View Full Version : GW returning to the organised play arena.
Mr Mystery
03-17-2016, 01:18 PM
Full report here on the BoLS front page (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/03/bombshell-games-workshop-returns-to-organized-play.html)
Promises include prize support, their own events, and yes, a points system of some kind for Age of Sigmar.
Not much more I can say as its not a scene that's ever played a big part in my gaming, but I'm very sure it will spike the interest of others.
Erik Setzer
03-17-2016, 01:39 PM
Cool. Good moves.
Now there's just the one elephant in the room that's holding them back, that they need to address to get the potential they could from all of this: pricing.
Newguy McGee (bother if I can remember his name right now, I'm tired and my brain hates me) made a dumb mistake by promising no lowering of prices. Heck, even if prices were good, that was just a really stupid thing to promise, and just made him look inflexible rather than make investors feel better.
They're making some good moves here. Hey, credit where it's due. Start Collecting boxes, solid prices on the GA books for AoS and reasonable for the updated supplements and smaller codices/battletomes, the intro sets for getting back into various stores and attracting beginners, revival of Specialist Games, a board game with a board game price and mentality... these are good moves. The Organized Play is a fabulous addition.
But it's a hard sell to get people to want to really commit when they see the cost to really get into the hobby is pretty extreme. And when the current obscene pricing scheme is based on exclusivity, that doesn't match with all these ideas to make the hobby more inclusive... you can't try to be ultra-niche and then also try to be arms-wide-open.
It's some good signs. They just have more work to do in order to really attract and keep customers. You know, other players for us to play with.
I'll try to hold some optimism. Given that they *are* trying to be more inclusive, maybe they'll realize the pricing is an issue. Big boy companies are willing to change pricing along with other stuff. Step it up, G-Dub. Pricing and White Dwarf, that's your last two issues.
On the topic at hand, I'm very interested to see what campaign stuff they roll out, and these points for AoS. Might even be able to get my friend to give it a whirl. (Won't touch AoS at all, but texted me a question about KoW... so he's clearly still interested in fantasy gaming, and will have the models.)
Defenestratus
03-17-2016, 01:46 PM
Seems that GW really does indeed listen to their customers.
Asymmetrical Xeno
03-17-2016, 02:02 PM
as a non-gamer, this doesn't effect me at all - but it does make me super happy since it's been a common complaint and will hopefully acknowledge and cater to the more competitive gamers amongst our community. Good move IMO.
Kirsten
03-17-2016, 03:37 PM
I want to get on board with Age of Sigmar, but lack of points kills it for me. if they really do add points then I will be far more interested in trying it.
Mr Mystery
03-17-2016, 04:06 PM
Indeed.
Contrary to claims, the gameplay is really solid, and far from simplistic. I've recently been comparing it to Space Marine in that regard. Fixed roles to hit and to wound in both, floating Initiative, IGOUGO combat.
If people can get past that it's not even trying to be Warhammer as we knew it, they'll find a cracking game.
Mr Mystery
03-18-2016, 02:56 AM
I figure it's Speculation'clock....
40k....straight FoC, with a points cap on Lords of War.
AoS...much harder to say for me. However it works, I can't see it excluding anything in the Start Collecting sets, so will have to allow for a Mortarch at least, thanks to the Skellington Horde box. Rules wise? I expect Summoning to be answered, at least within that realm of gaming. I'd hope it'll be the sensible 'has to have been deployed' answer, but as long as there's an answer it'll cheer people.
Mr Mystery
03-18-2016, 06:59 AM
And now.....with pics! Artfully choried off the AoS Fan Group on Facebook.
Now, what exactly these are I'm not sure. Pics look to have been taken at an Expo though.
My money is on 'in-store' event packs for whomsoever wants to run it.
Kirsten
03-18-2016, 07:11 AM
what is this about tanks?
