Slayer-Fan123 wrote: What a shame. He was looked upon with lots of grace and intelligence, and he will be sorely missed.
I detect allot of sarcasm in your post.
If he's the head of IP wouldn't that make him responsible for all the shovelware moneygrab reskinned games we've seen? Like that line game with SM vs Orks that was a reskin of some game with cats vs dogs or some sort.
Hopefully they will replace him with someone with a bit more competence in regards to who can use their IP.
I see him as the epitome of GW's culture of looking down on their own customers. Having a guy like that gone will only help. He should have gotten the boot after his disastrous waste of money on the Chapter House case.
Please keep in mind that Rule One is Be Polite and that applies to more than just the people posting in the thread. Criticism is okay; personal attacks are not. Thanks.
Azreal13 wrote: His testimony in the CHS case suggested his title was purely nominal, as he apparently has no clue about what IP is, let alone want to do with it.
This was mentioned in the Matt Ward thread a few days ago, but if this is coming from a different source, it is looking increasingly likely.
This was on Matt thread
"So, on the subject of mr Merrett, I heard on the grapevine today. He left GW this morning. No verification yet."
If true, it will be sad to see another person go who was there from the start. As much as it has been nice to see GW change into a less customer/community-hostile company, there is something to be said for continuity of vision, style, and tone when it comes to that magical late 70s through early 90s era of sci fi and fantasy.
Rarely have I ever had disdain for individual employees at GW. Merret, with his absurd copyright protests that undoubtedly lead GW to the concept of "everything we make is completely original" and resulted in obliteration of WHFB, is one of the few who fits the bill.
Now if they just rid of Kirby (even if he just parachutes out), they'll be an entirely different company.
Manchu wrote: If true, it will be sad to see another person go who was there from the start. As much as it has been nice to see GW change into a less customer/community-hostile company, there is something to be said for continuity of vision, style, and tone when it comes to that magical late 70s through early 90s era of sci fi and fantasy.
I certainly agree that it is, on one hand, sad to see a longtimer like that go. But, on the other hand, he was one of the biggest reasons for GW's problems in later years. His CHS testimony alone should, from a PR standpoint, have been enough to give him the boot.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Merrett leaves. Ward must be taking his job. It's there for all to see.
"Mat, how are we ever going to win this case?" "Do you remember that Bloodtide story in the 5th edition GK codex?" "Unfortu-Uh, yes..." "Good. Get me a group of lawyers, a blender, and a paintbrush. I'm gonna make us some Wards."
Tannhauser42 wrote: His CHS testimony alone should, from a PR standpoint, have been enough to give him the boot.
As far as PR goes, nutters like us posting on a forum are the only ones who care - and I doubt we move GW's bottom line. As far as the testimony goes, and the whole CHS action for that matter, it's hardly fair to blame the witnesses for being sorely underprepared much less for a woefully inadequate approach to the case generally. That's as much as I'll say about the matter.
I seem to remember that he was a sort of librarian of the lore, not an actual lawyer charged with ensuring the security of the company's output. A literal head of the IP.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Merrett leaves. Ward must be taking his job. It's there for all to see.
"Mat, how are we ever going to win this case?"
"Do you remember that Bloodtide story in the 5th edition GK codex?"
"Unfortu-Uh, yes..."
"Good. Get me a group of lawyers, a blender, and a paintbrush. I'm gonna make us some Wards."
I want to create an armies on parade board with Adepta Sororitas slaughtering GKs, the board would be named : "Where's your Ward save now?!"
Accolade wrote: Rarely have I ever had disdain for individual employees at GW. Merret, with his absurd copyright protests that undoubtedly lead GW to the concept of "everything we make is completely original" and resulted in obliteration of WHFB, is one of the few who fits the bill.
Now if they just rid of Kirby (even if he just parachutes out), they'll be an entirely different company.
But, on the other hand, he was one of the biggest reasons for GW's problems in later years. His CHS testimony alone should, from a PR standpoint, have been enough to give him the boot.
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
redben wrote: Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that thinks he understands GW's business, what it is they do, thinks he knows who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Slight correction. Judging from the continuing decline in sales, I'd argue that he hasn't done very well there.
There's been plenty of anecdotes over the years over his antics. From his often mentioned hatred of Genestealers, his attempt at blocking the Riptide and Imperial Knight from being produced and so on. All anecdotes and unsubstantiated of course, but that's a lot of smoke....
There's a lot more that could be added. Regardless of whether Alan's ideas on the marketplace and who GW's customers are are still relevant, he's been a huge influence in GW for a long time now. For him to be gone is a big deal. It isn't just the guy who's running the IP department is gone.
If Merett was so important to GW's previous course, then surely it was only a matter of time before the Roundtree iceberg crossed paths with that particular ship.
Merret was responsible for the 'no-points' decision in AoS (and I think also for the 'we are a miniatures company' line, but possibly not alone in that one).
If you are the guardian of the gaming experience (which is what his IP role was), and you get that call so competely wrong, then you probably have outlived your usefulness.
But, on the other hand, he was one of the biggest reasons for GW's problems in later years. His CHS testimony alone should, from a PR standpoint, have been enough to give him the boot.
What exactly happend there?
For the head of intellectual property not to know the difference between copyright and a idea that's been in the public domain for a long long time (Roman numerals) spoke volumes.
It was like a football coach not knowing the difference between attack and defence...
There are numerous examples of this in the chapterhouse thread, but that's the one I always remember.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redben wrote: There's a lot more that could be added. Regardless of whether Alan's ideas on the marketplace and who GW's customers are are still relevant, he's been a huge influence in GW for a long time now. For him to be gone is a big deal. It isn't just the guy who's running the IP department is gone.
I agree that it's good to have continuation at an institution, and If somebody is good at their job and is successful for a long time, say Alex Ferguson at Manchester United, you won't get rid of them.
But the business world is full of examples of people staying on long after their sell by date, and the company suffering as a result...
redben wrote: Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that thinks he understands GW's business, what it is they do, thinks he knows who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Slight correction. Judging from the continuing decline in sales, I'd argue that he hasn't done very well there.
There's been plenty of anecdotes over the years over his antics. From his often mentioned hatred of Genestealers, his attempt at blocking the Riptide and Imperial Knight from being produced and so on. All anecdotes and unsubstantiated of course, but that's a lot of smoke....
The riptide and the Imperial knight are wonderful models, but they should have been blocked from being used in 40k, as it completely unbalanced the game. Maybe Merett had a point?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The riptide and the Imperial knight are wonderful models, but they should have been blocked from being used in 40k, as it completely unbalanced the game. Maybe Merett had a point?
From what I understand it was more the concern they wouldn't sell. GW were completely taken aback at how many Imperial Knights they sold.
torgoch wrote: Merret was responsible for the 'no-points' decision in AoS (and I think also for the 'we are a miniatures company' line, but possibly not alone in that one).
If you are the guardian of the gaming experience (which is what his IP role was), and you get that call so competely wrong, then you probably have outlived your usefulness.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The riptide and the Imperial knight are wonderful models, but they should have been blocked from being used in 40k, as it completely unbalanced the game. Maybe Merett had a point?
From what I understand it was more the concern they wouldn't sell. GW were completely taken aback at how many Imperial Knights they sold.
Ah, so it was more a financial issue, rather than a noble attempt to preserve game balance in 40k.
Should have known better
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I believe he was also the one to say that GW.customers' favorite hobby was buying GW products.
He deserved to go for that then, as well.
I don't doubt for a minute that most top companies in the world probably hate their customers as well, but they seem to have the good sense to keep it to themselves...
Tannhauser42 wrote: I believe he was also the one to say that GW.customers' favorite hobby was buying GW products.
not sure why this always gets touted as such a bad thing...
i've never played a game in 30 years of being in this hobby...
collecting models and books is my hobby...
what is wrong with that???
the Warhammer worlds (GW products) have given me years of enjoyment, inspired me to become a better painter, provided a way to make money without working a boring job, and made me lifelong friends...
seems like a good thing to me...
jah-joshua wrote: collecting models and books is my hobby...
what is wrong with that???
'Cause that's not what he said. He didn't say collecting miniatures. He said buying miniatures.
what is the difference???
i buy books and minis, and add them to my collection...
every once in a while, i even get to paint one of those minis, but the books provide no end of inspiration...
what is wrong with buying GW products, if that is what you enjoy???
considering how the minis get better every year, i am one happy customer...
i'll be even happier when those wicked new Deathwatch minis are on my table on Saturday
jah-joshua wrote: collecting models and books is my hobby...
what is wrong with that???
'Cause that's not what he said. He didn't say collecting miniatures. He said buying miniatures.
what is the difference???
i buy books and minis, and add them to my collection...
every once in a while, i even get to paint one of those minis, but the books provide no end of inspiration...
what is wrong with buying GW products, if that is what you enjoy???
considering how the minis get better every year, i am one happy customer...
i'll be even happier when those wicked new Deathwatch minis are on my table on Saturday
cheers
jah
I assume you at least assemble the miniatures and that that is part of collecting? Because buying a product does not include then assembling and painting a product.
@Malus: nope...
i clip them off the sprues, imagining how i would convert, build, and paint them, if i wasn't booked 99% of the time...
then i put them in baggies, box 'em, and bust them out every once in a while to admire the sculpting, and daydream about painting my own ideas, before going back to painting other people's models...
my collection resides in boxes...
my hobby literally is buying models...
i do have ever intention of getting to build and paint them one day before i die, when i am independently wealthy, and don't have to do commisiions anymore...
the upside is, when people are lamenting the long out of print minis that they wish they could get their hands on, like Zoats, Squats, LE models, et al, i can bust out mine and appreciate the sculpts i've collected over the last three decades...
jah-joshua wrote: @Malus: nope...
i clip them off the sprues, imagining how i would convert, build, and paint them, if i wasn't booked 99% of the time...
then i put them in baggies, box 'em, and bust them out every once in a while to admire the sculpting, and daydream about painting my own ideas, before going back to painting other people's models...
my collection resides in boxes...
my hobby literally is buying models...
i do have ever intention of getting to build and paint them one day before i die, when i am independently wealthy, and don't have to do commisiions anymore...
the upside is, when people are lamenting the long out of print minis that they wish they could get their hands on, like Zoats, Squats, LE models, et al, i can bust out mine and appreciate the sculpts i've collected over the last three decades...
cheers
jah
But again, removing them from their box and looking at them is more than just buying them. You get your enjoyment from examining the aesthetics and thinking about the possibilities, not the act of handing over money for a box of stuff.
jah-joshua wrote: collecting models and books is my hobby...
what is wrong with that???
'Cause that's not what he said. He didn't say collecting miniatures. He said buying miniatures.
what is the difference???
i buy books and minis, and add them to my collection...
every once in a while, i even get to paint one of those minis, but the books provide no end of inspiration...
what is wrong with buying GW products, if that is what you enjoy???
considering how the minis get better every year, i am one happy customer...
i'll be even happier when those wicked new Deathwatch minis are on my table on Saturday
cheers
jah
The difference is that when your hobby is collecting something, it doesn't really matter where you get the product. Retail, direct, eBay, Amazon, trade show, con, etc. You just want the mini to put on display. Saying the hobby is buying something implies a more one-way relationship. It's sort of condescending as in "These rubes just live to spend their hard-earned money on our stuff".
EnTyme wrote: It's sort of condescending as in "These rubes just live to spend their hard-earned money on our stuff".
And Merett has been suspected of saying something similar, referring to GW Customers as "Goobering"
I'd argue that Jah is the exception and is probably the model customer that Merett envisioned, to wit: "if we make it, they will buy it regardless of quality or price".
EnTyme wrote: It's sort of condescending as in "These rubes just live to spend their hard-earned money on our stuff".
And Merett has been suspected of saying something similar, referring to GW Customers as "Goobering"
I'd argue that Jah is the exception and is probably the model customer that Merett envisioned, to wit: "if we make it, they will buy it regardless of quality or price".
i would argue that quality is very important to my decision to add a mini to my collection, thank you very much...
please don't insult me by acting like i don't demand quality...
like i have said many times, i don't own a single Finecast piece, because the material sucks, and i don't own any of the pieces that i think are ugly, like the Razorgore or the Mutilators...
price, on the other hand, doesn't matter at all...
money is only useful to me if it gets me the things i like
i know that the point everyone is trying to make is that GW execs insult their customers, but i have never experienced that in my interactions with GW studio members...
they are GW to me...
i appreciate the work of the artists, sculptors, and writers at GW, and have always had great experiences with them...
like i said, GW products have given me three decades of enjoyment, and keep getting better, in my opinion...
i am ambivalent about Merett leaving, but i'm not shy about saying that i have no problem with the quote that started this little run....
especially since handing over some hard-earned money for the upcoming Deathwatch will give me no end of pleasure, considering i've been waiting 15 years for this release...
the fact that they will end up in baggies next to my Overkill minis, while my actual painting time is taken up with finishing my charity minis for the Clash for a Cure and the Nova Open, doesn't take away from the joy of getting my hands on the new Marines...
jah-joshua wrote: i would argue that quality is very important to my decision to add a mini to my collection, thank you very much... please don't insult me by acting like i don't demand quality...
That wasn't directed at you at all, no insult was intended. It was an illustration of Merett's mindset when it comes to company sales. Whatever and however you choose to indulged your free time is your business.
To be brutally honest the notion that my hobby is buying GW miniatures isn't at all wrong. I do paint, play, and chat about painting and playing, but the majority of my time is spent planning what to buy next, and then buying it. It's gotten to a point where I'm spending even more time thinking about when, where, and what to buy next because I've noticed I own a ton of stuff that I own for the main purpose of...owning.
Azreal13 wrote: I seem to remember that he was a sort of librarian of the lore, not an actual lawyer charged with ensuring the security of the company's output. A literal head of the IP.
Especially for anyone who likes Genestealers if legend is to be believed!
Given how wild and woolly things have gotten in both 40K and Fantasy in recent years, you kinda wonder if he had the same level of influence there anymore.
If the rumors about him and Genestealer Cults are true, then I'm not sad to see him go (although again, it looks like the decision to revive them was made over any possible objections he had). But it's certainly a big deal when someone with that kind of tenure and history leaves.
Nomeny wrote: To be brutally honest the notion that my hobby is buying GW miniatures isn't at all wrong. I do paint, play, and chat about painting and playing, but the majority of my time is spent planning what to buy next, and then buying it. It's gotten to a point where I'm spending even more time thinking about when, where, and what to buy next because I've noticed I own a ton of stuff that I own for the main purpose of...owning.
I don't think that mindset is purely a GW thing About a year ago, I came to the same conclusion and have been liquidating my collection right down and now question my purchases a lot more than I used to. Though I still get a burst of impulse buying occasionally, mainly oldhammer! After a string of ebay rounds, I've managed to free up so much space and my painting pile isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be. The influx of money has been a rather pleasent experience until the other half spends it
jah-joshua wrote: i would argue that quality is very important to my decision to add a mini to my collection, thank you very much...
please don't insult me by acting like i don't demand quality...
That wasn't directed at you at all, no insult was intended. It was an illustration of Merett's mindset when it comes to company sales. Whatever and however you choose to indulged your free time is your business.
no worries, mate
didn't take much to convince me to buy the Genestealer Cult glad Alan got overruled on that one...
Nomeny wrote: To be brutally honest the notion that my hobby is buying GW miniatures isn't at all wrong. I do paint, play, and chat about painting and playing, but the majority of my time is spent planning what to buy next, and then buying it. It's gotten to a point where I'm spending even more time thinking about when, where, and what to buy next because I've noticed I own a ton of stuff that I own for the main purpose of...owning.
Many many gamers are the same, but its just unwelcome to a lot of people when they are told "yeah, we love selling you stuff you don't ever really use. Love it. Its our business, in fact"
I'm still looking for something akin to a source on this before I buy it. Granted the guy's been there forever and it's kind of a bummer to see more of the "old guard" leave, but it doesn't sound like he's had the most positive influence on the games or company over the past few years.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I believe he was also the one to say that GW.customers' favorite hobby was buying GW products.
not sure why this always gets touted as such a bad thing...
i've never played a game in 30 years of being in this hobby...
collecting models and books is my hobby...
what is wrong with that???
the Warhammer worlds (GW products) have given me years of enjoyment, inspired me to become a better painter, provided a way to make money without working a boring job, and made me lifelong friends...
seems like a good thing to me...
cheers
jah
I agree with you, Jah. I don't understand why this gets brought up over and over again as an example of how horrible Merett is. If this forum is anything to go buy, he's completely right. The hobby is buying more and more miniatures. It's especially obviously now. Games Workshop has gone back to making all kinds of games, like Betrayal at Calth and Deathwatch: Overkill. And I read posts on here all the time from people who didn't even consider even reading the rules for those games, and just bought them for the fancy new miniatures. They even act like the game is pointless filler, and that it's really just a box full of miniatures. The hobby is, for a lot of people, collecting the miniatures. That's what people enjoy. So why hate the guy for knowing what his customers are like?
