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.

Honestly the best thing for PP would be to go back to the original models and re-release new designs like GW does. Even if the materials don't change I'm sure that they could revise some sculpts to new appearances with new technologies since they originally came out. Even some really great ones like the old Pureblood Warpwolf or the Angelus could be redesigned anew.

It would at least give them something to release without changing the rules side of the game; and new shiny models and sculpts always interest both long term and new customers alike.

Heck look how well GW does it - barring the mess that is Primaris, they've updated marines several times over the years. Old models are still valid but many like to buy into the newer designs.

They have already done a bit of that. i have the new behemoth and it is glaringly different than the old metal one. like 2nd ed marines to 7th ed marines. i don't think they could afford to do it with to much of their lines though as expansive as it is (which gets us back to the SKU bloat topic).

At this point I think the game needs a reset and a lot of the bloat needs to be gutted or retired, whether that is too many unit types and limiting the warcaster count. Whether that becomes a new 'reimagining' of the setting and whether this is a good or a bad thing is up.for debate.

Otherwise I fear the game won't be a thing in five years time.

I don't think rereleasing old models will do much at this point. They've already done a load of the jack's and casters. I also t me to agree that there's not much space left in the setting. Truth be told I felt there were too many factions since grymkin...

 aphyon wrote:
They have already done a bit of that. i have the new behemoth and it is glaringly different than the old metal one. like 2nd ed marines to 7th ed marines. i don't think they could afford to do it with to much of their lines though as expansive as it is (which gets us back to the SKU bloat topic).

Sku bloat is relatively easy to address provided they go in to plastic. In fact the examples already with a large portion of plastic units and heavies, that one sku holding the kits of many different options inside it. Now this solves for the regular Warjacks, Warbeasts and units, but where a lot of sku bloat (especially for Mercenaries) is where the Warcasters, Warlocks, and solos come in. Stryker 1 and Stryker 2 could be passed of, largely, as a backpack change, but Stryker3 will have to be another kit unless you want him to be a Dragoon (which I think would be interesting).

Charistoph, plastic is easy but it's also missing the wood for the trees. the issue though is one of scale. Is there the player base and interest in the wider community to make plastic on that scale actually viable? Or is metals still valid? I loved pp metals.

Far more of an issue though than sku bloat is rules bloat. In my opinion, while Sku's can be packaged together fine, but really it's rules/unit roster/warnoun count that needs to be downsized condensed and amalgamated to make it manageable and more appealing. Just imo mind.

Deadnight wrote:
At this point I think the game needs a reset and a lot of the bloat needs to be gutted or retired, whether that is too many unit types and limiting the warcaster count. Whether that becomes a new 'reimagining' of the setting and whether this is a good or a bad thing is up.for debate.

Otherwise I fear the game won't be a thing in five years time.

I don't think rereleasing old models will do much at this point. They've already done a load of the jack's and casters. I also t me to agree that there's not much space left in the setting. Truth be told I felt there were too many factions since grymkin...

They have run into the same problem that GW has with to many factions with very little player support/interest with the extra problem of a smaller player base.

7 factions + mercenaries on the WM side and another 6 on the horde side. 14 factions is far to many to support their own separate lines.

As cool as many of the factions/mins are they could probably loose a few of them and still have a viable game.

Deadnight wrote:
Charistoph, plastic is easy but it's also missing the wood for the trees. the issue though is one of scale. Is there the player base and interest in the wider community to make plastic on that scale actually viable? Or is metals still valid? I loved pp metals.

Far more of an issue though than sku bloat is rules bloat. In my opinion, while Sku's can be packaged together fine, but really it's rules/unit roster/warnoun count that needs to be downsized condensed and amalgamated to make it manageable and more appealing. Just imo mind.

I was just addressing the concept of sku bloat, not the need for anything else.

There is an interest in a game large enough for all the units that exist, but currently it isn't large neough able to compete with all the more skirmish-based options that are around and Warhammer's simpler gameplay.

At present Brawlmachine seems to be hitting the greater interest, and there has been reported talk about having the competitive options be going with Brawlmachine, then reducing the number of skus would be in line with that so that only a few units, solos, Warcasters, and Warlocks per Theme would make sense.

