Why do you think Warhammer Fantasy failed?

[sam86]

To bad they cant make a 40k game that isnt trash or by a hasbeen studio or no name studio.

they can and they did ?
Yeah there are also lot of crap ones but i remember some great ones?

[Itori]

Imo because the 40k universe is much better and its popularity keeps increasing. If it wasnt for the mmo way back in the day i would have never knew they had a fantasy world.

[Dundebuns]

I'm talking about its lore, not about videogames.

That's fine, because the pictures of the games were a response to someone else and not you. Again I state, just because you don't like what they are doing with their lore doesn't mean they aern't meaningfully progressing it.

[Nork]

That's fine, because the pictures of the games were a response to someone else and not you. Again I state, just because you don't like what they are doing with their lore doesn't mean they aern't meaningfully progressing it.

It's not about what I like or what I don't, it's a fact: Warhammer lore has not progressed significantly until The End Times, which means no big changes were made for 30 years ish. None of the main characters died, nothing really changed for 30 years. They only created petty stories about minor characters, but the world was always the same (a kid from the 80s and a kid from the 2010s would know the same things about Warhammer main story, nothing really changed).

[Belize]

It's not what I like or what I don't, it's a fact: Warhammer lore has not progressed significantly until The End Times, which means there have been 30 years ish without big changes). None of the main characters died, nothing really changed for 30 years. They only created petty stories about minor characters, but the world was always the same (a kid from the 80s and a kid from the 2010s would know the same things about Warhammer main story, nothing really changed).

... Which is similar to 40K's lore not change until very recently with Fall of Cadia and beyond.

Lore not changing had nothing to do with WHF's lack of interest. In fact, its lore is its strongest point, since all the popular games are being made in WHF and not AOS.

[caractacus]

I'm not sure that not progressing the lore is the same as failing. I mean take the Lord of the Rings it was written about 50 years before the films with no changes to the lore yet they still did fantastically well and continue to be popular.

[Nork]

... Which is similar to 40K's lore not change until very recently with Fall of Cadia and beyond.

Lore not changing had nothing to do with WHF's lack of interest. In fact, its lore is its strongest point, since all the popular games are being made in WHF and not AOS.

I didn't know that about 40k's lore. Frankly, I'm not interested in it. It's sad though to see such an interesting universe so static. They didn't add anything relevant to the lore for decades. We still don't know what happened in Cathay or inside the Hinterlands of Khuresh...

[Arewn]

I mean it's a tabletop wargame, not a video game with a significant story element. Not really comparable.
Also Warhammer's lore is pretty built up, all things considered. So much so, in fact, that a certain company in the 90s based two of it's flagship titles off of Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k.

[KrayZ33]

"Why do you think Warhammer Fantasy failed?"

Indeed, that's the question, or rather, what makes you think it failed?
This thread seems weird to me.
I don't know from what direction you are coming from, because I'm not seeing it.

[Nork]

"Why do you think Warhammer Fantasy failed?"

Indeed, that's the question, or rather, what makes you think it failed?

The company literally destroyed its world. Maybe that could be a hint, couldn't it?

[Belize]

I didn't know that about 40k's lore. Frankly, I'm not interested in it. It's sad though to see such an interesting universe so static. They didn't add anything relevant to the lore for decades. We still don't know what happened in Cathay or inside the Hinterlands of Khuresh...

... Which is why they're currently making Warhammer Fantasy: The Old World...

[Hellobolis]

It's not about what I like or what I don't, it's a fact: Warhammer lore has not progressed significantly until The End Times, which means no big changes were made for 30 years ish. None of the main characters died, nothing really changed for 30 years. They only created petty stories about minor characters, but the world was always the same (a kid from the 80s and a kid from the 2010s would know the same things about Warhammer main story, nothing really changed).

no different in 40k. both haven't had any big lore progression until recently.

maybe it failed cause sci fi has been more popular than fantasy for a long time. people grew up with star wars/star trek, not much fantasy to go around until lord of the rings, and now it's star wars again.

maybe it failed cause GW didn't invest in it as much and put their resources in the better selling 40k, creating a self reinforcing loop.

maybe it failed cause fantasy is not that special of a fantasy setting, whereas 40k is fairly unique among sci fi and more over the top.

[dope_danny]

Because it was a setting for a system that took up nearly 50% of games workshops store shelves but sold less than glue and flock. Thats it. It sold like shit so its dead.

In recent years theres been a lot of what the warhammer crowd calls "total war secondaries" discovering the setting via the rts games going "how could this die???" and the fact you are only stumbling on it half a decade after it died, after a 30+ year lifetime of existence and constant decline, says why its dead.

