Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They've still got some benefits; their boardgames and RPG have done well. Monster Apoc is also doing well even outside of the Boardgame version problems. Heck the fact that it funded so well shows that there's an active market.

PP are not a total disaster, they are just in a very big problem spot with what was one their biggest single core earner and game. The thing that put them on the map - Warmachine and Hordes.


They could still abandon the wargame and just do RPG models for their RPG system; they could pull back and focus on boardgames and Monster Apoc. Heck there'd even be a logical argument that they should cut Warmachine and Hordes entirely and focus on their revenue streams that are working and that don't require a huge investment to get working again.

One approach could be to cut dead-weight entirely and focus their resources on their good lines. Build strength and then take Warmachine out of storage in 5 years time and start over.



It's one approach and the fact that they've not done it suggests that they both love the setting they made and also still see it financially viable right now .

 Overread wrote:
Sad news - PP are ending production of ALL classic Warmachine and Hordes models end of this week

https://home.privateerpress.com/2023/06/13/legacy-model-production-ending

Sad news, but probably a very wise decision for a company with limited manufacturing capacity.

I'm not a Warmachine Player, but I just picked up the big Dwarf Walker/Tank thing half off directly from their website.

Question did those who might know more. Looks like allot of plastic kits that are less than a decade old are going out of production. Why is that?

Seems unwise to retire relatively recent products (presumably among you're best?)that also represent your biggest tooling costs.

 Eilif wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Sad news - PP are ending production of ALL classic Warmachine and Hordes models end of this week

https://home.privateerpress.com/2023/06/13/legacy-model-production-ending

Sad news, but probably a very wise decision for a company with limited manufacturing capacity.

I'm not a Warmachine Player, but I just picked up the big Dwarf Walker/Tank thing half off directly from their website.

Question did those who might know more. Looks like allot of plastic kits that are less than a decade old are going out of production. Why is that?

Seems unwise to retire relatively recent products (presumably among you're best?)that also represent your biggest tooling costs.

Plastic was basically one of the big pitfalls they fell into. I know around MKII-III when it started coming out it wasn't all that popular. At least compared to metal/resin. Then on top of that I understand that they had issues with the factory in china even up to having their moulds "held ransom" and such (when your factory is half a world away it creates issues of its own).

On top of that they've long had an issue shipping stuff overseas and I figure they've either burned bridges or just not got the volume to make it practical - hence another reason they've pushed for the 3d printing angle where they can setpu local print hubs. I figure that they are simply retiring that whole side of production in one big go. They want local production hubs and direct control over production and they've chosen 3D printing as their future for warmachine for now.

It's a shame, but I just don't think they've got the resources not popularity to push into things like Siocast or other plastic productions that others are messing with right now. PP need to basically regrow to get back to that stage.

@Overread
Thanks for that. Makes sense that if for PP, plastic kits were seen as a liability that they might be retired.

I buy 3d printed figures, but If I'm going to put down premium game money, I always prefer plastic or metal. Not that my preference matters though as the Warmachine customer/player (whatever that is) is definitely not me.

Very glad to have this Dwarf tank walker kit though. Haven't started assembly yet, but it looks cleanly done. Also got a sweet 2 headed dog figure.

Don't forget aside from a later few HIPS kits(newbehemoth, grolar etc) the pp plastic/resin/restic was almost uniformly regarded as being awful in terms of quality.

I'm still.picking up bits for thr game ('modern' ununits like trenchers and winter guard) and will specifically go for metal.over plastic every time.

PP fell into the PVC trap of the late 2000's. Basically the same thing that turned so many kickstarters into a disaster. Incredible value on production costs based on masters that's quality didn't measure up when put into real production and with delivery times that didn't come close to what was originally promised. Honestly, its not a huge downgrade and works fine for bulky stuff like Trolls, but it was putting them behind on quality, particularly on things that should be a centerpiece like the jacks.

