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.

Veldrain wrote:


They created this problem by churning out to many factions and variations in the first place. Then they doubled down with the mass influx of models from Riot Quest. Riot Quest might be a fun game on it's own, but it's pollution to WM/H

Unfortunately they didn't create this problem. It's the nature of 'wave based' games. Most income comes from new stuff in the fist few months after release. It's the same for gw. If they want to keep the lights on,they have to expand the game, or release new games. It was fine in the naughties when they could get away with the mercenary expansion, or the cavalry expansion, but that can only go so far. Sooner or later you need the new faction. Every year.

The back catalogue is extensive, but financially its worthless.

Honestly I loved wmh but they need to 'old world' the iron kingdoms and maybe bring it back in some morevreatducted form in the future. I think pp.agrees. most of their money comes from minicrate, most if their development is going into warcaater, wmh is a back-burner product at best.

And yet look at GW armies today - Lets look at Tyranids

Warriors, Hive Tyrant, Carnifex, Zoanthrope, Gaunt, Hormagaunt, Gargoyle, Lictor. Going from memory that's pretty much what they had in GW 2.0.

ALL those models are still around today, heck gaunts and warriors are still of the same scale as they were back then (more or less).



What GW has done over the years is re-release those same models, that same "back catalogue" over and over again. Each time updating it with new sculpts that take advantage of their improving sculpting and casting. They've also steadily upgraded the sizes of some; again as things have changed. Making Hive Tyrants the size they are now back in the 80-90s wasn't viable in metal and in resin it was but that was their Forgeworld line nor their main model line to retail and the highstreet.


PP could very easily do the same. They don't need to rebuild Everblight from the ground up again; they can re-release new shredders and new warbeasts and new troops - taking advantage of the advances they've made over the years and just a different twist and style on the sculpting. Heck that's 100% just what mini-crate is doing just that its a bit more niche (its 100% boutique).

The only difference is that minicrate is a bit more fancy/silly at times and is a one-time deal (which works for and against it -there are a few that I wanted that I couldn't afford at the time).


GW has done this game for years and its worked; new models generate new sales. Old customers like to swap over to new designs if they are still active; new customers get drawn in; it acts as a huge marketing move and generates loads of buzz and interest.

It's important to understand that one of the things that trips PP up is that it's models always represent a single unit with a single set of rules, with no options or upgrades. That makes modeling easier, and when the game was smaller, made it super simple: an Ironclad always had a quake hammer and open fist, for example.

But this boxed them in, as the game expanded. GW could add options to a unit, and that would justify a new kit. Look at how many iterations of Devestators GW has released, as either the sculpting improved, or they added new options to the kit. This allowed GW to Sell a New kit for an old unit.

I certainly understand that culling the line would have a negative impact on the community, but I think the comparisons to AOS are apt. WFB players left, but eventually new players came in. Right now,t he game is daunting. It's too big for stores to fully stock, and it would take months of real work and study to learn what every caster does. I just don't see how the game can grow with such a bloated range.

Though this whole discussion is ultimately secondary in that if they don't fix the actual rules none of it will matter.

What's wrong with the rules?

Personally, I think as a system Mk3 is great, but at 75 points shows its age. Playing at smaller points results in a much snappier experience more competitive with more modern systems.

Overread wrote:Also you say that GW can kick their customers hard and still have them come back, yet when AoS landed people didn't come back. If anything they left in droves and took others with them. Sure AoS at launch had some fans, but a good number were simply buying models to then use in 9th age or Kings of War or other game systems. They were no longer GW loyal in that period, they were simply buying cool models and had GW stuck with it the 3D printing market and 3rd parties for fantasy would have had a storm of sales. If anything it would have unseated GW from the fantasy market entirely and left them relying totally on 40K.

GW only recovered because they changed a huge number of policies, attitudes and the product direction and even then it took several years to get to 2.0 and start building the game up and the fanbase up properly.

I know of quite a few people who went back to AoS after the release of the first GHB. They've been gathering more, too. They also went back to 40K with 8th Edition. They are loyal to the game because that is where the bulk of their models come from.

LunarSol wrote:What's wrong with the rules?

Personally, I think as a system Mk3 is great, but at 75 points shows its age. Playing at smaller points results in a much snappier experience more competitive with more modern systems.

There are some (I'm not necessarily including Musketeer in this) that view Steamroller as part of the rules.