Then the game will pick up again and people will want to go back to 75 points because they want to use more of their collection together. A wicked cycle that can be.

 aphyon wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
At this point I think the game needs a reset and a lot of the bloat needs to be gutted or retired, whether that is too many unit types and limiting the warcaster count. Whether that becomes a new 'reimagining' of the setting and whether this is a good or a bad thing is up.for debate.

Otherwise I fear the game won't be a thing in five years time.

I don't think rereleasing old models will do much at this point. They've already done a load of the jack's and casters. I also t me to agree that there's not much space left in the setting. Truth be told I felt there were too many factions since grymkin...

They have run into the same problem that GW has with to many factions with very little player support/interest with the extra problem of a smaller player base.

7 factions + mercenaries on the WM side and another 6 on the horde side. 14 factions is far to many to support their own separate lines.

As cool as many of the factions/mins are they could probably loose a few of them and still have a viable game.

Add to the facts that mercs and minions are also full of subfactions (dorfs, pirates, cephslyx etc)

Compound this with the business fact that a very large % of sales is 'new' stuff, rather than the ranges that already exist and from a business pov, the obly solution becomes 'one new faction every year!' I've also seen the argument made that considering this, any money/development time spent on already created lines/factions is.seen as a waste - in effect, they've made their money on khador and it's mined out, for want of a better word, so there's no point in fixing the khadoran roster balance issues or really investing much in expanding the khadoran roster. Better to develop the next annual faction after grymkin/crucible guard/internals/whoever. That sells. I agree with it more than I disagree, sadly.

I'd go further, axtuwlly. I'd comfortably say, they could gut a whole bunch of factions, faction rosters and reduce the warnoun stable by half and still have a viable game. Whether it would then sell is another question, and that alone decides the decision.

Deadnight wrote:

I'd go further, axtuwlly. I'd comfortably say, they could gut a whole bunch of factions, faction rosters and reduce the warnoun stable by half and still have a viable game. Whether it would then sell is another question, and that alone decides the decision.

Honestly gutting a game that heavily sends a very bad message to the community that remains. Just look at how toxic and hostile the Old World community went when GW did that with Old World and AoS. Even if PP didn't pull it on a surprise, it would still likely kill off a lot of the old-guard members. For a company that relies only on 3rd parties to do their in-person marketing; and a good portion of that being players, that's a very very risky venture. There's a high chance that they'd lose a lot more clubs and gamers and those that did remain could be very bitter about it.

Yes it resolves the game bloat aspects, but that's about it. If anything it would be better to say "Warmachine and Hordes are ending, its been a great time but we are moving on now" and then slowly wind it down to perhaps just providing a cast-on demand service for a bit etc.... Then start a new "steam punk/fantasy/new age/cyberpunk/whatever" game instead. Fresh start, fresh market and no hostile baggage. You still have old fans who will be upset, but its not a lingering festering wound.

Updating old lines is necessary for the long term health of a game. If you don't, players figure it out eventually. You start losing longtime players who feel abandoned from buying into an original faction, and things go downhill from there. Besides, if it wasn't ultimately a good idea why would companies keep doing it? GW certainly does.

 Overread wrote:


Honestly gutting a game that heavily sends a very bad message to the community that remains. Just look at how toxic and hostile the Old World community went when GW did that with Old World and AoS. Even if PP didn't pull it on a surprise, it would still likely kill off a lot of the old-guard members. For a company that relies only on 3rd parties to do their in-person marketing; and a good portion of that being players, that's a very very risky venture. There's a high chance that they'd lose a lot more clubs and gamers and those that did remain could be very bitter about it.

I'm sure both of them would be very upset.

Here's the thing, gamers are already toxic entitled and hostile. Whatever you do (,or when you do nothing) just pisses them off. And they're the core remnant of what's left that's often actively playing the game and is partially responsible for presenting an image that is unwelcoming (that and the burden of knowledge to actually get into the game are huge barriers).

What about people who already left and who could potentially be drawn back, or people that were interested and never got involved because of the community? Or even entirely new plauetd There is a point where the old guard becomes a liability, not an asset and really, it becomes self defeating to cater to them.

Gw were ruthless in what they did with the old world. But I cannot fault their decision from a business perspective, and the current results speak for themselves. You forget, the wfb old guard were as toxic and hostile to gw before they nukes aos. The ironic thing is I feel pp need to do something like this to save warmachine (if, indeed it's even worth saving in it's current guise) or 'nuke the old world' becomes their next option. Someone posted here a while ago pp make more money from minicrate currently than they do from wmh. If it's that much of an anchor they will do exactly what he died, except we won't get an end of the world campaign and awesome models - we'll get a post on twitter.

