Games Workshop Specialist Games: Taking supplements to carry supplements

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Games Workshop Specialist Games: Taking supplements to carry supplements

«‹›2 »

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Leperflesh posted:

I'm including Taiwan as "China" here.

Hey, man, Trump doesn't, so why should you? :shepicide:

# ¿ Jan 28, 2017 05:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 12:22

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

The Harlequins from 40K are the most ridiculous for the whole leaping/kicking thing. They're supposed to convey a sense of light, flitting motion, but mostly they look like bad Tae Kwon Do students trying to show off and failing. Like, the path of suggested motion doesn't line up with the model's balance, so as a result they look really stilted and unnatural. GW seriously needs to get someone with a real, formal dance or martial arts background on their design team to catch this garbage before they make a physical mold out of it.

It doesn't help that they're all modeled to be leaping off some convenient bit of Eldar ruin. They are some of the worst sculpts in the game, IMHO.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2017 19:24

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Yup, that looks like crap. Score another win in GW/FW's "take the promo picture from the worst possible angle" category.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 21:29

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

It's clearly a naked moleratogre.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2017 19:40

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

JcDent posted:

Yeah, no, Infinity is definitely not good in rules clarity sense (also, Religious and Morat are the same, AFAIK, just by any other name, then you have combi, regular and multi rifles, T2 rifles, etc.), and regular USRs in 40K aren't that either.

No, Morat is Religious+Veteran. And I agree, they should have just said, "Religious+Veteran," but whatever. There are blessedly few of these and they're not hard to remember (the other one that springs to mind is that Martial Arts always also confers Stealth and Sixth Sense Level 1). And in terms of the weapons, the only way they differ is in their range bands (for which there's a helpful chart that fits on a single page for every weapon in the game ) and their ammunition effects (for which there's a handy chart that fits on a single page for every ammunition type in the game).

But absent differences in weapon range or ammunition type, the important part about Infinity is that everyone's playing by the same rules. The base mechanics of the game are uniform between factions. Movement, shooting, AROs, etc are all standard. And the language used in writing those rules is far more consistent in its use of game terminology than anything GW has ever imagined in its wettest and wildest collective dream. It's not perfect (there are a handful of weird edge cases or ambiguities), but I remember the first time I read through the N3 rulebook - it was SO clear how the game was supposed to be played that I was stunned. GW really has set a low bar in this regard.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 22:07

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Infinity definitely has its quirks; for one thing, it's marker-happy. The upside of this is that it's easy to look at a model and any (all) of the markers around it and know exactly what effects apply to it (e.g. - Oh, this dude is Prone, therefore his movement is halved and he's Silhouette Size 0). The latest release of Human Sphere did include a bunch of :airquote:

new

ammo types, but most of those were updates of ammo types already present in the old N2 version of the book to bring them in line with how N3 works. Hacking is a little bit complicated, but so long as you can wrap your brain around figuring out how Repeaters work (and thus when the Firewall modifier applies - which is just "cover" against Hacking attacks), it has the benefit of everything working exactly the same way as everything else in the game. Interactions with Fireteams can get a little complicated. I personally think camo is a little too good when used in large quantities.

But the weapon stuff is actually way easier than people make it out to be. A T2 Rifle is literally just a rifle that fires T2 ammo (inflicts 2 wounds instead of 1 on a failed ARM roll). A Breaker Rifle is a rifle that fires Breaker ammo (resist with half BTS). The range bands are all exactly the same.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 11:58

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

I love the old Keeper of Secrets mini. :allears:

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 16:42

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Maybe, but it's yet another example of GW's trend of "let's photograph this mini from the worst angle possible." When I first looked at it, I was like, "What the gently caress is up with the mask on only half of his face?" Then I realized that that was his other hand.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2017 18:09

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

The fact that multiple people here have looked at the photo and not been able to immediately tell what the details are supposed to represent is pretty damning.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2017 23:12

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Ugh. That mini is awful.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2017 14:17

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

gently caress, even my undead BB team are painted better than those.

# ¿ May 8, 2017 05:31

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Why do they all have band-aids on their noses?