Still, when compared to how quickly you can move models around in 40K or AoS, it can seem like there there is a problem with the rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

Still, when compared to how quickly you can move models around in 40K or AoS, it can seem like there there is a problem with the rules.

Not sure I totally follow this.

The big thing I'd love to see is better terrain rules. The main one is just that rough terrain is ridiculously punishing for a game in which it takes very little reduction in movement to be meaningful. Every edition it's too punishing, so they add a ton of rules to let people ignore it, so it becomes meaningless. Cutting pathfinder out of most units but dropping it to a flat -2" would be a huge improvement to board interactivity.

 Overread wrote:
And yet look at GW armies today - Lets look at Tyranids

What GW has done over the years is re-release those same models, that same "back catalogue" over and over again.

PP could very easily do the same.

You make some fair points overhead, but in some ways you actually kind of prove my point as well.

And Maybe I phrased it poorly but you are arguing against things I didn't say.

I wasn't talking about resculpts. I was talking about the back catalogue. The old models/sculpts. Afyer that 6 month window, those sculpts are not worth much. Sales drop off. The second hand market rapidly becomes the enemy. Gw often regarded the second hand market as their greatest competition, not competing companies.

And the fact that resculpts can be a thing kind of proves my point. And even then,there has to be the caveat that people still want it. There's a lot more tyranid players than khador players sadly. And for wmh players,painting and modelling is typically not the strongest draw. And I say that as someone who always championed painting and modelling within the game.

Gw's old catalogue was the same. Cries of 'classics' aside the old models wouldn't sell today. They sit there. Hence the need for a new release, a new faction, or an expansion to the game.

And you can only go so far with redoing the old. Pp have done some resculpts,mainly casters and Jacks and some units in plastic (the less said about thr latter, frankly, the better!) As a % of a faction, resculpts were quite small. And I mean no disservice. Some are among my favourite models, such as the Butcher 1 resculpt. I still grab it and feel that wow factor. But people want 'new'. My understanding is 'New' new trumps 'new' resculpts, at least in terms of sales. And as above, 'new' stuff is insulated both from the second hand market and grognards who already have 3 squads and don't want to buy their army again.

That said, and far more importantly, could pp 'easily' do it? Would it be worth their time to do it? They have 30 people working for them now, down from a hundred. Minicrate brings in more $$$ than wmh. Everything I've read indicates the place is chaotic.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Still, when compared to how quickly you can move models around in 40K or AoS, it can seem like there there is a problem with the rules.

Not sure I totally follow this.

WMH is a model on model game, even though there are units. By this I mean that a unit of Trenchers going after a unit of Praetorians will still focus on targeting a single model at a time, often on a model by model basis.

40K and AoS are unit games, meaning every interaction is on the unit level, i.e. a unit of Imortals shoots a unit of Intercessors, not the Intercessor Sergeant model.

Movement and range also play a huge part. While there is little difference between and Advance and Run, the Charge is +2D6 after one has Moved, as opposed to WMH +3" improvement. The average range of a Ranged Weapon in 40K is about 24". In AoS, I think it's about 15-18", though I'll admit it's been a while since I took a perusal. In WMH, it's about 10-12". That's in threat range of the average Charging unit.

With the beginning of 8th Edition, unit rules were made very very simple, meanwhile WMH kept adding more and more rules to each unit and model with Mk 3. That obviously changed as the codices came out and each unit's datasheet can be as complex, or more than any unit or model in WMH.

A good balance between melee and ranged threat is a huge positive for the game, IMO. Those mechanics are hands down the biggest problems with GW's systems and a huge part of why they have to fight so hard to keep their games from devolving into turn 1 alpha strikes.

I do think a LITTLE variance on PP's threat ranges would be a positive. In the current system a 1" advantage is almost impossible to properly account for in other stats. Still, I'd look more towards something like ASOIAF's 1D6 charge over anything resembling what GW does.

People went back to GW when they made sweeping changes across the board to how they interacted with the community up to and including dramatic price decreases on a decent selection of models.

As to 'fixing the rules' for WMH, that was poorly communicated on my part. What I mean is that the entire system and dynamic around the rules needs to be fixed. They are opaque to newcomers, lack physical books (and require, rather than have, an app), relatively dense and complex, full of 'gotcha' moments where one small mistake costs the game, and at the end of the day a new player is looking to lose dozens of matches before they understand the system well enough to win.

