I've never been bothered by GW's prices. I think they're ludicrous and they're digging their own grave, but it's just my choice not to buy their stuff. I watch their antics regarding proving with amusement, as they produce rubbish for ever higher prices.
What I do find objectionable is the aggressive manner in which they throw their legal weight around in what is a fairly small industry and appear to put independent traders under unreasonable pressure. I don't know any independent who likes GW, they only deal with them because they can't afford to not stock what still supports a large part of the overall market. Otherwise the relationship is often antagonistic. Their legal bullying on the most dubious grounds is just damaging to the wider industry. At that point I can't ignore GW by simply not buying their product, they're trying to impose themselves on other companies I wish to give my custom.
...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.
Oh the positivity... complaining about complaining does not make a positive. Generalizing about the entirety of the dakka community while lamenting "propaganda" seems pretty weak sauce.
Apparently I struck a chord with you. My comments hit a little too close to home for your liking? I'm being playful of course (and maybe just a little petty - all in good humor though I promise).
So you complain about toxicity on dakka, show us how it's done good chap.
We can all dance around the pricing issue for a very long time. It's now a highly expensive hobby in comparison with it's peers in tabletop gaming. I've recently gotten into Star Trek Attack Wing in a big way and cannot express my joy at the price vs gaming fun ratio, but again this digresses from my point, which is claiming that negativity toward GW exists because some people are poor and cannot afford the game and got mad about it isn't the economic truth here.
The company is in actual trouble, it's profits are tanking. That's not the result of some bitter impoverished grognards dissuading wide-eyed innocents from getting into the games, that's most wide eyed innocents not having the disposable income to try and start or deciding that the product is too expensive in terms of perceived worth. It's also the number of existing gamers putting the games down and walking away. WHFB was the biggest fantasy game out there previously and now GW themselves are bringing about a 'do or die' last resort change to it to try and save it from vanishing forever. The Hobbit game has fallen into the Abyss.
40k jumping the gun and getting reissued two years after instead of four years after the previous edition was an attempt to bolster revenue.
Unbound is daft. Most of GW, with the noted exception of Forge World and Black Library, seems to be jumping the shark to varying degrees. the rules atm for 40k are a vast swirling mess of churn and bloat.
Oni, you yourself gave into the hate over the finecast mess. GW has made a series of very dubious decisions of late. They do seem to want to change things (and who wouldn't with profit falling through the floor) but the bizarre 'cold war' that exists between the decision makers in GWHQ vs 'the community' and GW's insistence that it doesn't need to communicate, interact or understand feedback is killing it.
oni wrote: The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.
For that to happen, there's going to have to first be a fundamental change in Games Workshop... because the community is the one that they have built through their actions.
If people are unhappy with things that GW have done, it's a bit odd to suggest that they are somehow in the wrong for complaining about those things.
One of GWs problems from their perspective is that they are in a hobby that for many people is a life long one. They're not selling handbags, they are or were a wargames company. Many people have been wargaming for 20+ years. GW have a vocal legacy fanbase that really doesn't fit the business model they want today. They'd prefer a lot of them goes away presumably, so they can just focus on newer customers with no opinions about the 'good old days' and what the company used to do compared to today.
oni wrote: The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.
For that to happen, there's going to have to first be a fundamental change in Games Workshop... because the community is the one that they have built through their actions.
If people are unhappy with things that GW have done, it's a bit odd to suggest that they are somehow in the wrong for complaining about those things.
I would argue that there is a fundamental change taking place in the community.....a change to other games
It is true you do not have to go far on Dakka to find a strong anti-GW sentiment. However this is one of the best moderated forums on the interwebs and even criticism leveled at GW corporate itself has been moderated in accordance with rule number 1.
The 40k scene in my neck of the woods absolutely disintegrated. Out of 10 people I was the ONLY person on Dakka. Luckily there is a diverse crowd of very enthusiastic and genuinely polite hobbyists all over this site who shared with me all the other games that were out there
What I do find objectionable is the aggressive manner in which they throw their legal weight around in what is a fairly small industry and appear to put independent traders under unreasonable pressure. I don't know any independent who likes GW, they only deal with them because they can't afford to not stock what still supports a large part of the overall market. Otherwise the relationship is often antagonistic. Their legal bullying on the most dubious grounds is just damaging to the wider industry. At that point I can't ignore GW by simply not buying their product, they're trying to impose themselves on other companies I wish to give my custom.
This is exactly how I feel. Couldn't care less about what GW is doing with its games (other than having friends who play them, and not wanting them to be left high and dry), but it does affect me in terms of the belligerence shown towards independent stores. The FLGS in the UK is struggling enough as it is.
Also, that the 'us and them' attitude of 'GW way, or the high-way', where they fail to integrate themselves into the larger wargaming community in an official capacity (for just one example, not being present at the forthcoming Salute, which in my mind is absolutely, fething nuts), as well as generally not acknowledging any other companies within the industry. This can rub off on some of the fanbase I feel, and I think is responsible for a good deal of the ill-feeling and argument you sometimes get on forums. Really, I'm sure we are all on the same side - of wanting good quality miniatures, good rules, a good community, without it costing the earth.
Our hobby is a small industry, and traditionally much more personable and friendly than a lot of others out there. The big corporate-style stomping and throwing of weight around is ugly, and I don't think it has any place here. I don't think there is any problem with pointing that out, or indeed remembering a time when GW was indeed part of the larger wargaming industry, and didn't seek to ostracise itself and polarise fan opinion by chasing top $, game design, balance and creativity be damned. It wasn't that long ago.
If there is "negativity" (usually synonymous with criticism) then it's fostered entirely by GW. There's no one to blame but themselves. Their silence and arrogance toward their customers does nothing to stem the tide of frustrated players. Player that then move on to other better games.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I consider myself a collector first and gamer second, that is why i don't understand jah that he only returns to his space marines to paint, got a lot from different makers mostly SF stuff and i am painting them all.
But because i am a collector, i don't need 6 imperial knights, only the bare necessities to field. and because i am a collectors i pass on some designs, i hated the design of those bulky contemptor thingies or what they are called and use models from different company as substitute, for company that says they are the best in plastic mini's they don't understand their collecting clientele, there is so much stuff out there that is as good as (or better) in quality as GW.
i guess i did not make myself very clear...
have a look in my gallery to see the variety of minis that i paint...
i have painted for four different companies in the industry, and collect minis from almost every company on the market...
i am saying that what inspires me most are Space Marines...
i love their art, fiction, and minis more than any other range...
i don't know why they appeal to me more than other models, settings, or fictional characters, they just do...
there are many more inspiring Chapter schemes that i have yet to paint...
maybe one day i will have gotten it out of my system, but for now, i daydream about all of the Chapters' schemes, and Marine minis, that i haven't painted yet...
on top of that, 90% of my clients hire me to paint Space Marines...
it's a win-win for me...
who makes a better plastic Space Marine than GW???
cheers
jah
Sorry for misinterpreting your post.
Who makes better space marines?
Dreamforgeof course
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.
I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.
notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.
On a side note...
Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.
This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.
If toxic forums drive people away, lots of people would stop playing certain video games, and you over estimate the reach of Dakkadakka. There are enough pro GW forums out there, so why aren't people going to GW stores in droves because of those forums?
My current understanding is that Dakka seems to be one of the wargaming forums that has thrived the most these last few years, whereas some of the slightly more GW-centric forums have dwindled in size a bit.
I realize correlation does not equal causation, but I do attribute Dakka's success to having a significant range of opinions, where posters feel free to express their likes and dislikes of a product without being stigmatized. I think what some see as negativity I see as frankness and honesty, and that goes a long way when we're talking about dropping more than 60 bucks on a couple of hunks of plastic. We want to make sure what we're buying into is worth something, so where a laymen goes "what do you do with these plastic army men" you'll have a good answer other than "I just like to paint their brown pants blue."
Howard A Treesong wrote: I've never been bothered by GW's prices. I think they're ludicrous and they're digging their own grave, but it's just my choice not to buy their stuff. I watch their antics regarding proving with amusement, as they produce rubbish for ever higher prices.
What I do find objectionable is the aggressive manner in which they throw their legal weight around in what is a fairly small industry and appear to put independent traders under unreasonable pressure. I don't know any independent who likes GW, they only deal with them because they can't afford to not stock what still supports a large part of the overall market. Otherwise the relationship is often antagonistic. Their legal bullying on the most dubious grounds is just damaging to the wider industry. At that point I can't ignore GW by simply not buying their product, they're trying to impose themselves on other companies I wish to give my custom.
Cannot agree more their legal actions and threats too other companies that produce nothing like their product is pretty much against national Law but most companies buckle in afraid to stand up against them. GW as of around now reminds me a whole lot of a certain empire in history they gained much of their inspiration from for one of their main games . bear with me:
The Chapter House Studios law suit ( were yes they are making miniatures that are near copies for their products, however GW should never have gone and tried to sue them, that is plainly wrong) and GWs copyright getting all bashed up could be GWs equivalent to the Romans military defeat in the battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Rome lost 10% of its entire standing army, shook its peoples belief and halted Romes advances and began too single the end of Roman dominance and encourage the other " Barbarians" to expand , learn from their enemy and push on its borders showing they can be defeated.
Now we also have GWs management abusing its customers trust and diminishing the value of its sorely overpriced product, that is being outdone by many other smaller companies. Rome Began too suffer from its success many diseases broke out in now today Italy due too their wealth from trade weakening their man power and lessening the strength of their armies. Most of all Roman was in constant turmoil ( Warhammer 9th edition fears anyone?) with uncertainty of were things are going and what their future will be.
