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
Swordmaster of Hoeth
Southern Sentinel
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:01 am
Location: On the path of an outcast

Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#1 Post by Swordmaster of Hoeth »

I have just received the following article from WD (don't know which issue though). Apologies for the dramatic title but read on and tell me what you think. Some claim that was already pointing towards the AoS.

Image
Image
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?
User avatar
Loriel
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:27 am
Location: Winterfell

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#2 Post by Loriel »

really good article.

In similar sense I play alot of Necromunda and one of the major aspect that I personally love is the imbalance between players. That game truly invokes story telling and even roleplaying elements,which makes the fights even more exciting.
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1

Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
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?

#3 Post by Prince of Spires »

It looks like a pretty old issue, so I doubt it's pointing towards AoS. I do think it shows the logic / thinking behind AoS nicely.

I must say, I agree with most of the points he raises. WH was not meant as a competitive game. And treating it as such gave rise to a lot of discussions. Some of the most heated topics on ulthuan.net have been about comp packs, why to use them and which ones were best / worst. All in an attempt to balance a game which, by its nature is close to impossible to balance.

The problem however is one which he glosses over a bit. Many people don't have a regular gaming group but more or less pick up games against random players when possible. In such a setting, running campaigns or uneven points matches is tough. Which is why playing even points games in a balanced scenario are popular. You don't want skewed games against strangers. You want a game where you're both likely to have fun. So, balance becomes imported.

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.
Shannar, Sealord
Very Helpful Elf
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#4 Post by Shannar, Sealord »

Honestly, I think they played a large role in it. It's a group that just wasn't going to be happy with the game no matter what, and is fairly vocal about it. That kind of negative attention doesn't help, the constant claims of "removing rock paper scissors" for example. And if someone is already hesitant because the size of the rule book, seeing a huge comp pack to make it "fair" isn't going to help.

I've long believed that tournament are about the worst way to play warhammer. Some think that makes it a bad game because it's not balanced. I think it just makes it a different game.

But, there is another side to this. Tournament players are obviously very dedicated to the game. GW has also failed to effectively promote the game as they intended it to be played. The quality of WD has been awful for years. That used to be a great source for fun things to try out, example of campaigns, and uneven games that were still fun. The website turning into nothing more than a store didn't help either. I'm sure all that made business sense (short term anyway) but it game them no effective way to encourage people to try a different playstyle. Given all that it's no surprise that most people only play even points pitched battles even in their gaming groups. It's easier, and there hasn't been real help to do anything else for years. They did put out a few supplements, but the price on those was a bit nuts and the incentive to buy pretty low if you've already been convinced that an ETC game is the best way to play.
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#5 Post by SpellArcher »

I totally disagree with him.

Tournaments are no better or worse than any other way of playing the game, they are just different. I feel he may be considering how the old GWGT's became, ie ruthless, cut-throat stuff. The independent scene in the UK (and other countries) has always been different. Sure at the top end (and often lower down!) players want very much to win but the great majority play fairly and in the right spirit.

I've seen and played against some amazing armies and players at tournaments I would have missed out on otherwise. Maybe Mr Johnson needs a more relaxed format to immerse himself in the game but I love taking my elves up against the strangest and the baddest critters in Warhammer in a set-piece format. For me there is something timeless about it.

Other ways of playing the game are equally valid. But the failure of GW to see that tournaments could be done the right way may have contributed to them taking the path they are now.
User avatar
Giladis
The Merlord
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#6 Post by Giladis »

That article is ancient, like 13-14 years ago ancient. But what he writes in this article is more or less the same thing the two of us discussed back in 2007 when I was in Nottingham.

I also disagree with him. I like to fight scenarios, I love developing my characters and my armies but at the same time tournaments allowed me to play people I otherwise never would have played against (good or bad) and have motivated me to travel arround Europe to experience new surroundings and ways of playing. There is hardly a better way to visit some city than going on a tournament on the weekend get to know local people and then spend the rest of the week exploring the place with your new aquantances(maybe friends).
Cold Phoenix
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:26 am
Location: ACT

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#7 Post by Cold Phoenix »

As I understand it, GW's planning/development/management has been a black box for a few years now; we can see what goes on in our local comunites, the tournement scene and online, but we don't get to see inside GW's thinking. We also don't know what imputs goes into the Black Box, we just see the output in the form of the rumorsand products which emerge from it from time to time. Can we make any judgements about what may or may not have affected Wahammer/Age of Sigmar?

