Unlike TTRPGs, which I believe are a huge unexploited goldmine, I don't have the same feelings about wargaming.
I started to get this feeling after playing Yu-Gi-Oh! While I love playing the games on my PSP and DS, there is no fucking way that I would plop down the hundreds of dollars needed to get a competitive deck started, let alone the money investment required to keep it upgraded. The only reason why I would even consider playing with the physical cards is because the online offerings are frankly weak like a pirate--the PSP almost incapable of satisfactory online play and the DS's graphics are just really not there to make the experience satisfying; the DS cartridges lag like a shitnoodle. But I expect that Konami will pull its head out of its ass and make a decent online battling system sometime, which will completely kill off non-professional/nostalgic play.
Why do I bring this up? This is outsider ignorance speaking and if you're going to say that I'm full of crap then say so, but the feeling that I get from wargaming is that unlike tabletop roleplaying the hobby will eventually be completely replaced by computers. There's no reason why this shouldn't happen to CCGs if it hasn't already happened (the YGO video games and manga/anime sell far greater than the card games); so what's stopping wargaming from this future?
Now I'm not saying that wargaming is going to be a thing that people are just going to stop doing altogether. But I do think that they're going to go the way of slot cards and model train collecting; a hobby that's only propped up by nostalgia because very few people actually want to get into it because of the costs and technology lag. And once wargaming reaches that point, who is going to break into the industry? It looks like GW is going to have their stranglehold on wargaming like forever.
I mean, tabletop games have been pretty easy to break into. Their biggest problem is advertising; you could have the best thing since sliced bread and no one would no about it because no one is going to spend 15 million dollars advertising your game. I expect this to change in the future once/if the gaming companies pull their heads out of their asses and start taking advantage of the Internet. But even so, you could seriously put an RPG out on the market with a modest business loan and make back your money.
But wargaming? How is the layman supposed to break into that? Even if WotC or WW during its heyday wanted to make the next Warhammer 40K, how much money would they have to drop to produce a competitive product? I mean, WotC made a gamely attempt during 3.5E but seriously most people use the miniatures (and the handbook) in that game to supplement their tabletop sessions rather than as a wargame in its own right. I don't mind buying a marshal figurine for my character but buying dozens of them? I don't fucken think so. I can see why 4E D&D pretty much gave up after releasing the first couple of Heroes lines; not even the exclusive power cards helped. And I'm sure that GW was just quaking in their books at WotC's attempts; and that was when they were really strong, too.
I can't think of anything that would break the stranglehold WH40K and WHFB have on wargaming; it's not even like there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if you make it work out. It's not a powerful but vulnerable monopoly that's ripe for the picking. Wargaming is an industry that's too hard to break into and too niche to really work. What are you supposed to do?
What will it take to break the WH40K/WHFB wargaming hold?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
What will it take to break the WH40K/WHFB wargaming hold?
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Will wargaming completely disapear?
Probably not. The desire to play a game against a live opponent will always exist. And therefore people will want a game that they can invite somebody over and play.
On the other hand, computers are GOOD at wargames. And the computer offers the oportunity to have nearly limitless accuracy to your wargame and yet still play it in a timely manner.
Seriously, the "high end" wargames that people play on computers (and these don't get sold at best buy because only people who bought the old bookcase games ever buy them) often do things like build up unit strength by assigning a combat value to every weapon system in the unit. It does this for DIVISION sized units. Seriously, a pen and paper wargame can never have the level of detail that a computer would have without causing people to lose there minds.
You asked what it would take to break into the wargames market. It would take several things.
1) A system that is simple, flexible, with the ability to add considerable depth but that is interesting even when played with minimal "add-ons" Your system will be selling its expandability so don't write yourself into any immediate corners. This is different than roleplaying where that would mean don't set any maximums. In wargamming you want to define the end of all your ranges VERY well. What you don't want to do is say "Always do movement X way because nothing will ever do it in manner Y." Also you need to have addons to your that are universal as well as "faction" dedicated.
2) The game has to be cheap enough to get new players playing your "typical" sized battle without spending more than $100. Infact, it would be better if they could have a force that fights your "3-4 hour play time/evening event" type battle available for about $50 dollars. The rulebook costs 25 and then you need to have booster packs/upgrades/addons that are in the $25 dollar range. When somebody has spent $100 dollars on the hobby they are ready to play in a tournament.