The Roman Government was being rules by incompetent aggressive individuals who were arrogant, neglecting their Empire and people which aided greatly its decay. Their is no Civil war in GW unlike what happened in Rome a whole lot near the end for those vying for power. However The Germanic and other Barbarian peoples began too form their own kingdoms and armies based off of Roman military structure and ideas and began too learn how too fight Romans more effectively.
We now have many companies that are growing better, producing better and better miniatures , games and over all products / settings why'll GW wanes. Now the Stage of GWs dominance begins too dim and become more and more irrelevant too many gamers who are moving towards other products because of GWs policies and disregard too their fanbase.
I see some similarities their which I find a high amount of Irony in considering were 40k is highly inspired from. Not meant too bash anyone who likes GWs games, but just pointing out how things have been looking like for years now and how they remind me of late Roman history. Take from it what you will.
@Jehan-reznor: Dreamforge are not producing GW Space Marines, they are producing Dreamforge Valkir Assault Troopers...
two very different products, with two very different aesthetics...
to me, those do not look like my vision of a Space Marine, because i am passionate about the art and style of 40K...
obviously, if you choose to use them as a stand-in, that is your choice, but to me those are not GW Space Marines...
i paint GW Space Marines because i like the aesthetic of the GW Space Marine...
I buy GW products because i like their look...
if i choose to buy Dreamforge kits, i will be painting them to represent the kits that they are designed to be in Dreamforge's setting...
i would not be painting them as Space Wolves or Blood Angels, because they do not look like Space Wolves or Blood Angels...
to me, the silhouette of a GW Space Marine is a distinct and iconic, and is my favorite type of mini...
why would you care what i choose to paint???
if you wanted to own my work, you would send me a box of Valkir Assault Troopers, and i would paint them in any way that you want...
that is what being a good commission painter is all about...
bringing the customer's vision to life...
I think some people (Gwombies, apologists, whatever you want to call it) are unable to distinguish between valid criticism and "hating" so they just lump them all together. Let me see if I can help you out.
Example 1
I have stopped purchasing GW products because the rules have been split into far too many different sources, they're overpriced, clunky, full of random tables and completely devoid of any kind of tactical depth beyond list selection.
Example 2
GW sucks, I hate them and I'm never buying their products again.
If you can't tell the difference between those 2 examples, I'm going to have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.
Deadnight wrote: @jah Joshua: regarding 'alternative' space marines, how do you rate anvil industry's black ops 'so not space marines' Exo lords? Just curious, mind.
I'd love to have an army of these guys. so much character.
personally, i don't rate them at all as 40K Space Marines...
i do not use 3rd-party products in my personal 40K projects...
i use GW (which includes Forge World) miniatures for my personal 40K projects, because that is the look that i like (and for a very important reason discussed below)...
as stand-alone powered armor warriors, the Exo Lords don't look bad...
they never made me reach for my money, though...
my respect for Anvil Industries skyrocketed the moment that Afterlife was announced...
since he is now creating his own IP, i have much more regard for the company...
his sculpting just keeps getting better, too...
i may even buy some of the new minis that are created for his game, but i would paint them according to the background of the Afterlife setting, not as a "not 40K" stand-in...
on the other hand, i would not buy any "not 40K" products from companies like Kromlech, Puppet's War, or Chapterhouse...
supporting 3rd-party products is just not my thing...
i know this is a touchy subject here, and i will probably catch a lot of flak for my opinion, but i just don't have any desire to purchase 3rd-party products for use in my personal 40K or WFB projects...
if i am painting up a personal project, i don't want to mix manufacturers...
i want my buyer to be able to walk into a GW store, and show off his purchase, without having to worry about getting flak from the manager about a mini that used non-GW parts...
since all of my personal projects are for sale, that just makes good business sense to me...
what others choose to do is none of my business, and what others hire me to paint is their choice...
for example, one of my customers has just hired me to paint a Chaos Space Marine set for his Black Crusade gaming group...
as far as i can recall, this will be my first time ever painting both 3rd-party sculpts and a "counts-as" mini...
i will be using a mix of the Russian Thousand Sons torso set to build a Sorcerer and a Rubric Marine, using GW parts for the rest of the build...
three other characters will be all GW and FW parts, while the last mini will be a converted Infinity model to represent a female Heretek (which GW does not produce an actual model for)...
i have no problem painting up these models as the customer wants them, since it's his call...
Ah condescension and name calling, that'll win 'em over chum.
I think oni made a good and clear point, i.e. Dakka quite often reads as a whine fest. Too often threads are quickly derailed (like this one?) to the now ubiquitous 'don't like GW business practices' etc.
oni suggests this and there are 10 members jumping all over him/her. It doesn't make for good discussion of either the main theme or whatever tangent the thread is now on.
Whether you realise it or not Dakka is different to how it was a few years ago. Many people still enjoy GW product (why not there's lots to enjoy) but all often even suggesting such a thing is quickly derided. Far less friendly than it should be.
Howard A Treesong wrote: One of GWs problems from their perspective is that they are in a hobby that for many people is a life long one. They're not selling handbags, they are or were a wargames company. Many people have been wargaming for 20+ years. GW have a vocal legacy fanbase that really doesn't fit the business model they want today. They'd prefer a lot of them goes away presumably, so they can just focus on newer customers with no opinions about the 'good old days' and what the company used to do compared to today.
Except that these grognards are the only people still spending money on GW, and GW knows this. Everything released in the last few years is specifically aimed to wring the last few dollars out of veterans, either by introducing brand new stuff that veterans don't own yet, or by selling 'good old days' nostalgia (Nagash, Harlequins).
lord_blackfang wrote: Except that these grognards are the only people still spending money on GW, and GW knows this. Everything released in the last few years is specifically aimed to wring the last few dollars out of veterans, either by introducing brand new stuff that veterans don't own yet, or by selling 'good old days' nostalgia (Nagash, Harlequins).
If only they changed the rules to suit these veterans. They'd sell more of the nostalgia pieces if the vets stayed around long enough to buy them.
Allthough GW does not behave like i want to, i am just a long-time customer (since the beginning), i do not run the company.
And we should not forget: these are different times.
Much of the things i read are not new and never were of any concern before.
The 40k and WHFB game rules are now not much better or worse then they were (and i have played them all), they never were perfect.
The best GW games were specialist games, i played them all (still play some), but they are all gone. So the quality of the game, that's not it either.
The models got better, the models also got more expensive.
I do agree that the hobby is both absolute and relatively expensive if you compare it to 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
The price of an army and some individual models is IMO too high. But compared to most other manufacturers the game can cost less, but the models more often than not cost even more.
The only company that seems to have no problem at all are Fantasy Flight Games, i have X-wing and Imperial Assault too. Nice games, balanced, but i would not compare them and their relative simplicity (and therefore balance) to "real" wargame systems with more variables.
Also, the Fantasy Flight Games type of games is partly a different market. No modelling, no painting required (only ir you want to) and learn and play the game in half an hour.
And then there are computer games.
These are different times and GW is trying to deal with them.
RoninXiC wrote: If you have 8 editions to improve your game and it doesn't... does that not make you a horrrrriiiibble game designer not worth supporting?
Which editions did Rick actually have input into? Its not all 8 now is it? 1 through 5 for sure, but beyond that?
To be entirely fair to the man, as I said the 3rd edition and all the editions that spawned over it was his home-brew 15mm WW2 game system that was forced to use because the management forced the last moment a memo that wanted the game to require more models to be played, the fact the core rules have lasted that long is a testament to his abilities.
I do not agree with many of his design philosophies I can be considered a polar opposite in many of his views on how a system should look and to be entirely honest I have accused him several times in GoA related threads here and else as been "stuck i the late eighties early nineties" with his ideas especially in background fiction, all the above been said...
To not acknowledge his talent, the influence he has exert upon the wargaming scene or the validity of his games design (whether you subscribe to his school of thought or not) is dogmatic shortsightedness.
ORicK wrote: Allthough GW does not behave like i want to, i am just a long-time customer (since the beginning), i do not run the company.
And we should not forget: these are different times.
Much of the things i read are not new and never were of any concern before.
The 40k and WHFB game rules are now not much better or worse then they were (and i have played them all), they never were perfect.
The best GW games were specialist games, i played them all (still play some), but they are all gone. So the quality of the game, that's not it either.
The models got better, the models also got more expensive.
I do agree that the hobby is both absolute and relatively expensive if you compare it to 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
The price of an army and some individual models is IMO too high. But compared to most other manufacturers the game can cost less, but the models more often than not cost even more.
The only company that seems to have no problem at all are Fantasy Flight Games, i have X-wing and Imperial Assault too. Nice games, balanced, but i would not compare them and their relative simplicity (and therefore balance) to "real" wargame systems with more variables.
Also, the Fantasy Flight Games type of games is partly a different market. No modelling, no painting required (only ir you want to) and learn and play the game in half an hour.
And then there are computer games.
These are different times and GW is trying to deal with them.
It's always been expensive that never changed. One of the main reasons i left the hobby 10-11 years ago was because of the expense of keeping up with the latest rules,codices,models and everything else. If expense was such a big problem for the GW audience they would have folded years ago. Any hobby has expenses but people can look away from the cost of doing something with their time they enjoy. Compared to computer gaming which has a much larger start up cost and cost for it's games though varied may only last you a day or two before you need to pay out for a new one. I think the popularity of computer games especially online gaming being so easy now have taken away some of the old target audience for GW though. Kids can now not even leave the house to play games with their friends and compared with playing a game of 40k where you need to pack miniatures,transport them,set them up and go through a game much more complicated than pushing a few buttons you can see what kids would rather be doing.