I don't think HIPS has ever been a real solution for them. Even if they could afford it, their "skipped leg day" art style and love of fur and musculature has never been great for the material. GW is one of the few companies that can make it work, but even then lean towards lankier builds than what PP is known for.

Resin was kind of a perfect solution to the quality problem and really, to this day their resins are some of my the best cast models I own. The problem is that a resin model isn't THAT much more expensive, but a 5 man.... 10 man unit of them gets absolutely ridiculous and they quickly priced themselves out of the size their game had grown to, especially for new players.

That all ties into manufacturing technology, methodology, economies of scale, etc. The tech to do low volume production for really small games is there, the tech to do high volume production for really big games is there, but the tech for "in between" where you're too big to do resin/metal, but too small for plastic injection really isn't there. Like there are options, but PVC and Siocast have a lot of issues that make the quality inferior to whats achievable in HIPS or Resin, 3D printing isn't mature enough a technology IMO for it to be viable yet for that scale, lower cost injection molds (ceramic, aluminum etc.) are still pretty expensive and have limitations into whats achievable, etc.

Basically, in the current market, any company/game that isn't well capitalized risks becoming a victim of its own success as it grows out of the "low volume" bracket if it isn't able to find a way to successfully transition into the "high volume" bracket, thats where PP stumbled and fell. The size of the "in between" bracket between those two is fairly large (though getting smaller), so its not an easy transition to make and a lot of stars need to align for you in terms of market conditions, available finances, etc. in order to make it happen. I suspect thats a big part of why there really isn't a direct competitor to GW, because bridging that gap and scaling up is expensive and difficult, GW managed to do it successfully because they were at the right place at the right time with the right people to make it happen and survive the internal turmoil and changes in business model that scaling up entailed for them. As Elongated Muskrat would say "space is hard", and nobody has yet managed to pull off that same feat - PP included. The only games/companies that come closer are under the Asmodee umbrella, but the best (indirect) analysis the industry has been able to come up with on those sales figures indicates that none of those games come even remotely close to what 40k manages in a given year.

 Overread wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Warcaster didn't take off in a big way and has been even quieter with news than Warmachine has (a sad thing, but Warcaster was impressive in coming out during Covid without many issues and yet it just never got any traction)

Which is a shame because it’s a pretty great game. Very dynamic play and quite different from Warmachine/Warhammer.

Honestly I'm shocked they didn't port some of the ideas into Warmachine. The biggest problem skirmish games have is having niche models that never see table time as you make the armies bigger. Warcasters living sideboard during games is a fantastic way to allow you to build an army that includes niche and situational models that might only see the table now and then, without crippling your army. That it also allows you to bring dead units back to the table to use again also opens up a whole avenue of options and sacrificial tactics that regular wargames, again, often outright shun (because you often win on kills).

I thought it was a very smart system that included a lot of great ideas and its a huge shame it hasn't taken off. Personally I think its stuck as PP doesn't want to market nor sell metal models any more but they've not put that game onto the 3D print production system. So they just aren't doing anything with it - which coupled to PP's very quiet marketing means its deadin the water.

A living side board makes games pay to win. Makifaux got the same accusations when they let you list build after scenario was selected. You had to buy almost your whole faction and lug it around if you wanted to be competitive. You're basically carrying a full 40k army so you can use a squad. And those models are often premium price because its a skirmish game

Yo7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Warcaster didn't take off in a big way and has been even quieter with news than Warmachine has (a sad thing, but Warcaster was impressive in coming out during Covid without many issues and yet it just never got any traction)

Which is a shame because it’s a pretty great game. Very dynamic play and quite different from Warmachine/Warhammer.

Honestly I'm shocked they didn't port some of the ideas into Warmachine. The biggest problem skirmish games have is having niche models that never see table time as you make the armies bigger. Warcasters living sideboard during games is a fantastic way to allow you to build an army that includes niche and situational models that might only see the table now and then, without crippling your army. That it also allows you to bring dead units back to the table to use again also opens up a whole avenue of options and sacrificial tactics that regular wargames, again, often outright shun (because you often win on kills).

I thought it was a very smart system that included a lot of great ideas and its a huge shame it hasn't taken off. Personally I think its stuck as PP doesn't want to market nor sell metal models any more but they've not put that game onto the 3D print production system. So they just aren't doing anything with it - which coupled to PP's very quiet marketing means its deadin the water.

A living side board makes games pay to win. Makifaux got the same accusations when they let you list build after scenario was selected. You had to buy almost your whole faction and lug it around if you wanted to be competitive. You're basically carrying a full 40k army so you can use a squad. And those models are often premium price because its a skirmish game

Arguably no more than any other wargame is "pay to win".
The Sideboard isn't infinite in scope so you are still building a limited pool of models. It just allows you to have more models in the sideboard than you might use in any one battle, which means you've space to put situational models into the force not just the most generalist high performers.

It only becomes a "pay to win" if the balance of the core game is really bad; or if the sideboard has no functional/practical limit.

Also you can kind of argue that any wargame is pay to win in that you have to buy models to compete and certain models are going to be good in each army. Again this is not really an issue with the idea of a game, its purely down to how well the game is balanced out and if the designers are openly designing it so that only high cost, high value models are worth taking.

A living side board makes games pay to win. Makifaux got the same accusations when they let you list build after scenario was selected. You had to buy almost your whole faction and lug it around if you wanted to be competitive.

As a huge Malifaux player, this is not how it really works. You declare your faction but then roll up (draw for) you whole strat, deployment and schemes prior to selecting your actual crew. So this reduces the number of "null games" where you turn up to find your selected force has no chance in that scenario, because the game is hugely scenario based. In most friendly local games the general accepted convention is that you selected for ahead of time and sent to the opponent using the Malifaux app so you turn up at the table with your crew. For big comps, yes people are bringing quite a few models but its normally small packages of models that work well with each other and you use them a you see fit.

You're basically carrying a full 40k army so you can use a squad. And those models are often premium price because its a skirmish game

I can see why you might think that from outside the game looking in but this is an overstatement. As I alluded to above. The most I have carried to a competition in the UK has been 20 models and that's about normal. Its a small box of models. Compare that to the number of models you take to a 2 list SR?

Theres a bit of a difference between buying an army and having to buy every model in a faction to compete. You can always buy a strong army in any game but its expected to perform a general set of scenarios. Having specific models excel at some scenarios and then list building after scenario is picked is such a huge advantage its in a different league. You're literally paying to have more advantages in more situations. Which is generally not how a traditional list set up works.

Yo7 wrote:
Theres a bit of a difference between buying an army and having to buy every model in a faction to compete. You can always buy a strong army in any game but its expected to perform a general set of scenarios. Having specific models excel at some scenarios and then list building after scenario is picked is such a huge advantage its in a different league. You're literally paying to have more advantages in more situations. Which is generally not how a traditional list set up works.

Honestly I think you're splitting hairs.

Building any army in any game is going to involve spending money unless someone gifts you an army for free.
Your opponent is also the very same, they are paying for their army.


Both sides have paid for their armies and put them on the table.
At no point is one side favoured for spending more money than the other. Living sideboards have unit limits as well, just like building a regular army. The only difference is that you're spending money for a larger collection of models than you might use in any one game. For a vast number of wargamers this is a bonus because it means that you are not just restricted to the most statistically common good performing models to use; you can go wild with niche and situational models that sometimes never see the light of day outside of casual games or specific pre-arranged matches and such.

You don't pay more money than your opponent to gain battle advantage; which is basically the hallmark of the "pay to win" concept. Pay to Win is mostly a concept for video games in the "free to play" market where a free player and paying player can have very different in-game stats because the paying player can pay for better weapons, better ammo, better boosters or whatever. This gives them an in-game advantage over their free-to-play opponent. Often this advantage can indeed mean that the paying player has an easier time winning - ergo they are paying to win.