SpellArcher wrote:I totally disagree with him.

Tournaments are no better or worse than any other way of playing the game, they are just different. I feel he may be considering how the old GWGT's became, ie ruthless, cut-throat stuff. The independent scene in the UK (and other countries) has always been different. Sure at the top end (and often lower down!) players want very much to win but the great majority play fairly and in the right spirit.

I've seen and played against some amazing armies and players at tournaments I would have missed out on otherwise. Maybe Mr Johnson needs a more relaxed format to immermise himself in the game but I love taking my elves up against the strangest and the baddest critters in Warhammer in a set-piece format. For me there is something timeless about it.

Other ways of playing the game are equally valid. But the failure of GW to see that tournaments could be done the right way may have contributed to them taking the path they are now.
This pretty much sums up my personal opinion. I will admit that I play WHFB almost exclusively at the moment and are lucky to live in an area with 4 semi-regular WHFB TOs, so perhaps I'm biased.
User avatar
John Rainbow
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:47 am
Location: PA, USA

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#8 Post by John Rainbow »

I think the fact that GW no longer pursues tournaments or gets actively involved with the community is a big problem for them as a company. The sit in their tower of hoeth and just seem to do what they want. The article might have some more merit if not for the fact that their game system is largely so popular due to the community that the competitive players have created. Just look at the big community builders out there - they are all podcasters and TOs like the ETC team, the SWEDISH guys, Reecius, etc who do a huge amount of work to keep the player base involved and interested.

The article also argues that tournament gaming is the lowest common denominator. In that case, surely they should have tightened up the rules and balance issues and then grow the game from this 'lowest' point. Having a 'beer and pretzels' game or whatever you want to call it is still no excuse for rules loopholes, etc. Fun players still want a tight ruleset! I think x-wing is a great example of this. It is an incredibly simple game (4-5 pages of rules) that has incredible depth yet is also really fun. It still allows tournaments (which the developers actively run) and had a massive following from people just enjoying the fun aspect too. I suppose one could argue that it is cheaper than a GW game though and it still does have some balance issues but these tend to be actively pursued by FFG. GW could learn a lesson or two here I think.

I should also mention that there are plenty of TOs running 'hobby' tournaments. I think of SCGT, the Point Hammered one and Adepticon straight away.
Truthiness
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:10 am

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#9 Post by Truthiness »

Wow, what an insulting column. I haven't played in a tournament in about a decade. I have routinely trumpeted a casual approach to Warhammer. Yet one of my parts of enjoyment is having relatively even games. My friends and I are all parents at this point, so sorry that we don't have time for his precious campaigns or narrative scenarios. I just want to be able to show up, put down an army at a predetermined points value, and enjoy the game. Part of that enjoy for both players is having an even contest. Why am I not allowed to enjoy friendly competition? I'm insulted that my desire for such games is considered the "lowest common denominator." Screw you Jervis. Thank you for making the transition to another gaming system so much easier by letting me know that I'm not worth your time.
[url=http://warhammertruthiness.blogspot.com/]You Can't Handle the Truthiness[/url]:
The demented ramblings of a US Army officer
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#10 Post by SpellArcher »

Truthiness wrote:Screw you Jervis.
I'd be tempted to mod this but Mr J is widely known as a great guy and I respect the sentiment. It's funny though, I doubt those words have been seen very often!

:)
Truthiness
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:10 am

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#11 Post by Truthiness »

SpellArcher wrote:
Truthiness wrote:Screw you Jervis.
I'd be tempted to mod this but Mr J is widely known as a great guy and I respect the sentiment. It's funny though, I doubt those words have been seen very often!