It used to be that even to play computer games you had to go to your friends house and while there you could see your friends miniatures,how cool they looked and want your own. GW stores are still relatively kid friendly you can go in and paint something and play a simplified demo game while a red shirt tells you how great and fun it is then tells the parent how much they will need to pay for their kid to get into the hobby (I still remember my Mum's face). They are still aiming for new gamers and young people but they are just not hooking many in anymore. And this is the main reason i feel they have changed a lot of their market strategy.
Without being able to hook many new players they are left with the people they hooked in decades ago during it's strongest years for new players. My local GW is an example still standing but mostly empty much of the week with one lonely red shirt running it instead of the multiple staff they had when i was in my teens in a store that was rammed full on weekends. All GW has left now are the loyalist long time players.
The other major shift in approach comes from how popular the game became in the USA with it's strong tournament scene and i think this shift is a big part of why their policies are getting like they are now and have been for some time. The popularity in the US saw the shift with less focus on fun in games and more focus on making games complicated,codices focused on making sure you can use and buy as many models as possible for your points value. They also have produced more complicated and detailed models that look more impressive to paint up for experts who want to show off their work at competition level.
GW has had to change to keep up with an increasingly specialized audience a lot of people will say they don't want collector models but their campaign boxed sets seem to be doing well enough selling out quickly. Collectors versions of rulebooks sell out in a day or two. As long as they know people will buy a massive boxed set for one model that is only available in that set then they will keep targeting those collectors. If people really wanted change they would be voting with their wallets and the fact that there are no massive stockpiles of unsold campaign packs and collectors edition book sets shows that they are perfectly fine with this direction. They get more models and GW keeps making sure the tournament scene can spam models and buy more. The audience now has been with them for years and they are not getting a supply of new blood so now all they can do is pander to the needs of the older hobbyist who has a great deal more disposable income than they used to and sell them lots of items that feel exclusive and have to have collectors items.
GW knows what it's doing and has done for years (sort of) though some policies really do seem like they are ruining things for themselves). I think being out the hobby for so long let me see things from the outside a bit and it feels like a lot of people want change but don't know what they want and when change does happen they don't like it anyway. In the "good ol days" GW games were a quirky fun very British orientated game for young kids to teens but it's not the same now as in the 90's and GW has a much bigger international audience with different needs along with a much older one.
But then maybe all this is just my positive outlook of getting back into 40k and given a year back under the GW banner I'll probably learn to hate them too since it's not the same company it was when i started out.
GW knows what it's doing and has done for years (sort of) though some policies really do seem like they are ruining things for themselves). I think being out the hobby for so long let me see things from the outside a bit and it feels like a lot of people want change but don't know what they want and when change does happen they don't like it anyway. In the "good ol days" GW games were a quirky fun very British orientated game for young kids to teens but it's not the same now as in the 90's and GW has a much bigger international audience with different needs along with a much older one.
The problem with this theory is the numbers run against it and this is the crux of the discussion (opposition, hate, whatever).
A note about their collector pieces is that they are artificially limited, 5k copies (iirc) of a book for a company with the global target audience of GW is a drop in the ocean, not something I would be proud to say I sold out since the supply vs demand is really skewed.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I consider myself a collector first and gamer second, that is why i don't understand jah that he only returns to his space marines to paint, got a lot from different makers mostly SF stuff and i am painting them all.
But because i am a collector, i don't need 6 imperial knights, only the bare necessities to field. and because i am a collectors i pass on some designs, i hated the design of those bulky contemptor thingies or what they are called and use models from different company as substitute, for company that says they are the best in plastic mini's they don't understand their collecting clientele, there is so much stuff out there that is as good as (or better) in quality as GW.
i guess i did not make myself very clear...
have a look in my gallery to see the variety of minis that i paint...
i have painted for four different companies in the industry, and collect minis from almost every company on the market...
i am saying that what inspires me most are Space Marines...
i love their art, fiction, and minis more than any other range...
i don't know why they appeal to me more than other models, settings, or fictional characters, they just do...
there are many more inspiring Chapter schemes that i have yet to paint...
maybe one day i will have gotten it out of my system, but for now, i daydream about all of the Chapters' schemes, and Marine minis, that i haven't painted yet...
on top of that, 90% of my clients hire me to paint Space Marines...
it's a win-win for me...
who makes a better plastic Space Marine than GW???
cheers
jah
Sorry for misinterpreting your post.
Who makes better space marines?
Dreamforgeof course
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.
I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.
notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.
On a side note...
Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.
This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.
If toxic forums drive people away, lots of people would stop playing certain video games, and you over estimate the reach of Dakkadakka. There are enough pro GW forums out there, so why aren't people going to GW stores in droves because of those forums?
GW still largely ignore the internet as a whole. And people have an opinion, being a member of several websites, this one is the least "toxic" some are more biased than others. I've practically abandoned others in favour of Dakka.
Look at the latest forthcoming release 35 pounds for 5 figures.. That won't be able to be used within 6 months.
notprop wrote:Or after 8 editions it's still outselling everything else, it cant be too bad now can it?
I've heard a similar argument about Take That consistently hitting number one in the UK albums chart
notprop wrote:Ah condescension and name calling, that'll win 'em over chum.
I think oni made a good and clear point, i.e. Dakka quite often reads as a whine fest. Too often threads are quickly derailed (like this one?) to the now ubiquitous 'don't like GW business practices' etc.
oni suggests this and there are 10 members jumping all over him/her. It doesn't make for good discussion of either the main theme or whatever tangent the thread is now on.
The replies to his post could have been something to do with the passive-aggressive 'You're a bunch of whining gakkers that are stopping newbies from taking up the game", to summarise the post in one sentence
I felt, at least with 40k, that the game designers were working towards something in the editions leading up to 6th. The game appeared to be undergoing refinements from 3rd->5th. There were certainly missteps and rules that made you go "what were they thinking??" but it appeared that that the goal was to make a better game and so everyone was cutting them a fair amount of slack (obviously people have always complained about GW/40k, but by comparison to today it was a golden age of approval).
6th didn't immediately go against this idea of refinement- it was more when Escalation came out as a way to force units from Armageddon into the core game, coupled with shorting the main rule book by two years, that it became much more apparent that GW was using the rules as a vehicle to sell more and more miniatures, rather than as a vehicle to utilize the miniatures themselves. A number of the more recent codexes that come with nothing more than some points adjustments a tweaking (i.e. Grey Knights) have reinforced this position.
With rules at a record all-time high (core rulebook $85, codex $50, supplements holding some of the best builds for armies being priced the same as codexes, unreasonably high prices for electronic versions of rules, etc.), I think it's harder to not see rules being utilized as a way to generate income with very little production cost. The problem is it usually leaves the customer feeling cheated for goods that hold very little physical value and are so transient as to be valueless to interacting with a gaming community in a few years...it just comes off as bad return-on-investment. Some people are very frustrated at this shift we've seen these last few years, given the long time periods they've played 40k. Others simply shrug and leave. Of course others just shrug and continue on.
But I think there has been a fundamental shift away from GW products, which are starting to be seen as an elitist gaming thing ("Oh, I play 40k. Yes, the costs are very high but they have to be if you want an experience as enriching as this"). It seems like GW is content having it this way, production runs for new releases seem to have dropped way down and facilitate the purchasing habits of the most die-hard fans without much extra. Theoretically, they could continue to cut costs by reducing outreach if they could just keep that die-hard group buying online and shipping out. In the end, it sounds like they're becoming a boutique company with a rabid core that sustains a pretty hefty chunk of currency. But to see 40k reduced from its great ubiquity of a few years ago to something that is kept in glass cases for "collectors" to oogle and compliment each other on sounds like a really sad direction for the game to go.
The problems that I have with it in general are many, but most boils down to the arrogant, snobby tone that GW seems to have in regards to everything. The game is secondary, but they charge more than anyone else for rules and have more extra rules (supplements, dataslates, FW rules etc) than everybody. That alone indicates that they're lying when they say the game is a secondary concern, because they seem to put a lot of effort into products that a real collector isn't going to care about. I talk to someone who is a real collector: He buys figures (typically the large ones) that he likes, but he doesn't know anything about the game and doesn't care because he doesn't play, he likes to paint them. He isn't going to buy multiples of things, he's going to buy maybe one and that's it, because the rules don't matter to him.
Yet GW pushes rules and the idea that you're building a "collection" that can see play. There's a fundamental disconnect there I think. A real model company isn't going to charge a boatload for rules that are a small concern, let alone make a big deal about them being hardcover, full color and glossy pages. They would have large fluff type books with maps and imagery and the like for collector's, but not rule books.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problems that I have with it in general are many, but most boils down to the arrogant, snobby tone that GW seems to have in regards to everything. The game is secondary, but they charge more than anyone else for rules and have more extra rules (supplements, dataslates, FW rules etc) than everybody. That alone indicates that they're lying when they say the game is a secondary concern, because they seem to put a lot of effort into products that a real collector isn't going to care about. I talk to someone who is a real collector: He buys figures (typically the large ones) that he likes, but he doesn't know anything about the game and doesn't care because he doesn't play, he likes to paint them. He isn't going to buy multiples of things, he's going to buy maybe one and that's it, because the rules don't matter to him.
Yet GW pushes rules and the idea that you're building a "collection" that can see play. There's a fundamental disconnect there I think. A real model company isn't going to charge a boatload for rules that are a small concern, let alone make a big deal about them being hardcover, full color and glossy pages. They would have large fluff type books with maps and imagery and the like for collector's, but not rule books.