 Overread wrote:

Yes it resolves the game bloat aspects, but that's about it. If anything it would be better to say "Warmachine and Hordes are ending, its been a great time but we are moving on now" and then slowly wind it down to perhaps just providing a cast-on demand service for a bit etc.... Then start a new "steam punk/fantasy/new age/cyberpunk/whatever" game instead. Fresh start, fresh market and no hostile baggage. You still have old fans who will be upset, but its not a lingering festering wound.

So nuke the old world and aos it.

At least give the Twitter story!

Honestly overread it would not surprise me if they go down this route as an option. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you say here. I think wmhs time is more or less done. And it crushes me to say that. And as much as I'd like to see the serious surgery done to it, it's probably more trouble than its actually worth to pp and best left to forum posts titled 'what would you do if pp sold you their up.for a tenner?'.

Deadnight wrote:

Gw were ruthless in what they did with the old world. But I cannot fault their decision from a business perspective, and the current results speak for themselves. You forget, the wfb old guard were as toxic and hostile to gw before they nukes aos.

GW did so much wrong with AoS they had to change CEO and several upper management staff.

AoS was a botched launch on almost all fronts. First up they removed the game from the game, the only rules provided at launch were joke rules coupled to a lack of any kind of points system (even those who liked AoS at launch were often using the old points) or balancing system or anything. The fragmentation of several armies and then the swift removal of models and several whole armies (remember Tomb Kings weren't that old, and had only recently had some big model additions, it was a fairly modern army). All those served to do was send the message that it was a failing system abandoning content that it had once supported. The removal was so sudden that everyone was waiting for more - heck until AoS 2.0 people were still waiting for "GW to remove Slaanesh" as well as several other armies and Cities of Sigmar almost looks like it would have been stripped out too.

AoS was also marketed terribly after GW focused all their attention on End Times and then pulled the carpet out from under their customers. Those fans weren't toxic because of AoS, they were toxic because the company all but misled them. Instead of a fan base happy at new models, excited for a new lore and game system; they instead had a toxic group who were hostile because the company had basically shown them the middle finger. That did indeed change things from just online griping into real world abandoning.


AoS didn't gain great strides until 2.0 hit the shelves.





In the end if your community is hostile and toxic then that's the company failing them on some or several levels. Old Guard are not supposed nor normally a hostile group; they might not be spending much but they are the people who own the clubs; who run the events; who pay for the venue; who organise the games; who do tutorial matches and welcome and encourage people in. For a firm like PP who have no front line staff the gamers, the old guard, are all but essential to the spread of the game.
Warmachine/Hordes has some issues - supply problems, lack of modern advance of the setting, breakdown of fluff distribution and heck I'd even say the move away from physical rules and valid rules material are all issues it has. They've backed themselves into a bit of a corner with fast updates which results in an unsettled gaming system where you have to rely on online and less high grade home print outs to keep things going. The old game marketed itself on getting a rule book and then models with the rules in the box; one book and you were good to go with your models. It was simple, efficient and neat and whilst balance can be an issue, it wasn't changing things all the time.
Personally I think physical games trying to copy digital ones is a false move.

Deadnight wrote:


So nuke the old world and aos it.

I genuinely thought that the Oblivion Campaign was going to be the "end times" for WM/H resulting in a MK4 and the ability to reset and re-align factions, remove SKU's etc. But that didn't happen.

Taking a realistic view across the board, if PP did an end times and AOS'ed WM/H I actually think that it would kill off a lot of the existing player base unless they were able to handle and manage it very very well. However, maybe purging some of the player base may not be the worst thing in the world if they were able to replace them with a new generation of less hardcore and comp focused players? Just musing out loud.

Sunno wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


So nuke the old world and aos it.

I genuinely thought that the Oblivion Campaign was going to be the "end times" for WM/H resulting in a MK4 and the ability to reset and re-align factions, remove SKU's etc. But that didn't happen.

Taking a realistic view across the board, if PP did an end times and AOS'ed WM/H I actually think that it would kill off a lot of the existing player base unless they were able to handle and manage it very very well. However, maybe purging some of the player base may not be the worst thing in the world if they were able to replace them with a new generation of less hardcore and comp focused players? Just musing out loud.