:)
I actually almost edited it out myself. He is indeed a nice guy, but I feel quite insulted by that column, especially if it's justification for Age of Sigmar. I don't appreciated being called a "lowest common denominator" for appreciating balanced games. Plus, it's hard for me as a military guy to use a string of 18 profanities in reaction :)
[url=http://warhammertruthiness.blogspot.com/]You Can't Handle the Truthiness[/url]:
The demented ramblings of a US Army officer
Lord Anathir
Posts: 3416
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:11 am
Location: Univeristy of Glasgow

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#12 Post by Lord Anathir »

This sort of discussion makes my blood boil. Tournaments are the lifeblood of the hobby. The best players, the best looking armies. The epitome of complete hobbyists. No other group or event type did more to promote the hobby to new people.
For the dwarfs, there was only this. Hammerson met Grombrindal’s gaze, and the White Dwarf nodded slowly. If it must be done, let it be done well. Whether they were dead or alive, that was the only way dwarfs knew how to do anything.

And Grombrindal said "10 from the back, yeah?"
Lord Anathir
Posts: 3416
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:11 am
Location: Univeristy of Glasgow

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#13 Post by Lord Anathir »

I'm going to email him. All my rants and arguments over the years have brought me to this moment.
For the dwarfs, there was only this. Hammerson met Grombrindal’s gaze, and the White Dwarf nodded slowly. If it must be done, let it be done well. Whether they were dead or alive, that was the only way dwarfs knew how to do anything.

And Grombrindal said "10 from the back, yeah?"
Shannar, Sealord
Very Helpful Elf
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#14 Post by Shannar, Sealord »

Truthiness wrote:
SpellArcher wrote:
Truthiness wrote:Screw you Jervis.
I'd be tempted to mod this but Mr J is widely known as a great guy and I respect the sentiment. It's funny though, I doubt those words have been seen very often!

:)
I actually almost edited it out myself. He is indeed a nice guy, but I feel quite insulted by that column, especially if it's justification for Age of Sigmar. I don't appreciated being called a "lowest common denominator" for appreciating balanced games. Plus, it's hard for me as a military guy to use a string of 18 profanities in reaction :)
Given the age of the article I can tell you it's not justification for AoS. It may point at the thinking that lead to it over time, but that's all.
User avatar
Aicanor
Rainbows
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Tower of Hoeth

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#15 Post by Aicanor »

It is definitely an old article as it hints at Fanatic magazine. If this is the line of thinking that eventually brought GW to the End Times and Age of Sigmar, it is quite sad as they just replaced relative freedom of points system by directive scenarios (with pre-made army lists) on one side and total anarchy of take whatever you want on the other. Experienced player can perhaps judge what match-up can still be fun and what is too much, but new players or those with little time are left with little to go by.
I admit I like to play the games as fair as can be and also find for example the reenactment of End Time events not very appealing. I would say that this direction is actually narrowing my options of setting up games I would be able to enjoy.
Bolt Thrower
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:13 am
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#16 Post by Bolt Thrower »

I've never played in an official tournament. I find the article a bit narrow-minded. Perhaps it shows its age as it seems the tournament scene today is much different than what he describes. For example, he mentions hard core tourney players not painting models. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. In addition, rules packs that I have looked at do have scenarios in each round and greatly encourage hobby aspects and sportsmanship. The game can be both competitive and theatrical. That is what makes it great.

Finally, if this was the line of thinking over the years, then GW missed on a potentially huge revenue stream that could have added a lot to the bottom line. Supporting tourneys encourages model purchases, hobby purchases, etc. It gives a platform to showcase the company and generate buzz greater than can be achieved through "standard" promotional methods.

