Matt Colville weighs in.

log in or register to remove this ad


Can a DEAD MAN sign a letter, Scribe? < Stares meaningfully at tombstone of WHFB >


On the one hand, I agree.

On the other hand, GW has historically been pretty consistently anti-customer. To the extent that the community jokes about how badly they've been abused. With WotC this all felt like a big change! When I read about the reasoning behind Age of Sigmar, I felt more like, "I don't know what I expected."

I read an article by the guy who wrote the rules for AoS, it was an eye opener, and as bad as I thought it would be considering the state of that 'game' on release. :D



It may be this one.

Wow thank you and holy hell is much worse than just the moustache thing, like you said.

"All we were thinking about was how exciting this was going to be, people were going to be shocked but actually, we weren’t taking anything away."

Ooof. Just looking at the AoS website and like 90% of a lot of armies are gone in the sense that there are no models being made, more in some cases. The guy being interviewed knows all this though, which helps.

Interesting/depressing that the thinking behind the Stormcast really was "fantasy space marines", contrary to the players who insist otherwise.

Anyway sounds like the whole thing was a hell of an "echo chamber".

"The rules were very much the last thought in the process, and that was like the microcosm of how it was like at GW at that point. That was the case for everything."

Owwww right in the nuts lol damn.

"There was a big drive at that time to pull the game away from the hands of the gamers, so to speak, and make it more about collecting and modelling."

LOL hmmmmm sounds familiar.

"And then, because there was no balancing, because the second of the edicts from on high was that there would be no balancing, no points, when units have different options we had to make sure they were equal but different. "


There's so much more. Wow.


I think it's fair to say that both are subscriptions, but they are different subscription models. The danger lies in equivocating between these two different models and pretending that they are both the same because they are subscriptions.

Someone made a spreadsheet estimate for a Pathfinder subscription. It's roughly about $65 per month. But keep in mind, that's subscribing to the Rulebook, Adventure Path, Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Accessories, Pathfinder Society, and Pawns lines, which would also net the physical and pdf copies. It's certainly more than $30 a month, but I would be curious how that would compare to the $30 per month for the online D&D materials plus purchasing the equivalent hard copy products for D&D in addition to that.

But you’re not going to purchase the print copies. Instead you get a vtt and database access.

Like you say, they are different. But, not terribly far off in pricing.

But you’re not going to purchase the print copies. Instead you get a vtt and database access.

Like you say, they are different. But, not terribly far off in pricing.
The pricing isn't really the issue.

The value proposition is.

The value proposition with the Paizo offering is gigantic - it's permanent, owned, no-one-can-take-it-away access to stuff.

The value proposition with the WotC offering is much worse - it's temporary access to the VTT and presumably to the books for it, together some total rubbish like some free mini "drops" and so on.


Fair point!

FWIW, I think WoW is a slightly dated thing for what they're actually going for. Colville mentions loot boxes. If that's near the target, it's more free-to-play / freemium online tabletop or something. A live service. Which can be a lot cheaper to launch than a full MMO.
You’re taking Neverwinter.

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement