Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

Place to discuss anything related to tabletop wargaming that isn't covered by the other forums.

Moderators: The Heralds, The Loremasters

Message
Author
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#31 Post by Prince of Spires »

I'm with Shannar here. GW started getting into trouble when they stopped focussing on players. GW as a company is a company that produces high quality collectible miniatures (their idea, not mine). They believe that people will buy their products because they are great looking models. The game and fluff come second. And that is where it goes wrong.

People buy the miniatures (for a big part) because of the game they can play with it. Yes, given the same game and the same price people will go for the better looking model. And people love having great looking armies. But you need to have something to do with those miniatures. It doesn't matter if you are a competitive die hard tournament player or a basement, bear and pretzel player or a fluff campaign player. GW didn't support any of them recently.

But I don't buy that there are only competitive gamers out there (define competitive players) and that they are the ones keeping the hobby alive. When I look at all the different games I play (outside WH), from sports to computer games to tabletop games I play them (and people I know play them) because I like a challenge, I like the competition and mental exercise and because I enjoy the social aspects of having a chat with my opponent and looking back at the game etc. When I play, I play to win. But that doesn't make me a competitive gamer. That just makes me someone who likes playing games.

Back to WH, it is the same thing there. I play because I like playing games. When I play, I play to win. But I would do so in a tournament setting as much as in a fluff campaign style game. If GW would have made a great (and affordable!) game then the players would have come.
silashand wrote:
Yes, for some people, tournaments where there reason to play WH and to collect GW miniatures. But I personally think they are in the minority. GW own estimate is that tournament games vs non-tournament ones are in the single digit percentages. And while tournament players are the most vocal online (in general), they are by no means the majority.
I hear that excuse on the internet a lot, but as I said it does not pan out in real life. A collector may buy one, maybe two of a given model to paint up. People who play the actual game have a reason to buy many more than that.
Again, there is a very real difference between a tournament player and a player. Yes, people buy the miniatures to play the game. And the more you play the game, the more likely you are to buy more models. But player != tournament player. The first group is vastly more numerous then the second. And just ask yourself, how many competitive tournament players will have bought models like the skycutter, spearmen, lion chariots, tyrion models, griffons, shadow warriors? Or any Beastmen for that matter? Regular players buy all those models, and by extent support the hobby and allowed it to grow as big and diverse as it did. If you looked at just competitive tournament players, you could drop half the army books and half the models from the remaining army books and still sell the same models.
silashand wrote:
GW got some of the ideas right that needed to be fixed by AoS, the only problem is that the execution is horrible...
The only good thing I have seen from AoS is how they treat monsters. They could have fixed them in both WFB and 40K if they had implemented something similar in those systems. JMO though...
Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I meant. My point wasn't that AoS is a great game or a good move. My point was that the fundamental idea behind AoS is not bad. The elevator pitch of AoS if you will. If you explain what it means to achieve then it sounds great. It's a pity that they did such a poor job in the execution.

To show what I mean, this would be my elevator pitch for AoS, for instance, to be used to sell a manager on the idea:
"It's an easy entry game, with a limited rules set, which is easy to learn but hard to master. We will add complexity by creating special rules for the different units. And by keeping the game modular in this way, it will be easier to maintain and keep it up to date.

The game itself allows people to field the model they way want and people can already start playing with only a single box worth of miniatures. This way, people can start a new army or add that one model they have always loved to their miniatures collection. The skirmish nature of the game will offer something new and exciting to current warhammer"

Sounds pretty good to me.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#32 Post by SpellArcher »

Prince of Spires wrote:People buy the miniatures (for a big part) because of the game they can play with it.
Exactly Rod. GW's narrative goes "Collectors had fantasy figures so we made Warhammer for them to play." Players had those figures because they enhanced their existing D&D games.
Prince of Spires wrote:Regular players buy all those models, and by extent support the hobby and allowed it to grow as big and diverse as it did. If you looked at just competitive tournament players, you could drop half the army books and half the models from the remaining army books and still sell the same models.
In general I'm not sure if it matters much to GW whether a player buys two boxes of Witch Elves or one of Corsairs and one Scourgerunner Chariot. But I agree that more relaxed gamers tend to buy more from GW. Competitive players are generally more networked (tournaments, internet etc) so are more aware of cheaper ways to get models and they use those ways. I've never stopped buying direct from GW but dropping metal models in-store slashed the amount I spent with them. Before I could just go in, browse cool stuff and buy it on spec, now I can't. I realise that's not typical but I'm sure a lot of players have their own experience of spending less with GW as time has gone by. Add those together and you sum up the problem they've had making Warhammer pay.
User avatar
Aicanor
Rainbows
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Tower of Hoeth

