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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

But how much of the "good" under Kirby was because of Kirby, or in spite of him? Many other people have come and gone from GW over the years, and how much of GW's successes (and failures) is due to their contributions?

It's why, although I blamed a lot on him initially, I've come to recognize that Kirby just drifted among the clouds at too high an altitude to be directly influencing so much of what's had my ire, hobby wise and litigation wise over the last 15 years, and that that must therefore rest upon the shoulders of one Alan Merrett, who seems to have been the scheming grand vizier to an egotistical but fairly distant Sultan Kirby.

All Kirby would have been concerned about was sales and share value, the execution, on a day to day and policy, I think was all Merrett and, possibly, a small cabal of his yesmen.

Looking back at what I wrote, and what I was thinking, is that I think I was trying to say that when you look back at who was there in GW's golden age and who was there during GW's "fall", Kirby and Merett are among the few constants.

Yes and Kirby had some bonkers ideas. I was told by an ex GW artist that Kirby told him that as far as he was concerned the artists were a waste of money and the minis would sell themselves just as well sold in blank boxes and all artwork in books replaced by photos of the minis. That was back in the early 90s... But Merrett was 'in there', he's been the source of the C&Ds, the blocker of certain armies coming back and a fundamental root cause, if his comments at the court case were anything to go by, of the arrogant disdain emanating from the company to it's customer base.

So Merrett was responsible for the new "Stock Models in Stock Poses drawn in cartoon style" art?

 JonWebb wrote:

 russian69hitman wrote:

Nope. This thread is the only "source" out there. I tried several search engines and websites, and nothing but this thread shows up. His linkedin profile and facebook profile are unchanged.

Never feed the trolls.

Just as a note.

I think I was the first to mention this .........The person who initially gave the news is someone who would be in a good place to hear.........I went to Cornwall (deepest darkest UK ) .........couldn't follow it up......I have since tried to confirm with a second source ............................. but they ain't talking................no reason to confirm/deny either way.......................can't really say more than that........................this may prove to be Chinese whispers for sure........................Sadly I cannot get that second verification as yet to prove/disprove fully...................

Yeah, this thread should be closed.

 Verviedi wrote:
So Merrett was responsible for the new "Stock Models in Stock Poses drawn in cartoon style" art?

Doubtful, but I'd argue that if he was "Head of IP" he would be responsible for art direction and, possibly, granted approval at some stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 russian69hitman wrote:
Yeah, this thread should be closed.

Why? There's multiple people now reporting they've heard similar, the thread's not devolved into a shouting match and there is merit (excuse the pun) in discussing said individuals impact of GW and the wider wargaming hobby.

frozenwastes wrote:
but I get the sense that people prefer to stick to one faction rather than buying everything

This is true of the crowd whose primary focus is the game aspect.

The crowd that's in it primarily for the modelling hobby buys models from across all factions based on the model designs.

I've got Tyranids, Genestealer Cult, Space Marines, Blood Angels, Astra Militarum, Tau, Tzeentch, and a variety of character models (Seraphon/Stormcast Eternals/etc.).
And I'm confident that I don't have enough of any one faction to field a 2000 point army. Haha.
I don't buy models with an army list or with tactical advantages in mind.

Therefore it follows that I do love rules that allow me to table what I've bought/modelled/painted, regardless of my consumer allegiance to a specific faction.
Unbound does that - Kill Team does that - AoS rules do that.

Just offering another perspective, not arguing in any way.

It'd be interesting to find out rough comparisons of the customer group sizes... As in peoples' motivations for buying (modelling/collecting vs. gameplay).
Note that I'm perfectly aware those two are not mutually exclusive.

 russian69hitman wrote:

 JonWebb wrote:

 russian69hitman wrote:

Nope. This thread is the only "source" out there. I tried several search engines and websites, and nothing but this thread shows up. His linkedin profile and facebook profile are unchanged.

Never feed the trolls.

Just as a note.

I think I was the first to mention this .........The person who initially gave the news is someone who would be in a good place to hear.........I went to Cornwall (deepest darkest UK ) .........couldn't follow it up......I have since tried to confirm with a second source ............................. but they ain't talking................no reason to confirm/deny either way.......................can't really say more than that........................this may prove to be Chinese whispers for sure........................Sadly I cannot get that second verification as yet to prove/disprove fully...................

