3.0: failed or not?

[Griefbringer]

Reading the recent comments, it seems to me that numerous posters would like to see in future either:

 

1.) Continued stable support of the rules by the manufacturer, where edition changes are not very frequent and their practical effects minor (e.g. no situations where units or armies get discontinued or impractical to field), or

 

2.) Discontinuation of the rules by the manufacturer, with the player base then adapting to either playing their favourite existing (and stable) set of rules, or gradually developing one or more community rulesets based on them.

 

With emphasis on stability and continuity: a predictable environment, where one can concentrate on actually building armies and playing games, without needing to worry about drastic changes and all the associated drama.

 

Or do I interpret the atmosphere incorrectly?

[SlickSamos]

For me, option 1 would be best.  I know I've already said it, but the LotR / Hobbit / ME SBG has basically had the same rules for 20 years now and has only just (last year I think) "legacied" anything.  

[Lathe Biosas]

The LoTR game is my favorite example of a GW game that runs decently without needless and constant "game balance" and "updates."

 

Every few years they update some bits here or there... or change a few annoying bits, but it's the same enjoyable game.

[Pacific81]

22 hours ago, SlickSamos said:

 

I think that there are 2 alternatives to the Old World game still active (Warhammer Armies Project and the Ninth Age) but I don't know how much they get played.  Likewise I don't know how much One Page Rules actually get played either?

Add to this some WHFB 6th edition groups near me! There are a lot of options - I think a lot of the players seem to jump between the different versions. OPR I think is pretty big, in that you read about it being played, but decentralised.

 

I do remember some mega BloodBowl tournament in Europe in the mid 10s getting 250+ players sign up to it, more than a decade after the game was no longer supported officially. A whole 3rd party cottage industry grew up around it, mostly designing teams and accessories.

I think if the game is good then it will live on through a core community of bannermen that love the game (Epic Armageddon is like this, still gets events 20+ years now from being OOP, and stomps all over Legions Imp events numbers-wise).  Heresy also has the advantage of dozens of quality plastic kits that will have sold in large numbers, so the used market would support the game for years even if production stopped tomorrow.

[Brother Sutek]

3 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

Add to this some WHFB 6th edition groups near me! There are a lot of options - I think a lot of the players seem to jump between the different versions. OPR I think is pretty big, in that you read about it being played, but decentralised.

 

I do remember some mega BloodBowl tournament in Europe in the mid 10s getting 250+ players sign up to it, more than a decade after the game was no longer supported officially. A whole 3rd party cottage industry grew up around it, mostly designing teams and accessories.

I think if the game is good then it will live on through a core community of bannermen that love the game (Epic Armageddon is like this, still gets events 20+ years now from being OOP, and stomps all over Legions Imp events numbers-wise).  Heresy also has the advantage of dozens of quality plastic kits that will have sold in large numbers, so the used market would support the game for years even if production stopped tomorrow.

My area was strong with 7th edition rules and 6th edition armybooks for a long time. We had a few solid 8th edition players but they weren't the majority of fantasy players. I'd love to rebuild the community of Epic players but that is yet another dead game around here. Other than the latest editions we have very little gaming.

[Corswain]

4 hours ago, SlickSamos said:

For me, option 1 would be best.  I know I've already said it, but the LotR / Hobbit / ME SBG has basically had the same rules for 20 years now and has only just (last year I think) "legacied" anything.  

 

4 hours ago, Lathe Biosas said:

The LoTR game is my favorite example of a GW game that runs decently without needless and constant "game balance" and "updates."

 

Every few years they update some bits here or there... or change a few annoying bits, but it's the same enjoyable game.

 

But does it sell models? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the three year edition churn but there is a reason 40k and AoS are on that cycle. Middle Earth might be a good game that can be left alone for 20 years but I don't think it's flying off the shelves and, ultimately, that's GW's goal.

 

I would argue the failure (if it is a failure) of 3rd edition Heresy has been more in the execution of the edition change rather than the act of change itself. If they hadn't made some of the more radical changes from 2nd ed. like the removal of the force organisation chart, then I'm not sure this thread would exist. What and how much they change is more important than whether or not it changes at all.

[Lathe Biosas]

Yeah, there was a scale change in LotR and the cartoon movie not too long ago, so a lot of folks locally bought a bunch of the new toys. Mainly because the quality is much higher.

[Gorgoff]

18 minutes ago, Corswain said:

.

 

I would argue the failure (if it is a failure) of 3rd edition Heresy has been more in the execution of the edition change rather than the act of change itself. If they hadn't made some of the more radical changes from 2nd ed. like the removal of the force organisation chart, then I'm not sure this thread would exist. What and how much they change is more important than whether or not it changes at all.

I agree.

They just changed way too much for the sake of changing. Plus some of the rules are just crap.

Terrain, army composition  and this overblown challenge system.

 

[Corswain]

@Lathe BiosasI would absolutely buy updated LotR models but that one wave was probably the range's most exciting moment in the last decade. That doesn't scream healthy game to me. There are other factors at play with Middle Earth stuff but if I have to choose between that level of stagnation (of model releases. Presumably due to lack of investment) and a three year edition cycle, I'm taking the edition cycle.

Edited yesterday at 07:57 PM by Corswain

[Brofist]

Just because a three year cycle exists doesn't mean its the best way to sell models. Don't assume they know the product better than you do, because like I said before, most of them don't even play tabletop wargames.

 

As players we all know its balance changes and a big marketing campaign that actually drives purchases. Cynically speaking, they'd make more money sticking to a single core edition with seasonal balance changes with a monetization strategy around it. Like most of the corporate world today, they just lack the imagination and courage to do something different than maintain course or copy their competitors.