The game does not NEED to be miniatures but mini's will make money if you can capture market share. Cards would work. Die Cut counters COULD work but you won't get young kids playing with die cuts unles they have really kick ass art.
One of the things here is you have to decide how you want to make money. Is your model to sell miniatures or to sell the wargame.
The secret to GW is that they don't make wargames. They BARLEY make fucking games. The whole "Hobby" is designed to move miniatures. The fact that the game you COULD play with those miniatures kinda sucks is irrelevant to them. The HOBBY is bying miniatures, and therefore the hobby is no different than model plans to them. Its more important to sell models that people put together and paint than it is for there to be a "game."
Magic, on the other hand, is really a game. The cards have no value without there being a game wherin the cards could be used. The way they keep the game fresh is to produce large amounts of stuff to vary the game with.
These are really the two options. You can fall along the spectrum between GW model dickery and Magic Type II dickery but that is the spectrum and once you have stacked out your spot you won't be able to move so pick well.
We are saying we want a wargame so lets stay towards the magic side. We will sell both "combat cards" which are cards with stats of the units and a game style piece of artwork that are fit to a card the size of the units base. Then we will also sell miniatures. Both lines will be complete and we will even let people play in tournaments with both types and let mini's armies play against card armies.
The card armies will be sold in collections that cost ~$50 dollars for a smattering of core units and then a "booster" for $25 dollars that lets you get some of the more esoteric elements of your force. To get a BIG force requires buying multiple coppies of these "core" sets.
The mini's on the other hand will be sold traditional mini style as 1 miniature/box of minis for a single unit.
Buying mini's lets you have more complete control over what you have in your force, lets you paint and do those other aspects of the hobby that somepeople are really attached to. The cards let people who want to get into the game and fight battles do their thing as well.
3) It needs to have a HUGE release. You need somebody like wizards/hasbro behind you and they HAVE to know that they are going after GW et al. Hasbro already owns Avilon Hill, which in the era of BookCase Wargames WAS the Wizards of the Coast/GW of the American Wargamming Industry. Hell they even sold wargames to the pentagon.
You don't NEED a name like AH, but it would help. What you really need is a backer who is willing to really fight for this market. That means that they have to be willing to run some parts of the product at a loss, like a magizine (at least an E-zine) that talks about hobby stuff and presents alternate scenarios.
Mini's as discussed above will eventually make money, but you have to have a line that is big. Mini's will be a loss leader until as well until you have considerable market share.
You also need people willing to teach the game and to sponsor a D&D encounters type event where you weekly give game stores a reason to get players into stores and playing your game.
As you can see we are talking about real money here. No wargame that is going to really stick or compete against GW will "start small and catch fire" its just not going to happen.
On the other hand wargammers will spend and spend on their hobby, people will even repeat buy the same product to double up on something, which would be silly to do with RPG books. There is money in wargamming.
The issue is getting started. You have to really want to get in the ring for a knockdown dragout with GW right away.
So all you need is, an excellent ruleset, a cost affordable product, and a HUGE release. Thats not so hard is it? Oh wait....
Probably not. The desire to play a game against a live opponent will always exist. And therefore people will want a game that they can invite somebody over and play.
On the other hand, computers are GOOD at wargames. And the computer offers the oportunity to have nearly limitless accuracy to your wargame and yet still play it in a timely manner.
Seriously, the "high end" wargames that people play on computers (and these don't get sold at best buy because only people who bought the old bookcase games ever buy them) often do things like build up unit strength by assigning a combat value to every weapon system in the unit. It does this for DIVISION sized units. Seriously, a pen and paper wargame can never have the level of detail that a computer would have without causing people to lose there minds.
You asked what it would take to break into the wargames market. It would take several things.
1) A system that is simple, flexible, with the ability to add considerable depth but that is interesting even when played with minimal "add-ons" Your system will be selling its expandability so don't write yourself into any immediate corners. This is different than roleplaying where that would mean don't set any maximums. In wargamming you want to define the end of all your ranges VERY well. What you don't want to do is say "Always do movement X way because nothing will ever do it in manner Y." Also you need to have addons to your that are universal as well as "faction" dedicated.
