|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 24, 2019 14:38:51 GMT
How can they make it more visible when they announce it in social media, their website, and previously in their own publication (in short, in everything they can control except in advertising they don't pursue any way)?
If people deliberately turn a blind eye, it doesn't matter what a company puts out. Even worse if groups that normally cover them (podcasts, youtube channels, gaming news sites, etc) don't mention anything about it, either, and continue to only pursue the competitive aspects of the game.
Yes, WMH is billed as a competitive game (mostly to separate it from every other company), but it has always been billed as a GAME, and it is only the community that shaped it in to something beyond that. Steamroller was a community invention that PP formalized due to the attention it was getting. It would be little different for GW to adopt changes that the ETC did for the Warhammer games.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 24, 2019 15:03:48 GMT
How can they make it more visible when they announce it in social media, their website, and previously in their own publication (in short, in everything they can control except in advertising they don't pursue any way)? To be fair: by (re)building their relationship with retailers so they will/can actually stock the product? It's not that easy to get WM/H in Europe currently except when buying online from the UK. Our suppliers kind of suck, and it can be difficult to get some models even from PP directly. On top of that, books and cards that stores bought at the start of MK3 are collecting dust because they're useless/redundant. As a result many stores have kind of given up.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 24, 2019 15:49:24 GMT
How can they make it more visible when they announce it in social media, their website, and previously in their own publication (in short, in everything they can control except in advertising they don't pursue any way)? To be fair: by (re)building their relationship with retailers so they will/can actually stock the product? It's not that easy to get WM/H in Europe currently except when buying online from the UK. Our suppliers kind of suck, and it can be difficult to get some models even from PP directly. On top of that, books and cards that stores bought at the start of MK3 are collecting dust because they're useless/redundant. As a result many stores have kind of given up. And what relationship does that have with promoting a Narrative vs a Competitive Gameplay atmosphere?
That it is part of just getting the general game out there, true, you are very correct. My local game store went from a 12 foot section to an 8 foot wall section in the last 3 months, and I'm in the US with at least a couple Steamrollers happening across my metropolis every month. My old LGS did expand their selection from short stands to high walls in that same time, though, but they are relatively new (and the owner has direct lines with some of the developers, or at least used to).
The biggest problems for the American LGS's is that they need to generally sell at MSRP, while Amazon, Miniature Market, and other online sources often sell at a reduced price. And that's all without considering international trade duties getting in the way (which we have to deal with in regards to some Warhammer orders, and a few other games I have an interest in like Firestorm and Dropzone). When you add in those crazy trade interferences from government (even before shipping is considered), it can make it hard to build up ANY type of community. Firestorm died locally because of it, and DropZone started up a bit, and then fizzled out when Hawk was bought out. But because Citadel has strong set ups here, they have a significant advantage in getting their product in to the market over even home-grown options like WMH or Malifaux.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 16:03:42 GMT
Sigh, yea, they produce 2 or 3 hardcore Competitive documents a Year (Steamroller, Masters and Champions). While they have produced an order of magnitude way more Casual/Narrative material in the form of seasonal leagues, journeyman leagues and historical scenarios. And that's without counting Community driven formats like Who's the Boss, Food Machine, etc. And this is my biggest reason to say "f* off" to people who insist "WM/H is a competitive game" all the time and want to play only SR and such, with clock and minimal terrain and all that.
Basicaly, I agree that due to the kind of ruleset WM/H has (precise rules, high level of interaction between models' rules, etc.) it is understandable it attracts competitive players. What I don't like is that those players tend to "take over" the local meta and scene, driving out everyone else, who want to play more relaxed games, communicating that their is the only way to play the game.
I'm Hungarian, so right now, due to PP's lack of support in Europe I'm waiting for what 2019 will bring to the company. However, if I'm seeing it doing okay and the availability of the game growing a bit, I decided I will dedicate at least half of my participation in wargaming to (re)build a local community around WM/H, which is pointedly aimed at narrative play, lagues and just relaxed gaming. I don't want to wage any wars with the local competitive scenes and I'll encourage participating in both, if the interest is there, but I like this game and I want to have alternative avenues to playing it.
Also, I have the firm oppinion that yes, it is the community's "fault" that it got this competitive focused which decreases how approachable it is to new players and not competitive-minded people, which will (and already is) hamstring the scenes themselves as they are becoming more and more closed. It is bad to the company too, financially.
