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.

I for one am happy to see them trying to push out beyond specialized hobby shops and their own store fronts. I feel like that's been GW's biggest challenge, and allowing their products to be sold at more places will ultimately only generate more interest in the hobby we've all come to know and enjoy periodically. Whilst I wont give away too much detail, I understand that a GW outlet recruiter has approached my employer recently regarding the subject of advertising with us (we're a hobbyist magazine publisher).

 otahak wrote:
...a GW outlet recruiter has approached my employer recently regarding the subject of advertising with us (we're a hobbyist magazine publisher).

LIES! Games Workshop would never, ever break their cardinal rule of advertising - "We don't advertise."

Wow, things really are different at GW now that Kirby is doing something else with his time.

 Breotan wrote:

 otahak wrote:
...a GW outlet recruiter has approached my employer recently regarding the subject of advertising with us (we're a hobbyist magazine publisher).

LIES! Games Workshop would never, ever break their cardinal rule of advertising - "We don't advertise."

Wow, things really are different at GW now that Kirby is doing something else with his time.

It isn't something completely new. Rare but not new. Adverts for Age of Sigmar have been a regular occurrence in SFX magazine since the game was released. That said, SFX has had some kind of relationship with GW for some time now. There have been regular Bkacj Library adverts and the latest BL releases are often a prize for that month's star letter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The proposed GW prices don't strike me as particularly excessive compared with similar offerings from Airfix and Revell.

Anyway, GW stuff mostly starts to look really expensive when you start to price up whole armies and necessary rulebooks. A lot of the individual kits are not bad value in themselves

I don't think the target market will care that the figures are fairly old designs.

Heck, I am not the target audience, and I don't much care that they are older kits - I am actually agreeing with a few of GW's more recent decisions. Something I had not expected to say until they had declared bankruptcy.... (Five to Ten years time, or so I would have said last year.)

The Auld Grump

All they have to do is put that into Walmart...

 chaosmarauder wrote:
All they have to do is put that into Walmart...

I said this before. I would love to see GW dictate trade terms to Wal-Mart, oh boy would that be hilarious. They dictate what they want to companies that could sneeze and accidentally make a GW in their pants.

Games Workshop not advertising? That's a thing of the past

Hell has officially frozen over.

Indeed.

heresy!

I sense the taint of worshippers of the false CEO!

On topic, I'm looking forward to these. Hoping they'll let us get a better idea of everything they're planning---with hopefully more old timey goodness--- as release dates get closer.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Games Workshop not advertising? That's a thing of the past

Change? We can believe in?.

About damn time. Good on Mr Rountree for ending the Dark Age of Kirby

To me this is further proof that Rountree is taking the company in new directions to try and stem or even reverse the tide of falling sales.

I think they need to be more diversified, and I don't think it would do any harm to up the quality of rules, but these are objectives that take longer to implement.

I think the last thing they should do is change the rules at the moment; they're just starting to kindle some actual good feeling amongst the community, if they change the rules again, so soon after 7th edition, they risk losing that.

Whilst I think there are definite improvements that can be made, probably best to stay the course for the time being.

If they keep doing releases like Tau (where you can get new units/rules updates without having to replace your codex), then that will help in the short term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@KK; I don't think you were suggesting that, just building on what you said, but realised it might come across wrong.

 Jadenim wrote:
I think the last thing they should do is change the rules at the moment; they're just starting to kindle some actual good feeling amongst the community, if they change the rules again, so soon after 7th edition, they risk losing that.

Whilst I think there are definite improvements that can be made, probably best to stay the course for the time being.

If they keep doing releases like Tau (where you can get new units/rules updates without having to replace your codex), then that will help in the short term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@KK; I don't think you were suggesting that, just building on what you said, but realised it might come across wrong.

Well, I can get behind change in the form of more clearly written with less grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Or, maybe just playtest them a couple of times and ask someone other than their blind Uncle to proofread them before sending them out the door.

 Jadenim wrote:
I think the last thing they should do is change the rules at the moment; they're just starting to kindle some actual good feeling amongst the community, if they change the rules again, so soon after 7th edition, they risk losing that.