# ¿ May 8, 2017 19:18

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

JcDent posted:

Most of my league plays unpainted.

Shameful!!! :colbert:

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 14:24

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

More than anything else, it fucks creative modelers who like to do custom conversions.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2017 16:23

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

moths posted:

It feels weird to come out batting for GW, but you have to squint pretty hard before "rules for discontinued / non-existent kits" starts to look like loving anyone over.

OK, how about "disincentivizes creative modeling, and puts any time/effort/money you have previously spent behind a pay-wall" then? To be fair, it's nothing new to GW - they dropped IG Penal Troops from 5th to 6th editions IIRC. Griffon Mortars got axed somewhere along the line, but I don't remember where. But it still sucks to have stuff you've already put time and effort and cost into making require more money to be able to field.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2017 16:38

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

I'm not a fan of the new Eschers, honestly. The body proportions are cartoony and weird. They look kinda...mutated - but I guess that's kosher for Hive Gangers. And you're right, that paint job is doing them no favors. The poses are cool, though.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2017 14:27

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

I am once again not impressed with the Escher sculpts. Poor body proportions, weird poses, and just kinda lumpy-lookin'.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2017 06:10

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Indolent Bastard posted:

They have a vague FisherPrice look to them as they creep up in size.

Yes! Giant feet and hands especially. They look really weird, and not in a good way.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2017 14:45

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

JcDent posted:

I will agree that it is stupid. Not a fan how Infinity is split into three books, either.

Yeah, but at least with Infinity the rules are legit free. And even if you can't be arsed to download them, pretty much everything is on the Wiki, which is also both free and actively maintained.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2017 17:04

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

SteelMentor posted:

Necromunda FB page just stuck up some example schemes for Eschers:

Starting to wonder if those are new sculpted bases, don't look like either of the two sets GW puts out atm.

Ugh. These models are ugly as gently caress. They're just lumpy and weirdly proportioned and gross. I don't get the hype at all, but then again I don't really have Necromunda-nostalgia. Aside from briefly acquiring some Cawdor dudes, I didn't really buy into it big-time during its first go-round.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 22:18

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Broken Record Talk posted:

Why do they look like relatively real women?

No, that's the problem, they don't look like real women. They have weird potato-faces, their feet are colossally wide, and their leg-to-torso ratio is way off. The poses are also just kind of unnatural-looking. It's like someone described what a human woman looks like to a sculptor who's never actually seen one.

They have kinda cool hair, though, I'll give them that. :shrug:

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 00:13

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

It's almost like they're first and foremost warriors and their sculpt is not tailored for your fetish desires

I would actually turn that around, and assert that their exaggerated leg-length, exaggerated high-heel boots, exposed midriffs, crazy-fly-away hair, and thigh-high gartered stockings are more tailored to fetishes and less towards, you know, actual combat. So no, they're not "first and foremost warriors."

EDIT: Also, if you're going to link to CB female sculpts, at least take half a second to show some of the good ones too:

Ilor fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Oct 25, 2017

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 00:28

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

Truly the pendulum has swung! You are in fact progressive and not an rear end in a top hat like the guy who earlier described them as having weird potato faces and looking ugly for women!

Try again. I don't care if they're not Helen of Troy beauties, but I at least want the features to read as recognizably human. FWIW, half of GW's unhelmeted Space Marines have potato-faces too, it's not just limited to their women. Gwendoline Christie (the actress who portrays Brienne of Tarth in the GOT series) isn't a "classic beauty" in that role, but she's instantly recognizable as female. The aforementioned Ronda Rousey looks tough-as-gently caress, but you can tell she's both female and human at a glance. Both of those as models would have been vastly better than those Escher sculpts.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 00:41

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

If the goalposts have moved back and now its SUDDENLY the entire gw range why start on the first feminine models with some muscle on them and not said this about other models they've made?