Thing is GW can sort of do that because GW has at the very least got direct sales staff on the highstreet. Certainly in the UK they've got enough coverage that they can start a new game more easily than most other brands. Thing with PP is if they kill off their warmachine fanbase they've only just (this year) got a slowly growing warcaster fanbase. After that they don't have any more wargame customers coming to their doors. So they'd have to start very much from ground zero - plus with the baggage over their head that their last major game with a huge roster of models "failed" and was abandoned. Gamers are VERY forward thinking compared to most other customer brackets. If a wargamer can't see a game lasting years to decades they are reluctant to step in beyond model collecting.

PP if anything needs to rebuild warmachine to prove they can do it; especially as good few of the problems weren't with the customers and the fanbase; it was PP making a series of mistakes and forced changes.


Plus lets not forget Warmachine is PP's baby; its their own game through and through so chances are the staff they do still have still want it to work.

Just got a casual 50 point game in tonight with a friend who picked up most of a crucible guard army from a mutual friend







We didn't do any theme force or anything fancy in the way of objectives But still had a fun game. i think this is an example of how the game could be with MKIII, if the community attitude could be fixed to support newer players and we play at a more manageable 50 points.

For a long time I toyed with the idea of doing a Khadoran cavalry army (in 2nd edition). Two of those chariots and then a bunch of horses all led by the hero on a horse with one or two warjacks.

yeah i looked at the vlad 3 + gun carriage(or the new manOwar chariots) + uhlans +manOwar dragoons +victor (because he has the longest range gun on a khador jack he could in theory support the faster cavalry) list and it would be really cool. but what a mess to transport with all those spikey bits and odd shapes.


The whole reason i chose khador was for the clam jacks and gun carriage. the new manOwar solos were just icing on the cake so to speak.

 Overread wrote:


GW did so much wrong with AoS they had to change CEO and several upper management staff.

AoS was a botched launch on almost all fronts.

In the end if your community is hostile and toxic then that's the company failing them on some or several levels. Old Guard are not supposed nor normally a hostile group; they might not be spending much but they are the people who own the clubs; who run the events; who pay for the venue; who organise the games; who do tutorial matches and welcome and encourage people in. For a firm like PP who have no front line staff the gamers, the old guard, are all but essential to the spread of the game.

I didn't want to get into the aos launch debate here. But briefly, I don't disagree. The launch was haphazard, and bungled in a lot of ways and it took aos a few years to find its feet. But it's there now and it, and its derivatives like warcry and shadespire are fantastic. Honestly the latter two made up.so much of my gaming of the last two years if you'd have said I'd be loving gw games this much five years ago I'd have laughed at you.

But I still agree with gw's position and decision to get rid of wfb- especislly from a business pov, wfb was not bringing in any money, and was both at a point beyond saving and not worth saving. They made a ruthless decision that Stalin would have baulked at, but ultimately, I don't disagree with it.

And in theory, i don't disagree with the ideal that the old guard is what you describe it as. I know some wonderful gamers who have played for decades and do all of these things. Not all do. Not everyone organises, runs clubs, invests in new people etc. They're often a minority. I disagree that a hostile and toxic community is the 'company failing them'. That's just a handwaving away of our responsibility. While what you say can be true, and the old guard can do those things theyre also often also the jaded burnt out veterans always complaining and moaning online the most about anything and everything, to be point where often complaining about the hobby is the hobby, and always feeding a sea of negativity and stewing in it. As you say, what happens when the latter are the ones 'owning the clubs, running events, organising games, doing tutorials and 'welcoming' people in'? (Or not even that. What happens when some wonderful gamer does all those things and some other toxics turn up and fill the space?) take a step back and stop assuming the vets are the benevolent heroes for a moment... The community also needs to take responsibility for it's own attitudes and actions too and the consequences of them. The community can sometimes be way too close to the games they claim to love and often refuse to see the bigger picture or change their ways. or in the case of the wmh community fostering gaming approaches that than often drive people away. It doesn't take much and often it's not even intentional. the truth is that often the community is also hostile and toxic, less because the 'company failed them' but because often gamers are, or can become lazy and entitled, hold ridiculous grudges (there's still folks furious about finecastbor fifteen year old codices) and have ridiculously unrealistic expectations, expect miracles and unicorns from a company, refuse to accept anything less, refuse to be proactive and police their own players or play styles, or accept that sometimes business decisions have to be made that won't go their way and sometimes for no other reason than the company made decisions that they disagrees with and because of the emotional investment take everything desperately personally.

