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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.

A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.

The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.

I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.

They did it with Inquisitor. The game's balancing mechanism was a third player as "game master".

 Korraz wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.

A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.

The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.

I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.

They did it with Inquisitor. The game's balancing mechanism was a third player as "game master".

So do other RPG's. The game master also has a direct hand in directing the game itself. I doubt that any third party will want anything to do with an AoS game after you've hammered out army lists.

I don't want GW to collapse. If only because less competition on the market is bad for the market as a whole. It drives other companies to do better. If we didn't have GW, we wouldn't have Privateer Press, Wyrd, Corvus Belli, Battlefront, Hawk or any other companies trying their best to make great games with great miniature ranges to play.

Games Workshop is still the big fish, though floundering a lot these days, with a great set of IP that it can draw on to make new games, with the (steadily dwindling) capital to make new, exciting games. If they booted the current management interested only in filling their retirement funds with people interested in making these games, they'd return to being a real force in the industry. This really needs to happen, because the hobby would be poorer without them.

 Korraz wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The rep to whom MIkhaila spoke probably doesn't know much about the game and what he said probably was not accurate.

A game with utterly no balance would be total gak. Just a couple of kids shrieking and throwing dice around randomly. I cannot believe GW do not understand this.

The game will have balancing mechanisms. We don't know what they are yet, The danger is being designed by GW they may not work properly.

I also think the structure of a four page basic rules plus cards for each unit could be made to work really well. But again, I am worried about GW's ability to do that.

They did it with Inquisitor. The game's balancing mechanism was a third player as "game master".

Funny how they "discovered" this, seeing as it is a Mechanism that has been used by US Companies for two to three decades.

ALL of GDW's miniature games were intended to have a GM.

And it remains the best solution to the problem of miniature game balance yet existing.

Technically it is really only necessary for games where the battle is not fought as a set-piece battle (like Ancients/Medieval Battles were often fought - "often" NOT "always").

Inquisitor remained my Favorite GW game, and I was pretty pissed that it did not get more support.

Ultimately, though, nothing GW does is really that original any more.

The whole "GrimDark" thing is just stealing from the Goth Scene, and making miniatures based upon that design aesthetic. Other games have been doing that for over a decade, at least. Steampunk is flooding everything, and that is the remaining element of GW's Game designs.

I make no secret of the fact I hope GW dies.

The Licenses need to be freed up.

I would like to see 40K become an ACTUAL Sci-Fi game, again.

WHFB... Not sure that I care at all what happens there. I know they originally talked of it being a world not unlike that in Moorcock's Elric novels.

But they certainly seem to have no concern for their fans, which seems to be rather insulting.

MB

I hope GW continues forever.

I used to care a lot about editions and rules. Then I realized that GW has no idea what it is doing. Their game design sucks and if we're honest, it's always sucked. Their "fluff" is juevenile, balance a bad joke.

In the past couple years, I have used GW as a provider of components. That's all. Age of Sigmar adds more plastic that I can buy or chop up and combine with other pieces. If you go in for GW as a game company, wow, I don't even know what to say.

Case in point: recently I got interested in Mordheim. Have you seen the rules for mordheim? Terrible! Unbalanced garbage. Instead I found a ruleset (Wyrdwars) and I can be happy and enjoy a warhammer based skrimish game with virtually no issues. People who mention Kings of War are probably on to something...

There are a bunch of sites with "previews" of the Age of Sigmar rules. The fact that it appears to be a "use anything you want", no points values, measure from the closest part of the model type game seems problematic.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No. I hope Age of Sigmar is a good game and that it shows that GW's market wants good rule sets.

Same for me.
We have several Fantasy players in our group who hope for the best.

 -Loki- wrote:


So do other RPG's. The game master also has a direct hand in directing the game itself. I doubt that any third party will want anything to do with an AoS game after you've hammered out army lists.

Inquisitor wasn't a proper RPG, though. It was an awkward missing link between wargames and RPGs, mostly sold to wargamers as a wargame, at least as far as I've seen.
I just wanted to point out that it's not beyond GW to make games with next to no balancing mechanisms.
One might also cite Unbound (or "regular") 40k.

If GW's IP is so great why have they just thrown half of it (Warhammer Fantasy) down the pan by the End Times?

I think the phenomenon of Groupthink explains most, if not all, of GWs decisions in recent years.

 Korraz wrote:
I think the phenomenon of Groupthink explains most, if not all, of GWs decisions in recent years.

Likewise, for GW's detractors and supporters. The reverberations of the echo chambers are something fierce. It's worse than trying to get something done in the US Congress.

But whatever, they can do what they like; it's their company and they owe me nothing. I just happen to slip into the demographic that they are targeting, and whatever their groupthink has self-affirmed and however polarizing that is, it works for some people, obviously.