Dude, I don't know if you've not been paying attention or you just joined or what, but I've been bitching about GW model proportions for literally years. I think the AoS minis are particularly egregious for bad proportions (like how the Stormstorming Stormstormers had ridiculously tiny heads if that ridiculous helmet crest is removed, or how all the Bloodmurder Murderblooders are almost wider than they are tall and have absurdly big feet). Pay your :10bux:

to get search and look for yourself, I am not shy in my criticism. This is nothing new, so if you're just joining the party, welcome to GW's lovely sculpting.

FWIW, I've always thought the old Eschers were largely trash too, but then again I never particularly liked Goliath or Delaque either. Hope that helps. :shrug:

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 00:52

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

This is literally the first time I've heard a GW model being described as "weird and lumpy" and having a "potato face".

Then pay closer attention, because I'm pretty sure those identical criticisms have come up before. Look, poo poo sculpting out of GW is nothing new. I'm sorry you seem to be late to the program, but that's not really my problem. I stand by my criticism of these particular Escher models as "not good" for all of the reasons previously stated. I'm in no way advocating cheesecake or objectification, quite the opposite, actually. If you don't understand that, I think that's a lack of reading comprehension on your part more than any kind of fetishist misogyny on mine, especially when I've explained from exactly where my criticisms stem and you've done little more than engage in this thread's equivalent of enraged honking.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 01:38

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Shadin posted:

Not to mention it's a board game. These components can't be used in 40k, no more than you can use Talisman or Fury of Dracula miniatures and put them into Age of Sigmar.

No, it's not just a board game. It's re-release of an existing miniatures game, one for which GW has already put out (and people have already purchased) huge quantities of stuff.

Part of the nostalgic enthusiasm that people always have for these games is the idea of digging around in your basement, finding the box that has all your old Epic/Necromunda/Mordheim/BFG/GorkaMorka minis in it, dusting it off, reminiscing about the games you used to play with friends you used to have, and fervently hoping to recapture that magic - without having to sink hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars into buying, assembling, and painting another freaking army. An army, I might add, that you'll pack away in a box in your basement in another 6 months to a year when GW/FW moves on and completely stops supporting the game that so tickled your nostalgia.

How often do we think we'll be seeing regular Blood Bowl releases now that Newcromunda is out?

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 15:45

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

At 6mm scale, that 2mm is a 33% change. Also, 6mm is a very common scale for terrain makers. 8mm? Not so much.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 15:49

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Shadin posted:

See above. It's a new version of a game that came out in 1988. I'm sorry that companies make new products based on their existing IPs. Some people don't want just flat reissues of games from the 80s and 90s, I prefer that they actually update them. If they just re-launched old Necromunda, it wouldn't be half as interesting, because we've been playing that game for almost 25 years.

Nobody is arguing that updated games are better (although given GW's track record with new editions of rules, that's not really a guaranteed certainty either). What people are objecting to is the fact that this invalidates all of the time, effort, and money people have put into this same GW property in the past.

We've been playing football since before the Berlin Wall fell too, but nobody has decided that there should be 33% more players on the field or that the ball should be 33% bigger. Just because a game is old doesn't by necessity make it bad, as evidenced by the still-thriving Epic community despite GW not supporting the game in over a decade.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 15:53

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

Just step back for just a second and look at how much it's worth getting mad over this, seriously. Have just a touch of self awareness about it please.

Hahaha, nice troll. but, gently caress, that's easy for me - I don't even play this stupid game. But I totally get why people are salty about it, and it's completely justified.

How much time/money have you sunk into Epic over the years? I'm gonna guess the answer is "none," which is why you're so blas� about it.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 15:58

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Shadin posted:

That's like saying you had to stop playing AD&D2E (which people also invested countless time and money into) when 3e launched.

TSR/WotC is a lovely company too? :shrug:

It's one thing if you are releasing an entirely new game using a previously-unexplored part of your IP. But you're not. You're releasing a giant stompy robot game, specifically one using titans, which is something you've already done before. Like three times before, actually (Adeptus Titanicus, Titan Legions, and Epic). And saying, "But this time it's different! Because the... models... will be... bigger!" doesn't fill customers with confidence, and worse it pisses off the customer segment to which you're trying to appeal - people for whom nostalgia is a big motivator.

And to the point quoted above, it's cool to release revisions or updates to games. Maybe, once a game has been released and is in the wild, you discover an unanticipated rules interaction problem, or a balance issue, or a "quality of experience" issue (like how 7th Ed 40K became a relentless, unfun slog of re-rolling every single loving thing). You might want to streamline things, or add new features, or maybe you've come up with some clever new mechanic that you think will add something new and interesting to the game. OK, that's cool, and if I agree with you, I'll totally buy into it.

But this doesn't really feel like either of those things.

Finally, analogy =/= strawman. Please go back and actually read the argumentative fallacies.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 16:51

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Shadin posted:

They've already said multiple times that it's a new game inspired by the original Adeptus Titanicus from 1988. So I'm sorry it doesn't feel like whatever you think it should be, but it's OK for a company to relaunch 30 year old games with new versions. Also, loving lol that releasing new versions of D&D made TSR a lovely company. By that rationale, we should all be playing Little Wars by H.G. Wells.

What part of:

quote:

And to the point quoted above, it's cool to release revisions or updates to games.

is hard to understand? Jesus, if your going to argue with someone, at least do them the decency of actually reading their post and making an attempt at understanding it.

That said, releasing a new round of "Complete <Class>" books a month before announcing an entirely new edition of the game that substantially restructured how the game works was a pretty dick move, I think we can all agree on that. Similarly, look how salty people got about the money sunk into the (quite pricey) End Times books for WHFB when Age of Sigmar made them completely obsolete less than a year later.

And if you're excited about an AT release, that's cool. If you never got into AT/TL/Epic back in the day and are looking for a larger scale game (company/battalion level, insofar as that makes sense in 40K), then that's cool too. People liked Epic for a reason, so I get wanting to get in on it. I don't begrudge anyone the joy of getting excited about a new game.

But it's disingenuous to say that people who actually did spend loads of time, effort, or money on a remarkably-similar-but-not-exactly-the-same game previously have no cause to be a tad miffed.

Maybe a better way to put it would be, "Hey, why are you FW guys loving around and wasting time with re-doing Adeptus Titanicus when there are hordes of people slavering to give you money for an Epic re-release?"

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 17:09

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

After searching Wikipedia, I believe this might be relevant to you for the argumentative fallacies you have committed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi. I've gone back and done some reading, how about you do the same?

See, now this is a good link. And it tells me something important: we both think the other is completely missing the point, which tells me pretty conclusively that we're actually arguing about two different things and talking past each other.

So let's go back a bit.

Re-releasing AT is cool and good for people who never got in on it in the first place. We can agree on that, yes?

The new version of AT is Titans only. No infantry or tanks at this point. OK, I like giant, stompy robits as much as the next guy, so a giant, stompy robits only game is cool.

The new version of AT is going to be released in 8mm. OK, if all I ever care about playing is this particular giant, stompy robit game, I guess I don't have a problem with that. It certainly makes sense from a sculpting detail point of view, sure.

When FW says stuff like "8mm is better because you can distinguish marks of power armor at 8mm," my next logical question becomes, "Who cares? Giant, stompy robit game doesn't include power armor. Does it? Will it?"

And then you might get excited, and think, "Oooh, is this re-release of AT a first step to a re-release of Epic?!?! That would be loving RAD!" But if that's the case, you know they won't take those shiny, new AT minis and shrink them down to Epic scale, as that would be stupid.

And then the guys who have been waiting for an Epic re-release for a decade raise their hands and say, "Point of order? changing the scale of the minis for an Epic re-release is kind of a dick move."

Further, I know you think 2mm is not a big deal, but at tiny scales, big percentage changes (and a 33% increase is big) are actually much more noticeable. And this says nothing about GW/FW's other pet "gently caress you" move which is how things are based, as bases size/shape often has mechanical effects in the game. So people who love Epic and would love nothing more than a full-blown Epic re-release are understandably leery about the AT re-release because for them it looks an awful lot like the writing on the wall.