While we've all got stories of great older folks who love the game and who should get posters as 'game ambassadors', we all have stories of the highly toxic burned out crowd as well. Honestly, if they're pushing a kind of game that is self destructive and unwelcoming, you don't want them as your ambassadors. Far better to draw in a new crowd.

Honestly Warhammer fantasy didn't go away.


GW didn't remove the model line, they changed the lore (fluff) and they changed some armies and they released new armies (something people wanted from old world for years) and changed the rules (rank and file to skirmish style movement).

The vast majority of AoS models are still Old World models. Whilst some of the newer concepts are dialed up somewhat nothing would have stopped GW doing a "Well lets advance 50 years in the Old World setting - Dwarves abandon their old grudge and unleash their technology; sigmar creates his stormcast; Nagash returned etc.... Almost everything except the realm system could be done in Old World even down to changing the game from square to round bases.

Even GW didn't outright write off the models. If PP did the same it would be like ending Warmachine and Hordes to start Warcaster and using the Warmachine models for Warcaster.

GW didn't remove the model line, they changed the lore (fluff) and they changed some armies and they released new armies (something people wanted from old world for years) and changed the rules (rank and file to skirmish style movement).

I see a lot of the players who wanted the fantasy rank/phalanx setting switch over to mantics kings of war where they can use mantics minis, or GWs or any others they want because mantic doesn't care. i think of it like patherfinder taking over when WOTC abandoned 3.5 DnD and went to 4th. making a version 3.75 for the system everybody loved more than 4th.

 Overread wrote:
GW didn't remove the model line

They cut it down pretty hard though, and ultimately managed to pull it off despite starting what should be a surgical procedure with a machete. It is possible to do.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
GW didn't remove the model line

They cut it down pretty hard though, and ultimately managed to pull it off despite starting what should be a surgical procedure with a machete. It is possible to do.

True, but in the end AoS is no lighter for models and in all honestly with a saner person in charge (and without middle managers messing it up) you could have achieved the same effect far better by just changing/advancing the lore; changing from square to round and then steadily phasing armies in and out. Given the time scales that first two to three years of AoS where they bumbled around and then steadily recovered into 2.0 they could have used to steadily roll out new armies; roll back old ones and ease people into it. Heck you get a general feeling that a lot of the fragmenting wasn't even really wanted - lets not forget AoS at launch wasn't going to have big armies (besides one or two); it was going to have lots of smaller theme armies united under Grand Alliance banners plus the fact it was more "cool models" and less "game armies".

If they'd gone in with the full intention of a proper wargame and if middle management hadn't messed with it I think AoS would have looked totally different.



The main upshot is that yes you can recover an IP and keep the models whilst reinventing the game from the ground up. In general lore and fluff are important, but if you replace it with a new/better/different lore (and support that lore well) and let people keep their models and use them then you can reawaken a game without stripping it wholesale.

 Overread wrote:
True, but in the end AoS is no lighter for models....

We're lighter the Bretonnian and Khemri lines. True, they've been replaced by fantasy power armor, sea elves, and undead tax collectors, but for those who enjoyed those two armies, they're stuck in a limbo that's probably worse than 40K Squat players with their teasing of keeping those unit sheets alive, but never developing them any further. It took how many years for the former Empire, Dwarf, and Elf armies to get ANYTHING on running their army on par?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Overread wrote:
True, but in the end AoS is no lighter for models....

We're lighter the Bretonnian and Khemri lines. True, they've been replaced by fantasy power armor, sea elves, and undead tax collectors, but for those who enjoyed those two armies, they're stuck in a limbo that's probably worse than 40K Squat players with their teasing of keeping those unit sheets alive, but never developing them any further. It took how many years for the former Empire, Dwarf, and Elf armies to get ANYTHING on running their army on par?

Aye but my point is the "bloat of models" wasn't really an issue. It was more the wrapping and presentation of the game as well as inherent issues within the game format as well as its marketing and support.