In a wargame, with our without a sideboard, this isn't really a thing; its just part and parcel of the hobby in general.
It's not even like collectable card games where you are at the mercy of either random pack draws or buying limited production/access cards at inflated prices.

It is a hair worth splitting, though.

If the game needs two sets of models (your main army, and your side board), someone who was sold on "Oh, you only need the one army to play" and then goes out and sees people playing with side boards (more expensive) is going to have questions. "Oh, sure you can play with just your army. Don't mind the fact that paying for the extra side board will give you an actual chance in the game..." isn't really going to help.

For what it's worth, I also play Malifaux, and it's amazing how much resentment that you don't have fixed lists and instead can choose entirely different selections of models between games can stir up in people expecting to just "buy an army" and be done. But being able to buy all of the models for a faction and use any of them that you want doesn't buy you a win because
- A lot of the models are situational, and it's not usually obvious which are better than others in various situations
- A lot of the models are about same effectiveness as the other models, so you're not really buying any benefit if you own all of them

Sideboards or being able to choose specific models for specific scenarios or opponents means a bigger collection of models is more effective than a smaller collection of models. But "pay to win" would mean that the person with the most models win, and the person with the biggest collection doesn't win. The person who uses their collection best wins.

Sunno wrote:

I can see why you might think that from outside the game looking in but this is an overstatement. As I alluded to above. The most I have carried to a competition in the UK has been 20 models and that's about normal. Its a small box of models. Compare that to the number of models you take to a 2 list SR?

It's long been a perception problem for Malifaux. The ability to take anything from the faction in any game leaves outside players with the impression that there is an advantage to having the option to do so. It takes a lot of games to appreciate that every model has so many options that its more important to take stuff you know how to use effectively than any sort of "best" list for the scenario. I think M3E's keyword focus has been a huge help, though I wouldn't mind a few more limits to make it clear how much you can just focus on a master or two rather than an entire faction.

You can call it pay to win, pay for advantage or whatever you want but it means the same thing. The more you spend the higher chance of having a package to make the game easier to win for you. If someone buys two box sets they're less likely to have the models best suited to a scenario as opposed to someone who buys ten. It doesn't mean they auto win by owning more models but it is undeniably an advantage.

In theory its an advantage, but in practice its really not. The reason you get this sentiment from Malifaux players is that most of us have bought a ton of stuff feeling that need, only to realize you don't actually use a lot of it or get any real benefit from doing so. It ends up being as much about having the "right" models as any other game system, though thankfully in M3E its not nearly as eclectic as it was in M2E and you can accomplish a lot more by focusing on specific masters.

Yo7 wrote:
You can call it pay to win, pay for advantage or whatever you want but it means the same thing. The more you spend the higher chance of having a package to make the game easier to win for you. If someone buys two box sets they're less likely to have the models best suited to a scenario as opposed to someone who buys ten. It doesn't mean they auto win by owning more models but it is undeniably an advantage.

Thing is that's kind of the same for every single wargame. Different situations and different opponents will benefit different army compositions. The player who has 1 army composition only is always going to suffer to a degree compared to the player who has more options. Heck if you take the same army to game every week your opponents will eventually build perfected counter-armies to your theme. Even if they aren't "power gaming" they will often err toward things that do better and use more of them etc....

This is just part and parcel of wargames unless you go approach it like chess where you've two predefined set armies within the rules. Ergo no army building phase

I totally agree with that, I also understand why the way Malifaux does it "feels" different to people.

 Overread wrote:

Yo7 wrote:
You can call it pay to win, pay for advantage or whatever you want but it means the same thing. The more you spend the higher chance of having a package to make the game easier to win for you. If someone buys two box sets they're less likely to have the models best suited to a scenario as opposed to someone who buys ten. It doesn't mean they auto win by owning more models but it is undeniably an advantage.