Does that make sense? Is there anything in that chain of logic that you think doesn't follow? Does it speak to a point other than that which you were trying to make? If so, what is the point you are trying to make?

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 17:28

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Broken Record Talk posted:

Nothing like white knighting for a game you don't even play.

Indeed, but gods help me if/when they decide to re-release Battlefleet: Gothic. :shepspends:

I've seriously considered taking up Dropfleet Commander just so that I won't be tempted.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 17:32

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Shadin posted:

It's okay, you don't have to lie. My thread is becoming the new Death Thread, even though this is the best year for Specialist Games in the last twenty years. Good job, Goons.

I don't think it's reached Death Thread levels, but I think you do touch on an interesting point - SG has certainly had a busy year, and on the whole I think it's fair to say that much of that business has been "good."

I also think it's true that the properties in Specialist Games were some of the most-loved properties within the overall Games Workshop IP. While the overall level of playership is undoubtedly much smaller than the flagship lines like 40K (and even AoS now), people who played those games loved those games. I think as much as anything that's just a facet of having games that catered to certain segments of the player base's different niche desires. Necromunda and Mordheim scratched the "forge your narrative" itch, AT/TL/Epic (and to some extent Warmaster) scratched the "big fuckin' battles!" itch, Man-o'-War/Dreadfleet and BFG gave you naval combat, and BloodBowl and GorkaMorka were great, silly fun. There was something for everyone, so people could gravitate to the games they really enjoyed.

The downside, of course, is that when you really enjoyed something, it's easy to get bent about it (in either direction, from being super excited that it's coming back to being super pissed that it's going to be different than you remember). It is also true, that in the past GW had a track record of creating a new Specialist Game, supporting the hell out of it for a year or two, and then dropping it like a rock, which left a lot of people burned. So while I agree that the current trend of SG is positive overall, I can certainly understand a healthy dose of skepticism on the part of people who have been around the block on this before.

And I don't think it has to be either/or - you can be both super-stoked that your favorite Specialist Game is coming back and super-salty with how it's being re-released. That's not a contradiction at all, and I think the discussions this thread illustrate that pretty well.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 22:39

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

It depends on whether you're trying to sell books, sell miniatures, or grow your customer base.

If you're trying to sell miniatures, you do exactly what GW is doing now, because it is fiendish genius and it has been proven to work.

If you're trying to sell books, you make your game complicated, revise/rebalance it often, and put out tons of updates and errata in print medium that requires purchase (which is also exactly what GW is doing now, at least with 8th Ed 40K).

If you are trying to grow your customer base, you work to keep the customers you have (by supporting the poo poo they care about and not invalidating their previous purchases) while at the same time reducing barriers-to-entry for new players (AoS, SWA, and the Start Collecting boxes are all great examples here).

Three of those things (sell books, sell minis, attract new customers) are all things that the "new GW" is doing pretty well (hence the death of the Death Thread, GW is almost certainly making money hand-over-fist right now). The one area in which they fall short is in working to keep the customers they have. Re-release of beloved Specialist Games is no doubt an attempt at that, but it's one that's tempered by wanting to sell more miniatures. Ultimately, that's a financial/business decision - do you make more in volume than you lose from bad-will in the customer base? I suspect chances are good that they will come out ahead, but time will tell. :shrug:

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 23:09

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

TheChirurgeon posted:

You aren't "keeping the customers you have" by letting people use 20 year-old models or catering to them. Those aren't "customers" in any sense that matters

I disagree, for two reasons:

First, by not invalidating the purchases that a customer has already made, you build customer loyalty. And ultimately, this hobby is about buying poo poo you don't need. I had an entire Imperial Guard army. Did it stop me from buying Necrons when they got a Codex and a new model range? Nope, didn't even slow me down. And the real irony here is that the thing that kept me from buying more IG stuff was the way they hosed up the IG Codex in the jump from 4th to 5th - it didn't offer nearly as much flexibility or as many interesting options, so my grand designs of doing a drop-grenadier regiment went into the dumpster before I was able to buy a bunch of poo poo (that let's face it, would probably sit on a shelf anyway, but GW would have gotten their cash). As for not buying new models, do you know anybody who plays 'hams who can spend hours at a time in their FLGS and not walk out with the semi-regular impulse buy? I don't.