In PP's place, I'll leave the precise rules and the combination-based gameplay in place, but would push the fluff and casual modes of play even more and more visibly because this needs to change and while surely there are people like me out there, PP could shape this much more effectively.
Had a LONG discussion with an LGS owner on this who has been around the industry for 25 years and I disagree (and do have a fix) The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game". The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style. I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess."
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Jan 24, 2019 16:32:51 GMT
You used magic as an example of "complex chess" but you do realize there's a ton of non competitive magic formats and game types that the community themselves created and encourage. And the magic interactions is massively more complicated than anything in warmachine. So really it proves that it's more about the community than the game design itself.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Jan 24, 2019 17:13:07 GMT
I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." The "complex chess" analogy is pretty good, but it's also a big appeal of WMH (even in casual play) and what makes it stand out against other options. It's probably not a good business practice to kill off one of your game's primary selling points. Baby with the bath water and all.
But yeah, PP does want narrative play to be a thing, too. The narrative scenarios that were in the magazine speak to that, and Company of Iron seems to be aimed at that as well. Perhaps Riot Quest will also be aimed at narrative play, though we don't have many details yet other than it's supposed to a very different game.
Myself, I want a tabletop miniatures game that (1) has models I like, (2) has tactical depth, (3) is reasonably balanced, (4) has terrain I like, and (5) doesn't take too much time or practical effort to play (mental effort is a good thing). I'm a very casual player, and player resistance to 3D terrain and the time/effort involved in 75 pt games are much bigger drawbacks for me than narrative.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 17:39:43 GMT
You used magic as an example of "complex chess" but you do realize there's a ton of non competitive magic formats and game types that the community themselves created and encourage. And the magic interactions is massively more complicated than anything in warmachine. So really it proves that it's more about the community than the game design itself. I think that MtG has that because it is a BIG crowd and thus there are a critical mass of players in a variety of different playstyles. Plus marketing leadership. Remember, a key criticism I have is that for a company of the size PP is and the industry it is in mind BOGGLES that there is not a chief marketing officer.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 17:42:33 GMT
I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." The "complex chess" analogy is pretty good, but it's also a big appeal of WMH (even in casual play) and what makes it stand out against other options. It's probably not a good business practice to kill off one of your game's primary selling points. Baby with the bath water and all.
But yeah, PP does want narrative play to be a thing, too. The narrative scenarios that were in the magazine speak to that, and Company of Iron seems to be aimed at that as well. Perhaps Riot Quest will also be aimed at narrative play, though we don't have many details yet other than it's supposed to a very different game.
Myself, I want a tabletop miniatures game that (1) has models I like, (2) has tactical depth, (3) is reasonably balanced, (4) has terrain I like, and (5) doesn't take too much time or practical effort to play (mental effort is a good thing). I'm a very casual player, and player resistance to 3D terrain and the time/effort involved in 75 pt games are much bigger drawbacks for me than narrative.
I totally get that and am NOT suggesting that this is the whole sale change. But if _I_ was going to try to build a strong, casual, critical mass local meta and didn't want it to go the route of numerous other metas (shrink to the core of the complex chess crowd) I think that I would introduce those house rules........
Or maybe make every caster like Butcher 2. I think a BIG reason he is hated is not that he is necessarily "bad" - but rather that there is something viscerally disliked about the fact that a core game mechanic, for that one caster in the entire line up of more than 150, is determined by "luck".
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jan 24, 2019 17:59:08 GMT
The "complex chess" analogy is pretty good, but it's also a big appeal of WMH (even in casual play) and what makes it stand out against other options. It's probably not a good business practice to kill off one of your game's primary selling points. Baby with the bath water and all.
But yeah, PP does want narrative play to be a thing, too. The narrative scenarios that were in the magazine speak to that, and Company of Iron seems to be aimed at that as well. Perhaps Riot Quest will also be aimed at narrative play, though we don't have many details yet other than it's supposed to a very different game.
Myself, I want a tabletop miniatures game that (1) has models I like, (2) has tactical depth, (3) is reasonably balanced, (4) has terrain I like, and (5) doesn't take too much time or practical effort to play (mental effort is a good thing). I'm a very casual player, and player resistance to 3D terrain and the time/effort involved in 75 pt games are much bigger drawbacks for me than narrative.