They're getting people who "collect" the purpose of playing a game, or at least the idea of playing a game with all of the miniatures at some point down the road. It doesn't matter if they get there, it's all about the dream of having a well-put together army and putting it through its paces. If that game becomes unattainably expensive or seen as something that most people don't enjoy, people stop collecting because the goal is lost.
There are of course those who buy a few miniatures as you mentioned, but they amount of purchasing they do is much lower because there's no *necessity* to making purchases. And then you have a few people who just buy outrageous numbers of models, but I think that's just because money is no object for them
Deadnight wrote: @jah Joshua: regarding 'alternative' space marines, how do you rate anvil industry's black ops 'so not space marines' Exo lords? Just curious, mind.
I'd love to have an army of these guys. so much character.
personally, i don't rate them at all as 40K Space Marines...
i do not use 3rd-party products in my personal 40K projects...
i use GW (which includes Forge World) miniatures for my personal 40K projects, because that is the look that i like (and for a very important reason discussed below)...
as stand-alone powered armor warriors, the Exo Lords don't look bad...
they never made me reach for my money, though...
my respect for Anvil Industries skyrocketed the moment that Afterlife was announced...
since he is now creating his own IP, i have much more regard for the company...
his sculpting just keeps getting better, too...
i may even buy some of the new minis that are created for his game, but i would paint them according to the background of the Afterlife setting, not as a "not 40K" stand-in...
on the other hand, i would not buy any "not 40K" products from companies like Kromlech, Puppet's War, or Chapterhouse...
supporting 3rd-party products is just not my thing...
i know this is a touchy subject here, and i will probably catch a lot of flak for my opinion, but i just don't have any desire to purchase 3rd-party products for use in my personal 40K or WFB projects...
if i am painting up a personal project, i don't want to mix manufacturers...
i want my buyer to be able to walk into a GW store, and show off his purchase, without having to worry about getting flak from the manager about a mini that used non-GW parts...
since all of my personal projects are for sale, that just makes good business sense to me...
what others choose to do is none of my business, and what others hire me to paint is their choice...
for example, one of my customers has just hired me to paint a Chaos Space Marine set for his Black Crusade gaming group...
as far as i can recall, this will be my first time ever painting both 3rd-party sculpts and a "counts-as" mini...
i will be using a mix of the Russian Thousand Sons torso set to build a Sorcerer and a Rubric Marine, using GW parts for the rest of the build...
three other characters will be all GW and FW parts, while the last mini will be a converted Infinity model to represent a female Heretek (which GW does not produce an actual model for)...
i have no problem painting up these models as the customer wants them, since it's his call...
cheers
jah
While reading through this thread - you are a rarity
You would be GW's ideal customer in every way. There aren't many of you that follow what you preach. You're a rare breed - but one that is good for the hobby (I checked out your gallery, your work is amazing).
also - I've met a single local guy who never paints or plays. He only builds Ultramarines. He's on his 3rd or 4th Company. He just likes to build and prime them blue, tens of thousands of points. He's never played a game that we know of. The old local GW store loved the guy - because he fits the bill of what they want.
notprop wrote: Or after 8 editions it's still outselling everything else, it cant be too bad now can it?
Have you not been paying attention to the financial reports?
Also, the comment's been made that over the past few years, Dakka has changed. They called it "toxic" but what they meant was "there's a lot of criticism." If the criticism is increasing, isn't that a symptom of something far more serious?
lord_blackfang wrote: Hmm, who was it that said that GW's long term plan was to have 1 customer and sell him 1 box of Marines per year for 150 million?
Kirby?
In many ways it has seemed to me that WH40K hit its peaks in 3rd and 5th editions - though I prefer 3rd.
2nd was a lot of fun, and changed a lot over its years, and was pretty much the edition that introduced most of the players that I know to the setting.
2nd also seemed the heyday for fanzines and fan involvement - with GW communicating with the community, and even having fan content magazines. I really miss those days.
The game rules themselves were not as good as 3rd edition - but, damn, we had fun.
notprop wrote: Or after 8 editions it's still outselling everything else, it cant be too bad now can it?
Have you not been paying attention to the financial reports?
Also, the comment's been made that over the past few years, Dakka has changed. They called it "toxic" but what they meant was "there's a lot of criticism." If the criticism is increasing, isn't that a symptom of something far more serious?
Yes, it shows that GW while reducing in turnover still outstrips PP (for example) approximately 10 to 1 (based upon an estimated TO of £15M that was rumoured before) or Battlefront/Warlord by greater margins.
Now your rather curt message does underline the point I was making, thank you for falling into my little heffalump trap.
All I have done is post a mirror of the post before mine highlighting that whatever your opinion of GW or indeed WH40K it is still massively popular. Neither pro nor anti GW.
For your part you have jumped on the offensive to quash any defence of the "Evil Empire", even though there was not such connotation in my post. You're not criticising GW you're criticising posters that (you perceive) have the temerity to defend GW. Even if I had been defending GW (White Knight style) it still wouldn't excuse it.
So to paraphrase I see posts like this and see it as the equivalent of "You like GW so you smell", it's puerile and yes a bit toxic and all too common.
I think that there is more of this sort of behaviour on Dakka than before, I think it devalues the community and quality of discussion. I stand by the statement.
notprop wrote: Or after 8 editions it's still outselling everything else, it cant be too bad now can it?
Have you not been paying attention to the financial reports?
Also, the comment's been made that over the past few years, Dakka has changed. They called it "toxic" but what they meant was "there's a lot of criticism." If the criticism is increasing, isn't that a symptom of something far more serious?
Yes, it shows that GW while reducing in turnover still outstrips PP (for example) approximately 10 to 1 (based upon an estimated TO of £15M that was rumoured before) or Battlefront/Warlord by greater margins.
Now your rather curt message does underline the point I was making, thank you for falling into my little heffalump trap.
All I have done is post a mirror of the post before mine highlighting that whatever your opinion of GW or indeed WH40K it is still massively popular. Neither pro nor anti GW.
For your part you have jumped on the offensive to quash any defence of the "Evil Empire", even though there was not such connotation in my post. You're not criticising GW you're criticising posters that (you perceive) have the temerity to defend GW. Even if I had been defending GW (White Knight style) it still wouldn't excuse it.
So to paraphrase I see posts like this and see it as the equivalent of "You like GW so you smell", it's puerile and yes a bit toxic and all too common.
I think that there is more of this sort of behaviour on Dakka than before, I think it devalues the community and quality of discussion. I stand by the statement.
You're reading things into my post that I've never said or intended. How is "increase of criticisms = something wrong with GW" as an attack against pro-GW posters?
You're having a knee-jerk reaction to a criticsm to a game you love.
As for my first statement about the financials, I wasn't talking in terms of absolute profit, but in terms of growth vs decline. PP is growing leaps and bounds and GW is shrinking by the year.
You're having a knee-jerk reaction to a criticsm to a game you love.
You are being churlish now, but again you make my point.
Nothing about love or even preference in my post chum? I don't even have those little Space Marine dollies in my sig like you....?
Your having a good old dig now, probably in the belief that its GW fault or something, but in fact you are just being a bit rude to another poster for little reason.
As for my first statement about the financials, I wasn't talking in terms of absolute profit, but in terms of growth vs decline. PP is growing leaps and bounds and GW is shrinking by the year.
Then say what you mean. Getting less over excited may help you in that regard.
There are no figures published for PP, so that is conjecture. That's not to say that it isn't the case.
notprop wrote: Or after 8 editions it's still outselling everything else, it cant be too bad now can it?
Have you not been paying attention to the financial reports?
Also, the comment's been made that over the past few years, Dakka has changed. They called it "toxic" but what they meant was "there's a lot of criticism." If the criticism is increasing, isn't that a symptom of something far more serious?
Yes, it shows that GW while reducing in turnover still outstrips PP (for example) approximately 10 to 1 (based upon an estimated TO of £15M that was rumoured before) or Battlefront/Warlord by greater margins.
Now your rather curt message does underline the point I was making, thank you for falling into my little heffalump trap.
All I have done is post a mirror of the post before mine highlighting that whatever your opinion of GW or indeed WH40K it is still massively popular. Neither pro nor anti GW.
For your part you have jumped on the offensive to quash any defence of the "Evil Empire", even though there was not such connotation in my post. You're not criticising GW you're criticising posters that (you perceive) have the temerity to defend GW. Even if I had been defending GW (White Knight style) it still wouldn't excuse it.
So to paraphrase I see posts like this and see it as the equivalent of "You like GW so you smell", it's puerile and yes a bit toxic and all too common.
I think that there is more of this sort of behaviour on Dakka than before, I think it devalues the community and quality of discussion. I stand by the statement.
So, what you're saying, in essence, is that you posted an opinion and someone who felt differently to the opinion you posted expressed their disagreement?
That's kinda how this whole Internet forum thing works.
If there's a lot of countering to positive statements about GW, then surely you can see that that isn't a problem, it is a symptom of a problem?
Yes, it shows that GW while reducing in turnover still outstrips PP (for example) approximately 10 to 1 (based upon an estimated TO of £15M that was rumoured before) or Battlefront/Warlord by greater margins.
For now.
5 years ago it was probably 20 to 1, in 5 years time what will it be then? How does GW compare against the combined market share of Battlefront, PP, Mantic, Hawk, Spartan Games, Prodos...........?