I'm not sure what I think about the gotcha element. In the era where the game was really picking up steam and dominating, I actually found that to be something that really drew players in. Big, dangerous effects unique to each caster created a dialog between players from the outset, and players were often really excited to see how these moments shaped the game.

I think what really drags that feeling down now is just volume. There's around 20 of these per faction now and in an effort to make every one unique, a lot of them are honestly just dull combinations of passive traits or global spell effects. They're way more mechanical than memorable. More of a grind than an experience.

Personally, I'd love to see them reuse feats, particularly between different versions of the same character. There are so many "Epic" versions of casters that lack that big moment that made their predecessors, well... epic. I think expecting new players to win a bunch of games early on isn't super practical. I don't think its real in any game worth investing any real time or money. The important thing is making the game itself big and memorable. The best games are the ones where losing is it's own kind of fun.

I think feeling the need to re-phrase my position as "expecting new players to win a bunch of games early on" says a lot by itself.

WMH could probably use some unit consolidation. They've so far avoided any squatting and I think that's a good policy, but there are a lot of redundant units.

Let's just look at Cygnar, because that's a faction I'm familiar with. Do we need both Precursor Knights and Sword Knights as distinct units? What about Long Gunners and Trencher Long Gunners? I'd vote they should combine each of those pairs into a single unit entry, discontinue whichever set of models sells worse, and make either set of models legal for the new entry. And that's just a couple of examples, any of the major factions is seriously bloated at this point and could be similarly trimmed to simplify the game. This would also reverse the SKU bloat that tends to hurt retail presence.

The multiple versions of Warcasters are a prime target for this. Do we really need 4 versions of Caine and of Nemo?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People went back to GW when they made sweeping changes across the board to how they interacted with the community up to and including dramatic price decreases on a decent selection of models.

As to 'fixing the rules' for WMH, that was poorly communicated on my part. What I mean is that the entire system and dynamic around the rules needs to be fixed. They are opaque to newcomers, lack physical books (and require, rather than have, an app), relatively dense and complex, full of 'gotcha' moments where one small mistake costs the game, and at the end of the day a new player is looking to lose dozens of matches before they understand the system well enough to win.

People went back to GW because they put out a new edition and all their friends were playing it. GW posting quirky social media videos and producing one discounted starter box per faction (which most returnees probably already had models of anyway) wasn't a sweeping, dramatic change, but it was such a below-ground bar of improvement for them that people desperately wanted to latch onto literally anything that could convince them to 'trust' GW again.

I still stand to the belief that the Warmahordes surge was always just a temporary holiday, because how quickly people ran back to GW so completely even before MK3 was a mess, shows it was always 'doomed'. MK3 could have been the best ruleset ever designed in wargaming, ever, but if everybody was checking out 8th 40k then that's what everybody was always going to go back to, it's a vicious cycle.

Yup, people swarming 8th ed WH40K instead of 3rd ed WM&H is saying a lot about expectations an average wargamer has for rules quality (consistency, intelectual challenge, number of options/decision points, control over randomness, balance).

Cyel wrote:
Yup, people swarming 8th ed WH40K instead of 3rd ed WM&H is saying a lot about expectations an average wargamer has for rules quality (consistency, intelectual challenge, number of options/decision points, control over randomness, balance).

the funny thing is... 8th/9th edition 40k are actually the strongest editions of 40k for things like consistency, meaningful decisions, and control over randomness. Balacne remains elusive, but we also watched PP have to rewrite Skorne from scratch in 3rd edition, so it' might be that balance is really hard.

I played a lot of Mark 2 and hated 40k 6th/7th, but I"ve never played Mark 3 and I'm loving new 40k. If I were to explain why, it would simply be that WMH required more effort than I was interested in giving it. It truly is a game of skill, but I wasn't interested in busting my balls to get good at it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think feeling the need to re-phrase my position as "expecting new players to win a bunch of games early on" says a lot by itself.

Like as a community culture thing I agree, but as the rules for the game I'd argue otherwise. I can't say that I go into any game system expecting to win a bunch of games before I know what I'm doing. That said, if players are just pouncing on baby seals and running off to celebrate their victory... they can probably do that in any game system out there and that's a player problem. Working with players to help them learn the game is part of every system out there.

 Polonius wrote:
I played a lot of Mark 2 and hated 40k 6th/7th, but I"ve never played Mark 3 and I'm loving new 40k. If I were to explain why, it would simply be that WMH required more effort than I was interested in giving it. It truly is a game of skill, but I wasn't interested in busting my balls to get good at it.