Whilst I think there are definite improvements that can be made, probably best to stay the course for the time being.

If they keep doing releases like Tau (where you can get new units/rules updates without having to replace your codex), then that will help in the short term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@KK; I don't think you were suggesting that, just building on what you said, but realised it might come across wrong.

If they keep up the 2 year cycle for rules and codexes, I’d seriously consider getting off the 40k train. They charge too much for rules with such a low shelf life.

If they went back to the 4 year cycle for rules, they could generate a lot of goodwill by starting that revision now, and getting input, playtesting, etc. Putting variant rules in WD/online, listening to how they work. They did similar things back in 3rd.

 agnosto wrote:
Well, I can get behind change in the form of more clearly written with less grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Or, maybe just playtest them a couple of times and ask someone other than their blind Uncle to proofread them before sending them out the door.

I think the current generation of rulebooks (post Necron) have pretty consistent formatting, writing, style and language. They are pretty much free of grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. I'm a stickler for that sort of thing, and really, nothing's jumped out at me.

On the other hand, there are still a small number issues of ambiguity that haven't been FAQ'd, but some of them are pretty impactful to those involved. To pick an example, whether Iron Hands IWND CT is conferred upon the Iron Hands detachment's Razorbacks and Land Raiders. A straight reading of the rules would suggest no, as virtually all vehicles (other than Dreadnoughts) don't have the Chapter Tactics SR. There are a few of this type of rules-writing where the reader things, "surely, they meant this instead".

Plus, I think most players would acknowledge that significant balance issues exist within the context of the factions as a whole, and the game lends itself to the possibility of armies that specialize in rules abuse (no different than a lot of other games, but to a greater extent than some).

 Talys wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Well, I can get behind change in the form of more clearly written with less grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Or, maybe just playtest them a couple of times and ask someone other than their blind Uncle to proofread them before sending them out the door.

I think the current generation of rulebooks (post Necron) have pretty consistent formatting, writing, and language. They are pretty much free of grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. I'm a stickler for that sort of thing, and really, nothing's jumped out at me.

On the other hand, there are still a small number issues of ambiguity that haven't been FAQ'd, but some of them are pretty impactful to those involved. Plus, I think most players would acknowledge that significant balance issues exist within the context of the factions as a whole, and the game lends itself to the possibility of armies that specialize in rules abuse (no different than a lot of other games, but perhaps to a greater extent).

I've given up on external balance with the advent of formations and add-on supplements; I'm more concerned with internal balance. It's always been a sticking point with me that some units in a given army book would get a great deal of love and others you're left thinking, "why would anyone run these?"

I haven't bought an army book in a while, I just couldn't be bothered to pay $50 for a book filled with grammar and spelling errors (I'm a sticker in that regard as well). I just figured that if they couldn't be bothered to properly edit their work, I couldn't be bothered to give them money for it. I'm glad to hear that they've improved in that regard.

 agnosto wrote:
I've given up on external balance with the advent of formations and add-on supplements; I'm more concerned with internal balance. It's always been a sticking point with me that some units in a given army book would get a great deal of love and others you're left thinking, "why would anyone run these?"

In this regard, Games Workshop is woefully deficient.

To 80% of some factions' units, the answer to your question is, "Because I like the models" or, worse, "Because I own the models", and nothing else. For all the Eldar bashing that you see, they have probably the best rulebook in this respect -- almost everything is actually playable

There are actually ways of encouraging players to play one type of unit rather than another without horribly unbalancing them (as 40k does), because the meta changes holistically, and certain units are just a lot better in one meta or another. To take a CCG example, just because a card is a great card, doesn't mean it's going to be a great card against a particular deck that's really popular -- which may encourage you not to play the great card. This happens in 40k a lot, but I don't think any of it is by GW's design, when it could/should be

I don't think they need to totally change the current rules.

What I would like to see is a return to having simpler rulesets to introduce new comers, outsiders, younger customers or the like and gradually ease them into things.