Because he believes that the hobby is buying GW miniatures and doing nothing with them. The people buying BaC for the minis are painting and gaming with them. Alan Merrett wouldn't know what "game" meant if you gave him a dictionary.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I believe he was also the one to say that GW.customers' favorite hobby was buying GW products.
not sure why this always gets touted as such a bad thing...
i've never played a game in 30 years of being in this hobby...
collecting models and books is my hobby...
what is wrong with that???
the Warhammer worlds (GW products) have given me years of enjoyment, inspired me to become a better painter, provided a way to make money without working a boring job, and made me lifelong friends...
seems like a good thing to me...
cheers
jah
I agree with you, Jah. I don't understand why this gets brought up over and over again as an example of how horrible Merett is. If this forum is anything to go buy, he's completely right. The hobby is buying more and more miniatures. It's especially obviously now. Games Workshop has gone back to making all kinds of games, like Betrayal at Calth and Deathwatch: Overkill. And I read posts on here all the time from people who didn't even consider even reading the rules for those games, and just bought them for the fancy new miniatures. They even act like the game is pointless filler, and that it's really just a box full of miniatures. The hobby is, for a lot of people, collecting the miniatures. That's what people enjoy. So why hate the guy for knowing what his customers are like?
I think the biggest issue is with how he phrased it. As if their customers (us) never put any thought into our purchases and simply bought every single item with a GW stamped on it. As if they could put a red and yellow GW on a and we would still hand over a 100 quid for it just because of that GW on it. Then again, that would explain how those old metal possessed for 40K from a few years back got released.
Exactly, the correct word choice in that context would have been "collecting" not "buying."
Even if the difference is largely semantic for some, the psychology at work for that to come out of his mouth in a position where he was likely feeling a bit uncomfortable means it was unfiltered, and therefore closely matches his true thinking. It is also a matter of public record and therefore it is indisputable that it happened.
If people can't see the subtle but significant difference in the use of "buying" over "collecting" and the implications to the thinking and attitude behind it, well...
Azreal13 wrote: Exactly, the correct word choice in that context would have been "collecting" not "buying."
Even if the difference is largely semantic for some, the psychology at work for that to come out of his mouth in a position where he was likely feeling a bit uncomfortable means it was unfiltered, and therefore closely matches his true thinking. It is also a matter of public record and therefore it is indisputable that it happened.
If people can't see the subtle but significant difference in the use of "buying" over "collecting" and the implications to the thinking and attitude behind it, well...
So, it's actually more about you than anything he said. He said "buying", and you chose to interpret that as "buying and leaving unbuilt in the closet". So you're upset at him for something you made up that he never actually said.
Albino Squirrel wrote: So, it's actually more about you than anything he said. He said "buying", and you chose to interpret that as "buying and leaving unbuilt in the closet". So you're upset at him for something you made up that he never actually said.
And they get to do their favorite hobby activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which, of course, is very good for us as business.
if you were to go online and type Games Workshop, you would find a myriad of forums and blogs and websites of our fans goobering about our stuff, basically.
Vorian wrote: He could equally have meant "buying miniatures to game with every second of every day" to "buying miniatures to leave in a box, never to be used"
There is a massive amount of projecting meaning based upon a semantic choice of word.
There's a multitude of ways he could have expressed his point, you're right.
I believe AM was a desperately toxic element in the GW echelons and I very glad to hear he's gone. I have heard from a number of ex-gw sources that he treated many creatives very poorly, openly despised the customer base and had very fixed ideas on what he wanted from the games, miniatures and lore. I wondered if he was falling from grace in the new regime when we started to see the Genestealer cult, something he's on record multiple times as stating he hated.
I have come to realize that most of what I was blaming Kirby for all these years was far more likely owned by his vizier, AM. A dictator who believed in siloed work, micromanaged sole sign-off and then blamed creatives for not getting it 'right' despite issuing contradictory instructions and drove many talented people out of GW. He maintained a vicelike grip on the IP and only allowed the IP permissions to what he believed was suitable in his very narrow vision. From all the ex employees I've spoken to on what was going so wrong in GW, his name just kept coming back again and again, that his interpersonal skills were repulsive, he was a bully and a conniver and once you crossed him, your card was marked.
Destroying the Warhammer World and creating Age of Sigmar was his last, arrogant gamble and it's dismal sales demonstrated just how out of touch he was. Adding the General's Handbook is testament to that, a desperate bid to staunch the wound and save the game.
I hope to all the gods and devils that Rowntree anoints Tony Cottrell to lead. Given the 'out of the park' he's had with Forge World (mostly by letting the creatives be creative and, heaven's forbid, interact with the community), I think we could finally, after so many years of the bitterness and mutual antagonism of AM's reign, see a GW that we've all wanted to for years, a GW we can embrace and work with. (also possibly Alan Bligh to that as well).
I hope to not only hopefully see some of the old gang called back, but to see a whole slew of new creative names and faces added to the GW prime studio now.
Of all the news that's rolled out recently, I think this is the best so far. I hope Merrett enjoys retirement very very far from the GW studios.
Q. And what happens at a Games Day?
A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they
get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make
the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and
doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get
to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby
activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which,
of course, is very good for us as business.
In addition to giving a much wider interpretation to those few words than anyone could possibly justify, you are also intentionally focusing on only a few words, where right before that he was talking about other things the customers enjoy, like building and painting and playing.
But in any case, he's not wrong. People really like buying new things (they mostly don't need), regardless of their hobbies. There's billions of dollars spent on marketing every year to encourage this behavior. How many people on this forum, or miniature gamers in general, don't have any unassembled or unpainted miniatures? Have you ever even heard of such a person?
Q. And what happens at a Games Day? A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which, of course, is very good for us as business.
In addition to giving a much wider interpretation to those few words than anyone could possibly justify, you are also intentionally focusing on only a few words, where right before that he was talking about other things the customers enjoy, like building and painting and playing.
But in any case, he's not wrong. People really like buying new things (they mostly don't need), regardless of their hobbies. There's billions of dollars spent on marketing every year to encourage this behavior. How many people on this forum, or miniature gamers in general, don't have any unassembled or unpainted miniatures? Have you ever even heard of such a person?
People don't travel all the way to a Games Day event to buy models. He listed a lot of other things that people do there so why would he then say that buying the product, that is handing over money and getting a box of stuff, is their favourite part of the hobby over building the models, painting them, playing games with them, reading the fluff etc. That GW apparently thought that buying the product is the best part of the hobby is probably why Games Day no longer exists. If everyone's favourite thing was buying the models then an event which is just a load of stalls selling the models would surely be a guaranteed hit. That they had to put on other events to entice people to go (and that once those events fell in quality/were no longer run the whole event stopped running) shows that people care more about aspects other than just buying models.
I'm excited to buy new games but that doesn't mean that buying new games is my favourite part of my gaming hobby, it just means that it is the means to get to play those new games.
Also, I have no unassembled miniatures as making the things is my favourite part of the hobby. I have a lot of unpainted ones as I don't particularly enjoy painting that much, unless I am in a specific mood.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I believe AM was a desperately toxic element in the GW echelons and I very glad to hear he's gone. I have heard from a number of ex-gw sources that he treated many creatives very poorly, openly despised the customer base and had very fixed ideas on what he wanted from the games, miniatures and lore. I wondered if he was falling from grace in the new regime when we started to see the Genestealer cult, something he's on record multiple times as stating he hated.
I have come to realize that most of what I was blaming Kirby for all these years was far more likely owned by his vizier, AM. A dictator who believed in siloed work, micromanaged sole sign-off and drove many talented people out of GW. He maintained a vicelike grip on the IP and only allowed the IP permissions to what he believed was suitable in his very narrow vision. From all the ex employees I've spoken to on what was going so wrong in GW, his name just kept coming back again and again, that his interpersonal skills were repulsive, he was a bully and a conniver and once you crossed him, your card was marked.
Destroying the Warhammer World and creating Age of Sigmar was his last, arrogant gamble and it's dismal sales demonstrated just how out of touch he was. Adding the General's Handbook is testament to that, a desperate bid to staunch the wound and save the game.
I hope to all the gods and devils that Rowntree anoints Tony Cottrell to lead. Given the 'out of the park' he's had with Forge World (mostly by letting the creatives be creative and, heaven's forbid, interact with the community), I think we could finally, after so many years of the bitterness and mutual antagonism of AM's reign, see a GW that we've all wanted to for years, a GW we can embrace and work with. (also possibly Alan Bligh to that as well).
I hope to not only hopefully see some of the old gang called back, but to see a whole slew of new creative names and faces added to the GW prime studio now.
Of all the news that's rolled out recently, I think this is the best so far. I hope Merrett enjoys retirement very very far from the GW studios.
A well argued and thought out point. I'd love to see the GW of old make a return, but for me, too much water has passed under the bridge, and there are too many other good companies out there, for me to ever go back to GW.
As much as I'd like a return to the 1990s, I'd prefer to keep the happy memories of the golden age.
Merrett was a symptom, not the cause, and I think GW have left it to late to save a sinking ship...
Q. And what happens at a Games Day?
A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they
get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make
the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and
doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get
to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby
activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which,
of course, is very good for us as business.
In addition to giving a much wider interpretation to those few words than anyone could possibly justify, you are also intentionally focusing on only a few words, where right before that he was talking about other things the customers enjoy, like building and painting and playing.
But in any case, he's not wrong. People really like buying new things (they mostly don't need), regardless of their hobbies. There's billions of dollars spent on marketing every year to encourage this behavior. How many people on this forum, or miniature gamers in general, don't have any unassembled or unpainted miniatures? Have you ever even heard of such a person?
People don't travel all the way to a Games Day event to buy models. He listed a lot of other things that people do there so why would he then say that buying the product, that is handing over money and getting a box, is their favourite part of the hobby over building the models, painting them, playing games with them, reading the fluff etc. That GW apparently thought that buying the product is the best part of the hobby is probably why Games Day no longer exists.
Also, I have no unassembled miniatures as making the things is my favourite part of the hobby. I have a lot of unpainted ones as I don't particularly enjoy painting that much, unless I am in a specific mood.
What GW did to Games day has to be one of the biggest acts of self-harm in corporate history. Imagine that, a company that actively discourages its customers from enjoying their products
Q. And what happens at a Games Day?
A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they
get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make
the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and
doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get
to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby
activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which,
of course, is very good for us as business.
In addition to giving a much wider interpretation to those few words than anyone could possibly justify, you are also intentionally focusing on only a few words, where right before that he was talking about other things the customers enjoy, like building and painting and playing.
But in any case, he's not wrong. People really like buying new things (they mostly don't need), regardless of their hobbies. There's billions of dollars spent on marketing every year to encourage this behavior. How many people on this forum, or miniature gamers in general, don't have any unassembled or unpainted miniatures? Have you ever even heard of such a person?
Neatly skipping over "favourite" to make your point there. As in "the thing they like to do best."
You're also making the assumption that we're wrong, when there's actually less evidence to support that. People viewing that comment negatively are taking it literally, you're trying to ascribe implications to it that aren't supported in the text. Especially when taken in the wider context of other elements of his testimony and various other anecdotes.
People do like buying new things, you're right. But buying them just to buy them? Not so much, even collecting, which is the closest activity to just buying stuff, will usually have some overreaching objective beyond simply blindly purchasing anything. People hate feeling taken for granted, they also hate feeling they've been taken for mugs, and it is very easy to build a picture of a GW fan from Merett's perspective of a mindless fanboy, indiscriminately purchasing anything with a GW logo on it. Certainly there'd be an argument that their entire corporate demeanor has reflected that view up until recently.
It is no surprise that people don't react well to anything that even remotely implies they aren't respected by a company that needs their money, and consequently good will, to survive.
redben wrote: Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
HAHA then its even BETTER that he is gone. since all those things you mentioned have been garbage for years.
If MGS is right and Merett really was the originator of AoS/killing WHFB, then the absolute most I can say without breaking rule 1 is: good riddance, and I sincerely hope his leaving was not an amicable retirement but rather an unceremonious ejection.
Yodhrin wrote: If MGS is right and Merett really was the originator of AoS/killing WHFB, then the absolute most I can say without breaking rule 1 is: good riddance, and I sincerely hope his leaving was not an amicable retirement but rather an unceremonious ejection.
As I understand it, pretty much everything went through Merett. People like to blame Ward and others for stuff, but Merett signed off on everything they did.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What GW did to Games day has to be one of the biggest acts of self-harm in corporate history. Imagine that, a company that actively discourages its customers from enjoying their products
Indeed, how did they get it so wrong:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: As I understand it, pretty much everything went through Merett. People like to blame Ward and others for stuff, but Merett signed off on everything they did.
Anecdotally, I've read the he didn't sign off Forgeworld productions, but did act in an advisory fashion.
Yodhrin wrote: If MGS is right and Merett really was the originator of AoS/killing WHFB, then the absolute most I can say without breaking rule 1 is: good riddance, and I sincerely hope his leaving was not an amicable retirement but rather an unceremonious ejection.
As I understand it, pretty much everything went through Merett. People like to blame Ward and others for stuff, but Merett signed off on everything they did.
Signing off isn't the same as originating. I don't let people off the hook for agreeing with or permitting stupid or malicious proposals, but for my money the biggest opprobrium always falls on the person who originates the stupid/malicious idea, and then next to people who actively help to bring it to fruition.
EDIT: Hah, that second pic reminds me more of a cattle slaughterhouse than a convention.
Jes Bickham, former wd editor, has been doing Alan's job for a little while now. I never had any interaction with the man, but several friends have, none spoke favourably of him. They had to wait elsewhere when he visited their departments, leaving just the manager behind to minimise the amount of contact (and complaints/unlawful dismissal suits) he had with staff. The company will be better off without his ego making problems for the studio.
JamesY wrote: Jes Bickham, former wd editor, has been doing Alan's job for a little while now. I never had any interaction with the man, but several friends have, none spoke favourably of him. They had to wait elsewhere when he visited their departments, leaving just the manager behind to minimise the amount of contact (and complaints/unlawful dismissal suits) he had with staff. The company will be better off without his ego making problems for the studio.
Not just that, but how many people of yore was Merret directly or indirectly responsible for driving away from the company?
You look at people like Rick Preistly and Paul Sawyer for example, still based in Nottingham, still making games, so their decision to leave GW wasn't based on wanting to work in Tokyo or something.
Not being familiar with inter-personal dynamics or relationships at GWHQ, I suppose we'll never know, but if MGS's comments are Gospel, and I've no reason to doubt them, then Merret and Kirby between them, could have been responsible for an exodus of design talent...and that's criminal for any company...
I speak from experience but when you're in a workplace with such a poisonous character, there's only two solutions:
If you alter Alan Merrert's infamous quote to almost any other activity it sounds very odd.
"And fell walkers get to do their favourite hobby activity, buy boots"
"And the surfers get to do their favourite hobby activity, buy wet suits"
"And the painters get to do thier favourite hobby activity, buy paint"
I'm sure there are wet suit, boot and paint collectors in this world but I bet were I to go up a mountain on a sunny weekend I can find very few people who'll describe their favourite hobby activity as buying boots.
Yeah. You need creatives and business-minded people in a place like GW, but if either person has contempt for the other's role, and for the customers, they are actively harming the business far more than they are helping it -- however much of a genius they may or may not be.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Yeah. You need creatives and business-minded people in a place like GW, but if either person has contempt for the other's role, and for the customers, they are actively harming the business far more than they are helping it -- however much of a genius they may or may not be.
Rick Priestly's famous quote about the design team becoming the marketing wing of a toy company, spoke volumes about GW's direction...
Yodhrin wrote: If MGS is right and Merett really was the originator of AoS/killing WHFB, then the absolute most I can say without breaking rule 1 is: good riddance, and I sincerely hope his leaving was not an amicable retirement but rather an unceremonious ejection.
As I understand it, pretty much everything went through Merett. People like to blame Ward and others for stuff, but Merett signed off on everything they did.
Signing off isn't the same as originating. I don't let people off the hook for agreeing with or permitting stupid or malicious proposals, but for my money the biggest opprobrium always falls on the person who originates the stupid/malicious idea, and then next to people who actively help to bring it to fruition.
I would suggest perhaps also recognizing that someone 'signing off' on your work can also send you back, time and again, to your desk to make whatever you're doing fit their own very exacting and, sometimes, downright odd vision of how it should be. Either you quit to take your talents elsewhere or you suffer through it for a time, to pay the rent.
Or have we all forgotten the tale of the sculpting of the head of Nagash by one G Morley...