Thing is that's kind of the same for every single wargame. Different situations and different opponents will benefit different army compositions. The player who has 1 army composition only is always going to suffer to a degree compared to the player who has more options. Heck if you take the same army to game every week your opponents will eventually build perfected counter-armies to your theme. Even if they aren't "power gaming" they will often err toward things that do better and use more of them etc....

This is just part and parcel of wargames unless you go approach it like chess where you've two predefined set armies within the rules. Ergo no army building phase

There's a world of difference between army evolution and having more options to make your list from being part of the design

Sadly I don't think MKIV did much of anything to help Privateer Press as the company doesn't look to be doing very well. I have certainly been both negative and critical of MKIII since its release, but I was really hoping that MKIV would have been more successful to bring back the game into the mainstream since I brought up in past forums here on Dakka that PP needed to drop MKIII and completely overhaul the game for it to survive long term.

Youtube shows very little activity of either people posting battle reports or people watching them, with most BRs generating 1.5k views if they are lucky. Contrast that with a new game like Shatterpoint that gets considerably more videos made with views being 5k-20k on average. Internet forums don't seem to have changed much either with some threads here and there on Reddit or Dakka being made and only gaining minimal passing interest.

Locally here in East MD nothing at all has changed. Stores that used to run Warmachine events at least once a month still have 0 interest in MKIV with 0 local players trying to bring back the game. My personal group still have our collections which don't include any armies that will be supported in MKIV and we already have our own house ruled version of MKII that we can play when we want. MKIV just simply doesn't provide anything we need from a price, ruleset, miniature, or lore point of view. It just fails on every metric we would use to decide if we want to buy into new product.

IMHO even though MKIV changed a decent amount of rules in an attempt to seperate itself from MKIII it wasn't enough.
Jack Customization
No Facings or Free Strikes
Unit Movement
Terrain and Elevation
Command Cards
Spell Racks
Themes finally dead
and some others

My point on it is that these are all really just modifications to MKIII which was really just modifications to MKII which can make MKIV feel like MKII.75 from the outside looking in.
What I think the game really needed was a complete redesign from the ground up, changing everything about the game including the stats on the models, the health/damage system, dropping steam roller and redesigning how missions work. Make it look and feel like a whole new game just like AOS was to Fantasy.
However, I would have also kept more of the old factions while dropping their old ranges and starting with fresh sculpts.

What we have now is people with MKIII armies that have no incentive to switch to MKIV with a too similar ruleset to drop their current armies and buy all new factions for a game that mostly plays the same as it has since 2015. People that got off the MKIII train are not seeing enough changes to Warmachine to come back and give it another try. Or more likely its just been too long and those players who quit in early MKIII have moved on and are not interested in returning. And new potential players just are not seeing the game at all due to lack of store and community support.

PP missed the window to release MKIV in 2018-2019 when they still had a community of players willing to give them a chance to fix the issues with MKIII. GamesWorkshop took just 2 years to drop 6th edition and release 7th while PP sat on the failed MKIII for 6 years. This turned out to be a devastating mistake for the game and the company.

Ultimately PP is still a private company and will probably just continue to shrink over the next 5 years until they have just a dozen or so employees. If the owners wanted to sell for profit, they missed that window by years. They already discontinued their larger production and moved everything in house with resin printers to cut costs as much as possible.

Also interestingly if you go to Glassdoor you can see plenty of reviews from 2019-2022 of people leaving and reporting just how bad a state PP was in even back then. While its certainly possible PP could turn things around, their other game systems have not gained much traction with the exception of Monsterpocalypse.

I quite like Mk4, but the total lack of product for it has left it pretty DOA. There was a fair amount of hype this time last year, but none of that has turned into a tangible game. The Legacy updates are great, but with the new armies failing to materialize, the ability to attract new players with the more accessible rules is pretty lost and even old players have largely been left waiting for the game to feel like its actually out.