GW is collapsing, that much is clear from their financial statements, panicked business decisions and the multitude of anecdotal reports of a globally declining population of GW gamers. They may be the biggest, albeit shrinking, fish but the pond has not only gotten bigger it has also gotten a lot more crowded.
Personally what has made me lose nearly all interest in GW's products is not the prices, nor even their questionable legal ethics but the appalling state of their rules, their insistence on producing childishly 'cool' models but most damning of all is their complete disregard for their own fluff. The only GW related products that I will even consider buying now are FFG's RPGs and possibly some of the PC games (at least the ones that aren't shovelware).
Yes, it shows that GW while reducing in turnover still outstrips PP (for example) approximately 10 to 1 (based upon an estimated TO of £15M that was rumoured before) or Battlefront/Warlord by greater margins.
For now.
5 years ago it was probably 20 to 1, in 5 years time what will it be then? How does GW compare against the combined market share of Battlefront, PP, Mantic, Hawk, Spartan Games, Prodos...........?.
This is a very valid point. GW seem to be adamant that it's them vs everyone else (even it's customers it seems sometimes) but everyone else combined is bigger than GW.
And as much of a ardent PP supporter as I am (bet you lot hadn't figured it out yet ), I sincerely hope that PP never reaches the prominence and market share that GW has / had.
The current state of the hobby with its myriad companies and games is much more interesting for me than the virtual monopoly that existed 10 years ago.
PhantomViper wrote: And as much of a ardent PP supporter as I am (bet you lot hadn't figured it out yet ), I sincerely hope that PP never reaches the prominence and market share that GW has / had.
The current state of the hobby with its myriad companies and games is much more interesting for me than the virtual monopoly that existed 10 years ago.
Fully agreed. I don't want a hegemony in war gaming.
If you are OK with GW plc raising prices over the rate of inflation year after year to adjust for falling sales volumes.
And you are not bothered about the quality of the rules GW plc want to sell,
Eg A 'GW Collector'.You are the customers GW plc want.
However, how confident are the collectors ,there are enough people with this mind set to keep GW plc going for as long as they want them to be there?
Do collectors care enough about the long term future of GW plc?
Or will they simply collect something else when GW fails to stay in business or their value for money range?
A lot of the people who buy GW product to play games with, are expressing concerns for the long term future of GW plc and the game they currently produce.
As they feel without the added value a good rule set provides , GW plc will not be able to sustain itself long term without the game playing customers.
Expressing concern over the long term future of GW plc is hardly being negative is it?
Hand waving away the issues customers have with the way GW plc does business is hardly being positive is it?
How messed up is GW plc, when the people who want it to succeed long term are thought to be attacking it.
And those who are completely indifferent to its long term future are thought to be supporting it.
Accolade wrote: My current understanding is that Dakka seems to be one of the wargaming forums that has thrived the most these last few years, whereas some of the slightly more GW-centric forums have dwindled in size a bit.
I used to frequent Warseer a lot, but for a while now whenever I go to the site I expect to hear crickets chirping.
underfire wargaming wrote: We now have many companies that are growing better, producing better and better miniatures , games and over all products / settings why'll GW wanes. Now the Stage of GWs dominance begins too dim and become more and more irrelevant too many gamers who are moving towards other products because of GWs policies and disregard too their fanbase.
I agree that the industry itself has more variety than ever before, but don't most of these companies outsource their manufacturing to China? Maybe I have a broader interpretation of what I consider to be "growth" for a company.
This keeps the companies themselves very small, which has pros and cons, but also a loss of knowledge and experience in other aspects of the industry.
Many of these companies are small and are likely to never grow any larger, maybe that's the intent of the founders.
Personally I would love to see another "collective" of industry professionals get started similar in vein to very early GW/Citadel and watch it grow. Oh, and not have it based in Nottingham!
PhantomViper wrote: And as much of a ardent PP supporter as I am (bet you lot hadn't figured it out yet ), I sincerely hope that PP never reaches the prominence and market share that GW has / had.
The current state of the hobby with its myriad companies and games is much more interesting for me than the virtual monopoly that existed 10 years ago.
Fully agreed. I don't want a hegemony in war gaming.
There will never be another GW, the ideal situations were they were found will never exist again, barring some terrible calamity in the industry.
No other company will ever be ten years without any serious competition, in a growing global economy and have in their hands manufacturing that is unobtainable by the competition.
The industry is growing healthy now in a poor soil and with this comes variety.
prplehippo wrote: but don't most of these companies outsource their manufacturing to China?
Not as far as I am aware, most of the 'new wave' companies seem to manufacture their products in the EU.
Warseer, or rather Portent, used to be great but now its an excellent example of what happens when a forum has bad moderators.
Oh yeah. It truly has. When it switched over something happened, maybe it was the new moderators or maybe it's just being older? Or maybe it happened a little later, the PLOG section is still really good.
A lot of stuff is done in China honestly, more than people realize. GW has a lot less production facilities in Nottingham than they used too. Some is outsourced.
underfire wargaming wrote: We now have many companies that are growing better, producing better and better miniatures , games and over all products / settings why'll GW wanes. Now the Stage of GWs dominance begins too dim and become more and more irrelevant too many gamers who are moving towards other products because of GWs policies and disregard too their fanbase.
I agree that the industry itself has more variety than ever before, but don't most of these companies outsource their manufacturing to China? Maybe I have a broader interpretation of what I consider to be "growth" for a company.
This keeps the companies themselves very small, which has pros and cons, but also a loss of knowledge and experience in other aspects of the industry.
Many of these companies are small and are likely to never grow any larger, maybe that's the intent of the founders.
Personally I would love to see another "collective" of industry professionals get started similar in vein to very early GW/Citadel and watch it grow. Oh, and not have it based in Nottingham!
Growing in the way of diversity and longevity of strength, such as Infinity and PP. manufacturing over in the UK or Europe runs into a few problems, with the two currencies above the Canadian dollar and the extra high cost some areas have it is simply unrealistic for us to ever have casting done over seas. We however support our Caster Down in the US who can produce the exact same Metal and Resin so their is no reason as to why any North American based company should do their casting outside of north America, this is just common sense with logistics and cost.
Now Plastic I have never been a fan of compared too the other two mediums, However we know Redendra exists in the UK however if we were ever to go plastic again the UK Vat tax along with currency exchange differences would make it very unrealistic let alone the current price of the steel molds well beyond reasonable prices. If we were to go ever with producing any of our coming range in plastic since we do not know of anyone in north America that casts in HIP, we would have to go over too China, it sucks but that is just how currency rates have forced the market to go to.
The only companies I see that do not aim to grow are the 3rd party GW focused casters, anyone who is aiming too create their own game and IP would be aiming to create their own product and grow their company and range. I would look at Reaper Miniatures for something like that, they had a few games which were apparently quite good they were done several years ago and sadly never picked up. Some companies are fine with what they have, however those like mine want to reach out and reach a higher goal in our market place.
thank you for your comment I enjoy having such discussions with the community!.
prplehippo wrote: but don't most of these companies outsource their manufacturing to China?
Not as far as I am aware, most of the 'new wave' companies seem to manufacture their products in the EU.
Warseer, or rather Portent, used to be great but now its an excellent example of what happens when a forum has bad moderators.
Oh yeah. It truly has. When it switched over something happened, maybe it was the new moderators or maybe it's just being older? Or maybe it happened a little later, the PLOG section is still really good.
A lot of stuff is done in China honestly, more than people realize. GW has a lot less production facilities in Nottingham than they used too. Some is outsourced.
This as well , I remember hearing they switched a lot of their production over too China a few years ago, cheaper casting costs and higher prices
jah-joshua wrote:@Jehan-reznor: Dreamforge are not producing GW Space Marines, they are producing Dreamforge Valkir Assault Troopers...
two very different products, with two very different aesthetics...
Spoiler:
to me, those do not look like my vision of a Space Marine, because i am passionate about the art and style of 40K...
obviously, if you choose to use them as a stand-in, that is your choice, but to me those are not GW Space Marines...
i paint GW Space Marines because i like the aesthetic of the GW Space Marine...
I buy GW products because i like their look...
if i choose to buy Dreamforge kits, i will be painting them to represent the kits that they are designed to be in Dreamforge's setting...
i would not be painting them as Space Wolves or Blood Angels, because they do not look like Space Wolves or Blood Angels...
to me, the silhouette of a GW Space Marine is a distinct and iconic, and is my favorite type of mini...
why would you care what i choose to paint???
if you wanted to own my work, you would send me a box of Valkir Assault Troopers, and i would paint them in any way that you want...
that is what being a good commission painter is all about...
bringing the customer's vision to life...
cheers
jah
Ah Jah GW has indoctrinated you well I have no problem with your preference for GW products but to refrain from buying 3rd party stuff? Max mini (those gothic backpacks are awesome!) and kromlech and even GW's arch enemy Chapterhouse
makes some cool stuff to use on (or for) Space marines.
The valkir would make great grey knights and i have seen some conversions with hooded space marine heads to make inquisitors.
Well if you ever checked my mediocre painted space marine army blog, you notice i take anything that i think looks cool to use in my army.
Let's just say we are at different ends of the spectrum when it comes to these things.
Deadnight wrote:@jah Joshua: regarding 'alternative' space marines, how do you rate anvil industry's black ops 'so not space marines' Exo lords? Just curious, mind.
@jehan-reznor: GW has not indoctrinated me at all...
they have been my prefered minis for 30 years...
why would that be a problem for you???
why should i support a 3rd-party company, when their sculpting style does not fit my vision of a 40K Space Marine???
i don't like the Gothic backpacks from Max Mini...
if i want a Steampunk look, i'll paint up some of my massive collection of Privateer Press minis...