Like those old boxed games they used to make with recycled figures. Tyranid Attack, Might Warriors, Space Fleet... stuff like that.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Games Workshop not advertising? That's a thing of the past

Spoiler:

SFX magazine AoS ad - posted by The Unpainted Legion blog


http://theunpaintedlegion.blogspot.de/2015/08/i-subscribe-to-sfx-magazine-and-when.html

Tram - Linkedin GW profile


https://www.linkedin.com/company/games-workshop

The tram advertisement is on the local Nottingham city center line, it's hardly pushing the boat out. But it's a start at least...

i think its a great idea. good use of old minis, nice price. dare say i'll end up buying some trukks.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I don't think they need to totally change the current rules.

What I would like to see is a return to having simpler rulesets to introduce new comers, outsiders, younger customers or the like and gradually ease them into things.

Like those old boxed games they used to make with recycled figures. Tyranid Attack, Might Warriors, Space Fleet... stuff like that.

With all the issues that 40k has, I simply attribute that to it being a decades-old, massive game and ecosystem, and I'm content with the rules as a ruleset for the kind of game that 40k is designed for.

I think it would be to GW's advantage, however, to write a different, but related ruleset that was designed for people who don't want the monetary or physical outlays, not to mention time investment, required to play 40k in the way the designers envisioned. It would use a subset of the models and essentially be a gateway drug to the bigger game and the hobby of collecting and modelling GW collections, for those who enjoyed those sorts of activities.

I don't think the rules need to be free (though that wouldn't hurt), but it would be nice if it were designed such that one did not have to buy a zillion rulebooks to have all of the rules to play the game, as I believe this is something that discourages completionists who have space and budgetary constraints.

 Talys wrote:
I think it would be to GW's advantage, however, to write a different, but related ruleset that was designed for people who don't want the monetary or physical outlays, not to mention time investment, required to play 40k in the way the designers envisioned. It would use a subset of the models and essentially be a gateway drug to the bigger game and the hobby of collecting and modelling GW collections, for those who enjoyed those sorts of activities.

Battlefront did just that with their 'Open Fire!' starter for Flames of War. You should have heard all of the outrage against Battlefront on their forums for doing such a thing...

 Talys wrote:

I don't think the rules need to be free (though that wouldn't hurt), but it would be nice if it were designed such that one did not have to buy a zillion rulebooks to have all of the rules to play the game, as I believe this is something that discourages completionists who have space and budgetary constraints.

lol. My nerd closet runneth over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think it would be to GW's advantage, however, to write a different, but related ruleset that was designed for people who don't want the monetary or physical outlays, not to mention time investment, required to play 40k in the way the designers envisioned. It would use a subset of the models and essentially be a gateway drug to the bigger game and the hobby of collecting and modelling GW collections, for those who enjoyed those sorts of activities.

Battlefront did just that with their 'Open Fire!' starter for Flames of War. You should have heard all of the outrage against Battlefront on their forums for doing such a thing...

Because people felt that they would be forced at gun point to use the stripped-down version of the rules rather than the full version? People will complain about anything.

Nope. The forums knew full well it was a starter set. The complaint was that a new player would want to join an existing group and play a game of 'Flames of War' when what they had been playing was 'Open Fire!'.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Games Workshop not advertising? That's a thing of the past

Spoiler:

SFX magazine AoS ad - posted by The Unpainted Legion blog


http://theunpaintedlegion.blogspot.de/2015/08/i-subscribe-to-sfx-magazine-and-when.html

Tram - Linkedin GW profile


https://www.linkedin.com/company/games-workshop

*GASP!*

What next? Market studies?!

Seriously - I need to admit that Rountree is proving not to be the sock puppet that I expected.

The Auld Grump - I am actively hoping for the market studies, actually.

That tram advert is awesome!

 Ghaz wrote:
Nope. The forums knew full well it was a starter set. The complaint was that a new player would want to join an existing group and play a game of 'Flames of War' when what they had been playing was 'Open Fire!'.

People didn't have such issues back when there were different versions of D&D. I remember going from Basic to Intermediate dungeons.....ahh.....gosh, I'm old.