Yeah, this thread should be closed.

You need...

Somebody other...

Than Adam West...

To do...

Your quoting...

If you are going to quote then quote - don't be a jerk.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ruhe.bryan wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:
but I get the sense that people prefer to stick to one faction rather than buying everything

This is true of the crowd whose primary focus is the game aspect.

The crowd that's in it primarily for the modelling hobby buys models from across all factions based on the model designs.

I've got Tyranids, Genestealer Cult, Space Marines, Blood Angels, Astra Militarum, Tau, Tzeentch, and a variety of character models (Seraphon/Stormcast Eternals/etc.).
And I'm confident that I don't have enough of any one faction to field a 2000 point army. Haha.
I don't buy models with an army list or with tactical advantages in mind.

Therefore it follows that I do love rules that allow me to table what I've bought/modelled/painted, regardless of my consumer allegiance to a specific faction.
Unbound does that - Kill Team does that - AoS rules do that.

Just offering another perspective, not arguing in any way.

It'd be interesting to find out rough comparisons of the customer group sizes... As in peoples' motivations for buying (modelling/collecting vs. gameplay).
Note that I'm perfectly aware those two are not mutually exclusive.

Back in the day, most of the people that I gamed with had multiple armies - for both Warhammer and Warhammer 40K.

Then it seemed that there was a change, and folks started focusing on one army, possibly because of prices.

Recently my group switched to Kings of War, and suddenly folks are doing multiple armies again, but using figures from all over the place, not limiting themselves to a single company.

The Auld Grump

In my group, everyone is running multiple 40K armies.

What I was wondering about was in terms of sales. Is it better to have an unbound type approach where every person that walks in the door can be sold the latest release and can use it for their army, or to have things more rigidly separated by faction.

If you have it more rigidly separated (the model that worked for GW through the decades) then you have to do a little more work to sell people things.

I think there's a happy medium. Where playable forces are small enough that you can get people to start a second or third army. I know in the 90s when there was a cool Eldar release I ended up getting a few blisters of aspect warriors, a box of guardians, a farseer, the codex and the new release (I want to say plastic falcon, but I don't rememeber if it was a falcon release or warwalker release) and I was able to play a very small game that worked. Why? The 2nd ed rules supported a lower model count game better than the 3rd and on rules that 40k has been stuck on for 18 years now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
In my group, everyone is running multiple 40K armies.

So would you be more likely to buy something that's new because it is part of one of your multiple armies or because you can include it with any of them because of something like unbound? What would the concensus be, in your group, if the chaos marine player put down the eldar and the marines from the latest deathwatch release during a game?

I have a feeling that people would rather collect multiple armies, but not use them together regardless of what they are. And that while unbound might allow the possibility of the local GW staffer to sell a given release to anyone, most people don't actually want to put everything together on the table.

Frozenwastes - I agree, at least for myself.

I like to collect multiple smaller forces with a theme, but I have zero interest in just throwing a random selection of my stuff on the table for a giant incoherent pew-pew battle, at least not even on a remotely regular basis; that's the sort of thing you do once a year with a bunch of mates and an inadvisable amount of beer, and we never needed it to have "official" support in the rules we just did it.

I'll choose Mordheim, Zone Mortalis, Kill Team, Necromunda, Strike Force, Dragon Rampant etc etc over Unbound 40K/AoS any time.

I'd love to see a Dragon Rampant / 40K crossover ruleset. DR is huge fun, though it has a few balance issues and would need a bit more detail in the shooting types and unit types to me 40K-ish.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I'd love to see a Dragon Rampant / 40K crossover ruleset. DR is huge fun, though it has a few balance issues and would need a bit more detail in the shooting types and unit types to me 40K-ish.

I'm sure one will be in the works at some stage, the Lion Rampant rules are already getting expanded variants covering Colonial times(next month) and Pike & Shot(early 2017) on top of the Dragon Rampant fantasy version.

If it works for Colonials, it'll work for 40k. So much of 40k is based on movies and stuff the authors watched way back in the day. Things like Zulu and Khartoum and the like. Heck, they even made Praetorians to be like the British in Zulu. And made a display borde called "Ork's Drift."

frozenwastes wrote:
So much of 40k is based on movies and stuff the authors watched way back in the day.