It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal). There are so many companies that make stuff I want and can't afford, or things I don't want, or things I don't want anymore but used to enjoy, and I don't want any of them to go out of business (though I wouldn't care if they did).

For example, I loved David Edding's first 5 fantasy novels. Most of the rest were pretty shoddy, I think, but whatever, I didn't secretly pray that he went bankrupt or that people stopped buying his books. I don't wish ill for Tiffany's, even though I think they are crazy overpriced, and I don't want basketball to die even though I can't fathom how you can get up and cheer every 60 seconds and I can't comprehend how an NBA team is worth $2 billion.

Actually, neither groups should be subject to that phenomenon to a significant digree, since forums (at least big, open ones like Dakka) do not have the necessary prerequisites for it to develop. They might "suffer"(?) from other psychological phenomena, but Groupthink requires close cohesion, leadership and a couple of other things. Maybe a special kind of forum-groupthink? No idea, but might be an interesting study.

GW's board on the other hand is pretty much a textbook example of a breeding ground for Groupthink: Extreme cohesion of the group, loyalty to it, isolation from output from the outside, (as far as we know) no contact to experts from outside, silencing of divergent thoughts and, foremost, high empasize on a single leader that "shows the way" for the group.

Addendum: The concept of people liking a product (in this case: Warhammer/40k/LotR/SGS), but disliking the way it has developed in recent years severely and, thus, hating the company that owns and "mistreats" it doesn't seem too outlandish to me. Wanting that company to go under, so another one might pick up the IP seems only human, then, especially if you are already convinced that the current company will do nothing to change its ways.
In short: People have strong feelings about things they like.
And GW should be grateful for it, as long as people still care they might yet mend wounds and rebuild bridges.

 Talys wrote:
It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal). There are so many companies that make stuff I want and can't afford, or things I don't want, or things I don't want anymore but used to enjoy, and I don't want any of them to go out of business (though I wouldn't care if they did).

Wow. Just wow.

There are three types of people that don't lie in GW's target demographic.

1. People that don't know about GW and therefore couldn't give a flying gak about what GW does and/or have any stake in GW's survival.

2. People that have left (or were excluded) from GW's target demographic. These guys don't care about what happens to GW either.

3. Former members of GW's target demographic who are like are an aunt/uncle wanting a child (GW) to be taken away from their parents (GW's management) and put into foster care (buyout of assets by others) because the kid's parents (in their opinion) are doing a rubbish job of parenting. They don't wish this upon the child because of hate but because they feel the child deserves better.

@Korraz - I guess I'm too practical to put myself into those shoes effectively. To me, to do so would feel like a massive waste of my time, a resource I have a finite amount of. I would rather spend my time with something I love than against something I hate -- especially if the only thing I can effectively do is preach to the choir. You don't see anyone who is spending a thousand bucks a month on GW and happy with their product and direction go, "wow, those guys on Dakka are right... I'm gonna spend a thousand bucks a month on other games instead!". Instead, you get, "Amen, I despise them too" and, "I don't want them to go out business but I do want them to change drastically" from people who aren't buying GW product anyhow. There are very few people who can be convinced either way.

The problem with your characterization of GW's management is that you exclude the possibility that they do consider and debate alternatives, and have simply chosen a path contrary to what would be ideal for you. Also, the presumption that 'we' (collectively, forum posters) know better about GW's profit maximization than GW. I think that's just hubris.

I think that many people discount that Kirby was General Manager of games workshop through most of the years they were really fond of (he joined mid 80s as such and then positions of increasing responsibility). The guy who made critical decisions then was competent, and then somehow became incompetent 20 years later? I choose to believe, instead, that he's no less competent and simply leading the company in a direction that is unpopular to some people.

Even of that happened to me... I would move on, not blow my time hoping for something that will take years, if not a decade or more, if ever, to happen.

Or, as time went by, he got increasingly close to retirement, and consequently less and less concerned with long term sustainability and more and more concerned with feathering his retirement nest and stitching together his golden parachute.

Plus, one could also argue GW did what it did in spite of Kirby, not because of him. They still had the creator of 40K on staff, they still had a number of people who have established themselves as pillars of the industry as well. They had the licence to LotR which was as much luck as judgement (nobody anticipated the movies blowing up quite the way they did at the time IIRC) which was responsible for continued success for a good period too.

All of that aside, people have different capabilities as CEOs, someone well able to steward a company through growth isn't necessarily the same person to manage the company once it matures and its market settles down, what worked before doesn't work again, new ideas are needed. The better ones acknowledge their shortcomings and move on to a role that better suits their abilities, the lesser ones dig in like a tick and get what they can, before they drop off, full to bursting, or get yanked out and stepped on.

 Talys wrote:

It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal).

I bought my first GW toys approximately 28 years ago, a blister pack of Squat Adventurers, and GW has made a lot of money from me since then. I still find the setting of their games engaging, the 40k of the early 2000s is still my favourite fictional setting, but I now buy nothing new from GW aside from a very occasional pot of paint.

However there are so many absolutely fundamental problems with GW that they have been systematically destroying my interest in the Imperium and the Old World for over a decade now. It began when my favourite race was literally 'Squatted', then my favourite games were either horribly mangled or simply abandoned, and worst of all is that the newer fluff is nothing more than bad fan fiction that actively contradicts much of what came before.

Age of Sigmar, with the attendant abandonment of the most iconic wargame in the world, piled atop the already tottering pile of ignorance, stupidity and hubris that GW has built over the last 15 years or so has completely convinced me that GW cannot be trusted to look after its own IP and that at this stage by far the best outcome would be for someone at least slightly competent to buy the IP. Its not as if GW can get much worse than they are now, and I am completely sincere when I say this.

I don't think its bizarre to 'hate' GW, quite the reverse.

I am still an active wargamer, I play most weeks, its just that prefer to play games that are actually fun and mentally engaging (which includes old GW games) even if their fluff isn't quite as engaging.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Or, as time went by, he got increasingly close to retirement, and consequently less and less concerned with long term sustainability and more and more concerned with feathering his retirement nest and stitching together his golden parachute.

Plus, one could also argue GW did what it did in spite of Kirby, not because of him. They still had the creator of 40K on staff, they still had a number of people who have established themselves as pillars of the industry as well. They had the licence to LotR which was as much luck as judgement (nobody anticipated the movies blowing up quite the way they did at the time IIRC) which was responsible for continued success for a good period too.

All of that aside, people have different capabilities as CEOs, someone well able to steward a company through growth isn't necessarily the same person to manage the company once it matures and its market settles down, what worked before doesn't work again, new ideas are needed. The better ones acknowledge their shortcomings and move on to a role that better suits their abilities, the lesser ones dig in like a tick and get what they can, before they drop off, full to bursting, or get yanked out and stepped on.

You live in tick country, don't you?

The Auld Grump... it does look like GW is suffering from Lyme's disease....

Spent the last two weeks sitting my parents dogs!

Wishful thinking says "Yes!" so the licences get sold to a better company.

Realistic thinking say "Fantasy sales are bad enough and cannot get any worse anyway".

 Orock wrote:
IWhat they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them.

Everything they've done in the past 21 years hasn't worked for you? Seems like you should have let go a long time ago!

 Lorizael wrote:

 Orock wrote:
IWhat they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them.

Everything they've done in the past 21 years hasn't worked for you? Seems like you should have let go a long time ago!

I'd disagree. GW used to be very embracing towards their community, really considering themselves a hobby supplier and acting upon that premise. That changed a few years ago...they pretty much turned 180°.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Lorizael wrote:

 Orock wrote:
IWhat they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them.

Everything they've done in the past 21 years hasn't worked for you? Seems like you should have let go a long time ago!

I'd disagree. GW used to be very embracing towards their community, really considering themselves a hobby supplier and acting upon that premise. That changed a few years ago...they pretty much turned 180°.

Yup, 12 years ago my club held its first large tournament, and Gav Thorpe helped out with the rules pack, and GW flew a guy over from the UK to sell models, pour beer and hang out.

I don't expect that from them now, but I'd at least like a product that makes me want to buy more stuff and play more games.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Orock wrote:
I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.

Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.

I think it's been said before that Hasbro (or anyone else) would never buy an extensive retail chain & manufacturing company like this.

Previous stuff they bought, like Wizards of the Coast, was just an office with a handful of people, some IP stuff and perhaps a few running contracts with external printing companies/distributors, etc.. Not hundreds of stores around the world with staff, rents, overheads, etc.., logistic centers, factories, etc..


Also, AoS won't sink GW. Fantasy was/is dead and GW was/is afloat. If AoS tanks, they'll just be at the same point they are now.

Actually believe it or not, WotC had a chain of 81 company stores at the time of the Hasbro purchase. First thing Hasbro did? Drop the retail stores like a hot potato!

to OP; No, I hope it succeeds for GW and broadens their market. And then they realize if they upgraded product for fantasy and support such as books and rules, that sales would further increase.

 Talys wrote:

The problem with your characterization of GW's management is that you exclude the possibility that they do consider and debate alternatives, and have simply chosen a path contrary to what would be ideal for you. Also, the presumption that 'we' (collectively, forum posters) know better about GW's profit maximization than GW. I think that's just hubris.