The "what if" of this idea really intrigues me--if they had embraced the tournament scene and shaped it to the vision of scenario and hobby driven would The End Times have been avoided?
Battle Standard Bearer. Don't leave home without it.
Bolt Thrower's High Elves
Shannar, Sealord
Very Helpful Elf
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#17 Post by Shannar, Sealord »

The "what if" of this idea really intrigues me--if they had embraced the tournament scene and shaped it to the vision of scenario and hobby driven would The End Times have been avoided?
What's interesting about that question is that they failed on both ends. They didn't embrace tournaments, but they also failed to truly support narrative campaigns or even league play. They've recently offered no guidance on that beyond a very few campaign books featuring specific armies.
cptcosmic
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:12 pm

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#18 Post by cptcosmic »

Game does Not habe to be competitive as requirement for a fair Match
It does not have to be point values But some kind of balance should be there
Bolt Thrower
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:13 am
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#19 Post by Bolt Thrower »

Shannar, Sealord wrote:
The "what if" of this idea really intrigues me--if they had embraced the tournament scene and shaped it to the vision of scenario and hobby driven would The End Times have been avoided?
What's interesting about that question is that they failed on both ends. They didn't embrace tournaments, but they also failed to truly support narrative campaigns or even league play. They've recently offered no guidance on that beyond a very few campaign books featuring specific armies.
Agreed and this is where the "model company vs. game company" vision ultimately fails. Both sides need to be equally developed and progressed together. Completely failing to support any type of organized play restricts the amount of sales you can achieve over the long haul. On the flip side, continually developing the game through new rules releases, consistent and responsive errata, scenarios, tournament and league rules packs, and supporting those with fresh model releases means that the sky's the limit for sales.

I wish I could buy the company.
Battle Standard Bearer. Don't leave home without it.
Bolt Thrower's High Elves
User avatar
Rabidnid
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#20 Post by Rabidnid »

Tournament play is the heart of any system and the reason why it succeed's or fails. Probably a quarter of the games I've have played of WHFB are tournament games and they make up many of my favourite games. Pick-up games of balanced armies are how I meet and judge new players.

I have a very practical campaign system that allows for dissimilar point battles and narrative play, but it only works because there is a way to balance the starting armies and for players to judge the relative capabilities of the various match ups.

I agree with the aforementioned comment.
"Luck is the residue of design"
Aerendar Valandil
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:54 am
Location: The Free Republic of Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#21 Post by Aerendar Valandil »

I actually find Jervis' account fairly balanced, but that may be because my points are related.

Especially from 6th to 7th I really felt GW concentrated on tournament play. Tournament players (and GW) did not destroy the game, but they did push it into a certain direction.

Which meant, less options, less overlap and less adventurous editions, because everyone knew that existing lists would be tried exploited to the max by twinky players, tournament and otherwise (internet helped, because GW could be sure that any published list would be researched, played and tested to the hilt and perfect lists made within days, by hundreds who communicated day and night). Sometimes illogical choices were made for reasons of balance, such as the rule that HE spearmen could not use heavy armor whils all the models from 4th up wore exactly that. Until 5th edition many units had many options that were perhaps exploitable but special. There was a lump amount of 25% that could be spent on allies, with hardly any restrictions. One army, Dogs of War, was introduces simply to offer the opportunity to make very varied armies and combinations. Competitiveness was simply not so much the focus.

Army lists were more of an indication, not a hard and fast set of laws with rock-hard boundaries.

And that made a more scenario, beer and pretzel driven game if not theoretically more viable, definitly more the centre around which the game orbited. Up to a certain extent that was lost because the meta became more competitive. Players who like that play other games: especially in historical wargaming point costs are far more an indication of a rough balance, and winning and losing is less the central issue and collective experience is more so.

On the other hand, the competitive game brought also something else, and thats is more players (and thus more opponents), more commercial turnover, better quality models and usually full range of them that was readily available. And several editions of great fun, perhaps as well for players like me who tend to a more scenario based playing style, but more easily find players now. And 8th is really a very good game, arguably better gamewise than any edition before.