Edited 22 hours ago by Brofist

[TheTrans]

I think heresy 3.0 (and also 2.0) are built from the ground up to be 'unit movers' where as 1.0 was much more hobby/fluff forward in the sense that there was plenty of units without models etc, where as 3.0 is walking lock-step with AoS and 40k in unit rules = sellable box (outside of the limp wristed journals). 

 

I think I'd be fair in saying what, 85% of Heresy unit releases are just updates/plastic versions of existing kits, which often 'established' gamers probably won't lap up as they'll throw the scale in their existing armies. So if you're grabbing new kits your either a newbie, or an oldie starting a new army. Now if the rules are :cuss: (in peoples opinion by comparison for whatever reason) a lot of 'oldies' aren't going to start buying the plastic as it will screw the scale of existing armies. So this leaves it up to newbies buying in big to start up new armies.

So I feel as long as FOMO, Youtube and all the other influences that effect people jumping into the hobby are high, they'll still sell models, even if a community is functionally dead. 

Like it was local guys down here that made 1.0 great (....and recasters as Aussie prices where farked), nothing to do with GW outside of spitting out some nice books for us to get PDFs of. Then 'support' came in and slapped the community around a bit (2.0)... some stayed on, a lot peeled off (A good whack also started popping out kids etc) then 3.0 and just game-overed :cuss:... I think the final straw was the list building process. List building was always fun as it was hobby I could do away from the hobby table, but god the new process brings me no joy what so ever, that and the neutered ROWs etc... Like honestly I could deal with the verbose, weird rules if my army build options where like what they were in 1.0.....

**starts incoherently grumbling about FOCs and theme while staggering into the distance**

[Corswain]

5 hours ago, Brofist said:

Just because a three year cycle exists doesn't mean its the best way to sell models. Don't assume they know the product better than you do, because like I said before, most of them don't even play tabletop wargames.

 

As players we all know its balance changes and a big marketing campaign that actually drives purchases. Cynically speaking, they'd make more money sticking to a single core edition with seasonal balance changes with a monetization strategy around it. Like most of the corporate world today, they just lack the imagination and courage to do something different than maintain course or copy their competitors.

I get what you're saying but I don't totally agree. If the edition churn didn't work then they wouldn't be doing it. Their financial reports for the past decade or so suggests to me that they know what they're doing. They have the sales data and I don't so I assume it's working to their plan. Businesses don't keep pushing strategies that aren't working.

 

I'm not advocating for a three year cycle, I'm suggesting that GW appears to have identified that a faster edition cycle is commercially successful and that Middle Earth, which has been left relatively untouched for 20, probably isn't as successful and doesn't get a lot of model support.

 

My position is that I would prefer a more frequent edition cycle with more frequent model support than an edition that lasts forever but rarely gets releases. This seems to be the two options that GW operates by. Three years is too fast for my preferences but 20 years might be too slow.

[Brofist]

I'm not saying they're not making money. We know it works. What I'm saying is just because its working, its not automatically the best or only way. They found a model that worked for one system and are now trying to apply it to everything. Just because its a big company do not assume they are smart money or understand their product better than you.

[Griefbringer]

Regarding the LotR example, didn't the original rules (2001-2003) have effectively a one year cycle due to the movie release tie-up? Of course most of it was about adding new rules (assaulting castles etc.) and units/characters to cover for things that came up in the later films, but my understanding is that they also did some minor tweaking to the core rules at least in The Two Towers release. Then things stabilised with The Return of the King release.

 

Of course back then if you bought a box for one of the first two films, you would probably be aware that there would be a new book/box coming with the next film.

[Ahzek451]

Anyone can point to a graph and say "money go up so must be good". A wise man will say monetary success doesn't always mean overall success. Monetary success right now, and at what cost? 

[sarabando]

1 hour ago, Ahzek451 said:

Anyone can point to a graph and say "money go up so must be good". A wise man will say monetary success doesn't always mean overall success. Monetary success right now, and at what cost? 

i got laughed at for saying profitability doesnt equal a healthy company on this forum the other day. But its true they can keep pushing profits and it will kill the company eventually. 

[Mr Farson]

4 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

Regarding the LotR example, didn't the original rules (2001-2003) have effectively a one year cycle due to the movie release tie-up? Of course most of it was about adding new rules (assaulting castles etc.) and units/characters to cover for things that came up in the later films, but my understanding is that they also did some minor tweaking to the core rules at least in The Two Towers release. Then things stabilised with The Return of the King release.

 

Of course back then if you bought a box for one of the first two films, you would probably be aware that there would be a new book/box coming with the next film.

 

Spot on, mounted rules were reworked for the twin towers release iirc as prior to it there were no mounted units apart from the odd character on horse and ringwraiths. The first three "editions" were errata patches it then received the mines of moria rulebook that was the standard for a very long time until the hobbit came out which changed some core rules. That was then superceded and I think things removed?

[Griefbringer]

Regarding the LotR Mines of Moria boxed set, checking the release schedule it came out in autumn 2005, that is two years after The Return of the King box in autumn 2003. The year between (2004) saw WH40K 4th edition Battle for Macragge boxed set as the big autumn release.

 

I have no idea whether the Mines of Moria rulebook differs substantially from the previous rules version, but looking at the plastic figures in the boxed set it is quite obvious why they did it: instead of generic orcs and humans/elves for both sides, they put in the iconic fellowship versus a bunch of Moria goblins and a cave troll, plus some simple terrain. Which is perhaps what the original Fellowship of the Ring box should have contained in the first place - perhaps the designers were not confident enough about their ability to depict the Fellowhip in plastic?

 

[I am afraid we are again slipping away from the original topic.]