On a related note, I know lots of people who already had an army and essentially bought the same army over again, simply because they liked the new sculpts better. Hell, I've done it, if not for an entire army then at least for certain units. To claim that people who already have minis won't buy more minis even if they can still use the minis they have is to ignore the psychological forces at work in "the hobby."

Second, much of the success of a game comes from having people to play with/against. By not alienating long-time customers, you support communities, which in turn convinces new players to jump in. If all the old Specialist Games grognards came out of the woodwork with their old models on day one of a given game's re-release (and they would, because nostalgia is a hell of a drug), it's infinitely more likely that new people would buy in because they'd know that there was already a community of players. So keeping old customers helps directly attract new ones.

And as an addendum to that, long-time customers breed multi-generational relationships with companies. There are lots of old 'hams who end up getting their kids involved. I know one who bought and painted an entire Necron army for one son and a Dark Eldar army for the other. Anything the company can do to foster that relationship (i.e. by keeping the grog "in the fold" for as long as possible) will lead to more sales down the road.

Finally, consumer satisfaction studies have shown that on average a customer will tell two people about a good experience with a company, but will tell seven people about a bad experience. I know I've waved newbies off 40K with dire warnings of high cost, frequently invalidated rules/minis, and poor game balance. But then again, I've also recommended the new BloodBowl to people, so it depends on your overall hobby experiences.

Ilor fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Nov 8, 2017

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 23:42

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

The Deleter posted:

If GW really wanted my money they'd rerelease Inquisitor.

Yeah, but they'd do it in 75mm scale. :downsrim:

Ok, ok, my boring work day is done and I can go home. I'll stop making GBS threads up your thread now.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2017 00:01

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

No, I understand you fully, and I think you're wrong.

Dude, you are so far behind this conversation now. Take some time to catch up, I've addressed every one of those points in more detail. With the possible exception of your straw-man straw-man.

Hamshot posted:

In conclusion, gently caress off.

And classy as always, I see. Also, didn't you start your tirade by saying that I was the one who was mad?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2017 03:47

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Hamshot posted:

I tried putting mordor shadow of war into my PSX and it doesn't work! How dare sony stop supporting my 20+ year old video game console! They are causing ill will among their fanbase by updating the console model, causing consumers to buy consoles all over again from scratch!

You're close, but you have it backwards. For video games, it's not about supporting the old console, it's about supporting the old games. I am infinitely more likely to buy a new console if it will still allow me to play games I already own for the previous generation console. Frankly, it's one of the genius things about Xbox One - I can play a whole mess of old (and really good) 360 games on it, just by sticking the original media in the slot. It's one of the reasons I don't own a PlayStation - they don't do backwards compatibility outside of a streaming service for which you pay a subscription fee (to be able to play games you probably already bought? gently caress that).

So in this analogy, the console is the rules, and the games are the miniatures. I don't think it's wrong to say people are more likely to buy a new rule-set that allows them to use their old miniatures. Look how over-the-moon old 'hams are for Necromunda. They can't wait to get those delicious, 90's era big-hair sculpts on the table again. And if the new minis are cool, they'll buy those too. Because they are 'hams.

Also, I don't know what peoples' various metas are like, but TheLawinator is right, Epic players here were (are) loving fanatics. Further, it was hugely popular around here, and I know guys who still play it. That Australian dude making Epic scale Sicarans and Valkyries and poo poo wouldn't be doing it if there weren't a market for it.

Maybe it'll be fine and people won't give a poo poo and you'll see goofy-lookin' mixed armies of 6mm and 8mm stuff, I guess time will tell. Because 'hams.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2017 18:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 12:22

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

TKIY posted:

In this analogy, your post is the derail, and you are a poo-flinging monkey on a keyboard.

I accept this. :derp:

# ¿ Nov 9, 2017 19:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Games Workshop Specialist Games: Taking supplements to carry supplements

«‹›2 »