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 August 24 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 August 24 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.]

[TheTrans]

I don't think anyone has any issues with minor tweaks in rules, especially coinciding with a large release and adding new models (that may require new rules/tweaks) to work correctly! 

It's taking things that people where nominally happy with, that may have just needed some tightening and just chucking it all out.

Like in 1.0 did people have issues with extensive(ish) legion traits, black shields, army of dark compliance, militia, Auxilia Tercios etc? Not that I'm aware of, I think Paragon/Divining Blades, Medusa and especially POTM Vindicator Spam and a few other things needed some tightening.. then we got 2.0 dropped on us that pretty much threw everything away that we knew.

Then 3 years later when people are ok with 2.0, just needs some tweaks to reactions, lascannons and dreadnoughts.... and...

Boom 3.0 hits and throws everything out again. Adds a heap of verbose wording for stuff we didn't need, made some really (really, really, really) questionable choices in regards to list building and a whole host of other things that weren't asked for.

I think the pattern to me is the biggest concern!

Look 2.0...fool me once... 3.0..fool me twice... 

[Gorgoff]

Yup.

I can just say this.

If one of the multibillonairse snuffs it and I inherit their money, I hereby declare that I will by GW and change some thing. 

 

I'd go back to 1ed rules but keep individual movement or that we role to hit for templates but also go back to 6th edition terrain rules where terrain had levels and other actual good ideas in there.

And of course put actual picture examples in the rulebooks which really explain things.

Like this

One picture say more than a thousand words.

Never understood why they stopped doing so.

 

But I would also bring back every edition of every game they made as a free download on their webside anyway just to allow people to enjoy these things if that is what they fancy and even from time to time make one of those made to order.

Fans could then order it, GW get the money beforehand and then send it to the people. Easy money, customers happy, shareholders happy, vibe way better.

 

I will never understand why they don't do that with the black books. People would buy them. That's just money they refuse to collect. 

Edited August 26 by Gorgoff

[Lathe Biosas]

Wow. That's a much better way to spend an inheritance. I was just going to buy a buttload of 40k scale Titans and Knights so I can play Adeptus Titanicus with bigger mechs. 

[MoriyaSchism]

17 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

Yup.

I can just say this.

If one of the multibillonairse snuffs it and I inherit their money, I hereby declare that I will by GW and change some thing. 

 

I'd go back to 1ed rules but keep individual movement or that we role to hit for templates but also go back to 6th edition terrain rules where terrain had levels and other actual good ideas in there.

And of course put actual picture examples in the rulebooks which really explain things.

Like this

One picture say more than a thousand words.

Never understood why they stopped doing so.

 

But I would also bring back every edition of every game they made as a free download on their webside anyway just to allow people to enjoy these things if that is what they fancy and even from time to time make one of those made to order.

Fans could then order it, GW get the money beforehand and then send it to the people. Easy money, customers happy, shareholders happy, vibe way better.

 

I will never understand why they don't do that with the black books. People would buy them. That's just money they refuse to collect. 

You can't even get that as a paid download on their website with Warhammer Plus. All their archive content has all the rules removed with all the usual grace of your most heavy handed Imperial Censor, Imperial Armour included. It's bad. I had Warhammer Plus for a year because I really wanted that Karl Kopinski Kasrkin and the only thing I wanted out of that service was incomplete and not available to download.

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, MoriyaSchism said:

You can't even get that as a paid download on their website with Warhammer Plus. All their archive content has all the rules removed with all the usual grace of your most heavy handed Imperial Censor, Imperial Armour included. It's bad. I had Warhammer Plus for a year because I really wanted that Karl Kopinski Kasrkin and the only thing I wanted out of that service was incomplete and not available to download.

See? That's why I have to inherit Musks :cuss: when he snuffes it. ;)

1 hour ago, Lathe Biosas said:

Wow. That's a much better way to spend an inheritance. I was just going to buy a buttload of 40k scale Titans and Knights so I can play Adeptus Titanicus with bigger mechs. 

My plan was also to build a real life Sentinel to drive around with. 

[Griefbringer]

For those about to receive a large inheritance, I would like to point out that the nominal market value of GW at the moment is 6 000 million £, so you better be inheriting a whole lot if you want to buy the whole company. Especially since all current owners will not be willing to sell at the current price, so you better be willing to dish out more if you really want to get all the stocks.

 

That said, you do not need to get all of the stocks to have influence in the company. Owning over 50 % of the stock would already make you a majority shareholder, allowing you pretty much control over corporate policy, though you should not able to act against the interests of the minority shareholders (I am not familiar with the particular details of the UK corporate law on publicly listed companies). And you do not even need to have that many shares to get into the board of directors, where you can have significant influence over the company policy and strategy (though the board is not supposed to micromanage day-to-day operations, that is what the company management is there for). What you need to have to get to board is enough support from the other shareholders when new board member is elected.

 

Checking the list of major shareholders, the biggest one has around 8.5 % of the shares - around £500 million at current share value. If you can get to that level, you would be a major player in the annual general meetings. Especially since many of the biggest owners are large institutional investors, for whom this company is just a small slice of their overall holdings. If you have vision, commitment, experience and ability to convince these other shareholders, then a position in the board might be achievable with more modest holdings. That said, if you mess really badly in your duties in the board, you might find yourself financially liable.

 

As far as the company policy and strategy goes, I would see continuity and stability of the product line, and the long-term retention of existing customers, as topics where the board should have something to say, as these affect the long term stability and profitability of the company. It is then up to lower level management to put these into practice e.g. by planning edition cycles and their impact.

 

[Disclaimer: I do have small direct ownership positions on various publicly listed companies, but not in GW or any other gaming related company.]

[TheTrans]

10 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

Words...

You do know people where kind of joking right? Like they probably didn't need the ins and outs of share purchasing in a thread about the death of heresy and how if LOL a billionaire gave money away they'd fix heresy....