Like i regularly, pre rona that is, go to warhammer world the world hq for games workshop to play tabletop games and in the last 20 years i think i saw 6 games of warhammer fantasy battles played outside of tournaments. When the base entry for the average gamesize was a cost of 500 quid/800 dollars (for comparison the sequel game Age of Sigmar sells these start collecting boxes that means in some cases you can get a 2000pt army for £100 and never need to buy anything else) the rank and flank crowds small interest numbers meant it was a cool setting but didn't have the appeal. It was the equivalent of some indie ultraniche steam early access game getting the budget and funding of call of duty and eventually they had to admit that all the money they pissed away on it wasn't growing the audience and as they got older the "greybeard grogs" were moving on to historicals that were much cheaper including GW employees themselves going off to found companies like Bolt Action.

They are now post Total Warhammer bringing it back in some capacity as "The Old World" but its a Forge World game, not a Games Workshop one. The resin based "prestige" side company under the citadel banner who make niche products at absurd, in a few cases quadruple digit for a single giant model, prices. That means its going to be even more expensive and might not even be the warhammer 9th edition people want mostly because its gone. It could be a revamp of the 8mm warmaster game using the setting we just don't know.

Its just another case of people not wanting something till its gone, when it was around barely anyone gave a shit because it was far too expensive and bloated to be viable for larger appeal.

[KrayZ33]

The company literally destroyed its world. Maybe that could be a hint, couldn't it?

Could also be a conclusion and an end to something that was started once?
Something that should eventually happen to any good story?
A conclusion?

And since this is also about money and selling figures, I'd hardly say it means anything among the lines of "this was a failure".
There is only so much you can do before it becomes the "same old shit" and before you stumble upon lore relevant mistakes over and over.
It's way easier to start over and then it's also easier to sell and introduce new figures, races, models etc. etc.

I liked your example with Blizzard destroying Azeroth. Because it'd be the same thing.
If they do that after 30 years and considering all the money they made with it and the stories they have written, how the heck can that be considered a failure?
Maybe they just want to start something new and fresh.

I'd welcome it. I enjoyed my share with WoW... but I wouldn't mind a completely new take on the same thing that's only a reference to it.
Azeroth 500 years later, for example.
Is Azeroth a failure because we walk around in the shadowlands now?

[Artelia]

What do you speak about? Vermintide and total war totally didn't failed. Quite opposite even developers were suprised with popularity. Only thing that failed was mmo and not because it was unpopular. It's true that Age of Sigmar is fail but people behind it were kicked from this long ago.

Main problem is 40k warhammer because i for some reason that is unkown to me is this "thing" better for a lot of people. I personaly hate this whole something and i will always prefer fantasy one. But people sure love this weird missmash with imperial space marines and because it fantasy getting far less love.

[dope_danny]

Could also be a conclusion and an end to something that was started once?
Something that should eventually happen to any good story?
A conclusion?

And since this is also about money and selling figures, I'd hardly say it means anything among the lines of "this was a failure".
There is only so much you can do before it becomes the "same old shit" and before you stumble upon lore relevant mistakes over and over.
It's way easier to start over and then it's also easier to sell and introduce new figures, races, models etc. etc.

I liked your example with Blizzard destroying Azeroth. Because it'd be the same thing.
If they do that after 30 years and considering all the money they made with it and the stories they have written, how the heck can that be considered a failure?
Maybe they just want to start something new and fresh.

I'd welcome it. I enjoyed my share with WoW... but I wouldn't mind a completely new take on the same thing that's only a reference to it.
Azeroth 500 years later, for example.

No it is well documented it was a failure and the biggest casualty of "the end of the kirby era". Age of Sigmar was rushed out the door before it was ready and with little direction to try and give some way to keep selling the models that took up a significant part of the production line still. There have been plenty of interviews about the CEO getting voted out and replaced and the whole redesign of the company. They took the worst selling tabletop wargame on the market -and like mmosuperdata this is a confirmed and tracked number not hearsay- and replaced it with AoS which is now the second best selling tabletop game in the world outselling X Wing, Star wars Legion and Dungeons and Dragons minis still using a lot of the same models but set 4000 years later on a series of elemental discworlds after the world blew up and now serves as the sun for the realm of heaven. Its all fluff and marketing but the models are still here the setting and rules arent and theres a good reason for it.