Ian Sturrock wrote: Yeah. You need creatives and business-minded people in a place like GW, but if either person has contempt for the other's role, and for the customers, they are actively harming the business far more than they are helping it -- however much of a genius they may or may not be.
Rick Priestly's famous quote about the design team becoming the marketing wing of a toy company, spoke volumes about GW's direction...
That's one of my fav quotes of all time. I miss the GW or the late 80's to late 90's.
As to AM leaving...I hope the door doesn't hit his rump as he exits the building.
zedmeister wrote:
Indeed, how did they get it so wrong:
This is a good example of the shift GW underwent the last decade. Sure, there are certainly customers for whom price is no concern and the game doesn't matter, but that doesn't represent a large part of the base...*certainly* not enough to run the company. And if GW's goal was to move their games towards boutique sales for an even more niche audience, then they've been doing a great job. However, I believe that their goal (like all other companies) was always to make more money, and to that end they've been held back by management who look disdainfully at their customer base (something TSR was all too familiar with before their demise).
Anecdotally, I've read the he didn't sign off Forgeworld productions, but did act in an advisory fashion.
TheAuldGrump wrote:I just hope that his leaving helps with GW's recovery.
I am not sorry to see him go - I remember the Chapterhouse debacle all too weel. I just wish that MWHistorian had lived to see AM leave.
The Auld Grump
That is particularly sad to think about, I do very much miss his presence among us.
I wonder if perhaps, with the change in attitude and personnel, GW would consider revisiting the Old World when AoS is solidified as a core system.
I know 30k doesn't work as a direct parallel, but maybe we'll live to see the new SGS come out with WFB Legacy somewhere down the line. A man can dream, I suppose.
Azreal13 wrote: A 10mm system set in the Old World would be fun...
You mean 8mm, because "its a good compromise between detail and scale" it only invalidates everything that has gone before completely by coincidence....
what is wrong with buying GW products, if that is what you enjoy???
Um... I guess there're people who enjoy buying (usually women in the mall). I for one would rather get those GW products I want for free.
what a horrible insult to women everywhere...
i mean, women get more practical use out of the handbags, make-up, and shoes that they buy than i do out of my miniature collection hahahahahahahaha
i get boatloads of free minis, thanks to years of painting for studios, but i still buy the cool stuff that i didn't get for free...
the thing is, minis go out of production all the time...
if i see something i really want, i buy it, or else i will have to hunt it down later...
even then, bargain hunting for rare minis is a fun hobby in itself...
regardless of the fact that Merett made himself look like an idiot in court, i am just glad that someone finally pushed the Genestealer Cult, Knights, and Deathwatch out the door...
if him leaving means that we get more cool stuff, than that can only be a good thing
I just hope it's a step towards a better company. I haven't wanted to buy anything GW in over a year! I almost feel as if 40k doesn't exist anymore as a game, I've found myself so disinterested in it. Anything to move forward or create side games that I'd actually enjoy like Mordheim or Warmaster I'd love. I wonder if he had anything to do with those going away.
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Pardon my quoting someone off the first page, but I think this sums up the root of GWs failings and implicates responsibility.
At a company of this size it's pretty much the CEO's job to have these insight and understanding and if what we saw over the last decade was Kirby's belief in what Alan Merett "knew" ... It's clear faith was misplaced. I think when Kirby was pushed out, they probably also decided Merett had to go but wanted to minimize the potential damage to investors by staggering their leadership departures.
I think this continued shake up in leadership is a positive change and only points to a greater influence by the newer CEO who appears to be turning things around.
If Matt Ward is taking this role I don't think it's a bad thing.
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Pardon my quoting someone off the first page, but I think this sums up the root of GWs failings and implicates responsibility.
At a company of this size it's pretty much the CEO's job to have these insight and understanding and if what we saw over the last decade was Kirby's belief in what Alan Merett "knew" ... It's clear faith was misplaced. I think when Kirby was pushed out, they probably also decided Merett had to go but wanted to minimize the potential damage to investors by staggering their leadership departures.
I think this continued shake up in leadership is a positive change and only points to a greater influence by the newer CEO who appears to be turning things around.
If Matt Ward is taking this role I don't think it's a bad thing.
I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that he is/was a bit of a tyrant.
However, very much enjoying the "AM had a rigid fixed view of what GW should do, now he's gone maybe they can start meeting my fixed/rigid expectations!"
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Pardon my quoting someone off the first page, but I think this sums up the root of GWs failings and implicates responsibility.
At a company of this size it's pretty much the CEO's job to have these insight and understanding and if what we saw over the last decade was Kirby's belief in what Alan Merett "knew" ... It's clear faith was misplaced. I think when Kirby was pushed out, they probably also decided Merett had to go but wanted to minimize the potential damage to investors by staggering their leadership departures.
I think this continued shake up in leadership is a positive change and only points to a greater influence by the newer CEO who appears to be turning things around.
If Matt Ward is taking this role I don't think it's a bad thing.
kirby was "pushed out"? Source?
Kirby was CEO and now he is a "non-executive" on the board of directors. When he "resigned," GW's statement to investors said he would "continue to chair board meetings." The rumor coming from back in February-ish of last year: there was a person claiming that according to top people he knew at GW the board and the new CEO had been intentionally holding board meetings when Kirby was "unavailable". In general a company can't truly "fire" or force out someone who owns as much stock as Kirby, but this is what it looks like when they "push" them out and hope they get the message that the company business will happen around them and not through their participating leadership.
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Pardon my quoting someone off the first page, but I think this sums up the root of GWs failings and implicates responsibility.
At a company of this size it's pretty much the CEO's job to have these insight and understanding and if what we saw over the last decade was Kirby's belief in what Alan Merett "knew" ... It's clear faith was misplaced. I think when Kirby was pushed out, they probably also decided Merett had to go but wanted to minimize the potential damage to investors by staggering their leadership departures.
I think this continued shake up in leadership is a positive change and only points to a greater influence by the newer CEO who appears to be turning things around.
If Matt Ward is taking this role I don't think it's a bad thing.
I didn't mean to give the impression that Kirby himself did not understand GW's business, or that he left that up to Alan. As best as I can tell they were of the same mind.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I agree with you, Jah. I don't understand why this gets brought up over and over again as an example of how horrible Merett is. If this forum is anything to go buy, he's completely right. The hobby is buying more and more miniatures. It's especially obviously now. Games Workshop has gone back to making all kinds of games, like Betrayal at Calth and Deathwatch: Overkill. And I read posts on here all the time from people who didn't even consider even reading the rules for those games, and just bought them for the fancy new miniatures. They even act like the game is pointless filler, and that it's really just a box full of miniatures. The hobby is, for a lot of people, collecting the miniatures. That's what people enjoy. So why hate the guy for knowing what his customers are like?
OR that they are bought, shock horror, for ANOTHER game...
When you can have same models for the game for 150£ or 100£? Obviously 100£ regardless of does it have ANOTHER game or not.
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Pardon my quoting someone off the first page, but I think this sums up the root of GWs failings and implicates responsibility.
At a company of this size it's pretty much the CEO's job to have these insight and understanding and if what we saw over the last decade was Kirby's belief in what Alan Merett "knew" ... It's clear faith was misplaced. I think when Kirby was pushed out, they probably also decided Merett had to go but wanted to minimize the potential damage to investors by staggering their leadership departures.
I think this continued shake up in leadership is a positive change and only points to a greater influence by the newer CEO who appears to be turning things around.
If Matt Ward is taking this role I don't think it's a bad thing.
kirby was "pushed out"? Source?
Kirby was CEO and now he is a "non-executive" on the board of directors. When he "resigned," GW's statement to investors said he would "continue to chair board meetings." The rumor coming from back in February-ish of last year: there was a person claiming that according to top people he knew at GW the board and the new CEO had been intentionally holding board meetings when Kirby was "unavailable". In general a company can't truly "fire" or force out someone who owns as much stock as Kirby, but this is what it looks like when they "push" them out and hope they get the message that the company business will happen around them and not through their participating leadership.
Alan is a pretty big deal in GW. If you read Kirby's preambles, when he discusses what it is that GW do, Alan sometimes gets a mention. He's the guy that understands GW's business, what it is they do, who their customers are, how to sell to them, and so on.
Pardon my quoting someone off the first page, but I think this sums up the root of GWs failings and implicates responsibility.
At a company of this size it's pretty much the CEO's job to have these insight and understanding and if what we saw over the last decade was Kirby's belief in what Alan Merett "knew" ... It's clear faith was misplaced. I think when Kirby was pushed out, they probably also decided Merett had to go but wanted to minimize the potential damage to investors by staggering their leadership departures.
I think this continued shake up in leadership is a positive change and only points to a greater influence by the newer CEO who appears to be turning things around.
If Matt Ward is taking this role I don't think it's a bad thing.
kirby was "pushed out"? Source?
Kirby was CEO and now he is a "non-executive" on the board of directors. When he "resigned," GW's statement to investors said he would "continue to chair board meetings." The rumor coming from back in February-ish of last year: there was a person claiming that according to top people he knew at GW the board and the new CEO had been intentionally holding board meetings when Kirby was "unavailable". In general a company can't truly "fire" or force out someone who owns as much stock as Kirby, but this is what it looks like when they "push" them out and hope they get the message that the company business will happen around them and not through their participating leadership.
Sounds like a whole lotta wishlisting to me.
Sounds like a whole lotta accuracy to me judging by all the changes of the last few months.
aka_mythos wrote: Kirby was CEO and now he is a "non-executive" on the board of directors. When he "resigned," GW's statement to investors said he would "continue to chair board meetings." The rumor coming from back in February-ish of last year: there was a person claiming that according to top people he knew at GW the board and the new CEO had been intentionally holding board meetings when Kirby was "unavailable". In general a company can't truly "fire" or force out someone who owns as much stock as Kirby, but this is what it looks like when they "push" them out and hope they get the message that the company business will happen around them and not through their participating leadership.
Sounds like a whole lotta wishlisting to me.
Sentence #1 - Fact; Sentence #2 - Fact; Sentence #3 - Rumor, supposition; Sentence #4 - Conclusion, comparison
Generally a "wishlist" has to contain an enumeration of desires. This is not that.
aka_mythos wrote: Kirby was CEO and now he is a "non-executive" on the board of directors. When he "resigned," GW's statement to investors said he would "continue to chair board meetings." The rumor coming from back in February-ish of last year: there was a person claiming that according to top people he knew at GW the board and the new CEO had been intentionally holding board meetings when Kirby was "unavailable". In general a company can't truly "fire" or force out someone who owns as much stock as Kirby, but this is what it looks like when they "push" them out and hope they get the message that the company business will happen around them and not through their participating leadership.
Sounds like a whole lotta wishlisting to me.
Sentence #1 - Fact; Sentence #2 - Fact; Sentence #3 - Rumor, supposition; Sentence #4 - Conclusion, comparison
Generally a "wishlist" has to contain an enumeration of desires. This is not that.
Rumours, claims.......nothing concrete then, just wishlisting and a desire to see the great satan apparently "pushed out" by the saviour of GW.
aka_mythos wrote: Kirby was CEO and now he is a "non-executive" on the board of directors. When he "resigned," GW's statement to investors said he would "continue to chair board meetings." The rumor coming from back in February-ish of last year: there was a person claiming that according to top people he knew at GW the board and the new CEO had been intentionally holding board meetings when Kirby was "unavailable". In general a company can't truly "fire" or force out someone who owns as much stock as Kirby, but this is what it looks like when they "push" them out and hope they get the message that the company business will happen around them and not through their participating leadership.
Sounds like a whole lotta wishlisting to me.
Sentence #1 - Fact; Sentence #2 - Fact; Sentence #3 - Rumor, supposition; Sentence #4 - Conclusion, comparison
Generally a "wishlist" has to contain an enumeration of desires. This is not that.
Rumours, claims.......nothing concrete then, just wishlisting and a desire to see the great satan apparently "pushed out" by the saviour of GW.
You do check to see which forum you're in before you post, aye?
Well, I don't know much about the inner workings of GW. I never really cared. I do know I was more into the hobby when I felt like I knew who some of the developers and painters were thru White Dwarf. And by this I mean the old days when Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson did their battle reports. I never have gone to a Games Day, and I might have been to a single GW store, and I am not even sure. I know a new one opened up near me but I don't see the point of going since I can see it all online.
Over the years, and I got into the hobby starting with Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine in 91, I have seen GW do some pretty impressive things, and some dumb things too. But I am not at GWHQ looking over the numbers and having any idea what it takes to develop a game, and so on, in relation to the budgets they have work with. I also think that much of the criticism seems to originate around the time of the Great Recession, when GW no doubt was forced to make some changes. Their old guard probably just kept on going thru with whatever they decided back then, rather than change with the times I guess.
I do remember a time when I saw the developers engaged with the community, and even posting on forums like this one. When Jervis posted he was going to start EpicA, I emailed him directly and got a response, which let to a whole series of exchanges. I am not sure that would happen today. And I am sure not all exchanges and posts of criticism go over well either, so I can see why they might pull back too.
But GW seemed to need to make some changes and it seems they are slowly getting rid of everything thats been wrong with GW the last 10 years and righting the ship. Rome wasn't built in a day. I am glad to see GW releasing more games, even if they are all directly under 40k for now, because thats what they are supposed to be doing to me. I got so bored with the only thing coming out of GW was a new version of 40k or WFB.
Some things they have done right. I love the old school models, but I never dreamed that they would be releasing plastic models with the detail they have, or even build Stompas and the like for 40k. The rules suck, but the models are amazing.
Hopefully they bring back the GW where the fans and the company felt like community. And I hope they bring back WFB and dump AoS. They dont even need to come up with an explanation. Just show up with WFB v10.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Rumours, claims.......nothing concrete then, just wishlisting and a desire to see the great satan apparently "pushed out" by the savior of GW.
You're reading into what I'm saying too much. Its not wishlisting and it isn't desire, both mean a feeling of hope that something will happen, but this has already happened. I don't need to have any feelings about it. My opinions here are allowed to be based on rumors, though I believe they are based on reasoned inferences. You're entitled to your choice to disregard them.
It is fact, that he isn't in a position of authority at GW. He is no longer CEO and while he remains on the Board of Directors at GW the role of a Board of Directors is chiefly to help the CEO get whatever financial resources he needs and to assist with tax structuring and not to make operational decisions.
I don't think of Roundtree as a savior and I didn't think of Kirby as a "great satan". If Kirby had a sin it was ignorance and misplaced view of GW's products as collectables; a view at the root of what drove his decision making. From all accounts and a number of public presentations, Alan Merett was portrayed by Kirby as the one most chiefly responsible for his views of GW's customers and the company's operations. Roundtree's experiences heading the more appreciated branches of GW shows he is at least aware of where the customer bases' interests lie, but at the same time he seems committed to certain practices that continue to erode GW's market share and presence in retail outlets. GW's present course has and will continue to boost sales from established customers, but despite product bundling the barriers to entry into the hobby still remain. Whether you agree with my reading of events or not, Alan Merett's departure is indicative of a change of perspective at GW that is directly tied to these other executive personnel changes.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Rumours, claims.......nothing concrete then, just wishlisting and a desire to see the great satan apparently "pushed out" by the savior of GW.
You're reading into what I'm saying too much. Its not wishlisting and it isn't desire, both mean a feeling of hope that something will happen, but this has already happened. I don't need to have any feelings about it. My opinions here are allowed to be based on rumors, though I believe they are based on reasoned inferences. You're entitled to your choice to disregard them.
It is fact, that he isn't in a position of authority at GW. He is no longer CEO and while he remains on the Board of Directors at GW the role of a Board of Directors is chiefly to help the CEO get whatever financial resources he needs and to assist with tax structuring and not to make operational decisions.
I don't think of Roundtree as a savior and I didn't think of Kirby as a "great satan". If Kirby had a sin it was ignorance and misplaced view of GW's products as collectables; a view at the root of what drove his decision making. From all accounts and a number of public presentations, Alan Merett was portrayed by Kirby as the one most chiefly responsible for his views of GW's customers and the company's operations. Roundtree's experiences heading the more appreciated branches of GW shows he is at least aware of where the customer bases' interests lie, but at the same time he seems committed to certain practices that continue to erode GW's market share and presence in retail outlets. GW's present course has and will continue to boost sales from established customers, but despite product bundling the barriers to entry into the hobby still remain. Whether you agree with my reading of events or not, Alan Merett's departure is indicative of a change of perspective at GW that is directly tied to these other executive personnel changes.
I agree with you, aka_mythos. A rational interpretation of these developments is more valuable than a hyperbolic distortion of what it all means.
GW is not going to change overnight, and changes in leadership are simply that, new people with new ideas. It remains to be seen how this would actually affect the company.
Still, nothing on any search engine confirming this rumor. This rumor started on Dakka, spread to Beasts of War (refers back to dakka), and nothing.....