I am a purist, nothing more...
my passion is to bring the worlds of a game to life...
if i am painting a PP mini, it is to evoke the WarmaHordes fiction and art in miniature form...
same for 40K or WfB, Infinity, Helldorado, Soda Pop, Rackham, Ilyad, Freebooter, or any of the other companies' minis that i collect...
I am all about reading a company's fiction, looking at their art, and then bringing that setting to life by painting their miniatures...
jah-joshua wrote: @jehan-reznor: GW has not indoctrinated me at all...
Spoiler:
they have been my prefered minis for 30 years...
why would that be a problem for you???
why should i support a 3rd-party company, when their sculpting style does not fit my vision of a 40K Space Marine???
i don't like the Gothic backpacks from Max Mini...
if i want a Steampunk look, i'll paint up some of my massive collection of Privateer Press minis...
I am a purist, nothing more...
my passion is to bring the worlds of a game to life...
if i am painting a PP mini, it is to evoke the WarmaHordes fiction and art in miniature form...
same for 40K or WfB, Infinity, Helldorado, Soda Pop, Rackham, Ilyad, Freebooter, or any of the other companies' minis that i collect...
I am all about reading a company's fiction, looking at their art, and then bringing that setting to life by painting their miniatures...
cheers
jah
The first sentence was said in jest hence the emoticon.
And i said it was not a problem, and i said our opinions are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, just leave it at that.
@Jehan-reznor: even with the emoticon, you should know that telling someone they are indoctrinated is an insult...
i have given clear, rational reasons for why i don't mix manufacturers' minis in my work...
i have also said that i am open to whatever my customers want me to do in order to bring their visions to life...
then you hit me with another jab with the "Why so serious?!" Joker Space Marine...
i am not trying to be a stick in the mud...
i am just expressing what i am passionate about...
the aesthetic, setting, and art of GW just happen to be something that have been a huge part of me creative life for 30 years...
in person, with my friends, we can make fun of each other all we want, with no problem...
on the internet, from a stranger, i am going to defend my opinion...
i am fine with you and i being on the opposite spectrum of opinion...
i am not cool with you insulting me, and saying it is just in jest...
you could have ended that last post, very easily, without another jab at me...
i don't have a problem with you, your work, or your opinion...
i do have a problem with the way you are treating me in your last few posts...
i work damn hard on perfecting my painting and conversion skills, and put a lot of thought into what i do...
i have never once defended GW's business practices, only my appreciation for the aesthetic of their sculpts, and the love i have for the art and fiction...
so yeah, what is a jest to you, is an insult to me...
you are right, though, we should leave it...
i have gone off-topic enough here, and will stop taking the bait...
Ok, i shall refrain from using humor on you, as you take everything too serious, i apologized, i said i had no issues that you are a purist, and a picture of a why so serious marine with joker face-paint is an insult?
Just to offer a third party perspective, the "indoctrination" jab seemed to clearly be good natured teasing. If you choose to take it as an insult, well, that's on you...
I don't believe the game designers and many other parts of GW actually believe that they're targeting "miniature collectors" no matter what a clueless person in management is saying. It's also impossible for the people working at GW to be unaware of their competition and their products. I'm fairly certain there's a lot of wargamers involved, and people who have tried or even actively play the competitors games. This is realistic more than it is unlikely.
Majority of GW's customers do not just collect miniatures, they play. It's quite obvious and aside from someone as ignorant as Kirby, everyone aware of it by default.
An official statement is an official statement, and nothing more. I think folks who now think GW will not be publishing any more rules or updating them and instead only releasing miniatures are quite sorely mistaken.
A question:
Why is an official statement of not doing market research taken as gospel, while an official statement of the company having negative profitability due to investments is agreed to be bullgak? While the way both these examples are generally received do make sense, it's still paradoxical and quite much so.
GW isn't one person and doesn't share one persons views, opinions, actions and ways to go about things in their head, even if they cannot publicly display that. Their work is not directly affected by the statements of upper management - the people designing new codices for example might easily take inspiration from another wargame and do their best to write balanced rules for the players of warhammer 40,000 rather than "miniature collectors" no matter what a chairman has said. Or does someone imagine Kirby busting into the rules design studio at regular intervals to make sure the new Blood Angels codex has nothing to do with gaming but instead the collecting of miniatures on a serious level?
RunicFIN wrote: Majority of GW's customers do not just collect miniatures, they play.
While I don't disagree GW need to improve their game, I don't think there's any way of proving your statement that the majority of GW customers play. I could totally believe there's as many or more GW customers who buy armies they don't play with or indeed that more money is spent on models that aren't gamed with or maybe only see 1 or 2 games than money is spent on models that actually see a table.
There's probably tons of people who buy GW miniatures and intend to play with them but instead proceed to playing once a year ( and still talk on the forums like they actively play and have any concretical, credible experience on the games at that ) That is quite common. I find it quite rare for someone to have no intention whatsoever to play and buy armies and armies of GW miniatures.
Personally I've noticed a clear shift in how GW does things, for the better. The new codices aside from the Necron Wraith ****up have been quite balanced against eachother, and updated at a pace never seen before. Free rules for units are back, and an army can once again receive something new between codices like in the older days. I hope their new CEO will atleast point the ship in the right direction.
The rules and balance are still badly written and the game almost requires you to hire an accountant, if they can fix that in within the next few years then that would be quite cool. Someone said before they feel they started the hobby at a bad time - I think this is one of the best times to start the hobby when it comes to 40K atleast. Also some cool releases rumoured to be coming up.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't believe the game designers and many other parts of GW actually believe that they're targeting "miniature collectors" no matter what a clueless person in management is saying. It's also impossible for the people working at GW to be unaware of their competition and their products. I'm fairly certain there's a lot of wargamers involved, and people who have tried or even actively play the competitors games.
One of the pieces of evidence Rick cited as showing GW has moved to a collector-focused stance, was the Chapterhouse case.
of course, in that context, GW would say that, wouldn't they?
They wanted to assert theirs were unique, collectable pieces of art that people collected. Because that helped their case. If someone had ripped off their rules, rather than their models, they'd be arguing the opposite.
Yeah, it's pretty common to underline the value of the very thing you are "defending" in court when it comes to a copyright claim rather than something else. Infact it's blatantly obvious.
Regarding that, GW acted way too harsh afaic and could've settled the matter better. They lost quite a bit of face but atleast that's settled now. I understand both sides. According to laws in the US and many other countries a creator might lose their "hold" on their IP and have it loosened if they do not fight for it furiously. It is basically required.
Azreal13 wrote: Just to offer a third party perspective, the "indoctrination" jab seemed to clearly be good natured teasing. If you choose to take it as an insult, well, that's on you...
i did say no worries, accepted the apology, and made it clear i have no hard feelings...
is it wrong to want to make it clear that i am not a blind follower???
i don't use Citadel paints (i use P3), buy every single mini or box released, anything Finecast, the limited edition Codex that comes out for each army, the dice, the cards, LE Black Library novellas, or any of the other collector's items that are GW's big focus right now...
like i said before, i fall on the side that says GW has always been a gaming company, and am sad to see so many players feeling marginalized by the road GW has chosen to take over the last few years...
a happy player base makes for more potential commission clients for me...
i don't want to see the games die...
i enjoy getting paid to paint Space Marines...
I might agree with him more if the person in charge of defending GW's IP knew what the Hell he was doing.
Merrett did not know the difference between Copyright and Trademark.
You do not need to defend Copyright.
And, sorry, but most of their claims against Chapterhouse were specious - they did not own a claim to what they were defending.
They were not trying to defend their IP, they were trying to force a competitor out of business.
Worse, going by the laws of the UK - they own even less of their IP than what they were left with at the end of the farce that they had created. (As toys... they are long out of legal protection.)
Remember - the Chapterhouse case was supposed to be the first of many - instead GW spent more than what the entirety of Chapterhouse was worth, and lost most of their claims - after removing a majority even before trial began..
If Chapterhouse had the resources to last through the appeals, GW would have lost most of the remainder.
There is a difference between a guard dog and a rabid Chihuahua - GW was much closer to the latter.
The Auld Grump, small, vicious beyond it's ability to fight, and toxic....
Its strange. About a year or so, GWs homepage was changed.
One menue button was Gaming. It has been replaced by Painting and Collecting. In German Malen und Basteln instead of Spielen.
I noticed that to, the gaming page used to be quite good (not saying the painting and modelling isn't good) but even though i do consider myself more of a collector ii still feel gaming is the most important part of 40k
wuestenfux wrote: Its strange. About a year or so, GWs homepage was changed.
One menue button was Gaming. It has been replaced by Painting and Collecting. In German Malen und Basteln instead of Spielen.
They been spooked.
This whole re-branding thing is almost entirely motivated by irrational fear, in my view at least. This is highly ironic, but perfectly understandable. People who mistreat others expect to be mistreated. GW management is looking at the writing on the wall and is terrified that someone is going to exploit what they themselves perceive to be a weak position.
Now, GWis in a vulnerable position at the moment, but that's not what this re-branding is about. It isn't about redressing a declining customer base and a toxic brand. GW is frantically trying to shore up its "intellectual property," and is going about it in ways that are actually devaluing the company's intellectual property rather than protecting it.
Now, GWis in a vulnerable position at the moment, but that's not what this re-branding is about. It isn't about redressing a declining customer base and a toxic brand. GW is frantically trying to shore up its "intellectual property," and is going about it in ways that are actually devaluing the company's intellectual property rather than protecting it.