I totally get that and am NOT suggesting that this is the whole sale change. But if _I_ was going to try to build a strong, casual, critical mass local meta and didn't want it to go the route of numerous other metas (shrink to the core of the complex chess crowd) I think that I would introduce those house rules........
Or maybe make every caster like Butcher 2. I think a BIG reason he is hated is not that he is necessarily "bad" - but rather that there is something viscerally disliked about the fact that a core game mechanic, for that one caster in the entire line up of more than 150, is determined by "luck".
This is where I think you lose the track a bit - you are suggesting turning the game into something that is by most of the playerbase currently "viscerally disliked". That makes zero sense from a business standpoint. To do so is to do exactly what you are saying you don't want to do. Alienating the current customer base is never the answer, additions need to be made, not subtractions. Moreover, this line of discussion is really unproductive. If you really care and really want to make a difference, we need to put our heads together and figure out how we as a community can become more welcoming to newer players within the framework of an unforgiving game.
|
|
pmark
Demo Gamer
Posts: 17
|
Post by pmark on Jan 24, 2019 18:01:21 GMT
Had a LONG discussion with an LGS owner on this who has been around the industry for 25 years and I disagree (and do have a fix) The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game" The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style. I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." I never understood that measuring things is a problem. All the games I ever played, or knew used templates, charge ranges, movement value, shooting ranges and all that, just like WM/H.
No, I think the main thing that makes this game appealing to the sort of person you're describing is something you mentioned (among other things, like hte high level of model interaction, aka, being combo-centered), but I don't think it's with relation to measuring distances. Namely, it's that WM is a lot less random than other games. Most of the modifiers are fixed and abilities aremostly have fixed effects. And I like it, I like that I'm playing an intellectualy stimulating game, not just yahtzee.
I played Confrontation for a while. I loved the fluff, the miniatures, but I hated how random it was. I'm recently looking into Infinity N3 and a bit afraid about rolling 1d20 for everything (though I feel it might be okay, since I can play a lot with accumulating modifiers). I hate when I feel that it's not me winning, or losing the game, but the dice. Of course, I like having epic moments, both good and bad. I wouldn't like a game totaly without randomization. Still, I prefer if I could reasonably estimate the outcome of choices I'm making.
Still, despite all that, I was always a fluff-centric person and had zero interest in competitive play.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 18:18:01 GMT
I totally get that and am NOT suggesting that this is the whole sale change. But if _I_ was going to try to build a strong, casual, critical mass local meta and didn't want it to go the route of numerous other metas (shrink to the core of the complex chess crowd) I think that I would introduce those house rules........
Or maybe make every caster like Butcher 2. I think a BIG reason he is hated is not that he is necessarily "bad" - but rather that there is something viscerally disliked about the fact that a core game mechanic, for that one caster in the entire line up of more than 150, is determined by "luck".
This is where I think you lose the track a bit - you are suggesting turning the game into something that is by most of the playerbase currently "viscerally disliked". That makes zero sense from a business standpoint. To do so is to do exactly what you are saying you don't want to do. Alienating the current customer base is never the answer, additions need to be made, not subtractions. Moreover, this line of discussion is really unproductive. If you really care and really want to make a difference, we need to put our heads together and figure out how we as a community can become more welcoming to newer players within the framework of an unforgiving game. My point is that I do not think without those changes it _CAN_ be welcoming to new players. I say that with sadness as I am heavily invested in the game and enjoy it.
But I think in the current marketplace it is simply ridiculous to think that you can going to "grow the game" when it is essentially taken as given that new players will lose their first 50 games and that, until you have played (and remembered) playing against every other caster in the game it can be a struggle unless you play an S tier caster that asks a question that allows you to play "your game" without much of a care.
I have offered another suggestion at some other point that doesn't house rule things - seeded and ranked play organized by PP through registrering players and their wins. No one likes THAT either but it is what competitive 1 v 1 sports/games do all the time. It also provides for handicapping opportunities - play way below/above you and get/accept a handicap of points.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 18:25:08 GMT
Had a LONG discussion with an LGS owner on this who has been around the industry for 25 years and I disagree (and do have a fix) The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game" The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style. I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." I never understood that measuring things is a problem. All the games I ever played, or knew used templates, charge ranges, movement value, shooting ranges and all that, just like WM/H.
