crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Jun 27, 2019 18:17:30 GMT
Except, everyone would just play that, as they always have. I've found that when new versions are released for games, prior to and just after the release there is talk like "I'm not switching" or "rules for version X-1 are better, I will always play that", etc, . . . and yet after a short amount of time the new version is the standard for the majority. Maybe those people end up quitting as well, not willing to make the change. Just to say, in my experience, holdouts never last long for one reason or another. If "Standard" is the defacto event, most games will be in that format (with friendly games or special events sometimes using the open format) Telling you right now I’d be out as soon as they dropped dwarves. They’re the only reason I’m still in. Also I dropped magic pretty much as soon as all my friends started playing standard only because it wasn’t worth the investment. Warmachine would have to have a pretty special way of dealing with things to get me to stick around, and I don’t feel like I’d be alone in that.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jun 28, 2019 6:25:49 GMT
I've found that when new versions are released for games, prior to and just after the release there is talk like "I'm not switching" or "rules for version X-1 are better, I will always play that", etc, . . . and yet after a short amount of time the new version is the standard for the majority. Maybe those people end up quitting as well, not willing to make the change. Just to say, in my experience, holdouts never last long for one reason or another. If "Standard" is the defacto event, most games will be in that format (with friendly games or special events sometimes using the open format) For new versions of a game, I agree, but not for "alternate formats". For the longest time, timed turns was the official standard and death clock was the variant. The community adopted death clock and eventually it became the SR standard as well. Champions used to have a painting requirement, but PP saw attendance drop because of it, so they changed it. Unless the officials stance would be to drop a bunch of models in a new version (and I think this would be bad; it would piss off a lot of people), then maybe it would get adopted. With a "Standard" and "Legacy" format, loads of tournaments would just play Legacy, just like with Champions vs SR today.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jun 28, 2019 18:52:15 GMT
I've found that when new versions are released for games, prior to and just after the release there is talk like "I'm not switching" or "rules for version X-1 are better, I will always play that", etc, . . . and yet after a short amount of time the new version is the standard for the majority. Maybe those people end up quitting as well, not willing to make the change. Just to say, in my experience, holdouts never last long for one reason or another. If "Standard" is the defacto event, most games will be in that format (with friendly games or special events sometimes using the open format) Telling you right now I’d be out as soon as they dropped dwarves. They’re the only reason I’m still in. Also I dropped magic pretty much as soon as all my friends started playing standard only because it wasn’t worth the investment. Warmachine would have to have a pretty special way of dealing with things to get me to stick around, and I don’t feel like I’d be alone in that. But are you in the minority or the majority? Everyone understand there will be holdouts that won't buy-in to the new format, and that is perfectly fine. Wizards decided it would be in their best interests to move forward with Type-2, and it payed off. PP is not at that point yet, but there are indications that the game is starting to strain at the seams.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Jun 29, 2019 4:18:40 GMT
They really should just make a very narrow format and do that. Hell, half of the time, if you look at the MOAR STEAMROLLERZ events, its the same 4 or 5 warlocks or warcasters from each faction seeing play anyway, save for the odd occurrence where someone is being cheeky. I mean, sure, there are always people who play whatever but for the most part, I think there is a pretty good reason why we always see the same models in the top slots.
Now that PP has had ample time to sell the hell out of those models, they should rotate them out. I for one think it would be amazing to have a format that rotates where the top 10% or so of models used for each faction get rotated out. It might change things up. Sure, stuff like the choir, and the Kriel stone may end up getting rotated out, and maybe that would have to be looked at. maybe just the warnouns, or just the battlegroup, or both, but something like that would really break things up.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 29, 2019 8:28:48 GMT
One would have to be a Champion or something to handle a game setup like that...
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 29, 2019 22:37:27 GMT
Standard Formats are about rotating shit out. Stuff that gets long in the tooth, or that limits design. And of course there's always room for rotating stuff back in after a time. But that's the thing, it takes more than 6 months to establish a healthy Standard meta. Magic The Gathering rotates stuff every year, practically every block. Fantasy Flights LCGs are in a slower 2 year rotation, and they even have ever green "Core" elements that never rotate out. They have even implemented a rotation for X-Wing with 2.0 release. I think a 3 to 4 year rotation for a Miniatures game is a pretty good span of time. If I were in charge I would do something like this: Year 0: Publish Warmachine and Hordes Mk 4 with Prime units that never rotate out, things like Choir, Stones, Runebearers, etc. These are your faction defining models. Year 1: Release a classic style Anthology Book with new stuff for all factions. Year 2 - 4: Release more Anthology Books. Year 5: When the new Anthology Book release, stuff from Year 1 become Legacy and is droped from Standard. Maybe even consider droping a Mk5 here. Year 6: Same as 5 but for Year 2 models now. Good luck getting players to drop hundreds of dollars on models that are going to rotate out of 'standard' in a few years? MTG often retains value, or can be resold for a similar value if you pick the right time to do it. WMH cannot. MTG is a HUGE community, and can offer tournaments with prizes that actually make it financially 'worth it' to play magic professionally. WMH does not. I know I darn well would think long and hard about buying new models if they were going to become non-viable in a few years. ESPECIALLY given the cost of buying into this game.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 29, 2019 22:55:36 GMT
Good luck getting players to drop hundreds of dollars on models that are going to rotate out of 'standard' in a few years? MTG often retains value, or can be resold for a similar value if you pick the right time to do it. WMH cannot. MTG is a HUGE community, and can offer tournaments with prizes that actually make it financially 'worth it' to play magic professionally. WMH does not. I know I darn well would think long and hard about buying new models if they were going to become non-viable in a few years. ESPECIALLY given the cost of buying into this game. GW does this all the time. It's called, "releasing a codex," or "releasing a new edition".