2) The game has to be cheap enough to get new players playing your "typical" sized battle without spending more than $100. Infact, it would be better if they could have a force that fights your "3-4 hour play time/evening event" type battle available for about $50 dollars. The rulebook costs 25 and then you need to have booster packs/upgrades/addons that are in the $25 dollar range. When somebody has spent $100 dollars on the hobby they are ready to play in a tournament.
The game does not NEED to be miniatures but mini's will make money if you can capture market share. Cards would work. Die Cut counters COULD work but you won't get young kids playing with die cuts unles they have really kick ass art.
One of the things here is you have to decide how you want to make money. Is your model to sell miniatures or to sell the wargame.
The secret to GW is that they don't make wargames. They BARLEY make fucking games. The whole "Hobby" is designed to move miniatures. The fact that the game you COULD play with those miniatures kinda sucks is irrelevant to them. The HOBBY is bying miniatures, and therefore the hobby is no different than model plans to them. Its more important to sell models that people put together and paint than it is for there to be a "game."
Magic, on the other hand, is really a game. The cards have no value without there being a game wherin the cards could be used. The way they keep the game fresh is to produce large amounts of stuff to vary the game with.
These are really the two options. You can fall along the spectrum between GW model dickery and Magic Type II dickery but that is the spectrum and once you have stacked out your spot you won't be able to move so pick well.
We are saying we want a wargame so lets stay towards the magic side. We will sell both "combat cards" which are cards with stats of the units and a game style piece of artwork that are fit to a card the size of the units base. Then we will also sell miniatures. Both lines will be complete and we will even let people play in tournaments with both types and let mini's armies play against card armies.
The card armies will be sold in collections that cost ~$50 dollars for a smattering of core units and then a "booster" for $25 dollars that lets you get some of the more esoteric elements of your force. To get a BIG force requires buying multiple coppies of these "core" sets.
The mini's on the other hand will be sold traditional mini style as 1 miniature/box of minis for a single unit.
Buying mini's lets you have more complete control over what you have in your force, lets you paint and do those other aspects of the hobby that somepeople are really attached to. The cards let people who want to get into the game and fight battles do their thing as well.
3) It needs to have a HUGE release. You need somebody like wizards/hasbro behind you and they HAVE to know that they are going after GW et al. Hasbro already owns Avilon Hill, which in the era of BookCase Wargames WAS the Wizards of the Coast/GW of the American Wargamming Industry. Hell they even sold wargames to the pentagon.
You don't NEED a name like AH, but it would help. What you really need is a backer who is willing to really fight for this market. That means that they have to be willing to run some parts of the product at a loss, like a magizine (at least an E-zine) that talks about hobby stuff and presents alternate scenarios.
Mini's as discussed above will eventually make money, but you have to have a line that is big. Mini's will be a loss leader until as well until you have considerable market share.
You also need people willing to teach the game and to sponsor a D&D encounters type event where you weekly give game stores a reason to get players into stores and playing your game.
As you can see we are talking about real money here. No wargame that is going to really stick or compete against GW will "start small and catch fire" its just not going to happen.
On the other hand wargammers will spend and spend on their hobby, people will even repeat buy the same product to double up on something, which would be silly to do with RPG books. There is money in wargamming.
The issue is getting started. You have to really want to get in the ring for a knockdown dragout with GW right away.
So all you need is, an excellent ruleset, a cost affordable product, and a HUGE release. Thats not so hard is it? Oh wait....
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Personally, if I was tasked with making the next big wargame I would veer towards GW model dickery. I can't imagine Magic Type II dickery having much of a future. I can imagine the former.souran wrote: These are really the two options. You can fall along the spectrum between GW model dickery and Magic Type II dickery but that is the spectrum and once you have stacked out your spot you won't be able to move so pick well.