No, I think the main thing that makes this game appealing to the sort of person you're describing is something you mentioned (among other things, like hte high level of model interaction, aka, being combo-centered), but I don't think it's with relation to measuring distances. Namely, it's that WM is a lot less random than other games. Most of the modifiers are fixed and abilities aremostly have fixed effects. And I like it, I like that I'm playing an intellectualy stimulating game, not just yahtzee.
I played Confrontation for a while. I loved the fluff, the miniatures, but I hated how random it was. I'm recently looking into Infinity N3 and a bit afraid about rolling 1d20 for everything (though I feel it might be okay, since I can play a lot with accumulating modifiers). I hate when I feel that it's not me winning, or losing the game, but the dice. Of course, I like having epic moments, both good and bad. I wouldn't like a game totaly without randomization. Still, I prefer if I could reasonably estimate the outcome of choices I'm making.
Still, despite all that, I was always a fluff-centric person and had zero interest in competitive play.
Not sure how to respond but I will leave it here.......
I have NEVER seen across the room at my LGS or Con a game of 40K where you have 3 guys staring intently at a laser to try to figure out whether (or not) some model does (or doesn't) have LOS to something. During WM/H it is a usual occurance and I have seen people spend 10 minutes using proxies and widgets to get models out of the way to try to determine this. I have seen people spend money (and then others follow suite) to buy 11 through 15 inch measuring sticks because 4-10 doesn't cut it and you want to be "JUST" in or out to maximize your wins.
Or perhaps this. If one is being honest about MOST metas, not only are you buying the models....but also $50 or so in flat terrain, a $15 laser site, $30-70 in widgets and measuring sticks, etc. etc. etc. Now you don't need to by that additional 150 all at the start but to play WM/H against MOSt players you will be. And then it feeds on itself....
Actually let me revise something here (but I am not sure this audience is present for these discussions because, by the very nature of being on the interweb it is self selected audience for those that want to interact with people outside the core group)......
I think WM/H _CAN_ be healthy in the sort of community that played D&D say 10 years ago - a group of pre-existing friends (or such a group with SLOW recruitment) where social norms are enforced rigorously and thus being hyper competitive IS discouraged. But even that includes some house rules - so instead of sitting for 20 minutes going to some obscure article in Dragon just roll a D20 and see what happens....or in the case of WM/H rather than sit for 10 minutes trying to figure out LOS just roll off. 1-3 it can see it; 4-6 it can't. But yes, that isn't going to appeal to those that want to use WM/H to demonstrate their "skill" more than as a vehicle for social interaction.
|
|
pmark
Demo Gamer
Posts: 17
|
Post by pmark on Jan 24, 2019 18:40:33 GMT
I never understood that measuring things is a problem. All the games I ever played, or knew used templates, charge ranges, movement value, shooting ranges and all that, just like WM/H.
No, I think the main thing that makes this game appealing to the sort of person you're describing is something you mentioned (among other things, like hte high level of model interaction, aka, being combo-centered), but I don't think it's with relation to measuring distances. Namely, it's that WM is a lot less random than other games. Most of the modifiers are fixed and abilities aremostly have fixed effects. And I like it, I like that I'm playing an intellectualy stimulating game, not just yahtzee.
I played Confrontation for a while. I loved the fluff, the miniatures, but I hated how random it was. I'm recently looking into Infinity N3 and a bit afraid about rolling 1d20 for everything (though I feel it might be okay, since I can play a lot with accumulating modifiers). I hate when I feel that it's not me winning, or losing the game, but the dice. Of course, I like having epic moments, both good and bad. I wouldn't like a game totaly without randomization. Still, I prefer if I could reasonably estimate the outcome of choices I'm making.
Still, despite all that, I was always a fluff-centric person and had zero interest in competitive play.
Not sure how to respond but I will leave it here.......
I have NEVER seen across the room at my LGS or Con a game of 40K where you have 3 guys staring intently at a laser to try to figure out whether (or not) some model does (or doesn't) have LOS to something. During WM/H it is a usual occurance and I have seen people spend 10 minutes using proxies and widgets to get models out of the way to try to determine this. I have seen people spend money (and then others follow suite) to buy 11 through 15 inch measuring sticks because 4-10 doesn't cut it and you want to be "JUST" in or out to maximize your wins.