Well, technically, if you raise it to the ground and make it so worthless nobody will care about it, you have protected it, in some perverted way.
I assume now they've pushing the 'collectors' angle so hard in the CHS case so they can hold design rights on their models, it would look mighty odd for them to argue they're a games company if someone starts to tread on their rules publications. How much can someone flip flop in courts before it raises questions about what they really are?
Howard A Treesong wrote: I assume now they've pushing the 'collectors' angle so hard in the CHS case so they can hold design rights on their models, it would look mighty odd for them to argue they're a games company if someone starts to tread on their rules publications. How much can someone flip flop in courts before it raises questions about what they really are?
If they do push themselves as "collectible models" rather than gaming pieces, how would this affect the secondary bits makers in the future? Would they still be able to make and sell optional or alternative parts for GW models?
RunicFIN wrote: There's probably tons of people who buy GW miniatures and intend to play with them but instead proceed to playing once a year ( and still talk on the forums like they actively play and have any concretical, credible experience on the games at that ) That is quite common. I find it quite rare for someone to have no intention whatsoever to play and buy armies and armies of GW miniatures.
I don't really consider people who buy models with only a slight intention of playing but never actually play with them as "gamers". They are closer to collectors than players in GW's eyes.
But either way, you say you find it quite rare but have you actually polled anyone? There's heaps of people who walk in to the store and buy stuff and then walk out and you never encounter again, it's very hard to say with any confidence what they are doing with their models. Obviously the people who hang around to play games and chat about the games are the types more likely to be playing the game, the people who aren't playing the game aren't likely to be the ones you actually directly engage with.
After seeing the new bloodthirster I demand that Games Workshop do whatever it takes to preserve their current design methods. Gone are the days of Wraithknights and Maulerfiends! I'd rather have good models and a bad game than vice-versa at this point seeing as how house rules and previous editions are a thing. But yeah, outsourcing the rules to FFG is something I'd be on board with.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I assume now they've pushing the 'collectors' angle so hard in the CHS case so they can hold design rights on their models, it would look mighty odd for them to argue they're a games company if someone starts to tread on their rules publications. How much can someone flip flop in courts before it raises questions about what they really are?
Just to clarify a technical point: GW wants to have copyright to its models. Design right is the thing GW doesn't want, because it provides far less protection and most of GW's miniatures, especially the Space Marines, would be beyond protection at this point.
I can't believe people are still using the tired argument that GW has more revenue than any of their competitors. Would you rather have a company that has a $1 billion annual revenue but posts a 10% loss or a company that has a $100 million annual revenue at 10% profit and growth increasing yearly? Being the largest company ever to go bankrupt isn't exactly an accomplishment. The TTWG market has grown by leaps and bounds while GW has continued to shrink year on year since the end of LOTR boom. If you can't see why that's a bad thing, and that their revenue compared to PP is essentially meaningless when PP is growing and GW is shrinking (and 12-18 months from operating in the red at the current pace), you might have a white suit of armor with a GW logo on it in your closet...
RunicFIN wrote: There's probably tons of people who buy GW miniatures and intend to play with them but instead proceed to playing once a year ( and still talk on the forums like they actively play and have any concretical, credible experience on the games at that ) That is quite common. I find it quite rare for someone to have no intention whatsoever to play and buy armies and armies of GW miniatures.
I don't really consider people who buy models with only a slight intention of playing but never actually play with them as "gamers". They are closer to collectors than players in GW's eyes.
I don't think that's a good definition of gamer Vs collector. I think a fairer one is "do the rules factor into the purchase?" i.e. would the purchase still be made if there were no rules? If yes, then collector, if no, then gamer.
I buy and fit out my units mostly for their game ability, but I haven't played a game of 40K in ~2 years, does that make me a collector now?
One thing i do not get is that if they are saying they are trying to attract the collector why do they still have the out of date assault space marine set? i have bout 3 of them and they really need a re vamp
the clone wrote: One thing i do not get is that if they are saying they are trying to attract the collector why do they still have the out of date assault space marine set? i have bout 3 of them and they really need a re vamp
The same reason they still have the out of date anything. They're trying to expand their range and update it at the same time. The going is slow.
RunicFIN wrote: There's probably tons of people who buy GW miniatures and intend to play with them but instead proceed to playing once a year ( and still talk on the forums like they actively play and have any concretical, credible experience on the games at that ) That is quite common. I find it quite rare for someone to have no intention whatsoever to play and buy armies and armies of GW miniatures.
I don't really consider people who buy models with only a slight intention of playing but never actually play with them as "gamers". They are closer to collectors than players in GW's eyes.
I don't think that's a good definition of gamer Vs collector. I think a fairer one is "do the rules factor into the purchase?" i.e. would the purchase still be made if there were no rules? If yes, then collector, if no, then gamer.
I buy and fit out my units mostly for their game ability, but I haven't played a game of 40K in ~2 years, does that make me a collector now?
I buy stuff for my army because of the rules, I also buy stuff just to paint because I like painting, what am I? What am I?! I'm a monster! Don't look at me! The bells! The bells! And so on.
the clone wrote: One thing i do not get is that if they are saying they are trying to attract the collector why do they still have the out of date assault space marine set? i have bout 3 of them and they really need a re vamp
The same reason they still have the out of date anything. They're trying to expand their range and update it at the same time. The going is slow.
They seem to have a lot of stuff on hold, being trickled out when a release wave comes along.
That'd explain why the 'C' mark on the Harlequin Death Jester is dated 2013.
the clone wrote: One thing i do not get is that if they are saying they are trying to attract the collector why do they still have the out of date assault space marine set? i have bout 3 of them and they really need a re vamp
The same reason they still have the out of date anything. They're trying to expand their range and update it at the same time. The going is slow.
They seem to have a lot of stuff on hold, being trickled out when a release wave comes along.
That'd explain why the 'C' mark on the Harlequin Death Jester is dated 2013.
2 years? Do you really think they had it lying around for that long just so that they could release it once they found some reason to? I certainly hope that isn't the case, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
the clone wrote: One thing i do not get is that if they are saying they are trying to attract the collector why do they still have the out of date assault space marine set? i have bout 3 of them and they really need a re vamp
The same reason they still have the out of date anything. They're trying to expand their range and update it at the same time. The going is slow.
They seem to have a lot of stuff on hold, being trickled out when a release wave comes along.
That'd explain why the 'C' mark on the Harlequin Death Jester is dated 2013.
2 years? Do you really think they had it lying around for that long just so that they could release it once they found some reason to? I certainly hope that isn't the case, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Things are sometimes developed 18 months before releasing, sometimes longer, it's very plausible. Especially as we have no way of knowing what goes on in the "who decides what's released and when department"
What I can not believe I have seen in this thread are the GW white knight's, sorry, GWombies actually insulting Rick Priestley. Do you people even know whom this man is? He is the man whom founded Warhammer and Warhammer40K . He is the one whom invented this wonderful universe that you love. He is one of the major influential people responsible for the blooming of the modern TTWG culture that we have today. He is one of the reasons that you have WHFB, 40K, Bolt Action, Warmachine and Hordes and all the other games that have sprung up in recent years.
He is not just some has been griping about the good old days, he is the one of the founding fathers of GW and he has more right to comment on GW's self destructive methods than any of us.
On the subject of GWombies, a good friend of mine whom is also my regular opponent is showing GWombie behaviour, although not to such an extent as some. He only plays 40K and refuses to get into anything else (I am trying though) and he has a huge SM army (over 1.5 companies worth plus supporting elements at the last count). He is also aiming at purchasing all the Primarchs (He currently has 5), three Reaver class Titans and several super heavy tanks. However he does complain about the prices and he does think they are a bit much for what you get (He buys at a 10% discount from our FLGS).
That said he plays SM's and is constantly trying to get me to take less (preferably no) tanks in my IG. I think (and this is just a theory based on playing against him) that he refuses to play anything else because his grasp of tactics is not enough for him to have much of a chance without the IWIN button the SM's provide (And even then he takes huge losses - a reinforced company against a platoon of IG (dont ask - it was an agreement for a small fair game and he brought almost everything he had) and he took over 25% casualties despite deep striking in and negating my long range fire). Whilst I am trying to get him into these more tactically in-depth games it is difficult and first I am working on basic tactics. However, one of the things I have noticed is that his excuse for not wanting to start a new game is the cost. Despite the cost of GW products he seems to have some in-built fear of leaving them, some belief that all games cost huge amounts to start up (My explanation that for the cost of one Primarch you could get a Warmahordes or Darkage starter box and a few blisters to go with them is apparently lost). This seems to be what GW is trying to drill into there customers.
Anyway, I got out of 40K and I only play because my friend does. And even then I use third party miniatures these days. After all, why pay £36.50 for a tnk when I can get one that looks far better for £18? Or a platoon of 25 Infantry for £24.00? Or a Heavy weapons squad and two officers for £17.00?
the clone wrote: One thing i do not get is that if they are saying they are trying to attract the collector why do they still have the out of date assault space marine set? i have bout 3 of them and they really need a re vamp
The same reason they still have the out of date anything. They're trying to expand their range and update it at the same time. The going is slow.
They seem to have a lot of stuff on hold, being trickled out when a release wave comes along.
That'd explain why the 'C' mark on the Harlequin Death Jester is dated 2013.
2 years? Do you really think they had it lying around for that long just so that they could release it once they found some reason to? I certainly hope that isn't the case, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I expect that a person, or group of people, is tasked with getting a range of models created or updated. The codex gets written sometime around the same time, either beforehand or afterwards.