Mr Mystery
03-18-2016, 07:12 AM
Trundle trundle BOOMKERASPLODE trundle trundle, I'd imagine,
Kirsten
03-18-2016, 07:15 AM
I want a tank ace badge, whatever it is for
Mr Mystery
03-18-2016, 07:16 AM
Only if you attend dressed as Tank Girl, and acting in a suitably irreverent manner :p
Kirsten
03-18-2016, 07:27 AM
fine
Mr Mystery
03-18-2016, 07:30 AM
And all is right with the world.
Path Walker
03-18-2016, 07:42 AM
So looks like rather than tournaments, we're looking at specific themed events, which is a cool.
Mr Mystery
03-18-2016, 07:45 AM
I expect both, to be honest.
Themed events to get people playing locally, larger tournament type affairs to bring different groups and communities together.
Path Walker
03-18-2016, 07:48 AM
As long as they don't focus too much on people "winning" their games, I think madness lies that way.
Erik Setzer
03-18-2016, 08:21 AM
Contrary to claims, the gameplay is really solid, and far from simplistic. I've recently been comparing it to Space Marine in that regard. Fixed roles to hit and to wound in both, floating Initiative, IGOUGO combat.
No, no, it *is* simplistic. That's not a bad thing. Kings of War is simplistic, too. Can the strategies be more involved? Sure. But the gameplay is still simplistic. You described it right there. It's simple. That's one of its selling points to a lot of people, it's easy to learn.
- - - Updated - - -
My money is on 'in-store' event packs for whomsoever wants to run it.
I like those. They remind me somewhat of the older RTT packs, but really even more of FFG's event packs. Exclusive buttons and stuff like that. If it's available to FLGS's, that'll help. I really hope they don't get silly and keep them GW-store-exclusive to try to draw people straight to their stores. Offering them to FLGS's will help rekindle those relationships and spread the range of players getting involved (which helps increase excitement, and drives sales further).
- - - Updated - - -
I expect both, to be honest.
Themed events to get people playing locally, larger tournament type affairs to bring different groups and communities together.
It worked when they were building the customer base. FFG's shown it can work well even with something as casual as X-Wing. It's a good idea for this type of game.
grimmas
03-18-2016, 08:29 AM
As long as they don't focus too much on people "winning" their games, I think madness lies that way.
This is my worry, I'd like to see something that aid's the game rather than becomes a way to warp it to someone's advantage. i think we'd also need someone with a very big stick to punish those who use the word "meta"
Erik I wouldn't say it's "simplistic" the rules are simple but the gameplay can be complex (obviously depending on the experience of the players).
Erik Setzer
03-18-2016, 08:40 AM
Semantics. I still argue that when you say the rules are simple, that's the same as saying the gameplay is simplistic. Not talking tactics, just gameplay in general. And it is, and I see no trouble with that. I like KoW for that, I like this historical game I saw last weekend for that reason. In both of those cases, you can get all kinds of interesting tactics and such, but the gameplay is "simplistic."
It's just a semantics thing, though. I get that some people won't like saying that because it carries negative connotations, so whatever floats your boat, cool.
On a semi-related note... I got one of the weirdest rants last night from a GW manager, where he said things like "Of course AoS looks good by doing 4x what fantasy was in the past, fantasy was dead, 4x nothing is still not much," and "If the stuff doesn't sell, it's because we (managers) are to blame, not because anything's wrong with the game" (angry sarcastic tone). Also said the Start Collecting! sets were a North American based idea that popped up after awful Christmas sales as a way to get people buying stuff (if so, that worked pretty well). I was pretty amazed, because as negative as people might accuse me of being about GW, this GW employee actually sounded a lot more down on them.
Still didn't put me off from wanting to buy the Pestilens book and GS box... only reason I didn't is because of my PC accident and replacing a CPU and mobo wasn't cheap.
But it feels like things must be bad internally when even their own employees are getting frustrated. Granted, the former guy, who was really good (and got a much-deserved promotion for it), had his own gripes, mostly centered on the bunker mentality being so bad even the managers had no idea what was coming up (something they've changed). And after talking to some folks later in the evening, it sounds like the current guy hasn't got the most pleasant attitude. (Especially unhappy with anyone buying FW, which you can't do through a shop, or GW selling products through toy stores, because it means the company is "competing with itself.") So if you want to assume he's just angry because he's not making sales and might lose his job and isn't a reliable source, that's fair.