Theres plenty of things covering it now its been six years and its pretty interesting from a games design standpoint: https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonh...igmar-and-40k/

[Shiftford]

Warhammer Fantasy didn't fail as a setting - it was beloved, which is why Total Warhammer is doing so well. The reason Warhammer Fantasy Battles ended - after it's eighth edition - was because Games Workshop's design principles changed and the game became unaffordable. I played Warhammer for many years so I will give my perspective as a customer/grognard:

The story had in fact advanced - though they started retconning that by the end. They had campaigns such as the Storm of Chaos and Nemesis Crown, which were of mediocre quality but still counted as advancement, and up until 7th edition Fantasy was doing pretty well. They released every army in plastic and even created new forces, such as the very successful Ogre Kingdoms which became extremely popular.

Online every army had its own forum/website/community and there was a really strong identity associated with each.

Hooooowever, GW decided that an average game of Warhammer Fantasy Battles involved too few models. People weren't encouraged to add to their armies in the way they were with 40k (where special weapons/custom unit rules/conversions were much more worthwhile.) It led to GW changing the 'average' infantry unit size from 6th to 8th edition from 16 model, to 20 models and then to 30+ models.

In 6th edition, you could buy a box of 20 warriors for £15. This would give you a useable unit on the battlefield. In 7th edition, they changed the business model to 10 models for £12.50. This would later increase to £15, meaning you were suddenly paying double per model. Players got extremely offended by this, especially in comparison to 40k where one box has always more or less allowed you to field one unit.

The problem was further exacerbated in 8th edition. 8th edition changed the rules so that you were rewarded for having huge units. For example, you might want 50 Empire Spearmen in a single unit. So now, to field that full competitive spearmen unit, you needed £75. Only a few years prior £75 would have gotten you 100 models, which would be enough for five units (most of an army.)

Similarly, GW started to release EXTREMELY expensive elite plastic models. Greatswords, for example, were £30 for 10 models. They were no different to Spearmen in model quality, but they were twice as expensive. This, coupled with the meta requiring far larger units, made the game become a ludicrously expensive game where very few, large and difficult to manouvre units marched into each other with little room for tactical flexibility.

The gameplay suffered hugely as a result. The meta became about big spells that could one shot units, big spells that could buff your super duper units and the use of monsters which still retained manouvreability. It was awful and 8th edition saw a vast swathe of the playerbase leave.

LASTLY, and sorry this has gone on a while...- fantasy models are well hidden. The models at the back ranks, or in the middle of a block, are covered up by those around them. Having to paint/model 50 soldiers, knowing half of them will never be so much as looked at, discouraged people from bothering to do the labour of painting/modelling on them. In old warhammer, with smaller units, this wasn't a problem. In 40k, with 'skirmishing' units that stand far apart, this wasn't a problem.

Warhammer Fantasy didn't fail - Games Workshop's contemporary CEO, Tom Kirby, killed it. Check out some of the info on him on 1d4chan, for a laugh.

Ironically if they'd just held on a little longer they might have been able to tap into Game of Thrones and Total Warhammer hype.

[KrayZ33]

No it is well documented it was a failure and the biggest casualty of "the end of the kirby era". Age of Sigmar was rushed out the door before it was ready and with little direction to try and give some way to keep selling the models that took up a significant part of the production line still. There have been plenty of interviews about the CEO getting voted out and replaced and the whole redesign of the company. They took the worst selling tabletop wargame on the market -and like mmosuperdata this is a confirmed and tracked number not hearsay- and replaced it with AoS which is now the second best selling tabletop game in the world outselling X Wing, Star wars Legion and Dungeons and Dragons minis still using a lot of the same models but set 4000 years later on a series of elemental discworlds after the world blew up and now serves as the sun for the realm of heaven. Its all fluff and marketing but the models are still here the setting and rules arent and theres a good reason for it.

Theres plenty of things covering it now its been six years and its pretty interesting from a games design standpoint: https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonh...igmar-and-40k/

You said all that and I still don't know what you consider a failure.

OP says Warhammer failed to create a living world.
They destroyed the world because of that.

You agree with him but actually name different reasons, reasons that are similar to mine.
They want to sell models and start with a fresh setting.

I'm saying that just because you can't keep something selling for 30 years, it doesn't mean it's a failure, it just means that the setting and game is over and the interest in it declined.
From what I've heard (I'm not playing the tabletop), it wasn't beginner friendly, thus no new players and old players leave at some point.
You are saying yourself that it has been the worst selling TABLETOP game. That doesn't mean the setting itself was a failure. There are like billions of other reasons for that.

[mbit]

As far as i remember wh simply got replaced due to too high cost to build an army by new tabletops systems releasing. Age of Sigmar didnt manage to get new players but still discouraged vets, too many didnt like the radical rule changes.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Because Games Workshop were morons, that's why.

Storm of Chaos campaign was a disaster (thanks to GW stupidity) and GW trashed the setting because they wanted to chase after 40k's higher profits, so they just made Age of Sigmar as 40k lite.