I think that many people discount that Kirby was General Manager of games workshop through most of the years they were really fond of (he joined mid 80s as such and then positions of increasing responsibility). The guy who made critical decisions then was competent, and then somehow became incompetent 20 years later? I choose to believe, instead, that he's no less competent and simply leading the company in a direction that is unpopular to some people.

Even of that happened to me... I would move on, not blow my time hoping for something that will take years, if not a decade or more, if ever, to happen.

The question is, then, why they decided to take actions that have proven time and time again to lead to growth, expansion or, indeed, even keep the current buyerbase stable. The fact remains that GW's buyerbase has shrunk while operating in a market that has seen undeniable growth, that being the traditional gaming hobby market.

Also, regarding Kirby, let's not attribute his actions to malice here for a moment: There is such a thing as a growth-manager. Some people are very competent at helping a company grow or go public, but have not a lick of talen when it comes to managing a mature company. He could belong to that sort.

repost

If they fail, who will take over as Tabletop gaming's whipping mule?

I'm leaning tword Mordhiem, anymore. !@#$ them as a company.

with an Open season game like Necromunda or Mordhiem, they can't screw it up, and the fans pretty much have the control now.

I'm more concerned more with painting, anymore, anyway.


I used to play fantasy... ( Takes a drink).... tough racket....

 Korraz wrote:
The question is, then, why they decided to take actions that have proven time and time again to lead to growth, expansion or, indeed, even keep the current buyerbase stable. The fact remains that GW's buyerbase has shrunk while operating in a market that has seen undeniable growth, that being the traditional gaming hobby market.

Also, regarding Kirby, let's not attribute his actions to malice here for a moment: There is such a thing as a growth-manager. Some people are very competent at helping a company grow or go public, but have not a lick of talen when it comes to managing a mature company. He could belong to that sort.

I'm going to try not to be repetitive in my posts, so I'll keep it very brief. Consider a few possibilities:

- 40k might have actually grown in revenue, not shrunk, in the last few years, whilst but Fantasy and LoTR/Hobbit have shrunk (more) in revenue
- A mature company shouldn't be expected to have the same growth expectations as startups and younger companies
- Even if GW did everything right, going from monopoly to non-monopoly will mean a smaller marketshare
- Even if GW did everything right, some people will get bored and play/model other stuff, or other games or models may appeal to them more
- It's possible that the current formula of targeting superfans optimizes GW's profit, relative to GW's alternatives for 40k
- It's possible that some or most of GW's competitors are also making less profit, even if they are popular, even though the market as a whole has grown (as there are more companies than ever, too).

With respect to Kirby not being the best Chairman of GW in it's current size -- you might be right (or not), but it doesn't really matter. He was there nearly from the start and was very instrumental in getting GW to where it is today, and he owns a really big chunk of it. He's been around during less profitable times and more. Founders and early insiders often become CEOs, even if they're not the best person for the job, and they are given a lot of latitude to learn through experimentation.

A lot of small-company founders make non-ideal big-company CEOs once the company gets there, but the point is, they got it where it is, and it's their company to screw up. If you're not into founder CEOs as an investor, that's fine; you should just avoid investing in such companies. However, as I've also mentioned, professional CEOs can also destroy companies. Look at Carly Fiorina or Mark Hurd at Hewlett Packard. Or Some would point at Stephen Elop and say that he destroyed Nokia. Though Elop is clearly debatable, and maybe he just made the best lemonade out of the lemons he had.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If GW's IP is so great why have they just thrown half of it (Warhammer Fantasy) down the pan by the End Times?

Because they didn't have a clue what to do with it. Just like they don't have a clue what to do with 40k right now, but that game is still selling on the strength of Space Marines, which is why they've pushed forwards on the Horus Heresy range.

Actually reminds me of when Marvel was going to buy DC. One of the Marvel heads said they didn't want to go through with it because DC comics weren't selling, so the characters they would have bought were pretty worthless. Why buy an IP that doesn't sell? There's obviously something wrong with it.

Not knowing what to do with the IP isn't a failing of the IP itself, but the company that is struggling with it.

This must have been said in a lot of other places, but 40k is on an even faster track to the same fate. As it stands, you can have Marnius Calgar lead a force of Tyranids supported by a Squiggoth. Throw out the point values and you're there.

What's really scary is if this flops, it only might discourage GW from trying it with 40k.

there's alot of decent people who work in store, so I'd rather it not be the end of GW as we know it.

The undeniable fact is that WHFB was not pulling in the sales to warrant being left alone, they needed to shake it up to try drum up interest in playing it again

As a 40k player, I'm curious about AoS until I see it drop, based on rumours of a 4 page rulebook for the main game and individual rules with the models as you buy them couldbe enough to tmpet me to dabble in the new "game" (wether it stay called fantasy or not I'm not sure, and yes, I know there are already games out there with this kind of mechanic)