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#33 Post by Aicanor »

Marginally on topic - I was wondering, to what kind of player they try to get by releasing Age of Sigmar. After reading the preview of "The Battle for the Realmgates" event in Warhammer World... i am still wondering.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.co ... of-sigmar/
http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.co ... d-i-bring/
http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.co ... ht-realms/

Apparently, the silliness is an integral part of what is considered fun these days. So, brothers and sisters, keep your faces straight for a turn and you get the rerolls. :wink:
And did you notice? They even misspelled Orruk as Urruk. Long live Uruk-hai!
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#34 Post by Prince of Spires »

@Aicanor: Well,...
The amount of time you have to play the game is the only real restriction so bring whatever you think would get you a great game in that time.
#-o
Spell Archer wrote: In general I'm not sure if it matters much to GW whether a player buys two boxes of Witch Elves or one of Corsairs and one Scourgerunner Chariot.
Probably not in the sense that all kits will have a similar margin and it matters little if they sell you A or B. However, if you look at WH from the diversity of the fluff / universe perspective, then having more units = more diverse universe = richer fluff options = better world to play = more players. So in that sense it pays off to have more models.

For instance, end of 7th edition, from a competitive tournaments player perspective, GW could have simply only had the Deamons of Chaos and DE books and models on sale and they would have been fine. The rest of the armies and their models didn't matter to the competitive tournament player, since to win you needed to bring one of those armies.

However, if GW would have only had the DE and Deamons armies on sale then the hobby would have died fast since most players wanted more out of the game then fielding the most hardcore tourney army. People want a diverse world with a multitude of armies. And the more diverse it is the more they will sell.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
User avatar
Elithmar
Young Eataini Prince
Posts: 3669
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#35 Post by Elithmar »

Aicanor wrote:...
So basically, all you need is:

-random selection of models
-a picture of an animal (or is it counted as cheating if it isn't actually your pet?)
-a flower
-plenty of skulls

The last is, of course, the easiest, given that you'll be using GW models.
"I say the Eatainii were cheating - again." -Aicanor
"Eatainian jerks…" -Headshot
"It was a little ungentlemanly." -Aicanor (on the Eatainii)
"What is it with Eataini being blamed for everything?" -Aicanor
User avatar
Aicanor
Rainbows
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Tower of Hoeth

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#36 Post by Aicanor »

Elithmar wrote:
Aicanor wrote:...
So basically, all you need is:

-random selection of models
-a picture of an animal (or is it counted as cheating if it isn't actually your pet? - no it isn't)
-a flower
-plenty of green skulls
(what if someone steals the flower?)
Players are in danger of looking like Thulsa Doom followers.
Prince of Spires wrote:For instance, end of 7th edition, from a competitive tournaments player perspective, GW could have simply only had the Deamons of Chaos and DE books and models on sale and they would have been fine. The rest of the armies and their models didn't matter to the competitive tournament player, since to win you needed to bring one of those armies.
Just to be fair, there are always people who like the challenge of competing with other armies. And do not forget small local tournaments, which are definitely as good for the hobby as narrative campaigns are.

What I see as greatest problem with the new direction is that GW seems unable to take the game and the narrative 'seriously', while lots of their customers actually like to immerse themselves in the story (or setting? :)). Humour is all right, but there is such thing as too much.
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#37 Post by Prince of Spires »

You could just bring a green animal skull with flowers and be done with it =>
Image

Humour is great in a game or setting if done right. But GW seems to have missed the mark here.

Humour like doomdivers or fanatics, great! Do it, put some more into it. Humour like animal pictures or having to make noises? No. Definitely the wrong kind.

It feels like they're mixing things up. They aim the rules, fluff and descriptions at kids. But they price the game for adults.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#38 Post by SpellArcher »

To be fair to them, a lot of the problem was simply certain 2008 army books in the context of 7th. 8th edition fixed that, more or less. Daemons might be a stronger 8th edition army than Ogres but the armies are in general close enough to encourage variety. Half the units in certain army books are sub-optimal but it was ever thus and hard to avoid without exhaustive playtesting by very good players. Plus there will always be players who bring these weaker units simply because they like them. The tournament scene for example is full of armies with such units because aesthetics and individuality matter there too.
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#39 Post by Prince of Spires »

SpellArcher wrote:Plus there will always be players who bring these weaker units simply because they like them. The tournament scene for example is full of armies with such units because aesthetics and individuality matter there too.
Definitely. That was actually exactly my point. I wasn't arguing that those don't exist. But by definition those are not die hard competitive tournament players. They are simply players. For me, to be counted as a competitive tournament player (which was what the discussion was about), you do whatever possible within the rules to win. Which means not bringing sub-par units because you like their aesthetics. When you start doing so you simply are a WH player who just happens to also (or mainly) be playing at tournaments.