By simplifying it for a broader audience it also lost its appeal to the more hard-core players. Its identity was tied to being a tighter, more serious game than warhammer. By removing core identity like fixed warcasters and free strikes you lost what made it different to warhammer. Being fixed models was part of its appeal and now its far closer to warhammer so its less its own unique market appeal

At the same time chasing that goal is been part of what has reinforced some of the dwindling market aspects of their game.

Chasing hyper competitive player resulted in a club atmosphere, impression and rules system that was not as friendly toward newbies.

The market is also very different now as you don't have a legion of experienced gamers screaming for a game and having no outlet. They have multiple outlets.


I think changing some aspects to make MKIV more casual friendly was a correct move. Perhaps they went too far on a few areas, but in general I think it was a right move to try and attract as broad a spectrum of new gamers as possible. Not going for a niche that isn't really there as easily any more; and instead going for generalist.

The issue is they also managed to gut more of their existing fans by gutting armies en-mass; gutted their Hordes market almost entirely by putting those armies way further down the release schedule. Then they also just haven't made enough waves in marketing.

They aren't appearing regularly in painting videos; nor gaming videos; they aren't appearing on Beasts of War regularly nor other sites. PP needed to not only get product out the door, not only get new product out the door but also maximise their exposure and marketing.
Again since MKIV the noise from them has dwindled; there just doesn't seem to be the hype/energy/money behind it to really push things forward out of the market they already have.


Honestly I wonder if one issue is that they were hoping for a big Monster Apoc surge of sales off the back of the Kickstarter that is now floundering and falling apart (not PP's fault). Income that they could use to keep Monster Apoc in the limelight but also then funnel into more investment for Warmachine as well.

I think at the moment their focus has been on cutting out most of their production facilities to move to 3D printing. I think the MonPoc KS was mostly about finding a way to make the game available without having to handle the production, particularly since I'd not be surprised to learn they're trying to get away not producing other components like dice and maps and such.

To be fair dice, maps, cardstock, books, manuals and such are often outsourced, even GW outsources all that material.

Yo7 wrote:
By simplifying it for a broader audience it also lost its appeal to the more hard-core players. Its identity was tied to being a tighter, more serious game than warhammer.

Appealing to a small % of the tournament crowd is exactly how WM got ugly looking tables of 2D terrain and arguments on measurements down the MM which was certainly a contributing factor to the exodus of MKIII.

 Overread wrote:
The issue is they also managed to gut more of their existing fans by gutting armies en-mass; gutted their Hordes market almost entirely by putting those armies way further down the release schedule. Then they also just haven't made enough waves in marketing.

They aren't appearing regularly in painting videos; nor gaming videos; they aren't appearing on Beasts of War regularly nor other sites. PP needed to not only get product out the door, not only get new product out the door but also maximise their exposure and marketing.
Again since MKIV the noise from them has dwindled; there just doesn't seem to be the hype/energy/money behind it to really push things forward out of the market they already have.

While I still hold my position that MKIV was too little, too late and not enough changes to save the game, I also agree that if MKIV had a chance of being a moderate success then gutting their hordes product line and having a poor online market presence sealed the fate of MKIV.

I think if Dusk was on shelves right now and Brineblood was set to go on sale at GenCon I'd feel very different about it. Instead they've been adding a month to the schedule every month to the point where the promised March releases are now finally available and the idea of Trolls releasing this year seems dubious at best. I played against real Dusk models last December, but it amounts to nothing if 8 months later their starter box doesn't even have a reliable release date.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can't even imagine what a mess this has to be for retailers still willing to carry their products. There's thousands of dollars in SKUs available to pre-order but the dates on them have zero reliability. I'd have a HARD time taking anyone's money and tracking the order long enough to deliver the product whenever it might arrive.