I think it was that and (according to people here at the time) Themes doubling down on what 40K had just gotten rid of that was killing 40K (i.e. Formations with free units and super extra rules). The Themes weren't here right away (though there was an example with Cephalyx), they came out pretty quickly.

 LunarSol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think feeling the need to re-phrase my position as "expecting new players to win a bunch of games early on" says a lot by itself.

Like as a community culture thing I agree, but as the rules for the game I'd argue otherwise. I can't say that I go into any game system expecting to win a bunch of games before I know what I'm doing. That said, if players are just pouncing on baby seals and running off to celebrate their victory... they can probably do that in any game system out there and that's a player problem. Working with players to help them learn the game is part of every system out there.

This was the role of the PGs, but since they were no longer around the "I'm tweaking a list for my next tournament" crowd were favoring seal clubbing with turn 1/2 assassinations. This probably could have been mitigated if they were able to get games with the more casual WM/H players, but all the ones I knew of went back to 40K or other game systems as of MK3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm very much in favor of line consolidation. Long Gunners haven't been relevant since MK1. I don't think Storm Guard were ever relevant.

Both should be rolled into other units (Trencher Long Gunners and Stormblades respectively) and the original lines spun down to direct order and then ended at some point after that.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People went back to GW when they made sweeping changes across the board to how they interacted with the community up to and including dramatic price decreases on a decent selection of models.

As to 'fixing the rules' for WMH, that was poorly communicated on my part. What I mean is that the entire system and dynamic around the rules needs to be fixed. They are opaque to newcomers, lack physical books (and require, rather than have, an app), relatively dense and complex, full of 'gotcha' moments where one small mistake costs the game, and at the end of the day a new player is looking to lose dozens of matches before they understand the system well enough to win.

People went back to GW because they put out a new edition and all their friends were playing it. GW posting quirky social media videos and producing one discounted starter box per faction (which most returnees probably already had models of anyway)

This is probably the wrong forum to talk about what you're saying here, looks like you should be posting that here


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Yup, people swarming 8th ed WH40K instead of 3rd ed WM&H is saying a lot about expectations an average wargamer has for rules quality (consistency, intelectual challenge, number of options/decision points, control over randomness, balance).

the funny thing is... 8th/9th edition 40k are actually the strongest editions of 40k for things like consistency, meaningful decisions, and control over randomness. Balacne remains elusive, but we also watched PP have to rewrite Skorne from scratch in 3rd edition, so it' might be that balance is really hard.

I played a lot of Mark 2 and hated 40k 6th/7th, but I"ve never played Mark 3 and I'm loving new 40k. If I were to explain why, it would simply be that WMH required more effort than I was interested in giving it. It truly is a game of skill, but I wasn't interested in busting my balls to get good at it.

GW took a significant step up in rules quality around the same time WMH took a significant step down in balance. It is hard to overstate how much an improvement 8th was over 7th. I recall the sentiment surrounding Mk 3 was significantly different.

Interesting how perceptions vary. When 8th WH40K hit I had already been playing WM&H or some years (and modern board games for more) and 8th was very bad in my opinion. The game was about making a couple of mostly obvious decisions once every 15 minutes and then spend said 15 minutes as a mindless random number generating bot for the game. Not that earlier WH40K editions were much better - I compare it to more modern game design. Basically WH40K going AoS rules-wise was a nail in the coffin for my Tyranids and Eldar. We all remember the memes

In some ways, wmh was the same.

The game itself had a lot of 'crutch' units, go-to casters and obvious decisions, and towards the end of mk2 a dearth of creativity. Mk3 has only enhanced this in some ways with 'go theme or go home'.

In terms of 'in game', you get a A frantic few minutes against the clock in your turn, and then you remove models for the next ten. The interactions and dynamism was minimal - I'd just gotten off a spell playing infinity, shadespire and (yes, laugh a little) lotr:sbg and found the model to model interactions and more integrated turn structures more dynamic and immersive (the fight roll off in lotr, reactions in infinity, attack and defence rolls in shadedpire) and just got bored of wmh's 'rolling against a static number' and 'when it's not my turn I'm no more than a number' lacknof involvement in an 'absolute' igoyougo format.

I was playing my favourite casters- Butcher 3 and Vladimir 3, and I'll say this with genuine sadness- I was genuinely bored out of my skull with the games I was playing.