Nonono... This is a popular misconception. Fairly sure it was Merett himself who testified in a court of law that all of GW's creations are entirely from their designers' heads with no outside influences, so any resemblance to real world events is clearly coincidental, particularly if you just slide that coffee cup there over a liiiittle bit to the left so it hides Sly Marbo from view, thanks...

 insaniak wrote:
…particularly if you just slide that coffee cup there over a liiiittle bit to the left so it hides Sly Marbo from view, thanks...

Or just Malekith the Dark Elf, or was it this one? There really should be a link in the "Other versions" or "In other media" wikipedida section that link to the Warhammer Fantasy version.

Mario wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
…particularly if you just slide that coffee cup there over a liiiittle bit to the left so it hides Sly Marbo from view, thanks...

Or just Malekith the Dark Elf, or was it this one? There really should be a link in the "Other versions" or "In other media" wikipedida section that link to the Warhammer Fantasy version.

You are aware that Malekith was a character from Nordic legend?

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/kruellagh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruella_de_Vil


Nothing to see here, move along...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

But how much of the "good" under Kirby was because of Kirby, or in spite of him? Many other people have come and gone from GW over the years, and how much of GW's successes (and failures) is due to their contributions?

It's why, although I blamed a lot on him initially, I've come to recognize that Kirby just drifted among the clouds at too high an altitude to be directly influencing so much of what's had my ire, hobby wise and litigation wise over the last 15 years, and that that must therefore rest upon the shoulders of one Alan Merrett, who seems to have been the scheming grand vizier to an egotistical but fairly distant Sultan Kirby.

All Kirby would have been concerned about was sales and share value, the execution, on a day to day and policy, I think was all Merrett and, possibly, a small cabal of his yesmen.

Looking back at what I wrote, and what I was thinking, is that I think I was trying to say that when you look back at who was there in GW's golden age and who was there during GW's "fall", Kirby and Merett are among the few constants.

Yes and Kirby had some bonkers ideas. I was told by an ex GW artist that Kirby told him that as far as he was concerned the artists were a waste of money and the minis would sell themselves just as well sold in blank boxes and all artwork in books replaced by photos of the minis. That was back in the early 90s... But Merrett was 'in there', he's been the source of the C&Ds, the blocker of certain armies coming back and a fundamental root cause, if his comments at the court case were anything to go by, of the arrogant disdain emanating from the company to it's customer base.

I'll largely be quoting an old post of mine, but Kirby's approaches did not match those of others, we don't know what he was responsible for and what was achieved in spite of him, during their 'golden era'. Most of the slide into crap occurred over time as more and more of the old guard left.

For example, GW's attitude towards their book range when Ansell was in charge. Tom Kirby was against it, one author recalls him saying he didn't like fantasy and preferred to read Jane Austen!! Once Bryan Ansell sold up the book range lost a lot of support and started to die off, which is why books went unpublished for years, Kirby canned them. Ansell is still keen to share his experiences and model collection, Kirby doesn't come across as a fantasy enthusiast,

GW seem keen to publish books today under Kirby. And one account may explain the change. Boxtree took 300 ltd edition copies of the new Harlequin novel to an event and sold them all. GW later refused these books shelf space in their own shops on the grounds they were too large or some such. It seems likely that GW simply doesn't like to share their toys, even with their publishing partner. Now they own their own publisher, the novel range is well supported. Compare to how GW licence out to Fantasy Flight games, but specifically do not stock or sell their stuff through stores or online.

http://www.bsfa.co.uk/www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp%3FarticleID=42.html

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
... snippety ...

http://www.bsfa.co.uk/www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp%3FarticleID=42.html

What an absolutely fascinating read. So much of the humour has been lost over the years, but it still appears from time to time.

Now, excuse me while I lament Dark Future. Perhaps, one day GW may be in a mood to re-visit the Dark Future universe...

 zedmeister wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
... snippety ...

http://www.bsfa.co.uk/www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp%3FarticleID=42.html

What an absolutely fascinating read. So much of the humour has been lost over the years, but it still appears from time to time.