The Ward rumor could be found on legit "news" sites at least...
I'm calling BS on this rumor, until there's proof positive.
russian69hitman wrote: Still, nothing on any search engine confirming this rumor. This rumor started on Dakka, spread to Beasts of War (refers back to dakka), and nothing.....
The Ward rumor could be found on legit "news" sites at least...
I'm calling BS on this rumor, until there's proof positive.
The Ward "rumor" is from the horse's mouth - it's from his own Twitter account. This one I still don't totally buy.
Back on topic: So, what else do we think the post-Merett/Kirby era will bring?
Plastic Praetorian Imperial Guard!!!!!!!!
No,I'm not serious.
One of the rumours I heard years ago was that Alan Merrett canned production of the Praetorians as he considered pith helmet Victorians IN SPAAACE was a step into silliness.
No idea if that dit is true but if it is, the Praetorians were a joke that opened a market for Victoria Lamb, Rob Angell's Curious Constructs and a couple of other companies.
BrookM wrote: The praetorians were a studio army at first, but players showed so much interest back then that they decided to sell them for a while.
That's right. The originals were knocked up by the Perrys purely for the Games Day Big Toof display. Then someone thought "We could sell a limited box of that" following what I believe was a large amount of pestering at that Games Day.
The point being is that Merrett allegedly let his personal view affect the ongoing sales of an IG range. The truth is possibly more mundane such as sales not making it worth renewing worn out molds but hey, the truth should never get in the way of a good story.
russian69hitman wrote: Still, nothing on any search engine confirming this rumor. This rumor started on Dakka, spread to Beasts of War (refers back to dakka), and nothing.....
The Ward rumor could be found on legit "news" sites at least...
I'm calling BS on this rumor, until there's proof positive.
I'll be blunt, most companies don't advertise people leaving or arriving.
I got the word from an acquaintance on Facebook who heard it from another acquaintance. It might be true, it might not. I wouldn't jump to call bs on it due to the fact five minutes google-fu can't locate a bbc news article on it though, that's as sketchy a reason to reject as it is to accept.
No idea if that dit is true but if it is, the Praetorians were a joke that opened a market for Victoria Lamb, Rob Angell's Curious Constructs and a couple of other companies.
Hell, GW's decisions to cancel model ranges and entire games have allowed many new companies to flourish. And GW has only themselves to blame for the very existence of much of this competition.
No idea if that dit is true but if it is, the Praetorians were a joke that opened a market for Victoria Lamb, Rob Angell's Curious Constructs and a couple of other companies.
Hell, GW's decisions to cancel model ranges and entire games have allowed many new companies to flourish. And GW has only themselves to blame for the very existence of much of this competition.
Just imagine if GW made clear concise rules with balanced books/codices and still supported the tourney scene, Privateer Press might not even exist. There would be no Warmahordes and maybe no X-wing to get into games cheaper with great clear concise rules as well.
You are oh so correct. GW have opened the market for other companies to come in and take part of their share. If they still existed they wouldn't be so dominate as they are now, that is for sure. Amazing what happens when you upset your fan base and look down upon them.
Sounds like the big boss is starting to get traction and looking at work performance...
Didn't they hire a Big time fashion magazine editor that was the one to recommend breaking up the magazine
into a weekly magazine and a monthly magazine... I am sure he is looking for a job now also since they
are now going back to what the originally did..
Genoside07 wrote: Sounds like the big boss is starting to get traction and looking at work performance...
Didn't they hire a Big time fashion magazine editor that was the one to recommend breaking up the magazine
into a weekly magazine and a monthly magazine... I am sure he is looking for a job now also since they
are now going back to what the originally did..
That person may have already got another job and GW have gone back to what they originally did due to being clueless as a result. You don't know one way or the other.
Genoside07 wrote: Sounds like the big boss is starting to get traction and looking at work performance...
Didn't they hire a Big time fashion magazine editor that was the one to recommend breaking up the magazine
into a weekly magazine and a monthly magazine... I am sure he is looking for a job now also since they
are now going back to what the originally did..
That person may have already got another job and GW have gone back to what they originally did due to being clueless as a result. You don't know one way or the other.
They went from monthly White Dwarf being available in almost every newsagent in the UK and selling reasonably well to having Warhammer Visions in a very few newsagents barely selling and a weekly White Dwarf in games shops which only really sold if it had a decent freebie. Lots of Visions and weekly White Dwarfs were being returned for credit.
No idea if that dit is true but if it is, the Praetorians were a joke that opened a market for Victoria Lamb, Rob Angell's Curious Constructs and a couple of other companies.
Hell, GW's decisions to cancel model ranges and entire games have allowed many new companies to flourish. And GW has only themselves to blame for the very existence of much of this competition.
Just imagine if GW made clear concise rules with balanced books/codices and still supported the tourney scene, Privateer Press might not even exist. There would be no Warmahordes and maybe no X-wing to get into games cheaper with great clear concise rules as well.
You are oh so correct. GW have opened the market for other companies to come in and take part of their share. If they still existed they wouldn't be so dominate as they are now, that is for sure. Amazing what happens when you upset your fan base and look down upon them.
Little off topic but how the is X-wing a cheaper game? $30 bucks for 3 pre painted minis the size of old D&D minis, made out of the same cheap material as MechWarrior and ___Clix games. Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started, but model for model come on man. GW ain't that bad.
GW does need to back to 3rd ed. rules though and bring back tourney's and stuff.
No idea if that dit is true but if it is, the Praetorians were a joke that opened a market for Victoria Lamb, Rob Angell's Curious Constructs and a couple of other companies.
Hell, GW's decisions to cancel model ranges and entire games have allowed many new companies to flourish. And GW has only themselves to blame for the very existence of much of this competition.
Just imagine if GW made clear concise rules with balanced books/codices and still supported the tourney scene, Privateer Press might not even exist. There would be no Warmahordes and maybe no X-wing to get into games cheaper with great clear concise rules as well.
You are oh so correct. GW have opened the market for other companies to come in and take part of their share. If they still existed they wouldn't be so dominate as they are now, that is for sure. Amazing what happens when you upset your fan base and look down upon them.
Little off topic but how the is X-wing a cheaper game? $30 bucks for 3 pre painted minis the size of old D&D minis, made out of the same cheap material as MechWarrior and ___Clix games. Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started, but model for model come on man. GW ain't that bad.
GW does need to back to 3rd ed. rules though and bring back tourney's and stuff.
They just announced the AoS Grand Tournament for 2017
No idea if that dit is true but if it is, the Praetorians were a joke that opened a market for Victoria Lamb, Rob Angell's Curious Constructs and a couple of other companies.
Hell, GW's decisions to cancel model ranges and entire games have allowed many new companies to flourish. And GW has only themselves to blame for the very existence of much of this competition.
Just imagine if GW made clear concise rules with balanced books/codices and still supported the tourney scene, Privateer Press might not even exist. There would be no Warmahordes and maybe no X-wing to get into games cheaper with great clear concise rules as well.
You are oh so correct. GW have opened the market for other companies to come in and take part of their share. If they still existed they wouldn't be so dominate as they are now, that is for sure. Amazing what happens when you upset your fan base and look down upon them.
Little off topic but how the is X-wing a cheaper game? $30 bucks for 3 pre painted minis the size of old D&D minis, made out of the same cheap material as MechWarrior and ___Clix games. Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started, but model for model come on man. GW ain't that bad.
GW does need to back to 3rd ed. rules though and bring back tourney's and stuff.
Cheaper techincally for a playable force. The starter and a few additional ships gives you lots of options.
Price argument falls flat when you consider competitive play though and the need to buy ships you don't want just for the upgrades you do want.
However, there's plenty of games out there that are more expensive than GW on a per model basis but far cheaper on what you need to actually play, skirmish games like Frostgrave, Infinity, Saga, Malifaux, etc come to mind..
Tannhauser42 wrote: His CHS testimony alone should, from a PR standpoint, have been enough to give him the boot.
As far as PR goes, nutters like us posting on a forum are the only ones who care - and I doubt we move GW's bottom line. As far as the testimony goes, and the whole CHS action for that matter, it's hardly fair to blame the witnesses for being sorely underprepared much less for a woefully inadequate approach to the case generally. That's as much as I'll say about the matter.
I think it's hard to understate the reputational damage to a company when their head of IP testifies in court that he doesn't know the difference between copyright and trademarks.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started,.
Does there need to be more than one reason that a game is cheaper before anyone is allowed to point out that it is cheaper...?
Pretty much this. A game is as expensive as the company designs the game around a playable force. GW want games where you need to bring several suitcases of miniatures, and then prices them quite high. Other companies price their miniatures even higher, but you need far, far fewer.
The cost of the game is when you look at the cost of an average starting force, not the individual miniatures. A box of 10 tactical marines is cheaper than 10 Infinity models, but those 10 Infinity models will very likely make up a complete, competitive list, while the Marines make up 1/10 of a competitive list.
Little off topic but how the is X-wing a cheaper game? $30 bucks for 3 pre painted minis the size of old D&D minis, made out of the same cheap material as MechWarrior and ___Clix games. Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started, but model for model come on man. GW ain't that bad.
$30 for 3 is an awful lot cheaper than a lot of GW's range for similar sized items.
How much is an average GW character blister these days, and how much is an X-Wing ship blister?
The fact is though that you can be up and running in 40k or aos pretty cheaply now. Battle for vedros is $50 the storm of choas aos starter is $33 dollars. That is pretty comparable to a $40 x wing Starter. Of course these are not what we have come to view as full armies but they are very reasonable entry points to playing the games. Gw currently has a much better path towards entering the hobby than before.
Gw seems to realise the problem that Loki mentioned. One of the upcoming Aos events at warhammer world has skirmish rules and points for armies with just a handful of models. I hope they make this kind of thing official.
I have long thought that they should make a infinity style skirmish game for for each system if only to leverage their character clam packs.
The top down review that the new ceo promised to do actually seems to have produced some good results so far. I hope they continue to experiment with entry points into the hobby.
If Merret was resisting this, it is good he is gone
It's hard to know what to make of second hand accounts of his personality, but Merrett's performance in the Chapterhouse case was astonishing. It's been covered well, but the guy just didn't seem to know what he was doing. He was corrected in the trial on a few points, and believes that ideas are the same as copyright. Most pointedly was the way he claimed that GW is entirely original and they have nothing from outside, they just think stuff up apparently. This is in strong contrast to older sources describing how they had refer nce material on the shelves and the historical and pop-cultural references throughout Warhammer are just obvious to anyone with eyes.
It strains credulity that people are expected to believe they create everything in a vacuum, yet he claimed this in court so I guess it has to be true, right? That and the lack of basic knowledge on how copyright and other forms of intellectual properties work, and it seems like he was given the IP role as a big position gift for a long time member of staff to exercise his will over creative content, rather than because he understood the legalities of IP.
Chikout wrote: The fact is though that you can be up and running in 40k or aos pretty cheaply now. Battle for vedros is $50 the storm of choas aos starter is $33 dollars. That is pretty comparable to a $40 x wing Starter. Of course these are not what we have come to view as full armies but they are very reasonable entry points to playing the games. Gw currently has a much better path towards entering the hobby than before.
Gw seems to realise the problem that Loki mentioned. One of the upcoming Aos events at warhammer world has skirmish rules and points for armies with just a handful of models. I hope they make this kind of thing official. I have long thought that they should make a infinity style skirmish game for for each system if only to leverage their character clam packs.
The top down review that the new ceo promised to do actually seems to have produced some good results so far. I hope they continue to experiment with entry points into the hobby. If Merret was resisting this, it is good he is gone
It's a start, and it's nice that they're at least trying, but it's not going to help unless it becomes the norm for regular gamers. If you go to a store for a pickup game, people expect a certain size game. Smaller games are balanced around small points limits and it's actually recommended you don't play above them.
Malifaux, for example, is balanced at 50pts. The average starter is 25-30pts, and can be made into a 50pt list with 2-3 additional purchases, which will actually include more models than you will need which opens up options. Jakob Lynch, a box of Beckoners, a box of Depleted and Mr Graves is around the $110au mark. Similarly Jack Daw, a box of Drowned, a box of Hanged and Jaakuna Ubume is around the $130au mark. Both of those give you much, much more than 50pts worth which lets you experiment. Infinity, an Imperial Service starter and a box of Wu Ming is about $100au and gives you a tournament ready 300pt list, as does a Hassassin starter and a Muyib box.
Now, I haven't played 40k or Fantasy in a couple of years, but from memory people erred on the side of larger games. 40k for example had a standard in my parts of 1500-2000pts. Dark Vengeance had maybe a third of that, pushing it with upgrades and the like. I have the Chaos side, got it when it released. I priced out expanding it to 1000pts and ended up needing to spend another $200au on top of the $90 I spent splitting it with a friend, and that was prior to 2 years of price increases that we have now, so I'm being generous to 40k here, as the other games don't have such price increases at regular intervals. $300au for a force that wouldn't even get me into local pick up games due to the small size compared to ~$100au for tournament ready forces is quite a difference.
Then, due to the way games work, if I wanted to drastically change the way my 40k force worked, I'd need to spend several hundred dollars more (again, Australian prices here) filling out a new formation. If I want to drastically change how my Infinity or Malifaux armies play, I buy a single box or a couple of blisters for ~$40.
Back along this (really old and well worn) argument popped up in another thread, I ultimately didn't post my findings but I did price up Paul Heaver's last world championship winning list (Poe Dameron, couple Y Wings etc)
It was £130. That was based off RRP and cost of Buy It Now eBay auctions for the single cards needed that were genuinely available at the time I did it, and including postage.
All someone has to do to prove GW is cheaper is find a tournament winning list that retails for less than £130, I won't even stipulate world championships, as of course GW don't do that, and we'll say no more about it
Let's wait until December and see how much it costs to play bloodbowl.
I've got plenty of both, but comparing the cost of a full army of multipart miniatures to x-wing game pieces is a pointless comparison, but it does seem that GW are trying to let you begin playing for less.
Vorian wrote: Let's wait until December and see how much it costs to play bloodbowl.
I've got plenty of both, but comparing the cost of a full army of multipart miniatures to x-wing game pieces is a pointless comparison, but it does seem that GW are trying to let you begin playing for less.
It's not pointless to the person walking into a store to spend money.
When I was younger and cash-strapped, I could walk into GW and buy a Necromunda gang, a Mordheim warband, a BFG fleet, a Gorkamorka mob etc in very playable form for £50 or less. Even when GW dumped the Specialist Games on their website with no support and jacked-up pricing you could still pick up a decent sized force for most of them for £100 or less. No, the per-model cost was often not much different than the per-model cost for a 40K or Fantasy model, but the fact you only needed to make that one, relatively affordable purchase WAS an important factor in deciding what to buy, because if you're not the type of person who can just shat out hundreds of quid on cue to buy a whole 40K army you were looking at months, minimum, before you could get a game in.
Since they got rid of the SGs, the issues with GW's core(for a while, only) systems have only grown; you need more and bigger models than ever before to play the "standard" game. But without the SGs folk walk in, figure out an army will cost them £300+, and walk right back out again(or, if it's an indy store, immediately walk over to the other products where they can drop £100 and have not just a playable army, but a playable army with lots of extra options and variation).
And while I'm happy beyond words to see the SGs returning in any form, there's no hint that GW intend to use them as gateway or budget products. Rather they seem to be targeting the nostalic vets like me(not that I'm flush these days either ); we'll see what pricepoint GW goes with for Blood Bowl, but I'd expect it to be the cheapest of the newer SGs given how much plastic support it's getting relative to what we know about the other upcoming release of Adeptus Titanicus(which gets one plastic core box containing only terrain and the rulebook, all the actual miniatures will be FW resin premium priced).
As for this "budget AoS", I'm skeptical. I would set your expectations more along the lines of "Kill Team"(ie an interesting wee sidegame that gets minimal support for a short time you have to actively create opportunities to play, rather than a proper new staple product you'll be able to play all over the place), and if it turns out to be better you'll at least be pleasantly surprised.
Well, as someone only currently playing Necromunda (and silver tower if we are counting that) at the moment, I'd agree
But it's right that simply saying x- wing is cheaper than 40k or AoS is a pointless comparison.
It seems to me that they are making a pretty serious effort to allowing people to actually play with little investment, so let's hope the trend continues
What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets. Sure it's small and you'll want more stuff over time if you want to play "the standard game" (bit of a weird proposition), but isn't that part of the fun? I doubt most people would have the reaction that "If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to". If they like the look of the models and fancy putting them together and painting them they'll get some. You're projecting your own value system onto the general public, which anyone who's worked in retail can tell you is a huge mistake.
Vorian wrote: Let's wait until December and see how much it costs to play bloodbowl.