At least they seem to recognizing there's things they need to change. So that's a positive.
grimmas
03-18-2016, 08:51 AM
Nope I don't like the term because I think its incorrect.
Hasn't fantasy always been a hard sell in the US though. Wether WFB, AoS or Hordes they all seem to do far worse than their more futuristic counterparts.
Erik Setzer
03-18-2016, 09:06 AM
I don't know about "hard sell." I think it's always been slower than 40K, but I think it really dropped off at the same rate as the rest of the world. It did do better in Europe than the US exponentially, though. I think the main issue is that European history is steeped in regimental combat, which helped sell a regiment-based game, whereas the US came into being around the time people were starting to realize lining up wasn't the best idea any more (and when the two most prominent "regimental" wars to pick from are the one where the nation fought hard to become independent and the one where it split in two and had a war between the two nations that'd been one, there's not going to be huge interest in recreating that feeling on the table top).
grimmas
03-18-2016, 09:27 AM
You surprise me I always thought there was big interest in the Civil War in the US. It's very much a war that shouldn't have been fought in regimental blocks, what with fact rifles had become the primary infantry arm rather than muskets. Still sounds plausible I suppose things like Knights, dragons, goblins and the like are much more intrenched in European culture as well
Erik Setzer
03-18-2016, 10:49 AM
There's some interest, but not that much, really. I can't remember the last time I've seen a game in that era played. The political climate's heated up on making anything to do with the CSA sound worse than a combination of Hitler and Stalin together, and even if you don't buy into that, you're not really going to feel great playing a game where the people around you might be judging you based on your toy soldiers. The way some people want to push laws, such a game might become impossible in time, as they want to pretty much ban any mention of the CSA other than history books. Just not a good setting for enjoyment.
I'm surprised there's not more Revolution era gaming. But there's not much scope there, I suppose.
Meanwhile, I've seen this historical game set in 1600s Europe, and they've got almost a dozen armies fleshed out that you can play. That's a lot better in terms of variety. Go to the Napoleonic era and you've got a good selection of nations to pick from. Makes for better gaming.
grimmas
03-18-2016, 11:23 AM
Yeah the CSA don't come across well.
The Napoleonic period is pretty much the dream for a wargames setting the armies all wear different coloured uniforms it's like they were expecting it 🙂
Erik Setzer
03-18-2016, 11:48 AM
That's pretty much about the time that they started doing wargames on tables, so maybe they had a glimpse into what those games could become.
CryptCat
04-19-2016, 04:20 PM
You surprise me I always thought there was big interest in the Civil War in the US. It's very much a war that shouldn't have been fought in regimental blocks, what with fact rifles had become the primary infantry arm rather than muskets. Still sounds plausible I suppose things like Knights, dragons, goblins and the like are much more intrenched in European culture as well
Where I live there is a huge community of war veterans who build and paint dioramas of just this sort of thing. Huge interest in World War II and Civil War settings, especially. Every now and again, someone spins a little fantasy into something, and it looks great. I'm actually surprised that there isn't a popularize miniatures wargame with this kind of setting. I think it'd be a hit!
grimmas
04-20-2016, 01:26 AM
Where I live there is a huge community of war veterans who build and paint dioramas of just this sort of thing. Huge interest in World War II and Civil War settings, especially. Every now and again, someone spins a little fantasy into something, and it looks great. I'm actually surprised that there isn't a popularize miniatures wargame with this kind of setting. I think it'd be a hit!
It certainly surprises me too. But historical Wargaming has played second fiddle to fantasy stuff for a while now, which is again a bit surprising when one considers that the Napoleonic wars had very distinct factions who all wore different coloured/designed uniforms (much like the ACW) you'd have thought it'd be prime Wargames territory. With Perry miniatures starting to crank out the hard Plastic historical sets who knows maybe it'll give it a boost.
Erik Setzer
04-20-2016, 10:26 AM
Yeah, but Napoleonic era was countries fighting against each other. ACW was a nation split into nations that had once been one nation fighting each other. It feels weird to a lot of us. I couldn't play the USA army because I despite the man who was president and the way a lot of those guys were forced to fight. I don't really feel much more enthusiastic about playing CSA because, while I can sympathize with what led to the mess, it still feels weird cheering my army on to kill other Americans.
No offense to various Europeans, but I don't have those qualms if I'm lining up British regiments to mow down Frenchmen. Or, in other historical settings, I have no problem with cheering my force of Caroleans on to wreck everyone else's faces while blasting Sabaton (until I'm told to cut it out because this is a game store where other people play and I should be respectful to their ears despite the peasants not respecting historical metal).
Obviously some folks are fine with it, but given that it's a very divisive part of history, and how people like to get into their armies when playing, it's not the easiest to get people into.
Mr Mystery
04-20-2016, 11:20 AM
Maybe Historicals have managed to retain their rather stuffy reputation?
Not gonna pretend for a second it's more than just my own experience, but back in the mid-90's, my local Historical scene was more about being able to paint 100% accurate uniforms and markings etc - and the games were literal reenactments.
That made it a very different experience to the 'go for it' freedom of GW, and their latter day alternatives.
Erik Setzer
04-20-2016, 11:57 AM
Well, there's still an expectation of having at least remotely historical paint schemes. But I don't mind that. It's kind of fun to look up the proper way to paint an army of Desert Rats, or what kind of uniforms Swedes wore in the 17th or 18th century.
Mr Mystery
04-20-2016, 12:09 PM
There's definitely an appeal. But like many hobbies, it's easily defined by those who insist there's only one correct way to do it.
Erik Setzer
04-20-2016, 01:50 PM
Technically, there *is* only one correct way to do it. It's just whether we're accepting of the incorrect ways of doing it.:D
Denzark
04-20-2016, 01:52 PM
Slightly off topic - but I wonder if historicals is inhibited by the fact that your number of men isn't going to reflect true numbers at Antietam, Waterloo etc.
Whereas fantasy, even in ranks, you sort of don't feel each man is scaling up to be worth 10.
After all the charge of the Scot's Greys with 15-20 horses is a bit of an anti climax.
Mr Mystery
04-20-2016, 02:07 PM
I guess it depends if you play the whole battle, or focus on a section.
Consider Waterloo. Play that, or focus on Hougoumont Farm? In terms of the collections I'm familiar with (so GW), Waterloo would be a little...ahahaha, Sharpe in scale. Hougoumont Farm? Less so :)
40kGamer
04-20-2016, 04:54 PM
I play a fair amount of 6mm SYW and we fit around 3000 models per side in a battle. Still have to 'scale up' but it looks amazing to see that many tiny bodies on the field.
I would guess the lack of any massively popular historical rules, game scale or basing mechanism hurts that side of the hobby. It's hard to get people to even pick a project!
It's also a downer to be restricted by 'history' to what you paint and field thereby inhibiting rampant creativity and access to absolute tomfoolery which runs rampant in fantasy and sci-fi. ;)
Erik Setzer
04-21-2016, 08:23 AM
In theory, the story of sci-fi and fantasy games should provide some guidelines on what you can or can't do, but since the rules don't always put restrictions in, you can end up with Space Wolves and cowardly git Dark Angels working together in a mixed unit, taking orders from some guy from another chapter entirely who left the rest of the chapter at home.
Or Space Wolves getting buffed by a Munitorum Priest despite the fact they wouldn't be looking to the Emperor as a God, and having their abilities enhanced by an Astra Militarum psyker using powers on them, which seems like it'd bother them given that they don't entirely trust psykers and, IIRC, Rune Priests aren't supposed to be getting their power from the Warp (even if they functionally do).
But one of those scenarios has shown up on this website, and the other I had to face too many times.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.