I used to love this game, but in all honesty, the most fun my group and I have had with ttgs in the last 2 years has been gw. Shadespire, newcromunda, warcry and Blackstone fortress.

I think a lot of the popularity of Brawlmachine is just that it shows that at smaller point values, you get a more responsive game while still keeping a lot of the "combo chain" feel that makes WMH fun. As much as I prefer other games like Malifaux, Marvel, Monpoc and MInfinity these days, I do find the lack of unit combos rather disappointing. It's just so trivial to counterplay a 2 activation combo in an alternating activation game, so they tend to revolve around independently powerful units over any cohesive list strategy.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think a lot of the popularity of Brawlmachine is just that it shows that at smaller point values, you get a more responsive game while still keeping a lot of the "combo chain" feel that makes WMH fun. As much as I prefer other games like Malifaux, Marvel, Monpoc and MInfinity these days, I do find the lack of unit combos rather disappointing. It's just so trivial to counterplay a 2 activation combo in an alternating activation game, so they tend to revolve around independently powerful units over any cohesive list strategy.

IMO brawlmachine may end up saving WMH and PP as a whole.

Deadnight wrote:
In some ways, wmh was the same.

The game itself had a lot of 'crutch' units, go-to casters and obvious decisions, and towards the end of mk2 a dearth of creativity. Mk3 has only enhanced this in some ways with 'go theme or go home'.

In terms of 'in game', you get a A frantic few minutes against the clock in your turn, and then you remove models for the next ten. The interactions and dynamism was minimal - I'd just gotten off a spell playing infinity, shadespire and (yes, laugh a little) lotr:sbg and found the model to model interactions and more integrated turn structures more dynamic and immersive (the fight roll off in lotr, reactions in infinity, attack and defence rolls in shadedpire) and just got bored of wmh's 'rolling against a static number' and 'when it's not my turn I'm no more than a number' lacknof involvement in an 'absolute' igoyougo format.

I was playing my favourite casters- Butcher 3 and Vladimir 3, and I'll say this with genuine sadness- I was genuinely bored out of my skull with the games I was playing.

I used to love this game, but in all honesty, the most fun my group and I have had with ttgs in the last 2 years has been gw. Shadespire, newcromunda, warcry and Blackstone fortress.

Hmm, I disagree. But I for example don't see rolling dice as a player action - it's an administrative chore required by the game's engine, like deck shuffling in a card game. The less of it, the better. Rolling for saves during enemy turn doesn't make me involved, it just makes resolution longer as compared to actual gameplay - which is decisions. If anything it makes me feel more divorced as gameplay is paused and randomness makes my decisions less important. There's a reason why video games hide automatic RNG in the background where it doesn't interrupt gameplay.

And the ratio of time spent on making decisions and solving problems as compared to the mindless, administrative tedium of generating random numbers is incomparably in favour of WM&H, compared to 40K (or GW games in general).

Cyel wrote:

Hmm, I disagree. But I for example don't see rolling dice as a player action - it's an administrative chore required by the game's engine, like deck shuffling in a card game. The less of it, the better. Rolling for saves during enemy turn doesn't make me involved, it just makes resolution longer as compared to actual gameplay - which is decisions. If anything it makes me feel more divorced as gameplay is paused and randomness makes my decisions less important. There's a reason why video games hide automatic RNG in the background where it doesn't interrupt gameplay.

I'm not talking about rolling armour saves. I'm talking about actions/reactions in game representing frantic simultaneous activities, which also represent player agency. Neither wmh or 40k does this well at all

In Infinity, the game could be described as 'always being your turn. They declare an action,I declare a reaction (shoot back, dodge, etc) and there is a roll-off as to who 'wins'. Its not takinf your turn rolling against a static number and then being the static number for the other guy.
In lotr, which in my mind is a brilliant and yet elegantly simple game, you get a very basic flavour of this with a simultaneous fight phase where there is an engaging mechanic where both players are involved who determines who 'wins' along with a more integrated turn structure (move/move/shoot/shoot/melee) as opposed to STRICT Igoyougo.
Its not taking turns swinging at each other and seeing who falls down first. And if you have a shield you can choose to defend itself.gameplay actions.player decisions. Agency.

I found these turn structures, interactions and mechanics in these games very immersive and engaging. Went back to wmh and took turns swinging at each other, rolling against a number rather than a more dynamic mechanic like I'd experienced in infinity or lotr and it genuinely left me cold.