I've got plenty of both, but comparing the cost of a full army of multipart miniatures to x-wing game pieces is a pointless comparison, but it does seem that GW are trying to let you begin playing for less.
My guess would be £100 RRP for the box (so about £80-£85 Online), with teams being about £40 (again £35ish Online) with Star Players being around the £12-£15 mark
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
Little off topic but how the is X-wing a cheaper game? $30 bucks for 3 pre painted minis the size of old D&D minis, made out of the same cheap material as MechWarrior and ___Clix games. Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started, but model for model come on man. GW ain't that bad.
Like Warmachine, Hordes and probably a few other systems (Malifaux?) They're cheaper on a "Game" level (mostly because you need far fewer), not a model-by-model level (like, say historicals).
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets. Sure it's small and you'll want more stuff over time if you want to play "the standard game" (bit of a weird proposition), but isn't that part of the fun? I doubt most people would have the reaction that "If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to". If they like the look of the models and fancy putting them together and painting them they'll get some. You're projecting your own value system onto the general public, which anyone who's worked in retail can tell you is a huge mistake.
Utter manure. You can technically play 40K with one model on each side, but nobody actually does and few play with the starter forces either beyond a store demo game or any scenarios that come in the box. As someone who did in fact work retail, sales and management, I can tell you for a fact that the total investment is a big factor in getting people to buy-in - why do you think videogame stores offer bundle deals on consoles that give you a few games and some accessories essentially for free? It's because they figured out the hard way that when folk walk in and see how much a console costs, telling them they have to drop the same amount again to get any reasonable amount of use out of the product makes enough of them walk right back out the door again that losing out on hundreds of quid's worth of RRP value sales is the better option.
Also this:
"If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to".
...is cute. Evidently I wasn't clear on my argument, and you felt the need to invent your own rather than simply ask for clarification. The issue is not that people don't do things they want to do because they're too expensive(although that is, of course, an actual issue it's not what's being discussed here), the issue is that a lot of people aren't going to spend £300+ when they can get a comparable experience for a third of that. "People who want to play Warhammer 40K" are not the problem, they've already been sold, "people who want to play a tabletop wargame" are the problem because they're going to base their decision to buy on what gets them the best value, and it's a plain fact that there are plenty of games out there(old GW ones included) that let you go from nothing to a fully playable force with optional units for variety both far quicker and for far less money than GW's "core" games.
Still, I have to thank you, it's nice to be reminded occasionally why you put people in ignore so you don't forget and show their posts.
Vorian wrote: I don't think there's any way that plastic BB teams are going to be £40
Kill Team Cassius from the DW:OK box was just released standalone at £40 RRP, I would expect something around that for any plastic "warband"-sized forces GW release for the upcoming SGs as they'll be comparable(ie a squad-sized box of "character" plastics of varying sizes with a more limited audience than normal infantry boxes).
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
A more direct comparison would be a Start Collecting set vs a single X-Wing. Or a pair of TIEs.
I say this with no disrespect to the SC sets - I bloody love them. Just had 5 more arrive and I've got at least 24+ of them (the ones I was able to count in 1min just now in the other room) and a dozen more on my "to-get" list. Including multiples, obviously.
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
A more direct comparison would be a Start Collecting set vs a single X-Wing. Or a pair of TIEs.
I say this with no disrespect to the SC sets - I bloody love them. Just had 5 more arrive and I've got at least 24+ of them (the ones I was able to count in 1min just now in the other room) and a dozen more on my "to-get" list. Including multiples, obviously.
I'd probably rate the SC sets to being closer to the Imperial/Rebel Ace/Veteran and Scum Starter Set.
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
And paint! And Primer! And Dice! And something to carry your gak in!
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
And paint! And Primer! And Dice! And something to carry your gak in!
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
A more direct comparison would be a Start Collecting set vs a single X-Wing. Or a pair of TIEs.
I'd probably rate the SC sets to being closer to the Imperial/Rebel Ace/Veteran and Scum Starter Set.
Content-wise, probably - but in terms of a bare, "legal" minimum to get started, X-Wing starts you off with a legal force of literally, one or two ships of the two mentioned types. An equal part of my point was that the X-Wing Starter gives you the full game rules, while an X-Wing single gets you what you need to play that unit. Comparatively, the AoS basic rules are available for free and the unit rules are in the SC boxes, so again - all you need to play on an unpointed, basic or narrative level. Then again, you could start AoS with a single box set or a single character.
The 40kSC boxes still require the full rulebook and a codex, and you can't just buy a box of SM and away you go as you can with an AoS/WHFB model or a single X-Wing - though again there you need the rules, templates, etc.
So again, if you want to be anally RAW literal, and since this is the internet, we clearly do - AoS is a very cheap game to have a "legal" start, and even cheaper than X-Wing because free rules and no special snowflake dice/templates needed. 40k - even unbound - is right down the other end of the hall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, the paint/brushes/glue issue is a relevant one if we're doing that comparison. At least glue is if we're going for minimum to get started "legally". I'll go with a tube of plastic cement and a couple of D6 being cheaper than the X-Wing dice and templates, though. Are we charging for the tape measure now, or assuming you have one at home?
Also, I've just realised that the topic is about Mr. Merett, and we (including myself) have gone down on quite a tangent at this point.
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets. Sure it's small and you'll want more stuff over time if you want to play "the standard game" (bit of a weird proposition), but isn't that part of the fun? I doubt most people would have the reaction that "If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to". If they like the look of the models and fancy putting them together and painting them they'll get some. You're projecting your own value system onto the general public, which anyone who's worked in retail can tell you is a huge mistake.
No....just no....Your idea is sooo wrong there. From the GW Canada website ( should I do "Little Timmy and his mom buy stuff for the first time or somewhat of a gamer decides to try out 40k for the first time?, I'll do little timmy and his mom {giggity}). Ok lets do marines because....marines right? (all prices are Canadian)
Dark Vengeance - $130 , This will get you two sets of models with a rule book, dice, templates etc etc etc.
Plastic Glue-$10.40, because the GW guy is totally shilling so he can meet his KPI's and not going to tell them they can go to the dollar store and get super glue there for a buck
Easy to Build: Citadel Essentials-$40 ,give you glue, paint, clippers and one brush ( good enough for little timmy to start off with for now)
Codex Dark Angels- $70, kinda need this also
Total $250 Canadian dollars, and thats with JUST a DV set....so no 50 quid will not get you playing Warhammer 40,000 against most people.
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets. Sure it's small and you'll want more stuff over time if you want to play "the standard game" (bit of a weird proposition), but isn't that part of the fun? I doubt most people would have the reaction that "If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to". If they like the look of the models and fancy putting them together and painting them they'll get some. You're projecting your own value system onto the general public, which anyone who's worked in retail can tell you is a huge mistake.
No....just no....Your idea is sooo wrong there. From the GW Canada website ( should I do "Little Timmy and his mom buy stuff for the first time or somewhat of a gamer decides to try out 40k for the first time?, I'll do little timmy and his mom {giggity}). Ok lets do marines because....marines right? (all prices are Canadian)
Dark Vengeance - $130 , This will get you two sets of models with a rule book, dice, templates etc etc etc.
Plastic Glue-$10.40, because the GW guy is totally shilling so he can meet his KPI's and not going to tell them they can go to the dollar store and get super glue there for a buck
Easy to Build: Citadel Essentials-$40 ,give you glue, paint, clippers and one brush ( good enough for little timmy to start off with for now)
Codex Dark Angels- $70, kinda need this also
Total $250 Canadian dollars, and thats with JUST a DV set....so no 50 quid will not get you playing Warhammer 40,000 against most people.
Yeah, you don't need half that stuff to get started.
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets. Sure it's small and you'll want more stuff over time if you want to play "the standard game" (bit of a weird proposition), but isn't that part of the fun? I doubt most people would have the reaction that "If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to". If they like the look of the models and fancy putting them together and painting them they'll get some. You're projecting your own value system onto the general public, which anyone who's worked in retail can tell you is a huge mistake.
No....just no....Your idea is sooo wrong there. From the GW Canada website ( should I do "Little Timmy and his mom buy stuff for the first time or somewhat of a gamer decides to try out 40k for the first time?, I'll do little timmy and his mom {giggity}). Ok lets do marines because....marines right? (all prices are Canadian)
Dark Vengeance - $130 , This will get you two sets of models with a rule book, dice, templates etc etc etc.
Plastic Glue-$10.40, because the GW guy is totally shilling so he can meet his KPI's and not going to tell them they can go to the dollar store and get super glue there for a buck
Easy to Build: Citadel Essentials-$40 ,give you glue, paint, clippers and one brush ( good enough for little timmy to start off with for now)
Codex Dark Angels- $70, kinda need this also
Total $250 Canadian dollars, and thats with JUST a DV set....so no 50 quid will not get you playing Warhammer 40,000 against most people.
On the other hand if a FLGS is the one to get you started on 40k (and it is any good), they will preach to you the gospel of dollar store super glue, cheaper quality hobby tools and paints, and maybe even show you where to get models for your army on the cheap even if it isn't with them all the time. As well as access to various other resources potentially lowering the cost of entry. I got the dark vengeance to start with but I split the cost in half with a veteran local gamer who plays orks. He got athe orks, and I got my Spesh mahrinneeesssss. I think I spent at most 100 bucks (US) getting started because I even got a second hand codex for cheap on ebay.
Yeah, you don't need half that stuff to get started.
Well... yes and no.
The DV stuff is push-fit to a degree, so you might be able to pass on that.
If you're looking for playable right out of the box? Yeah, all you really need is glue and maybe an x-acto.
But I don't think it's unfair to state just how expensive it is to get into the "standard" game of 40k.
Because if you're looking to play 40k at a store, you'll need your codex eventually and you'll want to start adding models to get to certain points values. And hopefully you're interested in Dark Angels or Chaos Space Marines, because while you can pick up a start collecting box for almost any faction, you'll still need a codex in addition to a rulebook (which is a fat $85 US). I agree that Start Collecting! has made it easier than ever to start an army, and that you don't necessarily have to go through Dark Vengeance or even Death Masque to start playing, but the cost of entry for 40k can get up there. It's not a slight towards the game (though it is for some), but you cannot deny that the cost can get up there to get into "standard" 40k. GW's big problem is the leap from starting to collecting, as most other games (Dropzone, Halo Ground Command, Flames of War, etc.) give you a much more solid foundation to start.
Believe me, I'm not trying to say GW is cheap, but the comparisons are bs - you can't play X-Wing at a "standard" level with a couple of 15-quid ships either, to be up with the meta you're always going to be looking at the new ships and the repaint sets, it's totally false. Hey, if I want to get into a game cheaply, I can buy a 3-quid Magic booster, but in practise Magic is incredibly expensive to play at this "standard" level.
It's a load of horsegak. SO bored of it. You can't play Necromunda with one gang either, but lets not let that stop us having our rose-tinted circlejack. Everything was better in the 90s! Get off my lawn! GW are bad, mmkay?!
But you can play X-Wing with 2-3 ships added onto the starter. Just like you can play 40k with 2-3 units added onto Dark Vengeance.
I didn't even take competitive 40k into account, or at least a "meta" list. If you're informed enough to go directly to power builds, sure. But I"m just talking about generally "starting" 40k, as opposed to picking it up and going straight into the metagame.
I agree that other games can be just as expensive as well. You can spend just as much on any other game as you can on GW. I think the better argument is if the barrier of entry is worth it to the individual.
I paid way over MSRP to hunt down Starship Troopers models in order to play Mongoose's old game, but it was worth it to me. Price is one thing, but value is another entirely.
Can you PLAY X-Wing with a starter and a few ships? Yes. Can you play X-Wing and expect to win constructed list style tournaments with a starter and a few ships? No necessarily. Probably no.
However, I am betting that I can construct a tournament-quality X-Wing list for far cheaper than an 1850 Warhammer 40k tournament-quality list.
Now that I have FINALLY, competently, and (with all due respect) with the most humility ever displayed in all of humanity put that discussion to an end, who is replacing Merett and is that person as funny on the witness stand?
Little off topic but how the is X-wing a cheaper game? $30 bucks for 3 pre painted minis the size of old D&D minis, made out of the same cheap material as MechWarrior and ___Clix games. Only reason these games seem cheaper is there is fewer models needed to get started, but model for model come on man. GW ain't that bad.
Like Warmachine, Hordes and probably a few other systems (Malifaux?) They're cheaper on a "Game" level (mostly because you need far fewer), not a model-by-model level (like, say historicals).
Which means to keep you painting(which is important part of the hobby for many) you need to spend even more money...
If I would spend 100£ for 5 models it would be worth less for me than 100£ for 30 models even if the 30 models give smaller amount of full army. I will still end up paying more with the 100£ for 5 models.
Besides. It's not like small number of models in game means you have to pay more per model. That's just scalping of another type. Skirmish game, platoon game, either way model price needs not go up. Plenty of cheap models you can get for skirmish games. I ain't paying more than ~2-3£ per model and that's expensive.
Apologies for plunging into the thread without any relation to previous posts, but can you please guys enlighten me what's going on here:
Who is Merit? His booting is Good or no?
Who is Kirby? Was he a bad a thing and is he finally being booted from GW? IF he is kicked why their income is still 118 mil and last year was 119 when he was still there.
One last question, when actually its counted the annual Income? The year is not finished yet.
He does have a LinkedIn page, and if he intends to stay in the business world, he'll likely update it if he's out.
He's been there what, 30+ years at a fairly senior level, I would imagine he's likely to retire with a rather nice handshake on the way out to keep him in line.
If this rumor is true.
Also I would hope they're putting him on garden leave in his final days, to keep him away from 'handling' any new projects before he's gone. It sometimes occurs to these people to spike the cannon before they go, so that people in the future will hark back to them with fondness or call them back in as consultants to untangle the mess they've left disguised as bringing back their expertise.
If this rumor is true, I hope he's already as far away from the creatives as he can be.
DalinCriid wrote: Apologies for plunging into the thread without any relation to previous posts, but can you please guys enlighten me what's going on here:
Who is Merit? His booting is Good or no?
Merret is/was the head of Intellectual Property in GW. Based on his testimony in open court during the Chapterhouse case, he was not particularly qualified nor well-versed in what he was supposed to be in charge of. The mistakes he made were painfully clear even to laypeople, and were tantamount to taking your car to a mechanic and having him ask "so where do the horses hitch onto this thing?" In other words, it wasn't a mistake under pressure so much as a fundamental lack of understanding. He also uttered the much parroted line that in effect the favorite hobby of GW customers was buying GW products; not building or painting or gaming or anything social, just buying them.
He was widely reviled for what was seen as GW's "bullying" IP enforcement as it would be under the purview of his nominal department, and combined with his inadequacies in court would make most of his critics say that his departure would be a good thing.
DalinCriid wrote: Who is Kirby? Was he a bad a thing and is he finally being booted from GW?
Kirby is the Chairman of the Board of Directors as GW is a publicly traded company, and for a long time was the "interim" CEO as well. Most feel he was responsible for most of GW's anti-consumer, pro-shareholder policies where profits and dividends were the priority to the detriment of basic business fundamentals if need be. That GW would borrow money to pay out a larger dividend some years is held up as evidence quite frequently. Given that he effectively had unchecked power as both Chairman and CEO, it's hard to argue that he didn't have the lion's share of responsibility for what GW has done for the past four or five years. He seemed to have a very strange outlook on the market with such remarks as "pokemon being a phase" and other comments in the annual report that often left market analysts...amused.
There's some ill-will about GW's new website costing in the millions of pounds while his wife was the project manager with little to no verifiable IT or PM experience. This lends credence to the theory that he was basically trying to get as much cash out of his stock options for his retirement as possible. However, "the website" could also have been larger back-end improvements not readily apparent to the general public. He later stepped down from being CEO with the appointment of Kevin Rountree, but still retains his position on the board.
DalinCriid wrote: IF he is kicked why their income is still 118 mil and last year was 119 when he was still there.
GW has a very long product pipeline. Even with their in-house manufacturing making some things much faster, you're looking at things being planned out roughly 12-18 months in advance. There's some wiggle room to shuffle things forward and back a bit, but for most part GW already knows what it's doing for December of 2017. Thus when Kirby finally steps down, there's a long period where the things that are still his ideas are coming out. Betrayal at Calth on a product level was likely Kirby's doing, but Rountree was likely why it cost $150 rather than $250 or even $350 (Kirby was notorious for never offering any discount of any kind). Most people credit Rountree with the new lower-priced "bulk buy" model of boxed games and "Start Collecting!" sets as an end-around of Kirby's crowing to investors that GW doesn't lower prices.
The truth likely lies somewhere in-between, as it's not like Kirby exerts no control over the company anymore.
DalinCriid wrote: One last question, when actually its counted the annual Income? The year is not finished yet.