However, for me the strong competitive element was also a reason to search for clubs in historical wargaming, because I really like the style of play better. I still paint warhammer, the few games I play I enjoy, but I do know that what I look for in wargaming I will more easily find elsewhere.
User avatar
Delaqure
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:57 pm

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#22 Post by Delaqure »

No! Tournament players did not kill the game. GW killed the game. They killed the game in a number of ways.
1. Failed to support tournaments. (remember the old Rogue Trader tournaments?)
2. Failed to provide rules that would encourage players to bring different types of units to a game instead of the uber net lists. Different scenarios that would encourage the spearmen or skycutters. They would sell more models that way.
3. How about rules for small games where a newbie could get into the hobby with a couple of regiment boxes and a character?
4. The cost of the models became outrageous. I quit buying because of it. I would LOVE to start a new army but when I am looking at sinking at least 600 bucks into an army just to play I said forget it!
5. Get army books out! When you are waiting 8 years for a book that's insane. And get all the books out within a year!
6. How about supporting us with some cool campaigns that don't cost 100 bucks to do?

No if you ask me the lack of forward thinking and lack of support for the game killed it. GW just failed and I hope AOS falls flat on its face!
Duranthalis
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:50 pm
Location: Sun Diego, SoCal, USA
Contact:

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#23 Post by Duranthalis »

I remember when they released the Codex: Armageddon book for WH40k. They gave specific additional rules for a few existing armies, added rules for a few new chapters of space marines, and gave a pretty interesting background and campaign start to the players ... all in 1 book (which was quite reasonably priced ... I think it was the cost of an old soft-cover codex: $20-25). They then launched a world-wide campaign for Armageddon based on country (IIRC). The results from games played at the GW stores were recorded and monitored, showing the push from Orks vs Imperials and updated monthly in WD, culminating in a massive Waaaaaaaaaaaaagh! at GWHQ to close out the campaign after a year.

Let's think about that for a second:
[*]Reasonably priced book covering updates for all armies
[*]Fun narrative campaign involving all players around the globe ... FOR ONE YEAR
[*]Updates showcasing models, paint jobs, terrain, battle reports

What do we get now? End of Times. How did they handle it? "give us your money. Buy 5 (10..fluff and rules) books that each cost twice the cost of an Army book. Buy all these models. Here's some out of whack changes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Know that huge money sink you just bought into over the last 6 months (not to mention the last 20 years)? WORLD IS GONE, GAME IS GONE, BUY NEW STUFF. Oh? You don't like that? Here's the rules for free. Sorry. Don't go? Please?!?"

No. Tournament players didn't kill Warhammer. GW killed Warhammer. GW failed to keep their fingers on the pulse of the gaming community, failed to inject life when it was needed in a way that didn't alienate the player base, failed to support their brainchild of ~30 years (and the fanbase that it built).

(I'm sure I've gotten some numbers wrong ... forgive me if I did. The point doesn't change.)

Please mind the tone. Nothing wrong with being annoyed at GW. But we're an all age forum.

Prince of Spires
PLOG here!
High Elf, done/in progress/unassembled: 12/150/1
Wood Elf, done/in progress/unassembled: 18/2/43
Space Orks, done/in progress/unassembled: Oi.
WH40K Imperials (BT/SoB/SW), done/in progress/unassembled: Oi.

Prepare for a surprise attack!
User avatar
silashand
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Great Hall of Karak Norn (Colorado, USA)
Contact:

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#24 Post by silashand »

Lord Anathir wrote:This sort of discussion makes my blood boil. Tournaments are the lifeblood of the hobby. The best players, the best looking armies. The epitome of complete hobbyists. No other group or event type did more to promote the hobby to new people.
This. IMO it was the loss of the competitive player during 8th edition that killed WFB. The farther along the path of "casual" gaming GW went the more people left the hobby. I know many folks on the Internet claim WFB was somehow "thriving" where they were at, but frankly they were in the minority even if they could not see it. Everywhere I have been since 8th dropped WFB has been dwindling and dying. Combine that with GW's obscene prices and almost no one new was picking up the hobby. Somewhere along the line the casual gamers decided they didn't need people in the hobby who did not play the way they wanted and GW obliged them by driving them away in one way or another. The end result was inevitable. If you don't appeal to a wide variety of people then you limit your customer base unnecessarily.