Sure, most of the time it's not overt, like, "these models are not longer here" (though, that happens with a lot of Characters), it's just, "we've sold enough, so let's make them absolutely garbage."
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Jun 30, 2019 0:24:18 GMT
But are you in the minority or the majority? Everyone understand there will be holdouts that won't buy-in to the new format, and that is perfectly fine. Wizards decided it would be in their best interests to move forward with Type-2, and it payed off. PP is not at that point yet, but there are indications that the game is starting to strain at the seams. True, I may not be I do know that my father would probably be out, I would be out, and I have a feeling 1 maybe two others in my meta would be out... so... our group of 6 goes to 2-3? I mean, sure might not be bad in larger areas... but it'd pretty much kill my meta I'm pretty sure. However even one meta does not a company break I'll admit, and if it did prove to improve the game and they survived the death of the little metas then they might recover in a couple years and actually be good to go.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 30, 2019 1:09:51 GMT
Good luck getting players to drop hundreds of dollars on models that are going to rotate out of 'standard' in a few years? MTG often retains value, or can be resold for a similar value if you pick the right time to do it. WMH cannot. MTG is a HUGE community, and can offer tournaments with prizes that actually make it financially 'worth it' to play magic professionally. WMH does not. I know I darn well would think long and hard about buying new models if they were going to become non-viable in a few years. ESPECIALLY given the cost of buying into this game. GW does this all the time. It's called, "releasing a codex," or "releasing a new edition".
Sure, most of the time it's not overt, like, "these models are not longer here" (though, that happens with a lot of Characters), it's just, "we've sold enough, so let's make them absolutely garbage."
Notice that I am here, playing WMH, not playing GW games?
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Jun 30, 2019 2:01:04 GMT
GW does this all the time. It's called, "releasing a codex," or "releasing a new edition".
Sure, most of the time it's not overt, like, "these models are not longer here" (though, that happens with a lot of Characters), it's just, "we've sold enough, so let's make them absolutely garbage."
Notice that I am here, playing WMH, not playing GW games? To be fair, I don't think GW would be around anymore if the ONLY thing they had going on was wfb and they pulled the age of sigmar thing. I think they would have slit their own throats. Incidentally i expect Paizo is going to have to scramble like crazy or will be tanking themselves over a similar business decision.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 30, 2019 2:48:42 GMT
Notice that I am here, playing WMH, not playing GW games? To be fair, I don't think GW would be around anymore if the ONLY thing they had going on was wfb and they pulled the age of sigmar thing. I think they would have slit their own throats. Incidentally i expect Paizo is going to have to scramble like crazy or will be tanking themselves over a similar business decision. While true, WHFB 8th was pretty much diving in to the dumpster barrel, and then GW dropped 40K down in to the barrel when they released the Gladius detachment. AoS was at least a test (not a well formatted one, but it was the first time these developers had tried dumbing down instead of ramping up rule complexity), because it targeted a game that was already failing, and it improved the chances of GW to pull 40K out of its downward spiral.
As it is, they made the corrections AoS needed to survive, and then took those learned lessons and applied them to 40K. With those changes a lot of people went back to it, many never having gotten rid of their GW stash in the first place.
I dropped GW when they released an FAQ which would cause more arguments by me over their rules than they solved, because of how they chose to address the arguments. They didn't errata the rules, they just made an FAQ. Since they didn't change the actual rules, it makes it more of the rules say one thing, but we suggest you ignore that and play it this way other way, even though it is a complete contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jul 7, 2019 21:58:32 GMT
To be fair, I don't think GW would be around anymore if the ONLY thing they had going on was wfb and they pulled the age of sigmar thing. I think they would have slit their own throats. Incidentally i expect Paizo is going to have to scramble like crazy or will be tanking themselves over a similar business decision. While true, WHFB 8th was pretty much diving in to the dumpster barrel, and then GW dropped 40K down in to the barrel when they released the Gladius detachment. AoS was at least a test (not a well formatted one, but it was the first time these developers had tried dumbing down instead of ramping up rule complexity), because it targeted a game that was already failing, and it improved the chances of GW to pull 40K out of its downward spiral.
As it is, they made the corrections AoS needed to survive, and then took those learned lessons and applied them to 40K. With those changes a lot of people went back to it, many never having gotten rid of their GW stash in the first place.
I dropped GW when they released an FAQ which would cause more arguments by me over their rules than they solved, because of how they chose to address the arguments. They didn't errata the rules, they just made an FAQ. Since they didn't change the actual rules, it makes it more of the rules say one thing, but we suggest you ignore that and play it this way other way, even though it is a complete contradiction.
While I can agree to a point, don't forget AoS costed GW Ceo his job (and probably few others too). The plan was probably just that but it was done with old-GW style and ended initially with a catastrophe.
|
|