselves that they’re all worth listening to, let alone acting on.

 

At the end of the day, GW wants your money. It’s up to you whether you give it to them or not. If you think they’re basically an evil empire, I would highly suggest not giving them your time and money. This is not “if you don’t like it, move to Russia” btw, it’s an honest, well intentioned piece of advice. I’ve dropped Heresy because I think it sucks and I’m concentrating on aspects of the hobby that bring me enjoyment; it’s a lot more fun (and likely cheaper) than it was back when I was complaining about everything. And if I felt GW was basically my enemy, I’d definitely be using one of the many, many alternatives instead. 

[Rusted Boltgun]

Who would be the designer who is told 'change the game - we need it to sell X in order to stay viable now it is on the top tier. Also, start thinking about how you'd change it in three years. And sell more models.

[Antarius]

32 minutes ago, Rusted Boltgun said:

Who would be the designer who is told 'change the game - we need it to sell X in order to stay viable now it is on the top tier. Also, start thinking about how you'd change it in three years. And sell more models.

I remember an interview with Jervis Johnson, after he had retired, where he said they were rarely told to do specific things (AoS 1st ed was an exception), but that they were generally pushed to change things in ways that were easy to "sell" as big, important changes, rather than "we've really fine-tuned the magic phase" or similar incremental improvements.

I think it would be naive to believe that the designers were not beholden to marketing in some ways (which I think is lamentable, but also probably unavoidable, at least to some degree), but I think the biggest problem is probably the perceived need for change for change's sake (if you've been following GW games for long enough, you will probably have laughed at the way some things are reintroduced as great innovations after being taken out a couple of editions earlier) and time constraints.

[kabaakaba]

It's horrible but... But how many amazing rulesets and miniature games just collect the dust in the shelf of history because there is no marketing guy who told creators what could be sold and what is not. Yeah, sometimes I wanna hit hard gw's marketing team but without them there is no hobby how we used to see it. It would be another napoleonica/fantasy/scale modeling parts. the guys who really love setting and game maybe play constantly, but they doesn't buy all the time. Many people drop the game from time to time. And in fact, without constant injection of fresh blood(thank you marketing team) we barely have a chance play random pick up in FLGS. 

Almost no one whom I started to play 40k in 2002 still playing.  But if I drive FLGS I'll easily find someone to play. But for any other game system without stronk marketing? Barely. 

[SlickSamos]

21 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

1. Stop adhering to this "change for the sake of change" model. GW is notorious for changing rules when its not needed or wanted because they need to do it to make things seem fresh, new, and exciting for the new edition. Mind, not EVERYTHING is like this, but there are a lot of game mechanics they do this with. 

The number 1 example of them not changing much, and the game still being successful is the LotR/Hobbit/ME SBG.  If you learnt from the when the first movie came out, didn't do much, then picked it up today the key differences are: different list building, better missions and more Heroic actions.  

[MoriyaSchism]

6 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

It's horrible but... But how many amazing rulesets and miniature games just collect the dust in the shelf of history because there is no marketing guy who told creators what could be sold and what is not. Yeah, sometimes I wanna hit hard gw's marketing team but without them there is no hobby how we used to see it. It would be another napoleonica/fantasy/scale modeling parts. the guys who really love setting and game maybe play constantly, but they doesn't buy all the time. Many people drop the game from time to time. And in fact, without constant injection of fresh blood(thank you marketing team) we barely have a chance play random pick up in FLGS. 

Almost no one whom I started to play 40k in 2002 still playing.  But if I drive FLGS I'll easily find someone to play. But for any other game system without stronk marketing? Barely. 

This just seems like a reflexive defense of the company. I fail to see how you can't have good marketing and make a game that doesn't rugpull you every 3 years or release a game with a bunch of broken and untested mechanics. Warhammer 40,000 has some third party licensed on-ramps to the hobby but no such thing exists for the Horus Heresy and the way the Heresy is promoted, it might as well just be a novel series. They were working on a Horus Heresy video game and they simply cancelled it without telling anyone. 
 

8 hours ago, Antarius said:

That being said, I don’t think any game designer or company should be listening too much to random complainers on the internet. Be aware of the reception of your products and solicit feedback on specific things? Definitely. Backtrack if something turns out to be wildly unpopular? Sure. But if you want to create something, you need to trust your own vision. You can’t design by comittee, especially not in a field such as this, because GW gamers have complained about everything for at least the 33 years I’ve been in the hobby. Sometimes these complaints are justified, but let’s not kid ourselves that they’re all worth listening to, let alone acting on.