As for time spent making decisions and solving problems, while 40k has plenty 'randumb' stuff and pointless dice rolling, the phrase 'analysis paralysis' is often very apt for wmh, especially for less experienced players (well, both of them now, since wmh has a problem attracting people :p)

Deadnight wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Hmm, I disagree. But I for example don't see rolling dice as a player action - it's an administrative chore required by the game's engine, like deck shuffling in a card game. The less of it, the better. Rolling for saves during enemy turn doesn't make me involved, it just makes resolution longer as compared to actual gameplay - which is decisions. If anything it makes me feel more divorced as gameplay is paused and randomness makes my decisions less important. There's a reason why video games hide automatic RNG in the background where it doesn't interrupt gameplay.

I'm not talking about rolling armour saves. I'm talking about actions/reactions in game representing frantic simultaneous activities, which also represent player agency. Neither wmh or 40k does this well at all

In Infinity, the game could be described as 'always being your turn. They declare an action,I declare a reaction (shoot back, dodge, etc) and there is a roll-off as to who 'wins'. Its not takinf your turn rolling against a static number and then being the static number for the other guy.
In lotr, which in my mind is a brilliant and yet elegantly simple game, you get a very basic flavour of this with a simultaneous fight phase where there is an engaging mechanic where both players are involved who determines who 'wins' along with a more integrated turn structure (move/move/shoot/shoot/melee) as opposed to STRICT Igoyougo.
Its not taking turns swinging at each other and seeing who falls down first. And if you have a shield you can choose to defend itself.gameplay actions.player decisions. Agency.

I found these turn structures, interactions and mechanics in these games very immersive and engaging. Went back to wmh and took turns swinging at each other, rolling against a number rather than a more dynamic mechanic like I'd experienced in infinity or lotr and it genuinely left me cold.

As for time spent making decisions and solving problems, while 40k has plenty 'randumb' stuff and pointless dice rolling, the phrase 'analysis paralysis' is often very apt for wmh, especially for less experienced players (well, both of them now, since wmh has a problem attracting people :p)

What’s interesting about the game you’re describing is that it already released a long time ago.
And that take was Helldorado. Too bad it flopped. It wasn’t a standard igougo system and worked better than Infinity.
It’s interesting to note that the theme was seen as too out there as well.
Personally I think the game, the sculpts and theme were far ahead of its time. Which is why it likely failed.

WM/H needs an overhaul and update to more modern systems. If they lose players as a result, that’s what happens and they have to forge on.
Either that or they can leave it in the state that it’s in and move onto other things. Which seems to be the case.

 Ghool wrote:


WM/H needs an overhaul and update to more modern systems. If they lose players as a result, that’s what happens and they have to forge on.
Either that or they can leave it in the state that it’s in and move onto other things. Which seems to be the case.

TBH when you come down to it, that there is the essence of all the issue with the company, the game, production, relationships, communications etc

PP need to modernise.

Not sure how we fix the community issues but the company needs to take ownership and lead. And that requires modernisation.

Sunno wrote:

 Ghool wrote:


WM/H needs an overhaul and update to more modern systems. If they lose players as a result, that’s what happens and they have to forge on.
Either that or they can leave it in the state that it’s in and move onto other things. Which seems to be the case.

TBH when you come down to it, that there is the essence of all the issue with the company, the game, production, relationships, communications etc

PP need to modernise.

Not sure how we fix the community issues but the company needs to take ownership and lead. And that requires modernisation.

They're trying to, I think, but these days they're a smaller company of far more modest means and they're still dealing with the fallout of a lot of anti retailer decisions they made with wmh, hence their new love of kick-starter. For all that, pp are an interesting company with some interesting ideas and they can sometimes be way ahead of their time. Ten years ago, they were movers and shakers in the industry. It could come back round, you never know.

Thing is, wmh is too 'big' and 'old' to save. The time to save it was 5 years ago. You are correct, they need to modernise and overhaul. And they are. But most of their development time and fifteen years of lessons are going into warcaster and a new ip, not into wmh. Wmh is a back-burner product, they'll keep.it, and give it a light touch every now and then, but dont expect them to turn around, invest more than a token effort and turn wmh into the game people want or imagine it could be. Wmh can't be that game, I feel. It's just too late. I also suspect pp thinks this too and feels warcaster, possibly could be.