Normal players (as opposed to competitive ones), play to win, but they collect not just because of winning, but also because they like a certain race, the aesthetics, or the challenge. These are the people who give the hobby the volume and appeal needed to support a global company like GW. They are the ones 'responsible' for the depth of the fluff and diversity of the model range.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
User avatar
Swordmaster of Hoeth
Southern Sentinel
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:01 am
Location: On the path of an outcast

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#40 Post by Swordmaster of Hoeth »

Greetings,

It was a very interesting read and I am quite intrigued how the topic diverted towards GW critique. Not that I am surprised, despite the fact the article I posted was written long time ago, I can see why what Jervis said can be simply unfair.

I have been to quite a few tournaments and out of 140+ games I played with MSU in 8th edition, around 85 were played at the events. It does not mean that I had no opportunities to play elsewhere but I am sure I would not have had so many opportunities to do so if I stayed at home. I know about people who can only play during the tournaments, due to various reasons so for them it is very important that these are organized.

I think I was lucky to play where people in general are opened and like to play with variety of armies, composition packs and where you get respect for doing well with unique army. Hence, my own experience contradicts what Jervis writes about. However, I know it is not the same elsewhere. For example, there are countries where ETC style dominates so much that it is hard to actually play a casual game in the club that does not follow ETC rules.

Does it mean ETC is a bad rules set? Absolutely not but it is a good example that there are places where there is variety and places where people play in a single way only.

It is easy to blame the company that there is lack of support. It is even justified and I also do blame them for what they could have done but never happened. However, every player who goes to a tournament (or not) can help (or not) the hobby to grow. From that point of view I don't think competitive players, focused on army list building and easily discarding more than half of the army book have a positive influence.

So while I disagree with general tone of Jervis article as I think it is painted with broad brush I also agree that had a point. Lack of variety, both in terms of army lists and scenarios, that many competitive players prefer, using toys instead of real miniatures (not necessary from GW) as well as having flat "terrain" on tables among others are things that made this game far less interesting.

Cheers!
Image

Twitter @SwordOfHoeth

High Elves MSU - Observations
Rabidnid wrote:Are you seriously asking someone called Swordmaster of Hoeth why he has more swordmasters than white lions? Really?
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?l

#41 Post by SpellArcher »

Swordmaster of Hoeth wrote:So while I disagree with general tone of Jervis article as I think it is painted with broad brush I also agree that had a point. Lack of variety, both in terms of army lists and scenarios, that many competitive players prefer, using toys instead of real miniatures (not necessary from GW) as well as having flat "terrain" on tables among others are things that made this game far less interesting.
There are quite a few players who just don't care about the hobby side SM, this is true. But funnily enough, a disproportionate amount of stronger players, certainly in my direct experience, are very good painters and care a lot about the aesthetics of the game. Partly this is because of painting scores but mainly I think because someone heavily committed to Warhammer tends to explore most aspects of the game.
Prince of Spires wrote:For me, to be counted as a competitive tournament player (which was what the discussion was about), you do whatever possible within the rules to win. Which means not bringing sub-par units because you like their aesthetics.
There are two things here I think Rod. Firstly, some very strong players succeed despite bringing some sub-optimal units. They are simply that good. Secondly, a point Curu made often is that players in general will have an idea of what the stronger units are and the stronger lists. But the very best players stay one step ahead by working out which unit or build, currently regarded as not the best, can be introduced to give them an edge and move the meta forwards. The game evolves organically and this sees fresh units bought and played, at least within the tournament setting.
User avatar
Swordmaster of Hoeth
Southern Sentinel
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:01 am
Location: On the path of an outcast

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#42 Post by Swordmaster of Hoeth »

@ SpellArcher

I agree, there some amazing people out there who paint beautiful armies, create unique lists and win tournaments with them. I would not be able to meet them if I didn't attend the events. I was very lucky to play in the environment where people do care about the hobby as a whole not as individuals. Sadly, it is not the case everywhere.