Have you guys heard of Bionicle? That shit has caught fire like crazy. If someone was dedicated towards converting that to a wargame from the very start rather than an immensely detailed toy line that could've made some serious bread.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could convince Lego to let you sell an officially-sanctioned game that uses their pieces as minis. They get to sell more pieces, branching out into tabletop gaming isn't their thing, and you're doing all the work. I'm not sure how the IP laws cover this, but I bet it'd work pretty well for everybody.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Have you guys heard of Bionicle? That shit has caught fire like crazy. If someone was dedicated towards converting that to a wargame from the very start rather than an immensely detailed toy line that could've made some serious bread.
DSMatticus wrote:There are two things you can learn from the Gaming Den:
1) Good design practices.
2) How to be a zookeeper for hyper-intelligent shit-flinging apes.
So, make an official version of Brikwars? I'd support it.Vebyast wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if you could convince Lego to let you sell an officially-sanctioned game that uses their pieces as minis. They get to sell more pieces, branching out into tabletop gaming isn't their thing, and you're doing all the work. I'm not sure how the IP laws cover this, but I bet it'd work pretty well for everybody.
Warhammer's strength is in it's world's momentum. I don't think any ruleset could ever hope to combat that.
That said, I think it would have to be something with it's own fiction and that the focus would have to be there, and not only that, the fiction needs to be about war and strategy and conflict and what-not in addition to being compelling.
That said, I think it would have to be something with it's own fiction and that the focus would have to be there, and not only that, the fiction needs to be about war and strategy and conflict and what-not in addition to being compelling.
I agree, that as part of the massive release you would need for this game it would need fiction as well.mean_liar wrote:Warhammer's strength is in it's world's momentum. I don't think any ruleset could ever hope to combat that.
That said, I think it would have to be something with it's own fiction and that the focus would have to be there, and not only that, the fiction needs to be about war and strategy and conflict and what-not in addition to being compelling.
The list of shit to really compete with warhammer just keeps growing...
Lego is already doing that. They have a big set of games out this year, having decided to go all in after their initial products.
-Crissa
-Crissa
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
What would be the margin of profitability for Lego to purchase the Star Wars license?MfA wrote:an official Lego Star Wars tabletop wargaming ruleset and associated computer game would probably have more chance of success than Brikwars.
Even if Brikwars sells less than Star Wars, they're still going to do it if it overall puts more money in their pockets. And it's not like Lego is a small-time company; BIONICLE put out several direct-to-DVD movies. Which while not a level of Star Wars penetration does put them about on the level of WotC.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
A successful LEGO Star Wars tabletop game would also open the doors for a more mature version with realistic minis. If Star Wars was owned by reasonable people helping them expand into a new market should make it possible to negotiate a license with a small up front cost.
Of course Star Wars toy licensing rights are not owned by a reasonable person, so who knows.
Of course Star Wars toy licensing rights are not owned by a reasonable person, so who knows.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Lego Star Wars unfortunately loses its distinctive look and retro appeal with more realistic figurines. There's a reason why the Lego Indiana Jones and Lego Batman videogames sold so well I believe.MfA wrote:A successful LEGO Star Wars tabletop game would also open the doors for a more mature version with realistic minis.
If LEGO really wanted to put out a tabletop wargame then they would have to release new sets that have things like insta-walls and insta-rivers and the like. I like playing with LEGOs and even as an adult I still like building LEGO cities, but there's no way I can invest the amount of time required to build one for a setpiece with the existing blocks.
I should be able to set up a reasonably evocative castle antechamber or forest battlefield after 3 minutes of work, maximum. Sure, I should be given the option of busting out my existing LEGO pieces and adding to that, but if I'm doing a random encounter I seriously don't want to spend that much time setting up the board.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I think you may have a point, Lago, but you're forgetting the massive amounts of effort that people put into figurines and so forth.
The key is giving a basic framework - you will need these basic pieces/buildings for terrain, cities, whatever (ie: they must be a certain size, shape, etc) - but allowing for the psychotic levels of creativity that some people put into it. So, if you're not really interested in detailing the battlefield, you can use premade pieces to build something quickly, but the more ambitious players can bust out with their entirely to scale White House (or whatever) that they built last week.