Ergo my point is that the issue with Warmachine/Hordes doesn't rest so much with the models, but with other aspects that surround them. New marketing, new rules, new packaging, resculpts (replace rather than increase or decrease total count) is far more likely to yield a positive result. If anything I'd hope that they'd take the strengths of Warcaster and perhaps built them into a fresh Warmachine/Hordes game engine. Heck alone the idea of "calling in" models from a side board of your collection rather than fighting with pre-defined lists is a huge revolution for a skirmish game. IT means those "auto win/lose" situations based on army list building are almost totally removed. It also makes for a far more reactionary game and, when you've games with a lot more models, it might well encourage use of a far wider range. Now instead of just focusing on purely the "best chance to win" models you can include those niche and situational models because when you get you into those niche situations you can call on that model.

It's a very revolutionary idea for a skirmish game and I really hope it goes well and matures.

I'd love to see the caster stable reduced, but mostly by condensing the multiple versions. One of the biggest problems they've had as they keep doing new versions is the feats have become more and more mechanical and less fun and exciting. Sorscha1 is still one of the most fun casters to play because of that feat and while her 3rd incarnation is almost there, she's really let down by.... here's some clouds I guess.

The Madrak1 CID really killed my interest in "Epics". Suddenly we had the first Madrak having the most up to date rules and the second most recent sculpt. I think taking a lot of casters and putting in the effort to make one truly iconic interpretation would go a long way. Give some of them an option for a mount at points or something to pull in the versions where the base size changed. There's a lot of room to both let players use their old models and focus existing casters down to something more exciting.

For casters on the same base size they could easily merge them rules wise. That way you keep all your models and no "character" is lost, but you might cut some armies down by half the number of casters that way. Eg Everblight has 3 or 4 versions of Lylith most of which are just her with a bow and then the huge sleigh. cut that down to two and you've halved the number of her there are in the army.

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
GW didn't remove the model line

They cut it down pretty hard though, and ultimately managed to pull it off despite starting what should be a surgical procedure with a machete. It is possible to do.

True, but in the end AoS is no lighter for models and in all honestly with a saner person in charge (and without middle managers messing it up) you could have achieved the same effect far better by just changing/advancing the lore; changing from square to round and then steadily phasing armies in and out. Given the time scales that first two to three years of AoS where they bumbled around and then steadily recovered into 2.0 they could have used to steadily roll out new armies; roll back old ones and ease people into it. Heck you get a general feeling that a lot of the fragmenting wasn't even really wanted - lets not forget AoS at launch wasn't going to have big armies (besides one or two); it was going to have lots of smaller theme armies united under Grand Alliance banners plus the fact it was more "cool models" and less "game armies".

If they'd gone in with the full intention of a proper wargame and if middle management hadn't messed with it I think AoS would have looked totally different.



The main upshot is that yes you can recover an IP and keep the models whilst reinventing the game from the ground up. In general lore and fluff are important, but if you replace it with a new/better/different lore (and support that lore well) and let people keep their models and use them then you can reawaken a game without stripping it wholesale.

That's just it; AoS managed to get away with huge model line cuts despite doing it in an astoundingly ham-fisted manner. And the point of cutting the line down in the first place is to continue releasing new miniatures while phasing out the old. It would be reasonably possible for PP to do the same if they did it with a degree of competence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That's just it; AoS managed to get away with huge model line cuts despite doing it in an astoundingly ham-fisted manner. And the point of cutting the line down in the first place is to continue releasing new miniatures while phasing out the old. It would be reasonably possible for PP to do the same if they did it with a degree of competence.

And it would be even easier for PP if they added a weapon swap system to units like Steelheads, Praetorians, etc, so that two of the same unit you choose will be the same in name, but equipped vastly differently. It won't necessarily cover every avenue (especially with all the Character units in Mercenaries), but it would be a huge step in doing that reduction.

AoS probably got away with it's model line gutting because most of the 'existing' audience wasn't even buying into AoS when the squat'ing occurred. If a tree falls in the woods and none is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If GW turned around and suddenly squat'ed say... Cities of Sigmar tomorrow, you'd see a much louder backlash compared to AoS 1.0.

 Arbitrator wrote:
AoS probably got away with it's model line gutting because most of the 'existing' audience wasn't even buying into AoS when the squat'ing occurred.

I'm sure both of them were very upset.