GW's financial year runs from May to May of any given year I believe. Thus for GW's financial year, we are coming up on the second quarter.
I hope that Rountree can restore the faith of some people like me. I buy them, I paint them, I game with them, but I don't buy the from GW, I buy the pm from Amazon, EBay, and the hobby liquidator store around the corner.
DalinCriid wrote: Apologies for plunging into the thread without any relation to previous posts, but can you please guys enlighten me what's going on here:
Who is Merit? His booting is Good or no?
Merret is/was the head of Intellectual Property in GW. Based on his testimony in open court during the Chapterhouse case, he was not particularly qualified nor well-versed in what he was supposed to be in charge of. The mistakes he made were painfully clear even to laypeople, and were tantamount to taking your car to a mechanic and having him ask "so where do the horses hitch onto this thing?" In other words, it wasn't a mistake under pressure so much as a fundamental lack of understanding. He also uttered the much parroted line that in effect the favorite hobby of GW customers was buying GW products; not building or painting or gaming or anything social, just buying them.
He was widely reviled for what was seen as GW's "bullying" IP enforcement as it would be under the purview of his nominal department, and combined with his inadequacies in court would make most of his critics say that his departure would be a good thing.
DalinCriid wrote: Who is Kirby? Was he a bad a thing and is he finally being booted from GW?
Kirby is the Chairman of the Board of Directors as GW is a publicly traded company, and for a long time was the "interim" CEO as well. Most feel he was responsible for most of GW's anti-consumer, pro-shareholder policies where profits and dividends were the priority to the detriment of basic business fundamentals if need be. That GW would borrow money to pay out a larger dividend some years is held up as evidence quite frequently. Given that he effectively had unchecked power as both Chairman and CEO, it's hard to argue that he didn't have the lion's share of responsibility for what GW has done for the past four or five years. He seemed to have a very strange outlook on the market with such remarks as "pokemon being a phase" and other comments in the annual report that often left market analysts...amused.
There's some ill-will about GW's new website costing in the millions of pounds while his wife was the project manager with little to no verifiable IT or PM experience. This lends credence to the theory that he was basically trying to get as much cash out of his stock options for his retirement as possible. However, "the website" could also have been larger back-end improvements not readily apparent to the general public. He later stepped down from being CEO with the appointment of Kevin Rountree, but still retains his position on the board.
DalinCriid wrote: IF he is kicked why their income is still 118 mil and last year was 119 when he was still there.
GW has a very long product pipeline. Even with their in-house manufacturing making some things much faster, you're looking at things being planned out roughly 12-18 months in advance. There's some wiggle room to shuffle things forward and back a bit, but for most part GW already knows what it's doing for December of 2017. Thus when Kirby finally steps down, there's a long period where the things that are still his ideas are coming out. Betrayal at Calth on a product level was likely Kirby's doing, but Rountree was likely why it cost $150 rather than $250 or even $350 (Kirby was notorious for never offering any discount of any kind). Most people credit Rountree with the new lower-priced "bulk buy" model of boxed games and "Start Collecting!" sets as an end-around of Kirby's crowing to investors that GW doesn't lower prices.
The truth likely lies somewhere in-between, as it's not like Kirby exerts no control over the company anymore.
DalinCriid wrote: One last question, when actually its counted the annual Income? The year is not finished yet.
GW's financial year runs from May to May of any given year I believe. Thus for GW's financial year, we are coming up on the second quarter.
Whoah, thanks for answering absolutely correctly to my questions. I was absolutely noob about who is who in GW politics. That Kirby guy sure have some philosophy on his own, but I really don't understand him. However, from you told me it seems that the things are only getting slightly better for GW but not much. About the website... last time I checked their annual reports the site was..... 4 Billion Pounds! This is something so insane that won't even happen in my country.
DalinCriid wrote: Apologies for plunging into the thread without any relation to previous posts, but can you please guys enlighten me what's going on here:
Who is Merit? His booting is Good or no?
Merret is/was the head of Intellectual Property in GW. Based on his testimony in open court during the Chapterhouse case, he was not particularly qualified nor well-versed in what he was supposed to be in charge of. The mistakes he made were painfully clear even to laypeople, and were tantamount to taking your car to a mechanic and having him ask "so where do the horses hitch onto this thing?" In other words, it wasn't a mistake under pressure so much as a fundamental lack of understanding. He also uttered the much parroted line that in effect the favorite hobby of GW customers was buying GW products; not building or painting or gaming or anything social, just buying them.
He was widely reviled for what was seen as GW's "bullying" IP enforcement as it would be under the purview of his nominal department, and combined with his inadequacies in court would make most of his critics say that his departure would be a good thing.
DalinCriid wrote: Who is Kirby? Was he a bad a thing and is he finally being booted from GW?
Kirby is the Chairman of the Board of Directors as GW is a publicly traded company, and for a long time was the "interim" CEO as well. Most feel he was responsible for most of GW's anti-consumer, pro-shareholder policies where profits and dividends were the priority to the detriment of basic business fundamentals if need be. That GW would borrow money to pay out a larger dividend some years is held up as evidence quite frequently. Given that he effectively had unchecked power as both Chairman and CEO, it's hard to argue that he didn't have the lion's share of responsibility for what GW has done for the past four or five years. He seemed to have a very strange outlook on the market with such remarks as "pokemon being a phase" and other comments in the annual report that often left market analysts...amused.
There's some ill-will about GW's new website costing in the millions of pounds while his wife was the project manager with little to no verifiable IT or PM experience. This lends credence to the theory that he was basically trying to get as much cash out of his stock options for his retirement as possible. However, "the website" could also have been larger back-end improvements not readily apparent to the general public. He later stepped down from being CEO with the appointment of Kevin Rountree, but still retains his position on the board.
DalinCriid wrote: IF he is kicked why their income is still 118 mil and last year was 119 when he was still there.
GW has a very long product pipeline. Even with their in-house manufacturing making some things much faster, you're looking at things being planned out roughly 12-18 months in advance. There's some wiggle room to shuffle things forward and back a bit, but for most part GW already knows what it's doing for December of 2017. Thus when Kirby finally steps down, there's a long period where the things that are still his ideas are coming out. Betrayal at Calth on a product level was likely Kirby's doing, but Rountree was likely why it cost $150 rather than $250 or even $350 (Kirby was notorious for never offering any discount of any kind). Most people credit Rountree with the new lower-priced "bulk buy" model of boxed games and "Start Collecting!" sets as an end-around of Kirby's crowing to investors that GW doesn't lower prices.
The truth likely lies somewhere in-between, as it's not like Kirby exerts no control over the company anymore.
DalinCriid wrote: One last question, when actually its counted the annual Income? The year is not finished yet.
GW's financial year runs from May to May of any given year I believe. Thus for GW's financial year, we are coming up on the second quarter.
Whoah, thanks for answering absolutely correctly to my questions. I was absolutely noob about who is who in GW politics. That Kirby guy sure have some philosophy on his own, but I really don't understand him. However, from you told me it seems that the things are only getting slightly better for GW but not much. About the website... last time I checked their annual reports the site was..... 4 Billion Pounds! This is something so insane that won't even happen in my country.
Million, not billion. However, 4 million pounds is still ludicrous. Whoever the design studio was, they really saw GW coming when they gave them that quote.
Kirby was also in charge of the second management buyout of GW, many years ago. The first was Bryan Ansell buying out Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson, the second was Kirby buying out Ansell a few years later.
As much as people might hate it, many of the years that people think of as "the golden period" of GW actually happened with Kirby at the helm. The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
Azazelx wrote: The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
... still under Kirby. Please don't try and diminish his role in this.
Azazelx wrote: As much as people might hate it, many of the years that people think of as "the golden period" of GW actually happened with Kirby at the helm. The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
This is why I think the LOTR bubble bursting truly took him by surprise. That a sudden shift from profit making into loss making after all those record sales levels (and record pay for Kirby, his bonuses got him on lists of most overpaid CEOs in the financial press at the time) and the scramble to cut costs, close offices, shuffle production and so on has left a mark on GW.
The "golden age" worked. Army sizes were manageable and there were loads of on-ramps into being their customer. Prices were still nicely high, but GW was satisfied with the margins and earnings per share of a manufacturer and distributor rather than trying to capture it all with more and more direct sales. They operated some stores and mail order, but sold their entire produce line through normal distribution channels and didn't try to tell the independent stores how to sell their product or what they had to buy. Kirby touts the shift to controlling distribution as one of the best moves he ever made, but it also caused them major, major problems when the LOTR bubble popped and suddenly they had this monstrous distribution infrastructure and insufficient volume to justify it.
In a way there are elements of "golden age" in Age of Sigmar. Rountree specifically talked about making more products that make sense at lower price points (and we have seen lower character costs and start collecting bundles actually being at a discount).
I still maintain though that GW needs a complete customer experience review. And not one of the customer experience of their sales process or retail experience, but of their products. During all stages of involvement. Including game play. Including painting. Including army planning and collecting. Unbound in 40k and Age of Sigmar's approach has allowed GW store employees to sell pretty much every release to every customer, but I get the sense that people prefer to stick to one faction rather than buying everything and just putting it on the table regardless of whether or not it makes sense. Age of Sigmar is starting to address this as things coalesce into Order, Chaos, Death and Destruction.
Another issue: Injection plastic moulding has a really low marginal cost per sprue and a higher cost in design and tooling for the initial set up. It's a mass production technology where the cost per unit sold goes down the more GW sells. One major issue is that they have intentionally gone for lower volumes and for higher prices. Sure, this saves them money on packaging and distribution costs, but it also denies them the key strategic strength of the technology. Start Collecting is a step in the right direction here, but if it just cannibalizes sales from their full price range then they'll just get worse margins and not necessarily a corresponding increase in revenue.
Azazelx wrote: The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
... still under Kirby. Please don't try and diminish his role in this.
I'm not sure what you're on about? We all know that Kirby has only been in a diminished role recently. To suggest that I was trying to imply that Kirby has had a "diminished role" in the last 5 years of GW being more and more consumer-unfriendly is insulting to me and everyone reading this thread.
My only point was that GW started with unfriendly practices under Ansell, and that GW under Kirby also provided us with many of the golden years, including 40k 3rd edition, Paul Sawyer's much-beloved reign on WD and so on - and it's been in more recent years when he's doubled-down much more severely on the unpleasantness and delusional policies. People like to canonise Ansell (and now Rountree) and demonise Kirby and Merett, but the truth is it's not that simple and both the decline and improvements are much more gradual. As good as Calth, Start Collecting, etc are, I still wouldn't be buying them if I didn't have workarounds from AU pricing, and until this revival of a year or so ago began, I hadn't bought any GW-proper products in quite some time. (FW and eBay being the exceptions)
Azazelx wrote: Kirby was also in charge of the second management buyout of GW, many years ago. The first was Bryan Ansell buying out Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson, the second was Kirby buying out Ansell a few years later.
As much as people might hate it, many of the years that people think of as "the golden period" of GW actually happened with Kirby at the helm. The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
This is correct. Kirby may have his detractors for many things but you can not argue with what GW is on the global market. Tom was at the helm good and bad of that for the better part of what, 20 years? How many miniature games and or companies are still around and any where near GW's market share? The "Age of Rountree" is here but the Era of Kirby got GW to this point. He has passed the proverbial baton and Kevin is off to the races with it for sure. I for one am excited for where the company is going. Every one has , and is entitled, to their opinion on this but you have to take the good with the bad and be able to separate the business from the hobby, that's the trick that some people can not grasp. GW was and still is the most dominant and valuable IP in the miniatures game, that is fact and it was Kirby who go it there. Lets see what Kevin can do, so far so good!
I've also pointed out on other forums that there are other plastic molds that have been in use for decades, yet GW apparently can't milk one for a minimum of 10 years? There are several root Troop/Core boxed sets that got completely resculpted with a brand new mold when the first version was more than serviceable. Things like that add to the ridiculously high cost of minis. And be fair, did the Marine sprue getting remolded REALLY add anything that couldn't have been done on one simple add on sprue?
I worked in the packaging business for twenty plus years and going from the blister with the card back to a clam shell with paper backing was a up cost .. not a cost savings..
For years I thought they could save money on packaging by going to a simpler pack like they did at one of the games day with a pouch type bag. But the sales guy I knew
that tried to contact them said he was stone walled... couldn't even get a meeting.. US vs UK thing I guess, even though the company I worked for was global..
Reduced packaging could save them a small fortune but they have to be smart about it and talk to someone in the packaging business not the game business..
lliu wrote: I hope that Rountree can restore the faith of some people like me. I buy them, I paint them, I game with them, but I don't buy the from GW, I buy the pm from Amazon, EBay, and the hobby liquidator store around the corner.
So you support th company in every way except actually buying their products from them? Ever wonder why they hardened down on sales channels and had to squeeze every penny they could?
Merrett was around under Ansell as well as Kirby, wasn't he? He's probably made enough money to comfortably retire to his estate with the space marine shaped swimming pool.
I worked in the packaging business for twenty plus years and going from the blister with the card back to a clam shell with paper backing was a up cost .. not a cost savings..
For years I thought they could save money on packaging by going to a simpler pack like they did at one of the games day with a pouch type bag. But the sales guy I knew
that tried to contact them said he was stone walled... couldn't even get a meeting.. US vs UK thing I guess, even though the company I worked for was global..
Reduced packaging could save them a small fortune but they have to be smart about it and talk to someone in the packaging business not the game business..
Sorry, I meant packaging and distribution. And staff and all the other cost savings that go along with moving less products. My larger point was about the savings of doing less volume at a higher price per unit.
Interesting stuff about the clam shells though, card backs and pouches though. I've worked with some smaller companies and things like packaging choices can become people's pet issues. I could totally see whoever the head of product development is not wanting to have their decision 2nd guessed.
I've just heard it from another grapevine, so I think it would appear to be official. An additional scrap I heard is that he's retiring, as opposed to re-entering the workplace.
Merrett was around under Ansell as well as Kirby, wasn't he? He's probably made enough money to comfortably retire to his estate with the space marine shaped swimming pool.
They were both around under Ansell. Kirby and Merett are/were both very old-time GW employees.
I worked in the packaging business for twenty plus years and going from the blister with the card back to a clam shell with paper backing was a up cost .. not a cost savings..
For years I thought they could save money on packaging by going to a simpler pack like they did at one of the games day with a pouch type bag. But the sales guy I knew
that tried to contact them said he was stone walled... couldn't even get a meeting.. US vs UK thing I guess, even though the company I worked for was global..
Reduced packaging could save them a small fortune but they have to be smart about it and talk to someone in the packaging business not the game business..
Sorry, I meant packaging and distribution. And staff and all the other cost savings that go along with moving less products. My larger point was about the savings of doing less volume at a higher price per unit.
Interesting stuff about the clam shells though, card backs and pouches though. I've worked with some smaller companies and things like packaging choices can become people's pet issues. I could totally see whoever the head of product development is not wanting to have their decision 2nd guessed.
I work as a manager of sorts with an area of specific responsibility in a reasonable-sized organisation. We (and I) pretty regularly have salespeople wanting a meeting or cold-calling and trying to tell us why the thing they're trying to sell us is a great idea that will save us money in the long run, or why we/I should change our system from this thing to that thing (which they happen to be selling). Sometimes we do, choose or stay with things because we're happy with them or we like them or they work for us or they fit a particular aesthetic. Regardless of why some salesman would love to tell us why we're wrong and their way is better.
lliu wrote: I hope that Rountree can restore the faith of some people like me. I buy them, I paint them, I game with them, but I don't buy the from GW, I buy the pm from Amazon, EBay, and the hobby liquidator store around the corner.
So you support th company in every way except actually buying their products from them? Ever wonder why they hardened down on sales channels and had to squeeze every penny they could?
Merrett was around under Ansell as well as Kirby, wasn't he? He's probably made enough money to comfortably retire to his estate with the space marine shaped swimming pool.
Well... I bought a Tervigon and an Interrogator Chaplain from GW cause I felt bad, but yup, that's it.
Kirby probably came up with some really, uh, "interesting" scenarios if his preambles are anything to go by If plastic SoBs ever come out I will credit it to the leaving of Merett. Irrational, maybe, but I'll allow myself this bit of pettiness.
I hope that GW can -and wants to- attract new talent for its design team. Probably burned too many bridges with their old crew. But the rumour of "skirmish Aos" (I thought Aos was supposes to be a skirmish system scaling up?) and FW reviving SGs and maybe a decent 40k reboot one day ...would be great if those games turn out good. Slightly less crazy prices gets me to buy again, but only piece meal for small warbands and Kill Teams and kitbashes display pieces. For me to plan an actual army again more has to happen.
Azazelx wrote: Kirby was also in charge of the second management buyout of GW, many years ago. The first was Bryan Ansell buying out Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson, the second was Kirby buying out Ansell a few years later.
