Is it really the end of Warhammer Fantasy?

[3eland]

That is kind of frustrating re: Slaanesh.

I have an entire mono-Slaanesh army. Granted I was rebasing it all originally for 40k but it is still sad.

[3eland]

Anecdotal of course, but my wife and my sister in law are both casual gamers, and I mentioned one of these to each separately while referring to some of the sillier changes and the reaction was clear- two iterations of "haha, that's pretty... wait, I'm not allowed to get that bonus, that's uncool." Which is how long it should have taken GW's designers to recognize it was a bad idea, except they've lost their connection with reality.

Neither are the young, active military or a bunch of other people. It's just a silly rule. IF someone really wants it, they can make a paper mustache and pick it up when rolling for their silly character. Or your group can decide that they don't need it.

I mean, did you notice how Ableist it was that Settra's rule has no downside for people without legs? After all, they can't kneel...

Jaisus.

Well remember that the only reason there are rules for those models atm is because GW wanted to give your old models something to do on the field. Supposedly they will eventually all be going poof when new models come out. The new models do not have silly rules and are designed a lot better.

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

Understand this:
Us old players weren't supporting the game. We weren't spending enough money on keeping it selling.

This just isn't true.

First, 40k simply outstripped Fantasy, and the falling percentage of GW's total sales specific to Fantasy was primarily a sign of the growth of 40k--40k simply grew so fast and so far that Fantasy didn't need to decline in order for its portion of GW's business to fall off.

Second, though demand for Fantasy has declined, a HUGE portion of the responsibility is on GW for yanking the game around in a mad effort to compel players to buy more--resulting in interest dropping off.

WHFB still represented about 15% of GW's business--simply cutting that off is an insane move on GW's part. We're seeing a lot of apologists talk about Cadillac and a bunch of other BS, but it's hard to figure out what anyone there is thinking on this.

The new game is garbage, as far as the traditional armies are concerned, probably because GW wants us to abandon them in favour of buying new Sigmarines--and I don't want Sigmarines. So GW will now be earning exactly 0 of the dollars I spend on Fantasy wargaming.

That's not my fault. That's GW's.

[3eland]

Were there actual released numbers (from GW) about what each universe pulled in? I keep seeing all these % of sales but on the report I saw from GW everything was clumped together and there was not a breakdown.

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

In their mess of silly rules, which I don't like but have no great complaints over, they managed to stick in two (one empire, one dwarf), that were about facial hair. The buff is minor and the rule is silly, but, at the end of the day, there's no reason these rules should exist, since they don't really add anything to the game but do off-handedly alienate women..

That's a silly complaint. Some women can grow moustaches. Some men can't. Further, Dwarfs have beards. It's Dwarfy.

However, you might fairly complain that though there are rules that benefit male players (generally), there are no rules that benefit female players (generally).

[pretre]

Were there actual released numbers (from GW) about what each universe pulled in? I keep seeing all these % of sales but on the report I saw from GW everything was clumped together and there was not a breakdown.

Sales last time I saw were about 1/6 paint, 1/6 Fantasy, 2/3 40k.

[3eland]

Does that fantasy include LotR/Hobbit too? Would be sad if it did!

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

Were there actual released numbers (from GW) about what each universe pulled in? I keep seeing all these % of sales but on the report I saw from GW everything was clumped together and there was not a breakdown.

They were available internally; in fact,a big part of the monthly Manager's report involved a breakdown of sales by line, and top selling products by unit.

[pretre]

Does that fantasy include LotR/Hobbit too? Would be sad if it did!

I think that was tracked separately. It has been a while.

[kturock]

They're trying to put the fun back into the game. It is after all, just a game. That's the GW line, straight from the local GW store manager.

I'm almost 54 years old. There is only 1 player at the GW store older than me and 2 others in the area. I will almost never get the youngling bonus as a Dwarf player. I was clean-shaven until recently. It will be awhile, if ever, when I get the long beard bonus.

Dunno where you got that idea reegsk.
But bottom line is, this; try it or not. Like it or not. Keep your models or not. Play it or 8th or what ever you were playing before.

They will not be changing it back to 8th style format. There will not be a 9th edition.

I personally didn't like how movement was changed in 8th from previous editions. I like the old "Napoleonic's" movement and LoS.
But, since that's been changed, simplified, I like; this, AoS, better than 8th; especially since end times and monster mash came about.

The thoughts at the store was 9th would make WHFB more like 40k. Both had the same or similar progression of rules and/or models added.

[kturock]

Were there actual released numbers (from GW) about what each universe pulled in? I keep seeing all these % of sales but on the report I saw from GW everything was clumped together and there was not a breakdown.

They were available internally; in fact,a big part of the monthly Manager's report involved a breakdown of sales by line, and top selling products by unit.

And what is/wasn't selling, went back to GW as a direct only item.

[spiralingcadaver]

I mean, did you notice how Ableist it was that Settra's rule has no downside for people without legs? After all, they can't kneel...

That's taking the argument to its illogical conclusion (well, I guess you could go further, talking about people physically able to play the game or something...).

You could have mentioned the Slaanesh dancing rule as closer to a problem, but, at the end of the day, I felt that it was better to pick a single battle than make a laundry list of all the rules GW put out that are poor concepts, and felt that a single focus was more worth it as representative of GW's general lack of insight or forethought.

[3eland]

Our group just allows the special rule to happen naturally as really it was meant to happen (just they added weird things).

So the beard thing would apply for anyone. The Masque dancing thing would apply even if your opponent didn't dance.

I was dancing. Couldn't get my opponent to dance though .

[pretre]

That's reasonable and a much more reasonable decision than deciding the game is ableist, sexist, anti-beardist, etc.

[spiralingcadaver]

pretre, I agree that it's the best solution, but strongly believe that the house rules aren't an excuse for a bad original design, since the more you do, the more you're making your own game*, and that it doesn't really address how poorly thought out the rules are. My criticism was about their design philosophy, not whether or not it could be salvaged.

*I remember someone on BGG who basically argued "Look, if just I jangle these keys in front of a baby, it can create hours of fun! It only took a little house-ruling to turn it into a good game!"