There was nothing at all wrong with having balanced rules that support a competitive environment as well as casual play. The two are not mutually exclusive no matter how many people seem to think they are. The problem is *people*, specifically those who feel they have a right to tell others how they should be enjoying this hobby. That group includes GW designers and management apparently. When a company thinks it can dictate how to have fun with its products rather than let their customers decide then something is wrong IMO. I don't pretend to know everything, but I do know this: when a company refuses to engage with its customer base and actually figure out why they want to buy their products then eventually their arrogance will bite them in the behind. Jervis should have known that after the debacle that was Blood Bowl 4th edition. Almost no one liked it and why? Because Jervis thought he knew why players liked the game and he was proven very wrong. He thought players wanted a game that focused on mainly pickup games when what they wanted were good league rules. So his initial v4.0 rules downplayed leagues and as I recall most players hated it. Eventually he relented and the game picked up again, but I suspect he didn't learn his lesson and Age of Sigmar is a result of his arrogance. He may be a nice guy (at least he seemed nice the few times I met him), and he may be a decent game designer at times, but he clearly has a different view on what constitutes a good game than IMO most actual people who play them.

As always JMO...

EDIT: changed tournament player to competitive player which was more accurate to my statements
Last edited by silashand on Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Admin - [url=http://www.bugmansbrewery.com]Bugman's Brewery[/url]

[i]"Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone."[/i] - Unknown
[i]"Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do."[/i] - Voltaire (1694-1778)
User avatar
John Rainbow
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:47 am
Location: PA, USA

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#25 Post by John Rainbow »

silashand wrote:and almost no one new was picking up the hobby.
Key comment.
User avatar
Galharen
Master of Brushes
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Poznan/Hannover

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#26 Post by Galharen »

John Rainbow wrote:
silashand wrote:and almost no one new was picking up the hobby.
Key comment.
With those prices now GW will definitely get new clients :lol: :lol:
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?

#27 Post by Prince of Spires »

silashand wrote:
Lord Anathir wrote:This sort of discussion makes my blood boil. Tournaments are the lifeblood of the hobby. The best players, the best looking armies. The epitome of complete hobbyists. No other group or event type did more to promote the hobby to new people.
This. IMO it was the loss of the tournament player during 8th edition that killed WFB. The farther along the path of "casual" gaming GW went the more people left the hobby.
While many good points have been raised, this one I don't agree with. I've never seen evidence of tournaments being the lifeblood of the hobby. 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.

In the end, tournaments exist because there are lots of players and some of those like the competitive nature or the companionship of a tournament. Compare it to football. Football leagues exist because lots of people play football. But a large part of those players simply play with friends on a pitch in their neighborhood. It's not the other way round. Football does not exist because some teams play in the champions league.

Note, this does not invalidate some of the latter points. Personally I feel WH was dying because GW failed to understand their customers and their needs / reasons for playing the game. In short
- prices where too high for casual gamers
- the commitment needed was too big for casual gamers (it took me 5 or so years of casually being the WH hobby to get a fully painted standard size army on the table)
- lack of support on the rules / failure to remove some of the worst excesses from the rules (I don't believe in total balance, but it can definitely be better then it was)
- lack of support on less popular armies
- increasing the amount of GW webstore only products. If you can't find them in stores you're not going to buy them.

GW got some of the ideas right that needed to be fixed by AoS, the only problem is that the execution is horrible. Small sized game with the ability to field anything you want starting from a single box of miniatures. This coupled with simple, up to date rules that are available online for free and which (allegedly) will be updated regularly. Doing this solves all of the main points apart from the last two. It's just a pity that the execution turned out to be AoS and that GW felt the need to kill regular WH while doing so.