My point was, that quite a lot depends on the players themselves and they have great influence on the condition of their hobby.
Image

Twitter @SwordOfHoeth

High Elves MSU - Observations
Rabidnid wrote:Are you seriously asking someone called Swordmaster of Hoeth why he has more swordmasters than white lions? Really?
Baragash
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:08 am
Location: Watford/London, UK

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#43 Post by Baragash »

Personally I find the whole idea of tournament/competitive gamers misses the mark, at least in this context.

Now, don't get me wrong there are players on any tournament circuit that take things super-serious and are there to win above all else, but that's true of almost any organised competition (not just games, amateur sports as well), it's just human nature.

In my experience, and it's something I see echoed a lot, so I think it's a fair view, most people go to tournaments to enjoy their hobby (and not just the gaming side) with like-minded people, and sure, they want to win and do their best (and any game where there's a winner or loser will be like that, but also remember this is a wargame, as a general rule, no one fights a war to die, so even from a narrative point of view, it makes sense to try your best), but winning is secondary to mixing with other enthusiasts and getting the breath of fresh air of playing new opponents and seeing new ideas, both in terms of tactics and list selection, but also in terms of the modelling and painting side of the hobby.

GW (or any wargame company for that matter) should have as their primary goal for rules, the desire to make a set that encourages maximum engagement, because maintaining players' enthusiasm for the game will maintain their desire to spend money. For me that's a well-written, well-tested ruleset that allows (within reason, the players still need to take some responsibility for army selection and tactics) a game where both players have a fair chance.
Mantic Rules Committee: Kings of War & Warpath.
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
HugoMac
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:27 pm

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#44 Post by HugoMac »

Baragash wrote:Personally I find the whole idea of tournament/competitive gamers misses the mark, at least in this context.

Now, don't get me wrong there are players on any tournament circuit that take things super-serious and are there to win above all else, but that's true of almost any organised competition (not just games, amateur sports as well), it's just human nature.

In my experience, and it's something I see echoed a lot, so I think it's a fair view, most people go to tournaments to enjoy their hobby (and not just the gaming side) with like-minded people, and sure, they want to win and do their best (and any game where there's a winner or loser will be like that, but also remember this is a wargame, as a general rule, no one fights a war to die, so even from a narrative point of view, it makes sense to try your best), but winning is secondary to mixing with other enthusiasts and getting the breath of fresh air of playing new opponents and seeing new ideas, both in terms of tactics and list selection, but also in terms of the modelling and painting side of the hobby.

GW (or any wargame company for that matter) should have as their primary goal for rules, the desire to make a set that encourages maximum engagement, because maintaining players' enthusiasm for the game will maintain their desire to spend money. For me that's a well-written, well-tested ruleset that allows (within reason, the players still need to take some responsibility for army selection and tactics) a game where both players have a fair chance.


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
User avatar
ArhangelusM
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:41 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#45 Post by ArhangelusM »

I'll drink to that! :mrgreen:

Or +1 as is the internet norm nowdays! :lol:
The 9th Age team member:
- former Vampire Covenant Army Book Committee member
- Highborn Elves Army Book Committee member
Lithlandis Stormcrow
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:25 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#46 Post by Lithlandis Stormcrow »

Baragash wrote:Personally I find the whole idea of tournament/competitive gamers misses the mark, at least in this context.

Now, don't get me wrong there are players on any tournament circuit that take things super-serious and are there to win above all else, but that's true of almost any organised competition (not just games, amateur sports as well), it's just human nature.

In my experience, and it's something I see echoed a lot, so I think it's a fair view, most people go to tournaments to enjoy their hobby (and not just the gaming side) with like-minded people, and sure, they want to win and do their best (and any game where there's a winner or loser will be like that, but also remember this is a wargame, as a general rule, no one fights a war to die, so even from a narrative point of view, it makes sense to try your best), but winning is secondary to mixing with other enthusiasts and getting the breath of fresh air of playing new opponents and seeing new ideas, both in terms of tactics and list selection, but also in terms of the modelling and painting side of the hobby.

GW (or any wargame company for that matter) should have as their primary goal for rules, the desire to make a set that encourages maximum engagement, because maintaining players' enthusiasm for the game will maintain their desire to spend money. For me that's a well-written, well-tested ruleset that allows (within reason, the players still need to take some responsibility for army selection and tactics) a game where both players have a fair chance.
Could not have said it better. There is hope yet in the world [-o<
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."

http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Post Reply