 

At the end of the day, GW wants your money. It’s up to you whether you give it to them or not. If you think they’re basically an evil empire, I would highly suggest not giving them your time and money. This is not “if you don’t like it, move to Russia” btw, it’s an honest, well intentioned piece of advice. I’ve dropped Heresy because I think it sucks and I’m concentrating on aspects of the hobby that bring me enjoyment; it’s a lot more fun (and likely cheaper) than it was back when I was complaining about everything. And if I felt GW was basically my enemy, I’d definitely be using one of the many, many alternatives instead. 

Who should they be listening to? The people who rely on them for free products to keep their channels afloat? On the topic of soliciting feedback I can't even remember the last time we had any sort of survey from GW for Horus Heresy or anything really. How would feedback even be collected? Nailing a list of complaints to the door of your nearest flagship Games Workshop store or genuflecting in front of the Rhino at Warhammer World? To play Devil's Advocate, why should they even backtrack? If the focus is player churn and conning newbies out of their money, why would they care if something proves unpopular with the old guard? If the Saturnine box sold well no matter how bad the rulebook that came with it was and they already got that money there is no reason to backtrack, just fire up the hype for the next box and hope it sells again. 

As for creative vision, that's a bit generous. They are currently managing someone else's legacy vision and they don't seem to be doing that well of a job if they are trashing whole sections of it, redesigning everything without a care in the world and turning it into a DLC booklet assembly line. I don't see how accepting feedback from the internet compromises this "vision". For the sake of transparency I didn't buy a single 3.0 product apart from two disintegrator sprues, but I do own the old black books and every book released for 2.0.  

 

[Valkyrion]

The edition cycle should be 4 years, with the first two years given over to new rules and models (i.e codexes, faqs, erratas, MFM, balance etc) and the latter 2 years given over to playing the game in its final state with no further interference. That way you get two years of live testing and two years of the finished product whilst GW can focus on making the next edition. 

 

 

[Ahzek451]

3 hours ago, MoriyaSchism said:

As for creative vision, that's a bit generous. They are currently managing someone else's legacy vision and they don't seem to be doing that well of a job if they are trashing whole sections of it, redesigning everything without a care in the world and turning it into a DLC booklet assembly line. I don't see how accepting feedback from the internet compromises this "vision". For the sake of transparency I didn't buy a single 3.0 product apart from two disintegrator sprues, but I do own the old black books and every book released for 2.0.  

 

Pretty much.  I will refer to my older post which I feel is appropriate to point to again:

Very vocal Horus Heresy fans: "We want blue triangle, and make red circle better, we like red circle".
GW: "We know better and know what you really want, here is yellow square and we eliminated red circle and added wavey purple lines". 

I would like to give credit for the time they brought back all the additional rules they cut and put into a large PDF document. But I can't bring myself to do it after their horrid comment, paraphrasing here: "We intended to do this anyway, don't worry". I'm sure....
Don't pee on my head and tell me its raining. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Ahzek451

[Brofist]

imo you can't in good faith look at the rules for apothecaries/medic/FNP in 3.0 or the number of steps as part of the shooting phase and say this is somehow super streamlined compared to older editions. Hell, the unit profiles now have what, 3 new attributes since 1.0? Running the language through what seems to beChatGPT didn't help either. One of the main complaints has been inconsistent application of design goals and how its all presented. Things got clunky in some places and too simple in others. 

   

16 hours ago, Antarius said:

That being said, I don’t think any game designer or company should be listening too much to random complainers on the internet. Be aware of the reception of your products and solicit feedback on specific things? Definitely. Backtrack if something turns out to be wildly unpopular? Sure. But if you want to create something, you need to trust your own vision.

 

This was covered up thread, but we're in a world today where many of the people working on these products don't actually play or understand them. This leads to bizarre disconnected product decisions and strategies (if you can even call them that). That's been a growing problem for years and its reflected in business decisions globally. Just today I was debriefing about candidates for a games company and I was the only person out of 5 that said a hard requirement was knowledge and experience playing games. Its mental. I feel most people itt would be really surprised at how little thought and strategy goes into product development in the modern corporate world of games. Not everywhere is like that, but that's the exception from my experience.