I agree with the poster that stated nothing would get done if FFG asked fans all the time. However, I disagree with hiding the fact that they were going to shut down 2nd edition anyways. They created the fixed PDFs and got people excited. Then day before Gen Con announced "Surprise!"

I have suggested this for a future option. Even though I know FFG doesn't care for my thoughts on how to manage a gaming company, I suggest running a poll. Run it in the Game Trader mags, on the official site, on cards that come with Warhammer related products, asking fans what they want to see next. Don't leave open answers. make 3 questions. What are you disappointed with? What race should be next for a possible book? Do you want more lore books or adventures?Give them 5 choices to choose for each question.

This would let fans know the game is in trouble and ready for a possible new edition. It would encourage them to push the game more to others. Finally it would let them know FFG really does care and wants to do what they think is best for the game.

One negative to this is that players might panic and quit...well if you have a plan B being 3rd edition drafted up...what do you have to lose? Maybe they will give 3rd a chance if they know you are trying as a company to keep the game they love alive. Fans know that desperate times call for desperate measures. so they will come to an understanding if a new edition is the inevitable decision. Warhammer products have gone through many editions already so they should be used to it by now.

As for this reviewer. I don't own the game but I fully agree that one cannot just sit down and judge a game. You have to play it for a week at least. Learn teh parts that could use fixing, play each race and class, see if it is possible to play a themed character that can still get by, etc.

When I can't sell a particular product at my store I will just go ahead and open a copy and leave it on the back tables. People will sit down and kill some time to play it. I will listen to the concerns and ask for their opinions if it wasn't fun. Then once I shut store down I get to work on making variants for the open store copy. This produces sales especially once I start printing out my variants and tokens and such to give away with each copy.

nub5 said:

Due diligence? Unprofessional? You make it sound like reviewers have some objective standard or duty to meet. I expect reviewers to do crap and biased reviews and read them accordingly. On the other hand, I don't think that a CEO of an RPG company personally criticising a reviewer is a good thing at all.

I would have to disagree. While I expect reviewers to have a biased opinion (everyone does one way or the other), I do expect a certain professionalism from them. Many years ago I worked on a music fanzine with friends and I cringe when I read my so-called "reviews" from back in the day.

In order to make a review more professional, the reviewer might start with truly or mostly objective information, so as to make the review useful to everyone who reads it. What does the box look like? Is it sturdy or flimsy? What is actually in the box? How many cards? How big are they? Do they look crowded in a layout sense? Can the text be easily read? How does the artwork look like? How many pages do the books have? What´s the layout like? The binding? The artwork? Is a lot of the artwork recycled or new? Read an example of a fluff text. Does it have a lot of spelling mistakes? Is it well written and evokes the atmosphere of the game? Read an example of rules text. Is it concisely written and easy to understand? Do you have to reference other books/charts/cards all the time or is the information presented in an easy-to-use way? I could go on.

After having gone over these things, you can add your own opinion based on your own experiences. And yes, I do think that a reviewer should have played the game he is reviewing or at least read all of the material once and make up a character. I would also appreciate a little background on the reviewer. What other games does he like and play regularly? That way I can gauge whether his opinion will be similar to mine. I would definitely like to know if the reviewer worked on a previous edition of the game or has had a professional relationship with the company that publishes the new one.

A good reviewer might even make the controversy on the Net part of his review and adress some of the concerns that are out there (going either way with his opinion).

That, to me, is the obligation of a reviewer. Unfortunately, anyone can publish anything on the Net these days and there really isn´t any way to enforce a standard of quality. If, however, you want to keep your credibility and that of the site you´re writing for, you should do a better job. If you don´t, why should I go to your site instead of just lurking on forums where I can actually get more information by reading reports of people who have played the game (some of whom were very critical to begin with).

As for FFG´s response, in general I would agree that a company should not react to bad reviews. However, in this case I really appreciated the information about the reviewer´s professional background. I did cringe at the D&D4 reference, however. While it is true that sharing a PHB is a pain in the butt (which means a group of 4 players will have to buy 4 PHBs), there is also a lot of information in the DMG and MM. I expect that especially the D&D Monster Manual is a lot more comprehensive than anything that´s in the WFRP box, so that argument is a little shaky ( I don´t mind to be proven wrong here, btw). I don´t think, however, that FFG should be apologetic about the price. If they put out a good product they should charge for it accordingly. And that´s why I need professional reviews: to help me decide if I want to spend that kind of money or not and whether the game is for me or not.

Talinfein said:

Really, IMO dragging up that information to try and establish a case of bias was the worst part of the response, especially as it seems several pieces of that information may not be correct.

As said, I am not defending the review. It wasn't good at all. However, I think that FFG comes out looking a lot worse from this than they should have, which is a shame as it only hurts WFRP3e.

Here's another, very interesting article about the situation:

ICv2 Defends Indefensible WFRP 3rd Review

(Thanks Google Alert!)

@Sinister:

For the 20+ years I have been playing RPGs I have yet to be in a group (or personally known a group) where all the players owned even a single book. From what I know thats typically the norm for groups as well. Much like the general case of the GM buying the RPGs.

Loswaith said:

My experience is just the opposite. In nearly 30 years of roleplaying, I have never been in, or even seen another group where every player didn't own at least 1 book (and in some cases gigantic bags full of them).

hehe.. I know people that have been role-playing since D&D was first released and they still dont and never have owned an RPG book... to this day it boggles my mind.

179 Listed locations Acording to the List.

Though a couple had double listing with different webpages though same host location.

Loswaith said:

Wow...that's a lot. I'm reading that they sold out the first print (saw it somewhere here on for forums). I wonder how many copies that is. A lot I would hope considering they sent out the Decree copies at cost (or there abouts).

It would be cool to know how many copies are floating around out there.