The key is giving a basic framework - you will need these basic pieces/buildings for terrain, cities, whatever (ie: they must be a certain size, shape, etc) - but allowing for the psychotic levels of creativity that some people put into it. So, if you're not really interested in detailing the battlefield, you can use premade pieces to build something quickly, but the more ambitious players can bust out with their entirely to scale White House (or whatever) that they built last week.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
-
angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Warmachine made a decent attempt at carving out a market share just by decreeing that an appropriate table-force was much smaller than a Warhammer army. This cut down the initial player-investment both in money and painting time by a lot.
However, Warmachine's setting and story just aren't as catchy as Warhammer's. In particular, if you don't like 'wizards with mechs' as a theme, then they didn't have an army for you. Later they put out some 'wizards with great beasties' armies, but still...
I also get the impression that they did not have superior mechanical rigor to the Warhammer team, which I wouldn't have thought would be hard, but there it is.
However, Warmachine's setting and story just aren't as catchy as Warhammer's. In particular, if you don't like 'wizards with mechs' as a theme, then they didn't have an army for you. Later they put out some 'wizards with great beasties' armies, but still...
I also get the impression that they did not have superior mechanical rigor to the Warhammer team, which I wouldn't have thought would be hard, but there it is.
I play Warmachine/Hordes and can attest that in Mk2 (their second edition) the games mechanics/balance has really improved and now blows GW out of the water.
While the story isn't as involving I think the models are better as well.
Basically I think Warmachine/Hordes is a better game than Warhammer. It's also on a smaller scale so it's easier to break into, and honestly the Trollblood battlebox has possibly been the easiest thing I've ever assembled as far as miniatures go.
This game might be able to, in a distant future, break their hold.
While the story isn't as involving I think the models are better as well.
Basically I think Warmachine/Hordes is a better game than Warhammer. It's also on a smaller scale so it's easier to break into, and honestly the Trollblood battlebox has possibly been the easiest thing I've ever assembled as far as miniatures go.
This game might be able to, in a distant future, break their hold.
-
Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
I think that one way of doing it is by using a mix of "cards" and "minis".
Cards represent "squads"; and each 'member' of the squad is represented by get this.... coins. Yeah, really novel there, I just ripped off the main way that people start to use as proxies for their armies.
Each "card" is part of a booster; and represents a "bunch of people" from "one of many factions".
The minis are the games various heroes, special characters, siege engines, etc.. People are always willing to pay for their set piece units, and a decent sculpt on a single 'hero' mini is easier to do for a first run than a bunch of minis for every faction.
You just need to make sure that the cards have Magic: The Gathering grade art; and some cool flavour text to go with it.
A light, easy to pack up, inexpensive to start, war game is probably the best way to go. Each card's 'edge' is probably a good way to use as a measuring stick; and each unit can probably be expected to move at least 2-3 'long' edges, and ranged attacks will probably be to about 3 long edges for the most part.
Each card would have the following information:
-Unit Size (max number of members in the unit)
-Unit Cost (either, a base cost for the unit, and/or cost per member)
-Unit Speed (measured in long, or short edges of the card)
-Unit Strength (how many d6's each member uses in combat resolution)
-Unit Toughness (how many d6's each member uses in damage soaking)
-Unit Health (how many failed soaks before a member collapses; partially wounded members aren't counted in subsequent rounds; and damage needs to be applied in a focused manner, not spread evenly)
Other things
Unit Coherency - Regiment, Squad, Skirmish; base to base contact, max distance of 1 short edge from any other member; max of long edge from any other member
....
honestly, I think that I could make this on index cards, and it wouldn't be too hard. One side is art; the other side is data.
Cards represent "squads"; and each 'member' of the squad is represented by get this.... coins. Yeah, really novel there, I just ripped off the main way that people start to use as proxies for their armies.
Each "card" is part of a booster; and represents a "bunch of people" from "one of many factions".
The minis are the games various heroes, special characters, siege engines, etc.. People are always willing to pay for their set piece units, and a decent sculpt on a single 'hero' mini is easier to do for a first run than a bunch of minis for every faction.
You just need to make sure that the cards have Magic: The Gathering grade art; and some cool flavour text to go with it.
A light, easy to pack up, inexpensive to start, war game is probably the best way to go. Each card's 'edge' is probably a good way to use as a measuring stick; and each unit can probably be expected to move at least 2-3 'long' edges, and ranged attacks will probably be to about 3 long edges for the most part.
Each card would have the following information:
-Unit Size (max number of members in the unit)
-Unit Cost (either, a base cost for the unit, and/or cost per member)
-Unit Speed (measured in long, or short edges of the card)
-Unit Strength (how many d6's each member uses in combat resolution)
-Unit Toughness (how many d6's each member uses in damage soaking)
-Unit Health (how many failed soaks before a member collapses; partially wounded members aren't counted in subsequent rounds; and damage needs to be applied in a focused manner, not spread evenly)
Other things
Unit Coherency - Regiment, Squad, Skirmish; base to base contact, max distance of 1 short edge from any other member; max of long edge from any other member
....
honestly, I think that I could make this on index cards, and it wouldn't be too hard. One side is art; the other side is data.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
A nitpick:
Warhammer is a miniatures wargame. An enormous aspect of the 40K hobby is about modelling. And I suspect that 40K and WFB players are much more modellers than they are gamers. So a lot of these "modeller-players" don't actually even *care* how good or bad the rules are. It's likely that the company competing for these people's money isn't even another game company like FFG or WoTC - but rather Tamiya or Dragon.
"Real" wargamers actually play stuff like Here I Stand. Stuff where you don't have to assemble the bloody pieces just so you can play. Unfortunately, this hobby is even more morosely archaic than miniatures and has an even smaller fan base.
However, given that Euro-Boardgames and FFG games have become pretty huge, maybe we'll start seeing simple wargame boardgames eat into "40K wargaming" market share.
Warhammer is a miniatures wargame. An enormous aspect of the 40K hobby is about modelling. And I suspect that 40K and WFB players are much more modellers than they are gamers. So a lot of these "modeller-players" don't actually even *care* how good or bad the rules are. It's likely that the company competing for these people's money isn't even another game company like FFG or WoTC - but rather Tamiya or Dragon.
"Real" wargamers actually play stuff like Here I Stand. Stuff where you don't have to assemble the bloody pieces just so you can play. Unfortunately, this hobby is even more morosely archaic than miniatures and has an even smaller fan base.
However, given that Euro-Boardgames and FFG games have become pretty huge, maybe we'll start seeing simple wargame boardgames eat into "40K wargaming" market share.
Basically this. I am fairly experienced with both games (moreso with GW stuff than Warmachine/Hordes), but I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the mechanical rigour of Warmachine/Hordes is light-years ahead from Fantasy/40k. It's like comparing Tome to Pathfailure. Or 4E. Or some mutant crossbreed of both.Thymos wrote:I play Warmachine/Hordes and can attest that in Mk2 (their second edition) the games mechanics/balance has really improved and now blows GW out of the water.
While the story isn't as involving I think the models are better as well.
Basically I think Warmachine/Hordes is a better game than Warhammer. It's also on a smaller scale so it's easier to break into, and honestly the Trollblood battlebox has possibly been the easiest thing I've ever assembled as far as miniatures go.
This game might be able to, in a distant future, break their hold.
Everything I learned about DnD, I learned from Frank Trollman.
Kaelik wrote:You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.
souran wrote:...uber, nerd-rage-inducing, minutia-devoted, pointless blithering shit.
Schwarzkopf wrote:The Den, your one-stop shop for in-depth analysis of Dungeons & Dragons and distressingly credible threats of oral rape.
DSM wrote:Apparently, The GM's Going To Punch You in Your Goddamned Face edition of D&D is getting more traction than I expected. Well, it beats playing 4th. Probably 5th, too.
Frank Trollman wrote:Giving someone a mouth full of cock is a standard action.
PoliteNewb wrote:If size means anything, it's what position you have to get in to give a BJ.
In defence of WH(40K|FB) (A phrase I thought I'd never utter) it's not a complete train wreck. It's reasonably playable, balanced more than most* and looks good when everything is on the tabletop.
There are games with better rules (most) and games with better balance, but the rules and balance of WH are enough to keep people playing. There's an active tourney scene in every major market and the major players aren't put off enough to find another game.
The basis of the rules themselves are also used in Flames of War, which IMO is the best miniatures game of WW2 going around ATM. It's fast and fun to play and is historically accurate enough to only spawn a little vitriol.