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
silashand
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Great Hall of Karak Norn (Colorado, USA)
Contact:

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#28 Post by silashand »

Prince of Spires wrote:While many good points have been raised, this one I don't agree with. I've never seen evidence of tournaments being the lifeblood of the hobby.
I should have clarified: "competitive" players rather than tournaments. However, the point stands. When GW intentionally began focusing only on fluff gamers the number of players began to dwindle. This has happened every single location I have been in the last few years. Internet anecdotal evidence would have people believe otherwise, but I have yet to see it play out in practice even once. Feel free to believe otherwise if you like, but if WFB players were not declining then WFB would still be around rather than having been replaced by AoS. And if they hadn't totally abandoned any attempt to write a real "game" then they would have kept both groups of players around rather than trying to ditch one in favor of the other. Honestly I think Jervis (since AoS very much seems like something he would write - apologies to him if he did not) has lost touch with what the definition of "game" really means.
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. GW can claim anything they want, but they flat out admitted they don't do any market research AT ALL which tells me they have no clue what makes their products sell. Age of Sigmar is perfect proof of that so far.
Note, this does not invalidate some of the latter points. Personally I feel WH was dying because GW failed to understand their customers and their needs / reasons for playing the game.
This I will agree with.
GW got some of the ideas right that needed to be fixed by AoS, the only problem is that the execution is horrible. Small sized game with the ability to field anything you want starting from a single box of miniatures. This coupled with simple, up to date rules that are available online for free and which (allegedly) will be updated regularly. Doing this solves all of the main points apart from the last two. It's just a pity that the execution turned out to be AoS and that GW felt the need to kill regular WH while doing so.
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...
Galharen wrote:With those prices now GW will definitely get new clients :lol: :lol:
$33/£20 for a tool to measure 1", 2" or 3". I rest my case...

Image

Cheers, Gary
Admin - [url=http://www.bugmansbrewery.com]Bugman's Brewery[/url]

[i]"Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone."[/i] - Unknown
[i]"Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do."[/i] - Voltaire (1694-1778)
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#29 Post by SpellArcher »

silashand wrote:Everywhere I have been since 8th dropped WFB has been dwindling and dying. Combine that with GW's obscene prices and almost no one new was picking up the hobby.
The UK tourney scene has been thriving (I couldn't speak for non-tourney). We lost players (nearly me) when 8th hit but gained more. I know you are not a fan of 8th and nor was I initially. But in general it's worked well for tournaments in English-speaking countries and ETC/Germany etc simply comp it. TBH I feel the decision to go with AoS had more to with market forces than which system we were playing. The prices kept going up because ebay, resellers and other manufacturers were squeezing sales amongst other factors.
silashand wrote: I don't pretend to know everything, but I do know this: when a company refuses to engage with its customer base and actually figure out why they want to buy their products then eventually their arrogance will bite them in the behind.
This I agree with. The move to one-man stores for example, while it might have made money sense short-term means the culture of welcoming new players in and easing them into Warhammer has suffered. The stores are often shut, it's harder to get games etc.. GW dropping a lot of it's tournament support also can't have helped. There was a time when GW was engaged with a lot of tourney players and used them to show off tactics, army-building etc.. They added value. This has dropped off almost entirely as GW have retreated into their fortress and barred the gates (radio silence re new releases etc.). Just to make sure they stuck some big new golden bad-ass dude outside on a plinth to stop anyone getting in.

:)
Shannar, Sealord
Very Helpful Elf
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes

Re: Did tournament players kill Warhammer?

#30 Post by Shannar, Sealord »

I should have clarified: "competitive" players rather than tournaments. However, the point stands. When GW intentionally began focusing only on fluff gamers the number of players began to dwindle. This has happened every single location I have been in the last few years. Internet anecdotal evidence would have people believe otherwise, but I have yet to see it play out in practice even once. Feel free to believe otherwise if you like, but if WFB players were not declining then WFB would still be around rather than having been replaced by AoS. And if they hadn't totally abandoned any attempt to write a real "game" then they would have kept both groups of players around rather than trying to ditch one in favor of the other. Honestly I think Jervis (since AoS very much seems like something he would write - apologies to him if he did not) has lost touch with what the definition of "game" really means.
Ok, this got to be a bit to much for me just to let it go.

First, the game started as a large combat role playing game, focused on the fluff. It managed to grow like crazy from there. Obviously they would have done better to support both. But really they supported neither. Where is this supposed focus on fluff gamers? The problem is that they didn't focus on any gamers.

Second, do you even realize that you've countered "Internet anecdotal evidence" by offering your own anecdotal evidence on the internet?
Post Reply