As much as people might hate it, many of the years that people think of as "the golden period" of GW actually happened with Kirby at the helm. The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
This is correct. Kirby may have his detractors for many things but you can not argue with what GW is on the global market. Tom was at the helm good and bad of that for the better part of what, 20 years? How many miniature games and or companies are still around and any where near GW's market share? The "Age of Rountree" is here but the Era of Kirby got GW to this point. He has passed the proverbial baton and Kevin is off to the races with it for sure. I for one am excited for where the company is going. Every one has , and is entitled, to their opinion on this but you have to take the good with the bad and be able to separate the business from the hobby, that's the trick that some people can not grasp. GW was and still is the most dominant and valuable IP in the miniatures game, that is fact and it was Kirby who go it there. Lets see what Kevin can do, so far so good!
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?
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets.
You're forgetting rulebook and codex in your price.
And paint! And Primer! And Dice! And something to carry your gak in!
And Time.
Why the prepainted Star Wars minis cost more and are still being snapped up. (Personally, I can't stand prepainted minis.... But for me painting minis is part of the fun - for Little Timmy?)
Azazelx wrote: Kirby was also in charge of the second management buyout of GW, many years ago. The first was Bryan Ansell buying out Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson, the second was Kirby buying out Ansell a few years later.
As much as people might hate it, many of the years that people think of as "the golden period" of GW actually happened with Kirby at the helm. The shift towards less consumer-friendly practices started with Ansell, continued to increase slowly under Kirby, but really took on a life of it's own in the last decade or so - particularly the last 5 or so years.
This is correct. Kirby may have his detractors for many things but you can not argue with what GW is on the global market. Tom was at the helm good and bad of that for the better part of what, 20 years? How many miniature games and or companies are still around and any where near GW's market share? The "Age of Rountree" is here but the Era of Kirby got GW to this point. He has passed the proverbial baton and Kevin is off to the races with it for sure. I for one am excited for where the company is going. Every one has , and is entitled, to their opinion on this but you have to take the good with the bad and be able to separate the business from the hobby, that's the trick that some people can not grasp. GW was and still is the most dominant and valuable IP in the miniatures game, that is fact and it was Kirby who go it there. Lets see what Kevin can do, so far so good!
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?
My point is merely that it's not useful to try and turn Kirby into some kind of cartoon villain. Your question is obviously unanswerable in any detail, but obviously all of that "good" was allowed to happen under Kirby, so you could argue that it's all on him. Because people are happy to do the same regarding the bad, after all....
"Mat, how are we ever going to win this case?"
"Do you remember that Bloodtide story in the 5th edition GK codex?"
"Unfortu-Uh, yes..."
"Good. Get me a group of lawyers, a blender, and a paintbrush. I'm gonna make us some Wards."
I laughed so much harder at this than I should have.
MadCowCrazy wrote: I want to create an armies on parade board with Adepta Sororitas slaughtering GKs, the board would be named : "Where's your Ward save now?!"
My point is merely that it's not useful to try and turn Kirby into some kind of cartoon villain. Your question is obviously unanswerable in any detail, but obviously all of that "good" was allowed to happen under Kirby, so you could argue that it's all on him. Because people are happy to do the same regarding the bad, after all....
One could say Ansell made GW and WHFB/40k a brand and Kirby a larger company that had the capability to expand worldwide, get such an audience, produce that many (and many good) miniatures, get the LotR licence and so on. I agree, there're always two sides to view.
My point is merely that it's not useful to try and turn Kirby into some kind of cartoon villain. Your question is obviously unanswerable in any detail, but obviously all of that "good" was allowed to happen under Kirby, so you could argue that it's all on him. Because people are happy to do the same regarding the bad, after all....
One could say Ansell made GW and WHFB/40k a brand and Kirby a larger company that had the capability to expand worldwide, get such an audience, produce that many (and many good) miniatures, get the LotR licence and so on. I agree, there're always two sides to view.
Now - any news about Merett?
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.
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 over in the Mat Ward thread.
The person who initially gave the news is someone who would be in a good place to hear.
After I posted, I went to Cornwall (deepest darkest UK ) and had no net access for a week, so couldn't follow it up.
I have since tried to confirm with a second source who would be 100% in a position to know for sure, but they ain't talking, which is fair enough as they have no reason to confirm/deny either way.
I'm a qualified journalist, so fully believe in keeping sources undisclosed when required, so can't really say more than that, other than I am no troll. Note, my user name is my actual name too, and you can probably work out pretty easily who I am from my limited posting, so its not really worth me making crap up and running away on the net. I have no need to increase my E-Peen on a gamer forum
Now, this may prove to be Chinese whispers for sure, and if so, fair enough, I can handle that, but it seemed a pretty huge bit of news to me, hence me passing it on. Sadly I cannot get that second
verification as yet to prove/disprove fully, but I am sure it will all come out in time either way.
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.
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.
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.
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...................
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: What a shame. He was looked upon with lots of grace and intelligence, and he will be sorely missed.
This runs contrary to the statements I have heard from multiple sources.
In fact much of the 'good news' and attitude shift we've just been seeing from GW coincides with his shut down and early retirement... I wonder if the two might be related...?
Bull0 wrote: What a load. You can walk into a GW now and buy a playable army for 40k or WFB for 50 quid, they do those brilliant start collecting sets. Sure it's small and you'll want more stuff over time if you want to play "the standard game" (bit of a weird proposition), but isn't that part of the fun? I doubt most people would have the reaction that "If I want to do this seriously I'm going to have to spend 100+, therefore I'm not going to". If they like the look of the models and fancy putting them together and painting them they'll get some. You're projecting your own value system onto the general public, which anyone who's worked in retail can tell you is a huge mistake.
No. Most places I've seen the only time anyone plays lower than 1,000 or so points is if it's purposely a demo type game for a new player, and after that you need to buy enough to get to the points value everyone else uses. This is across several game stores, including a GW store, nobody plays such small games more than once or twice, then the newbie is expected to buy the rest of what they need for a "real" force or else they don't get games at all. There isn't some magical land where you can repeatedly go with just your Start Collecting set (brilliant as it is) and repeatedly get games in barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. demo games, team games, games against other newbies with SC sets, or escalation leagues). Pick-up games, it's either you have the points everyone else uses, or they'll play with people who do and leave you out in the cold with your paltry Start Collecting set.
Ye gods, reading the tweets in response to it, one said they should keep him on as a consultant for Horus Heresy advise when needed. That....that can't be possible that he had anything productive to do with FW's HH stuff, right?
Ye gods, reading the tweets in response to it, one said they should keep him on as a consultant for Horus Heresy advise when needed. That....that can't be possible that he had anything productive to do with FW's HH stuff, right?
As the IP uberoverlord, he's have been the gatekeeper to all the lore and what was and what was not de rigueur. He would have been the one likely to have ok'd FW having permission to go ahead and do the HH in the first place. What was actually written would, I guess, have been the FW guys, but AM would have had certain rules in place and perhaps made 'strong suggestions' for inclusion.
And I know when it came to FFG's rp games, they had to go through the AM filter for approval of what did and what did not ring true to his vision of 40k. It's why he wrote the introduction to the Rogue Trader version, he seems to have been very fixed on what past muster for his version of the lore.
Ye gods, reading the tweets in response to it, one said they should keep him on as a consultant for Horus Heresy advise when needed. That....that can't be possible that he had anything productive to do with FW's HH stuff, right?
I guess they mean BL's HH stuff. Come to think of it, I know which I prefer.
VeteranNoob wrote: Heh. Can't say anyone knows the Heresy lore better than he does.
This is Alan Bligh, he's mapped the entire thing out. Start to Finish.
And Alan's a stand up guy and amazingly talented writer for these game books. Alan Merett gave us the heresy in the first place (check out Visions of Heresy if you haven't. quite good)
These people do all work together. At a past HH weekender it was a nerd heaven experience to see the Alans (and can't remember which guy was also up on the stage) in the seminar on the Creators of Heresy material.
added:
Alan Bligh's RPG stuff definitely impressed me. I thought the HH books were a bit too young adult but I did enjoy a good number of them. Alan Bligh's first four were probably the most enjoyable, though I did like a couple of the others.
frozenwastes wrote: Alan Bligh's RPG stuff definitely impressed me. I thought the HH books were a bit too young adult but I did enjoy a good number of them. Alan Bligh's first four were probably the most enjoyable, though I did like a couple of the others.
I'm intrigued, what do you mean by young adult? Can't form a picture of that in my head I've heard his RPG stuff is top notch. FW has always kicked ass in my book but the HH campaign material has been incredible.
VeteranNoob wrote: Heh. Can't say anyone knows the Heresy lore better than he does.
This is Alan Bligh, he's mapped the entire thing out. Start to Finish.
And Alan's a stand up guy and amazingly talented writer for these game books. Alan Merett gave us the heresy in the first place (check out Visions of Heresy if you haven't. quite good)
These people do all work together. At a past HH weekender it was a nerd heaven experience to see the Alans (and can't remember which guy was also up on the stage) in the seminar on the Creators of Heresy material.
added:
I thought the first HH references occurred during the Realm of Chaos books, which Merrett wasn't a part of?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: Alan Bligh's RPG stuff definitely impressed me. I thought the HH books were a bit too young adult but I did enjoy a good number of them. Alan Bligh's first four were probably the most enjoyable, though I did like a couple of the others.
Bligh isn't an author. I think you may be confusing him with someone?
Horus Heresy is to do with Adepts Titanicus as they couldn't afford two sets of moulds so needed an excuse for Warlord Titans to fight each other and marines to fight Marines.
VeteranNoob wrote:
I'm intrigued, what do you mean by young adult? Can't form a picture of that in my head
Having very simple themes that would appeal to 14 year olds and make them go "that's so awesome!" several times while reading it.
It's actually not a fair description given the quality of some works in the young adult genre that are way more complex and poignant.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Bligh isn't an author. I think you may be confusing him with someone?
Yes, I totally did confuse things. It's been too long. What I meant was that I thought the HH game books he wrote were pretty good, but the novels were not as good (though he did not write them).
VeteranNoob wrote: Oh, gotcha. That makes sense. Young Adult makes me think of vampire/werewolf books
So...the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves then?
So with Merret out, what ideas did he purportedly block that may come to light? I heard SoB mentioned as a dislike of his, but is there any truth that? I assume most changes will depend on who (if anyone) fills the role at the company.
Ye gods, reading the tweets in response to it, one said they should keep him on as a consultant for Horus Heresy advise when needed. That....that can't be possible that he had anything productive to do with FW's HH stuff, right?
As the IP uberoverlord, he's have been the gatekeeper to all the lore and what was and what was not de rigueur. He would have been the one likely to have ok'd FW having permission to go ahead and do the HH in the first place. What was actually written would, I guess, have been the FW guys, but AM would have had certain rules in place and perhaps made 'strong suggestions' for inclusion.
And I know when it came to FFG's rp games, they had to go through the AM filter for approval of what did and what did not ring true to his vision of 40k. It's why he wrote the introduction to the Rogue Trader version, he seems to have been very fixed on what past muster for his version of the lore.
There's also this. He's listed as the author for both the current and the original volumes
VeteranNoob wrote: Oh, gotcha. That makes sense. Young Adult makes me think of vampire/werewolf books
So...the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves then?
So with Merret out, what ideas did he purportedly block that may come to light? I heard SoB mentioned as a dislike of his, but is there any truth that? I assume most changes will depend on who (if anyone) fills the role at the company.
Genestealers were allegedly a particular dislike.
We have had the Cult models with a Codex on the way apparently, with absolutely nothing since 2nd.
VeteranNoob wrote: Oh, gotcha. That makes sense. Young Adult makes me think of vampire/werewolf books
So...the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves then?
So with Merret out, what ideas did he purportedly block that may come to light? I heard SoB mentioned as a dislike of his, but is there any truth that? I assume most changes will depend on who (if anyone) fills the role at the company.
Genestealers were allegedly a particular dislike.
We have had the Cult models with a Codex on the way apparently, with absolutely nothing since 2nd.
I heard likewise, and that the Mechanicus were only on paper since Chambers' times but that the release of both of these armies was a herald of Merrett's exit.
The herald of his exit I'd say was the riptide, as it was the first time that the studio ignored him vetoing a product and released it without his ok. Fantastic sales proved he was wrong. I think from that point his position began to weaken, and he started to find increasing resistance to his ideas and manner of working.
He was bascially the curator of an art book that even in its first incarnation post dates the existence of the bones of the Heresy by some years, and leans heavily on the art from a card game, and all of a sudden he's the creator of the whole thing?
Doesn't mean or even imply that at all. It simply means that the HH project clearly had his full backing.
The riptide story above sounds dubious. Not sure how "the studio" could simply "ignore" a higher-up. There could be a kernel of truth in it, but it'd need a lot more detail to hang off of it.
It's definitely true, although I don't recall all the details accurately and have no intention of misrepresenting the truth by trying to fill the blanks. I remember that apparently the tooling was done, and he tried to block it before it went into production. I don't know who put their neck on the line to bypass him. The sales figures validated the decision though, and clearly caused questions to be asked on the other decisions that had been made.
Edit him doing things like that were a massive part of why they have wanted him out for a while now.
Ridiculous. As was pointed out, Merrett was mostly a curator. Horus Heresy goes back to Rogue Trader days and I don't ever remember seeing Merrett listed as design studio staff. Big deal, he has his name on an art book. The dude, like Kirby seemed to harm the hobby rather than help it. Case in point, the Chapterhouse lawsuit and his obvious disdain for the customer base. It's nice to see GW mixing things up and cleaning house. Maybe it will lead to better things.
He wrote the book. He's the lorekeeper of the Heresy. That tweet mentioned early has the BL editor saying we have the HH because of him. But of course it wasn't Allan alone. The 3 GWs all work together.
As for stories about what he may or may not have done in GW, who knows. We never will.
Do you have a copy? The amount of actual writing in it is pretty minimal.
He's the lorekeeper of the Heresy.
Weird that you are prepared to accept that when his official title was Head Of IP. Yet when it comes to repeated and consistent stories from multiple sources about all the negative gak he was supposedly involved in we get
As for stories about what he may or may not have done in GW, who knows. We never will.
So if someone says he was was responsible for something positive, it is unquestionably correct (and not the least PR spin - nobody ever said something they didn't mean about someone in public, despite privately harbouring incredibly opposing views privately, eh?) but all the stuff that comes out from all sorts of unconnected sources will forever remain the subject of myth and legend?
VeteranNoob wrote: He wrote the book. He's the lorekeeper of the Heresy. That tweet mentioned early has the BL editor saying we have the HH because of him. But of course it wasn't Allan alone. The 3 GWs all work together.
As for stories about what he may or may not have done in GW, who knows. We never will.
Just checked my Slaves to Darkness book, where the Horus Heresy is mentioned for the first time. He is not credited with any sort of contribution. More likely, the guy has an over-inflated opinion of himself and is taking credit for the work of others. Head of IP does not mean "creator of everything". I think Az pretty much nailed it.
Is this the same as Collected Visions? Because in the later part of this whole text passages from Bill King were used or edited slightly - and he isn't even mentioned in the credits. Speaks for itself.
Food for thought, Collected Visions/Book IV did include this snippet of praise:
"In 2002, Sabretooth Games proposed an idea to Games Worksop about doing a special mega battle box that focused on the final battle of the Horus Heresy for our Warhammer 40,000 Collectible Card Game. But rather than just the final battle, Alan Merrett suggested we tell the entire story of the Horus Heresy, from the moment Horus betrayed the Emperor until the end of the Heresy.
The Horus Heresy is the Holy Grail of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, and a massive amount of research was done initally to catalogue every piece of information ever written about it. I had several meetings with Alan Merrett and John Blanche to review everything. Just to think, ten years ago I was debating what happened during the Horus Heresy with my friends and now I was with two of the most talented guys in the industry getting to decide what really did happen!
Three years and several expansions later and the rest, as they say, is history. I can guarantee that everyone who worked so hard on this will never forget the experience. I must give special thanks to Alan Merrett, without whom none of this would be possible."
Steve Horvath
CEO, Sabertooth Games
The base set of the CCG - and as a result a decent chunk of the artbook - covered the traitor/loyalist war on Isstvan III which many regard as a core part of the Heresy, but it simply didn't exist *before* the CCG, so it would appear he had at least some influence on what the modern Heresy is.
Gashrog wrote: Food for thought, Collected Visions/Book IV did include this snippet of praise:
"In 2002, Sabretooth Games proposed an idea to Games Worksop about doing a special mega battle box that focused on the final battle of the Horus Heresy for our Warhammer 40,000 Collectible Card Game. But rather than just the final battle, Alan Merrett suggested we tell the entire story of the Horus Heresy, from the moment Horus betrayed the Emperor until the end of the Heresy.