Or perhaps this. If one is being honest about MOST metas, not only are you buying the models....but also $50 or so in flat terrain, a $15 laser site, $30-70 in widgets and measuring sticks, etc. etc. etc. Now you don't need to by that additional 150 all at the start but to play WM/H against MOSt players you will be. And then it feeds on itself....
Actually let me revise something here (but I am not sure this audience is present for these discussions because, by the very nature of being on the interweb it is self selected audience for those that want to interact with people outside the core group)......
I think WM/H _CAN_ be healthy in the sort of community that played D&D say 10 years ago - a group of pre-existing friends (or such a group with SLOW recruitment) where social norms are enforced rigorously and thus being hyper competitive IS discouraged. But even that includes some house rules - so instead of sitting for 20 minutes going to some obscure article in Dragon just roll a D20 and see what happens....or in the case of WM/H rather than sit for 10 minutes trying to figure out LOS just roll off. 1-3 it can see it; 4-6 it can't. But yes, that isn't going to appeal to those that want to use WM/H to demonstrate their "skill" more than as a vehicle for social interaction.
I get the phenomenon but I don't get how the rules themselves are the cause of that? Other games have LOS rules too, just as the need for checking distances, templates, etc.
No, I think it's a bit of a reverse. The game has many aspects that make it appealing to competitive players. Measuring is not one of them, IMO. However, measuring and LOS are things competitive people could argue to no end, if they see a match's outcome depending on it.
Terrain, IMO, is like that too. Every game has terrain, every one of them has rules for using it, have rules for being within a certain terrain, or not, etc. Nothing in the WM rules indicate the need for 2d terrain. We played fine with normal 3d terrain, in fact, I'd refuse to play with 2d. It's just, 2d is easier on the tournament organizer and it's better for the competitive crowd, but ot because WM somehow does the measuring more precisely than other games, because I don't think it does. It's the players, who want to do the measuring hyper-precisely.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jan 24, 2019 18:42:28 GMT
This is where I think you lose the track a bit - you are suggesting turning the game into something that is by most of the playerbase currently "viscerally disliked". That makes zero sense from a business standpoint. To do so is to do exactly what you are saying you don't want to do. Alienating the current customer base is never the answer, additions need to be made, not subtractions. Moreover, this line of discussion is really unproductive. If you really care and really want to make a difference, we need to put our heads together and figure out how we as a community can become more welcoming to newer players within the framework of an unforgiving game. My point is that I do not think without those changes it _CAN_ be welcoming to new players. I say that with sadness as I am heavily invested in the game and enjoy it.
But I think in the current marketplace it is simply ridiculous to think that you can going to "grow the game" when it is essentially taken as given that new players will lose their first 50 games and that, until you have played (and remembered) playing against every other caster in the game it can be a struggle unless you play an S tier caster that asks a question that allows you to play "your game" without much of a care.
I have offered another suggestion at some other point that doesn't house rule things - seeded and ranked play organized by PP through registrering players and their wins. No one likes THAT either but it is what competitive 1 v 1 sports/games do all the time. It also provides for handicapping opportunities - play way below/above you and get/accept a handicap of points.
With respect and as much love as I can give to a member of my same community that I have never met: this sort of passive defeatism is what will kill the meta. Everything you are saying here is mitigated or completely nullified by the people in the area if they recognize that THEY, not PP, are responsible for the community in their area. Play nice. Play kind. Come along side new players and mentor them. Have community building events. Have new players play new players. PP can't do any of that for you. Your community is in your control - if you are willing to take it. And if not, that's also fine. Find someone who is and support them, because it is hard work building this up.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 24, 2019 18:56:40 GMT
The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game". The funny part here is that for the longest time WM/H closest competitor wasn't even 40k, it was X-Wing. Which came pre-packaged with flat terrain, movement templates and measuring sticks, and I'm even sure players use lasers to draw LOS for each ship's firing arc. That game had a very robust OP system around it, with Store Championships feeding into Regionals, that fed into Worlds. People played it very chess like while still leaving room for casuals at the shop. I suspect that SW license and the low model count account for most of that though, because that game was probably as deep as any miniature game out there. I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." Oddly enough, Narrative campaigns are really fun because of the wacky homebrew rules, I really enjoy a good Campaign, and would stab someone if PP would just published a generic campaign system for WM/H
|
|