 LunarSol wrote:

I can't even imagine what a mess this has to be for retailers still willing to carry their products. There's thousands of dollars in SKUs available to pre-order but the dates on them have zero reliability. I'd have a HARD time taking anyone's money and tracking the order long enough to deliver the product whenever it might arrive.

And it's been hard to get any local retailers to carry their products at all. The one closest to me, and the largest in the area won't even touch Privateer Press models any more, even MonPoc. Too many were burned during Mk III, and it left a bad taste.

The owner of the second largest shop in the area was on good terms with the creators of Privateer Press, as he used to play Warhammer with them, but last I heard even he isn't carrying much, if anything at all. I haven't had a chance to nip down there for a while, and they are having a Merc Market at the end of next month. Maybe I'll check them out and see what's up. But if I do, it will be because I'm trying to unload everything of my Warmachine collection that isn't a Mk III Starter box.

 Noir Eternal wrote:


Youtube shows very little activity of either people posting battle reports or people watching them, with most BRs generating 1.5k views if they are lucky. Contrast that with a new game like Shatterpoint that gets considerably more videos made with views being 5k-20k on average. Internet forums don't seem to have changed much either with some threads here and there on Reddit or Dakka being made and only gaining minimal passing interest.

This is an unfair comparison because 1. Shatterpoint is a brand new game and 2. It has the magical words: Star Wars.

How does Warmachine compares to games like Bolt Action, Saga, Dropzone Commander, Mythic Americas, Kings of War, Conquest, Infinity, Moonstone, Bushido or Malifaux? Do they have significantly more views? Are these games dead, too?

Also, you complain that WM did not change enough, others complain that MK4 changed too much.

In Europe Warmachine is carried by all majors sites: fantasywelt, firestorm, wayland, elementgames. There are plenty of tournaments listed both on T3 and longshanks, and a decent number of log plays on bgg. MK4 did not turn the game on it's head, but it is far from a failure.

 emanuelb wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:


Youtube shows very little activity of either people posting battle reports or people watching them, with most BRs generating 1.5k views if they are lucky. Contrast that with a new game like Shatterpoint that gets considerably more videos made with views being 5k-20k on average. Internet forums don't seem to have changed much either with some threads here and there on Reddit or Dakka being made and only gaining minimal passing interest.

This is an unfair comparison because 1. Shatterpoint is a brand new game and 2. It has the magical words: Star Wars.

How does Warmachine compares to games like Bolt Action, Saga, Dropzone Commander, Mythic Americas, Kings of War, Conquest, Infinity, Moonstone, Bushido or Malifaux? Do they have significantly more views? Are these games dead, too?

Also, you complain that WM did not change enough, others complain that MK4 changed too much.

In Europe Warmachine is carried by all majors sites: fantasywelt, firestorm, wayland, elementgames. There are plenty of tournaments listed both on T3 and longshanks, and a decent number of log plays on bgg. MK4 did not turn the game on it's head, but it is far from a failure.

As crazy as it sounds there was a time when warmachine meant more in the gaming space than Star War does. It wasn't until legion and X wing star wars became a real tabletop property. I'm a nerd XD didn't hold the market sway it does now.

The changes issue is because they make little sense. If you want the game to be simpler why make a spell deck to make warcasters more complex? Jacks we're getting out of hand and making them a modular body is a great idea as it effectively makes all the old models into a single book entry. The current system lacks personality and has no market at all. Which is ultimately mk4s problem. Its gutted page 5, the old lore, the competitive nature so what's the point of these games any more? You have a soulless game for no one. No nostalgia, no new market and best of all.. No bloody miniatures. Olds dead and news resin juice in the vat delayed by months. And PP is the poster child for mass production resin 3d printing for a company and they're... Well we're on page 5 or 6 now. So yea. PP is not only bad for themselves but also for a wider industry. When this bombs and PP calls it and everyone agrees 3d printing isn't viable for a production solution