There have been a few products which took it to GW. Target's Warzone and Chronopia come to mind, but a separate division took Target into bankruptcy and the licenses are now owned by a holding company. Amusingly enough, the ascendancy of Target caused GW to do the rewrite of 2nd ed. into 3rd ed. of 40K - a change so large that they published rules for all of the armies in the main rulebook, to ease the change-over. The amusing part is that the BTech guys are always claiming that they're a one book game (patently false), while 3rd ed. 40K literally was a one book game. For a while...
Warmachine/Hordes is getting there. They've been slowly building up a fanbase and I think that their presentation and marketing has very much improved.
As with most monopolies, GW is using its position to force out competitors, for instance by using GW brand stores. So if their market share falls enough, it becomes a domino effect by having very high costs and no market and no easy way to get back into the indy stores with the same presence.
I think that people claiming that "product X" will beat out GW because it costs less are barking up the wrong tree. There are obviously a large amount of people quite willing to spend what GW asks, pursing those customers, I think will produce fruit.
A better question would be "do we need to break GW's stranglehold?" I'm less sure of the answer. It's not a great system, but like D&D it serves as a gateway drug and even though many players will never play anything else, the remainders will be enough to fuel a small industry.
* On balance: In the more recent tournies in oz, there have been a couple of notable army archtypes, but the actual winning lists have been rather diverse. This leads me to believe (and it's my experience) that the balance is reasonable and that they player is the biggest determining factor. There are certain armies which are not as viable, but few that are unviable. In this GW is ahead of most modern miniatures games. Warmachine is better, FoW is better, DBM & DBA I think are very good. There are many other games which do not reach even GW's standard. I think balance is not heavily pursued by non tournament gamers, though, so games which don't make a big showing have players willing to put up with more abuse.
There are games with better rules (most) and games with better balance, but the rules and balance of WH are enough to keep people playing. There's an active tourney scene in every major market and the major players aren't put off enough to find another game.
The basis of the rules themselves are also used in Flames of War, which IMO is the best miniatures game of WW2 going around ATM. It's fast and fun to play and is historically accurate enough to only spawn a little vitriol.
There have been a few products which took it to GW. Target's Warzone and Chronopia come to mind, but a separate division took Target into bankruptcy and the licenses are now owned by a holding company. Amusingly enough, the ascendancy of Target caused GW to do the rewrite of 2nd ed. into 3rd ed. of 40K - a change so large that they published rules for all of the armies in the main rulebook, to ease the change-over. The amusing part is that the BTech guys are always claiming that they're a one book game (patently false), while 3rd ed. 40K literally was a one book game. For a while...
Warmachine/Hordes is getting there. They've been slowly building up a fanbase and I think that their presentation and marketing has very much improved.
As with most monopolies, GW is using its position to force out competitors, for instance by using GW brand stores. So if their market share falls enough, it becomes a domino effect by having very high costs and no market and no easy way to get back into the indy stores with the same presence.
I think that people claiming that "product X" will beat out GW because it costs less are barking up the wrong tree. There are obviously a large amount of people quite willing to spend what GW asks, pursing those customers, I think will produce fruit.
A better question would be "do we need to break GW's stranglehold?" I'm less sure of the answer. It's not a great system, but like D&D it serves as a gateway drug and even though many players will never play anything else, the remainders will be enough to fuel a small industry.
Wizkids put out a couple of products like this, except they were collectable and the rules kinda sucked.Judging__Eagle wrote:I think that one way of doing it is by using a mix of "cards" and "minis".
...
* On balance: In the more recent tournies in oz, there have been a couple of notable army archtypes, but the actual winning lists have been rather diverse. This leads me to believe (and it's my experience) that the balance is reasonable and that they player is the biggest determining factor. There are certain armies which are not as viable, but few that are unviable. In this GW is ahead of most modern miniatures games. Warmachine is better, FoW is better, DBM & DBA I think are very good. There are many other games which do not reach even GW's standard. I think balance is not heavily pursued by non tournament gamers, though, so games which don't make a big showing have players willing to put up with more abuse.
Thymos wrote:I play Warmachine/Hordes and can attest that in Mk2 (their second edition) the games mechanics/balance has really improved and now blows GW out of the water.