Now, excuse me while I lament Dark Future. Perhaps, one day GW may be in a mood to re-visit the Dark Future universe...

I just got to the bit where GW could have potentially had Terry Pratchett writing for them and they screwed it up with an unsuitable contract.

So, no comments on this one:

and in 40K there was some talk that the immortal emperor should be revealed as Cliff Richard.

I'll never think of the Emperor in the same light...
Can I recommend to Lego that the Emperor should now have a Glossary entry, like Fzorgle, that says Cliff Richard

 zedmeister wrote:
So, no comments on this one:

and in 40K there was some talk that the immortal emperor should be revealed as Cliff Richard.

I'll never think of the Emperor in the same light...
Can I recommend to Lego that the Emperor should now have a Glossary entry, like Fzorgle, that says Cliff Richard

So Erebus was actually trying to resurrect Operation Yewtree then?

That was an amazing read.

If GW ever tries to sue anyone again like they did with Chapterhouse, you have some first hand statements by authors at the time pointing out how derivative it all was. Again and again it seems.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
... snippety ...

http://www.bsfa.co.uk/www.vectormagazine.co.uk/article.asp%3FarticleID=42.html

What an absolutely fascinating read. So much of the humour has been lost over the years, but it still appears from time to time.

Now, excuse me while I lament Dark Future. Perhaps, one day GW may be in a mood to re-visit the Dark Future universe...

Eh, seems as if much of the original "humour" was largely the result of snobbery. I always laugh when authors of one style of completely ridiculous fiction look at another and come out with variations on "yeah I'll write it, but only if I get to do a Pythonesque satire of such creatively-bankrupt risible dreck, lololol ur fantasy are dumz". Oh but for their masterworks, suspension of disbelief and appropriate gravitas are only right and proper.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


I'll largely be quoting an old post of mine, but Kirby's approaches did not match those of others, we don't know what he was responsible for and what was achieved in spite of him, during their 'golden era'. Most of the slide into crap occurred over time as more and more of the old guard left.

......

Ansell is still keen to share his experiences and model collection, Kirby doesn't come across as a fantasy enthusiast,

There's no doubt that Kirby has changed as a person over the past 20-30 years. Still, as I noted (and linked) earlier, in ages past he was a D&D module writer at TSR-UK before moving to GW and apparently a good/enthusiastic GM. So, you know. Kirby circa 1995, 2005 and 2015 are clearly different beasts with different motivations and attitudes. It's still not helpful to pour pure scorn on him and make excuses as to why the good stuff happened "despite him" - though I'll happily agree that he and Merett were responsible for the company that GW became as they clearly became more and more detatched from the ground floor and what wargaming and warhammer are all about.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


I'll largely be quoting an old post of mine, but Kirby's approaches did not match those of others, we don't know what he was responsible for and what was achieved in spite of him, during their 'golden era'. Most of the slide into crap occurred over time as more and more of the old guard left.

......

Ansell is still keen to share his experiences and model collection, Kirby doesn't come across as a fantasy enthusiast,

There's no doubt that Kirby has changed as a person over the past 20-30 years. Still, as I noted (and linked) earlier, in ages past he was a D&D module writer at TSR-UK before moving to GW and apparently a good/enthusiastic GM. So, you know. Kirby circa 1995, 2005 and 2015 are clearly different beasts with different motivations and attitudes. It's still not helpful to pour pure scorn on him and make excuses as to why the good stuff happened "despite him" - though I'll happily agree that he and Merett were responsible for the company that GW became as they clearly became more and more detatched from the ground floor and what wargaming and warhammer are all about.

Lets not let any facts get in the way of people flinging gak, eh? Burn the Witch, I say.

What is that saying, about absolute power corrupting absolutely?

Even is a scenario as relatively small-fry as this I think it applies.

As there is no further news regarding the original rumour one way or the other and considering that the discussion has moved well on, I'm going to lock this. Feel free to continue the convo in the General Discussion sub-forum. Thanks.

Looks as if there's new news here:

https://twitter.com/LaurieGoulding/status/769221152799612928

It's official - he's gone.

Much respect, Mr. Merett.

Retired then. Probably got a stack of cash to spend now from years shilling marines to people.