The Horus Heresy is the Holy Grail of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, and a massive amount of research was done initally to catalogue every piece of information ever written about it. I had several meetings with Alan Merrett and John Blanche to review everything. Just to think, ten years ago I was debating what happened during the Horus Heresy with my friends and now I was with two of the most talented guys in the industry getting to decide what really did happen!
Three years and several expansions later and the rest, as they say, is history. I can guarantee that everyone who worked so hard on this will never forget the experience. I must give special thanks to Alan Merrett, without whom none of this would be possible."
Steve Horvath
CEO, Sabertooth Games
The base set of the CCG - and as a result a decent chunk of the artbook - covered the traitor/loyalist war on Isstvan III which many regard as a core part of the Heresy, but it simply didn't exist *before* the CCG, so it would appear he had at least some influence on what the modern Heresy is.
It was mentioned in the first Epic space marine game
Spoiler:
"you realize that you are preaching mutiny?" Brother Captain Tarvitz nodded gravely. "betray Horus or betray the Emperor. What choice is there?" The Space marine officers looked at each other in silence for a few seconds. Tarvitz leaned forward across the table, resting on his fists.
"Fact: in five Chapters under his command, Horus has installed this system of feral-world warrior lodges that he picked up on Davin. The standard Imperial organizations and command structures laid down in the Codex have been completely disregarded."
"Fact: the bulk of the Marines in our five Chapters have repudiated their Marine's oath and sworn loyalty to the feral worlds deities. Further, they have sworn loyalty to Horus personally. Heresy and blasphemy."
"Fact: the Isstvan campaign has been conducted without even the pretence of orders from Terra. While I do not presume to speak for the Emperor, I cannot believe that the use of a virus bomb on Isstvan III was justifiable. A single Company from a single Chapter dropped on the rebel headquarters would have answered the case."
"I say the Emperor must know what is happening here. Who is with me? Varren? What say the World Eaters?" A red uniformed officer stood."
"There are fifteen man I can trust. They are yours."
"Garro?" A Captain of the Death guards looked up."
"A dozen. I wish it were more."
"Ten from the Luna Wolves."
"Twenty from the Thousand Sons."
"Be sure they are all trustworthy. If you have the slightest doubt, do not commit them. Of my own Emperor's Children, there are ten I am sure of, including myself." There was a pause as the paucity of their force sunk in.
"Seventy Marines," said Brother Captain Varren of the World Eaters, "the sum of our five Chapter numbers -a good omen, perhaps?" A couple smiled, and the tension of the moment was broken. "Seventy Marines." repeated Tarvitz. "Enough for any task, I think. So, to work. Varren, your men will seize control of the frigate Eisenstein in three hours from now. It is on the edge of the fleet, and should be clear for the jump to Warp Space." Varren nodded.
"The Eisenstein has been having maneuver-drive trouble." he said, with exaggerated innocence. "She's been falling behind the fleet all day." Tarvitz grinned.
"Good. The rest of us will arrange for our ships to lag behind with her in case of ...further trouble with the drives. Three hours from now, we will all assemble full crew for an emergency briefing. Meanwhile, our trusted men take control of the systems on all five ships. Clear all remaining ships from around the Eisenstein and keep her covered until she makes the jump to Warp Space. Then Cause as much damage as you can to the rest of the fleet. History will vindicate us."
He turned to Varren. "Your World Eaters are our only hope," he said, " Do not fail." Varren's eyes became serious. "We cannot fail," he said, "There is too much at stake. your deaths will be avenged."
(Note: this was taken from the rulebook of the first Epic game space marine).
It was mentioned in the first Epic space marine game
Spoiler:
"you realize that you are preaching mutiny?" Brother Captain Tarvitz nodded gravely. "betray Horus or betray the Emperor. What choice is there?" The Space marine officers looked at each other in silence for a few seconds. Tarvitz leaned forward across the table, resting on his fists.
"Fact: in five Chapters under his command, Horus has installed this system of feral-world warrior lodges that he picked up on Davin. The standard Imperial organizations and command structures laid down in the Codex have been completely disregarded."
"Fact: the bulk of the Marines in our five Chapters have repudiated their Marine's oath and sworn loyalty to the feral worlds deities. Further, they have sworn loyalty to Horus personally. Heresy and blasphemy."
"Fact: the Isstvan campaign has been conducted without even the pretence of orders from Terra. While I do not presume to speak for the Emperor, I cannot believe that the use of a virus bomb on Isstvan III was justifiable. A single Company from a single Chapter dropped on the rebel headquarters would have answered the case."
"I say the Emperor must know what is happening here. Who is with me? Varren? What say the World Eaters?" A red uniformed officer stood."
"There are fifteen man I can trust. They are yours."
"Garro?" A Captain of the Death guards looked up."
"A dozen. I wish it were more."
"Ten from the Luna Wolves."
"Twenty from the Thousand Sons."
"Be sure they are all trustworthy. If you have the slightest doubt, do not commit them. Of my own Emperor's Children, there are ten I am sure of, including myself." There was a pause as the paucity of their force sunk in.
"Seventy Marines," said Brother Captain Varren of the World Eaters, "the sum of our five Chapter numbers -a good omen, perhaps?" A couple smiled, and the tension of the moment was broken. "Seventy Marines." repeated Tarvitz. "Enough for any task, I think. So, to work. Varren, your men will seize control of the frigate Eisenstein in three hours from now. It is on the edge of the fleet, and should be clear for the jump to Warp Space." Varren nodded.
"The Eisenstein has been having maneuver-drive trouble." he said, with exaggerated innocence. "She's been falling behind the fleet all day." Tarvitz grinned.
"Good. The rest of us will arrange for our ships to lag behind with her in case of ...further trouble with the drives. Three hours from now, we will all assemble full crew for an emergency briefing. Meanwhile, our trusted men take control of the systems on all five ships. Clear all remaining ships from around the Eisenstein and keep her covered until she makes the jump to Warp Space. Then Cause as much damage as you can to the rest of the fleet. History will vindicate us."
He turned to Varren. "Your World Eaters are our only hope," he said, " Do not fail." Varren's eyes became serious. "We cannot fail," he said, "There is too much at stake. your deaths will be avenged."
(Note: this was taken from the rulebook of the first Epic game space marine).
I said *on* Isstvan III. In the current fluff the traitors landed 100,000+ marines on Isstvan III *before* virus bombing it, then got bogged down for months culling those that survived due to Tarvitz' (or Garro?) warning. Which was the setting of the CCG. Whilst your quote clearly states they didn't land even a single company.
Gashrog wrote: Food for thought, Collected Visions/Book IV did include this snippet of praise:
"In 2002, Sabretooth Games proposed an idea to Games Worksop about doing a special mega battle box that focused on the final battle of the Horus Heresy for our Warhammer 40,000 Collectible Card Game. But rather than just the final battle, Alan Merrett suggested we tell the entire story of the Horus Heresy, from the moment Horus betrayed the Emperor until the end of the Heresy.
The Horus Heresy is the Holy Grail of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, and a massive amount of research was done initally to catalogue every piece of information ever written about it. I had several meetings with Alan Merrett and John Blanche to review everything. Just to think, ten years ago I was debating what happened during the Horus Heresy with my friends and now I was with two of the most talented guys in the industry getting to decide what really did happen!
Three years and several expansions later and the rest, as they say, is history. I can guarantee that everyone who worked so hard on this will never forget the experience. I must give special thanks to Alan Merrett, without whom none of this would be possible."
Steve Horvath
CEO, Sabertooth Games
The base set of the CCG - and as a result a decent chunk of the artbook - covered the traitor/loyalist war on Isstvan III which many regard as a core part of the Heresy, but it simply didn't exist *before* the CCG, so it would appear he had at least some influence on what the modern Heresy is.
As head of IP, he would have been very involved in those meetings. That, however, does not mean he had any hand in creating the HH.
Personally, I read that as having a very major hand in developing the HH (among many many other things) and the beginning of BL & FW producing the HH products. Lot of creative minds work with one another. But whatever, he's retired.
VeteranNoob wrote: He wrote the book. He's the lorekeeper of the Heresy. That tweet mentioned early has the BL editor saying we have the HH because of him. But of course it wasn't Allan alone. The 3 GWs all work together.
As for stories about what he may or may not have done in GW, who knows. We never will.
It's really an "edited by" job, rather than something deserving author credit. Both versions of the book are essentially art books, collecting up a lot of the stuff done by Sabretooth for the CCG and other art from various GW sources. I think if we're considering anyone to be the "Lorekeeper of the Heresy" it's got to be Alan Bligh. Merett was certainly a supporter of the project from higher-up, the value of which can't be discounted, except by those who only want to see everything in Black and White.
VeteranNoob wrote: He wrote the book. He's the lorekeeper of the Heresy. That tweet mentioned early has the BL editor saying we have the HH because of him. But of course it wasn't Allan alone. The 3 GWs all work together.
As for stories about what he may or may not have done in GW, who knows. We never will.
It's really an "edited by" job, rather than something deserving author credit. Both versions of the book are essentially art books, collecting up a lot of the stuff done by Sabretooth for the CCG and other art from various GW sources. I think if we're considering anyone to be the "Lorekeeper of the Heresy" it's got to be Alan Bligh. Merett was certainly a supporter of the project from higher-up, the value of which can't be discounted, except by those who only want to see everything in Black and White.
...ok Not sure how long Alan B has been there, though.
I'mma drop this.
JamesY wrote: The herald of his exit I'd say was the riptide, as it was the first time that the studio ignored him vetoing a product and released it without his ok. Fantastic sales proved he was wrong. I think from that point his position began to weaken, and he started to find increasing resistance to his ideas and manner of working.
Is the Riptide the model that people complain about being broken and game ruining? Especially when taken in multiples?
Don't forget the role of Dark Glass in the Golden Throne project... (ref: 'The Path of Heaven')
It could be interesting to look more at the Iron/Stone/Golden Men, except then we would be pre-Age of Strife and it wouldn't be anything to do with Warhammer 40,000 anymore. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely at this stage that we will see a full series or anything like that. That's not really how GW operates.
Interesting note - from Alan Merrett's lips, the Golden Men were a genetically engineered master race, with selective breeding kind of like in 'Dune'. The Iron Men were, obviously, machines. The stone in Stone Men refers to silicon, as in they are organic intelligence, created artificially. I like to think of them like the Thirteenth Tribe from 'Battlestar Galactica', the organic cylons who left Kobol and began their own civilisation.
Interesting trivia, never before mentioned anywhere else (to my knowledge):
'The Beast Arises' originally dealt with the Imperium's use of the outlawed Iron Men as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the ork invasion from reaching Terra. It was changed because there are no miniatures of them.
But it's true that 'Collected Visions' is no longer canon. Where discrepancies exist with 'Visions of Heresy', the newer book is correct. It all came from the pen of Alan Merrett, so no one can even argue otherwise!
All these jokes and more were made about the title, by me and Alan Merrett, on stage at the Weekender in 2013... you'll have to do better than that! cool.gif
But yes - categorically, 'Visions of Heresy' replaces 'Collected Visions' in terms of all canonicity. It's why we commissioned Alan to write more content, it's all from the same source that way.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Is the Riptide the model that people complain about being broken and game ruining? Especially when taken in multiples?
Indeed it is. Though you can hardly blame the sculptors for the rules the design studio phones in from the pub...
I'm not blaming the sculptors for anything, but if Merrett tried to block it and was overridden, then it turns into a unit that many people complain about................perhaps he had a point?
I think it's only people getting destroyed by them that are unhappy; it's a great model, with unbalanced rules. I'm assuming Merett objected to it before the rules were written.
Plus, it was the first mini of it's size, wasn't it? If it had never been released, would we have seen Knights or Monstrous Creatures?
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: I'm not blaming the sculptors for anything, but if Merrett tried to block it and was overridden, then it turns into a unit that many people complain about................perhaps he had a point?
Aesthetically? No. Rules wise, probably. Depends on what ideas he objected to.
Or perhaps that was his dastardly plan? "Riptide! RIPTIDE! How dare they overrule me! I know, I'll order the games design team to make rules that are so intolerable that people will hate and never buy the model! Bwahahahahaaaa!"
Herzlos wrote: I think it's only people getting destroyed by them that are unhappy; it's a great model, with unbalanced rules. I'm assuming Merett objected to it before the rules were written.
Plus, it was the first mini of it's size, wasn't it? If it had never been released, would we have seen Knights or Monstrous Creatures?
Nope, the Dreadknight and plastic Trygon/Mawloc/Trygon Prime came out in 5th Edition a year or two (or three maybe in the case of the nids, can't remember exactly which tyranid wave they were released with in 5th) before the Riptide.
Interesting trivia, never before mentioned anywhere else (to my knowledge):
'The Beast Arises' originally dealt with the Imperium's use of the outlawed Iron Men as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the ork invasion from reaching Terra. It was changed because there are no miniatures of them.
Well that's too bad. Part of me is amazed that they still allow Imperial civilians in their stories.
They do still allow Imperial civilians in their stories, don't they?
Interesting trivia, never before mentioned anywhere else (to my knowledge):
'The Beast Arises' originally dealt with the Imperium's use of the outlawed Iron Men as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the ork invasion from reaching Terra. It was changed because there are no miniatures of them.
If true, that's one of the saddest things I have read on this forum for some time.
One of the joys of GW's universes when I first got into the game was the enigmatic stories, the mystery, the feeling that there was a 'big dark' out there beyond the struggling, and a long forgotten history behind it all. It added such a sense of scale to the background.
What in effect this says is that they are no different to Mattel or Hasbro, who stipulate in their accompanying animation series that the characters look exactly like the toys that kids buy off the shelves. It's sad that the creative efforts and imaginations of the writers are being so constrained, it was one of GW's biggest strengths.
Interesting trivia, never before mentioned anywhere else (to my knowledge):
'The Beast Arises' originally dealt with the Imperium's use of the outlawed Iron Men as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the ork invasion from reaching Terra. It was changed because there are no miniatures of them.
Well that's too bad. Part of me is amazed that they still allow Imperial civilians in their stories.
They do still allow Imperial civilians in their stories, don't they?
Surely that's nonsense. The aliens the imperial fists fight in the first book don't have miniatures. There are dozens of races mentioned in both the Horus heresy books and the AOS books that don't have miniatures.
Without Merrett, we might finally get novels and artwork that aren't just Games (tm) Workshop (tm) Miniatures (tm) in Default (c) Poses (tm)
The Iron Men being removed from the Beast Arises because they have no models is disgusting if it's true. What's next, Gaunts Ghosts being banned because there are no models for Urdesh-pattern gear and Blood Pact?
Since this is a different point, I'm not sure about the early TBA part. I interview each of the authors from book 3 on each month when I cover the series. I know TBA started almost three years ago then paused for a little over a year before they continued at full pace. It hasn't come up but that doesn't mean anything. Not writing a series starring models they don't make isn't unbelievable -- we have custodes and sisters of silence and some abhuman races. Though I'm curious so will ask next interview and see if anyone knows anything about it. Having BL stuff start as something else completely is nothing new. The Tranzia Rebellion play started out pitched as a podcast.
If someone will be at Black Library Live and can ask this there I'm sure you'd get an honest response. So much comes out of those in-person events.
Verviedi wrote: Without Merrett, we might finally get novels and artwork that aren't just Games (tm) Workshop (tm) Miniatures (tm) in Default (c) Poses (tm)
Heresy! All stalker boltguns are always being reloaded all the time!
I admit, I haven't really read much of the ten pages of this thread, but it was my impression the guy didn't do much of anything, so I don't think we're really expecting big changes as a result of this?
Melissia wrote: I admit, I haven't really read much of the ten pages of this thread, but it was my impression the guy didn't do much of anything, so I don't think we're really expecting big changes as a result of this?
Reading several comments in the thread I get the feeling that he left because of the wind of change.
Spoiler:
I follow River Leen
Down to the Sigmarine
Listening to the wind of change
An August summer night
Merret is passing by
Blown off by the wind of change
Games Workshop is changing
Did you ever think
That they would use such things, like Facebook
The future's in the air
My wallet feels it everywhere
Emptying in the wind of change
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the players of tomorrow dream away (dream away)
In the wind of change
Walking down the street
Awful memories
Are buried in the past forever
I follow River Leen
Down to the Sigmarine
Listening to the wind of change
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the players of tomorrow play Kill Teams (play Kill Teams)
With you and me
I suppose you have to be German (or Russian) to know the song...
I don't know if it's true, but if he really hates Genestealer Cults and was the one who made my first army more or less unplayable for... some time... - I'm glad he's gone.
and we would still hand over a 100 quid for it just because of that 
); we'll see what pricepoint 
By the Throne, you're right! 