While the story isn't as involving I think the models are better as well.
Basically I think Warmachine/Hordes is a better game than Warhammer. It's also on a smaller scale so it's easier to break into, and honestly the Trollblood battlebox has possibly been the easiest thing I've ever assembled as far as miniatures go.
This game might be able to, in a distant future, break their hold.
Warmachine is not doing any breaking of GW. Just like AT-43 isn't and VOR didn't.
All three of those games are mechanically better. All three of those games were miniatures wargames were an attempt was made to make it easy to get a combat force assembled without breaking the bank and all three games had good artists for their model lines and were/are able to produce a good number of models.
The problem with all three games is player base. Go into your FLGS and compare the WALL OF GW to the out-of-the-way corner of Warmachine, and poster in the window that says "rockham games ordered here"
These games are BETTER games but they are not enough better that people are switching. Not only that most of them are not worth carrying in store.
That sucks for a wargame because a wargame needs its in store presnence to be strong because thats were a people often find opponents.
Games Workshop would not agree with you in that they claim that Warhammer is not a miniatures wargame but a "unique hobby" You realize that they chose a slightly oversized scale to specifically not make their mini's compatible with older Ral Partha generic fantasy miniatures and other wargames that used standard 15mm miniatures.Zinegata wrote:Warhammer is a miniatures wargame. An enormous aspect of the 40K hobby is about modelling. And I suspect that 40K and WFB players are much more modellers than they are gamers. So a lot of these "modeller-players" don't actually even *care* how good or bad the rules are. It's likely that the company competing for these people's money isn't even another game company like FFG or WoTC - but rather Tamiya or Dragon.
"Real" wargamers actually play stuff like Here I Stand. Stuff where you don't have to assemble the bloody pieces just so you can play. Unfortunately, this hobby is even more morosely archaic than miniatures and has an even smaller fan base.
However, given that Euro-Boardgames and FFG games have become pretty huge, maybe we'll start seeing simple wargame boardgames eat into "40K wargaming" market share.
However, I agree that the real wargames community is not unwilling to play games with wooden blocks, or die cut counter (this used to be the standard), or even unicolored plastic game pieces.
Will Fantasy Flight produce a wargame that takes away some GW marketshare?
Only if they produce a bookcase game that is a modern version of Advanced Squad Leader or something similar. ASL proved that if you supported it and didn't make stupid decisions with your company that you could make a wargame that used die cut counters or art cards that could be run like a table top mini's wargame and you could make money.
Honestly, ASL still sells on the secondary market in a way that should make GW cry. ASL is STILL the most popular wargame at many tabletop wargame cons with more people trying to get into sessions of a game that has not been published in 20 years.
Which brings us back to Hasbro. Hasbro owns Avilon Hill. Avilon Hill developed ASL. At the time of AH's sale to Hasbro they still owned all the rights to sqaud leader and panzerblitz/panzerleader
WHY THE HELL did Hasbro buy AH if they were not going to try and sell the most valuable properties owned by that company. It would be like Wizards of the Coast buying TSR/D&D and then deciding that instead of producing D&D books they were just going to republish dragonstrike.
Last edited by souran on Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meh. ASL sells because it's such a massively complex system that people who've invested time in learning it... don't want all that time spent learning to go to waste 
.
Besides which, WoTC sold the ASL rights to Multi Man Publishing (MMP), and from what I understand they also sold Panzerblitz as well. (The Panzerblitz remake sucked terribly though and we'll probably never see it again). WoTC purchased Avalon Hill mainly because it was dirt cheap at the time, not because it wanted to sell more old wargames.
Also, FFG doesn't have to get into the ASL market. There are already several, much lighter alternatives such as the Conflict of Heroes series.
.Besides which, WoTC sold the ASL rights to Multi Man Publishing (MMP), and from what I understand they also sold Panzerblitz as well. (The Panzerblitz remake sucked terribly though and we'll probably never see it again). WoTC purchased Avalon Hill mainly because it was dirt cheap at the time, not because it wanted to sell more old wargames.
Also, FFG doesn't have to get into the ASL market. There are already several, much lighter alternatives such as the Conflict of Heroes series.