Then, when they're finished, the range gets slotted into the release schedule.
That process might take years, are projects get put aside or rushed through.
This would explain why, before the Chapterhouse thing happened, an army might be 5+ years between codex updates. Now though, they're releasing a codex every couple of months.
master of ordinance wrote: What I can not believe I have seen in this thread are the GW white knight's, sorry, GWombies actually insulting Rick Priestley. Do you people even know whom this man is? He is the man whom founded Warhammer and Warhammer40K . He is the one whom invented this wonderful universe that you love. He is one of the major influential people responsible for the blooming of the modern TTWG culture that we have today. He is one of the reasons that you have WHFB, 40K, Bolt Action, Warmachine and Hordes and all the other games that have sprung up in recent years.
He is not just some has been griping about the good old days, he is the one of the founding fathers of GW and he has more right to comment on GW's self destructive methods than any of us.
On the subject of GWombies, a good friend of mine whom is also my regular opponent is showing GWombie behaviour, although not to such an extent as some. He only plays 40K and refuses to get into anything else (I am trying though) and he has a huge SM army (over 1.5 companies worth plus supporting elements at the last count). He is also aiming at purchasing all the Primarchs (He currently has 5), three Reaver class Titans and several super heavy tanks. However he does complain about the prices and he does think they are a bit much for what you get (He buys at a 10% discount from our FLGS).
That said he plays SM's and is constantly trying to get me to take less (preferably no) tanks in my IG. I think (and this is just a theory based on playing against him) that he refuses to play anything else because his grasp of tactics is not enough for him to have much of a chance without the IWIN button the SM's provide (And even then he takes huge losses - a reinforced company against a platoon of IG (dont ask - it was an agreement for a small fair game and he brought almost everything he had) and he took over 25% casualties despite deep striking in and negating my long range fire). Whilst I am trying to get him into these more tactically in-depth games it is difficult and first I am working on basic tactics. However, one of the things I have noticed is that his excuse for not wanting to start a new game is the cost. Despite the cost of GW products he seems to have some in-built fear of leaving them, some belief that all games cost huge amounts to start up (My explanation that for the cost of one Primarch you could get a Warmahordes or Darkage starter box and a few blisters to go with them is apparently lost). This seems to be what GW is trying to drill into there customers.
Anyway, I got out of 40K and I only play because my friend does. And even then I use third party miniatures these days. After all, why pay £36.50 for a tnk when I can get one that looks far better for £18? Or a platoon of 25 Infantry for £24.00? Or a Heavy weapons squad and two officers for £17.00?
How dare he enjoy playing and collecting Space Marines. What arrogance! And the fact he does not buy the miniatures that you find more esthetically pleasing! I am appalled.
RunicFIN wrote: There's probably tons of people who buy GW miniatures and intend to play with them but instead proceed to playing once a year ( and still talk on the forums like they actively play and have any concretical, credible experience on the games at that ) That is quite common. I find it quite rare for someone to have no intention whatsoever to play and buy armies and armies of GW miniatures.
I don't really consider people who buy models with only a slight intention of playing but never actually play with them as "gamers". They are closer to collectors than players in GW's eyes.
I don't think that's a good definition of gamer Vs collector. I think a fairer one is "do the rules factor into the purchase?" i.e. would the purchase still be made if there were no rules? If yes, then collector, if no, then gamer.
I buy and fit out my units mostly for their game ability, but I haven't played a game of 40K in ~2 years, does that make me a collector now?
Well I'm not a huge fan of applying labels in the first place because the reality is usually that people lie somewhere in the middle. But if I had to, then I'd say if you haven't played a game in 2 years and are still buying models you are more on the side of collector than gamer.
I won't deny that the existence of rules is a contributor to people buying even if they don't play the game. But if you aren't really playing at all the importance of the quality of the rules does start to decrease a bit.
I'd say the existence of the rules is part of the overall immersion of the 40k universe and to get rid of them completely would obviously be silly, but shifting your focus from "gamers" to "collectors" isn't about dropping the rules, it's about doing things like removing almost all structure from assembling an army, adding flyers and superheavies that are totally out of scale and unbalance the game, but are cool collectors pieces, not putting the effort in to fix blatant flaws with the rules. The rules become an excuse to line up all your man dollies and go "pew pew pew!!!" more than to be an actual balanced game.
I like where 40K is at now.
It's an enjoyable game, much streamlined, and if you want to play casual, fluffy games, it's perfect. The new codexes are very good quality, the miniatures are amazing, 7th edition has come a long way towards standardising the game.
If I want to play a superbly balanced, well developed competitive game, I play Magic: the Gathering.
If I want to play a beer 'n pretzels fun space-soldiers-with-swords, visually exciting game, I play 40K. 'The Most Important Rule' gets invoked (a lot), but that's what it is. We're not playing $250,000 Pro Tours here.
If GW want to go big - then they'll follow WotC. The competitive side of MTG was used to drive the casual side, by making massive cash tournaments seem accessible to all. 'Living the dream' if you like. Being bought out by Hasbro (the biggest toy and game manufacturer in the world) whilst still managing to remain in creative control of the game was a masterstroke.
Personally, the best thing that could happen to GW for a 'spike' player like me would be a buyout by WotC/Hasbro. But CCG's and tabletop games are such a different kettle of fish, I'm unsure that would work.
The thing I can not understand is why GW plc think they need to 'warp' the rules to inspire people to buy the latest releases?
Collectors are inspired by the art and background, in the same way most people are.
(Most people buy 40k stuff because it looks and sounds cool. )
So releasing a 'source book ' with new releases, all the background and artwork, photos painting guides and conversion ideas etc.Would be a good idea to inspire collectors and new players.
The collectors are not overly bothered by the rules, neither are those who like narrative games,who just ,make stuff up and change the rules as they go along.
If the rules were a free to down load PDF that was updated every 6 months.(To allow fine tuning of PV and errata/FAQs updates.)The players would not be stuck with an out of date army for years.So all players have 'up to date armies' all the time.
The only 'legitimate' reason for publishing rules with point values and F.O.C. ls to provide enough balance for random pick up games.
New players rely on the rule and codex books to provide enough balance for enjoyable random pick up games as they start out.
Otherwise they can get negative experiences when they try to play...
If GW plc actually wanted players to 'forge the narrative' they would not bother with PV and F.O.C.
(However, the constant codex creep is a heavy handed attempt to try to manipulate sales.IMO)
So while GW plc include point values and F.O.C, players will expect them to results in enough balance for enjoyable random pick up games.
While they fail to do so, players will get negative experiences, and perpetuate negativity about the game play issues/rules
Losing focus on game play has cost GW plc well over half of its sales volume, over the last decade.
Proudly announcing your rules are so bad hardly any one plays the games, but the models are so attractive people buy them any way.
Is an attitude with a very specific view point , forged by a specific agenda of the man at the top.
It's very simple.
Write poor rules, only collectors buy.
Write good rules, you get collectors and gamers.
Profit.
(write balanced rules and you'd get even more gamers so more profit.)
Azreal13 wrote: Just to offer a third party perspective, the "indoctrination" jab seemed to clearly be good natured teasing. If you choose to take it as an insult, well, that's on you...
Really? It seemed to me like he hadn't read what Jah actually write and had a knee-jerk reaction which he tried to couch in humor. I still don't believe he actually understands the meat of what Jah was saying, which is mystifying.
That's funny, we seem to think that same thing (I'm a realist too ) but are on slightly opposite sides of opinion on this.
I think the real problem is you have people jumping in calling each other derogatories and then the offended party lumps everyone against them into the same characterization.
zerosignal wrote: I like where 40K is at now.
It's an enjoyable game, much streamlined, and if you want to play casual, fluffy games, it's perfect. The new codexes are very good quality, the miniatures are amazing, 7th edition has come a long way towards standardising the game.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!
How exactly is it streamlined to have to roll on even more random tables before the game? How is it streamlined to argue over which model is .5mm closer to the shooting unit because one of the targets has a melta and the other has a bolter so you need to make sure the proper one is removed as a casualty? The new codexes have even more typos and contradictions than the previous ones have had. Take a look at the SW codex and let me know if the blast on the stormfang cannon is AP2 or AP3. It's listed as both in various parts of the codex and took months to be FAQd. This is just the first example I could think of, there's plenty more from every codex released since 7th.
Yes, having to argue whether you want lords of war, unbound, house rules in maelstrom missions and spreading the rules out into 27 different sources for one army really "standardized" the game. I guess that's why in 5th everyone was playing by the same rules but now if I go to a large FLGS and there's a 40k game going at 10 different tables, they will be playing by 10 different sets of rules. "Standard" 40k doesn't exist any more BECAUSE OF 7th. When I read the first paragraph of your post I thought it was sarcasm.
Azreal13 wrote: Just to offer a third party perspective, the "indoctrination" jab seemed to clearly be good natured teasing. If you choose to take it as an insult, well, that's on you...
Really? It seemed to me like he hadn't read what Jah actually write and had a knee-jerk reaction which he tried to couch in humor. I still don't believe he actually understands the meat of what Jah was saying, which is mystifying.
Well, we can all breathe easy, sure in the knowledge that the written word is sometimes ambiguous.
In any event, mr priestly's comments were rather mild and yet fairly spot on - company losing customers, company losing product diversity. Tobemory would be proud.
Gwombie made me think of an old wombat cartoon character i saw as a kid, don't agree with the instant i win because i play marines, as most armies have lots of weapons that shred power armor like paper.
Then what is a correct therm a sycophant?
But on the attack on Rick Priestley, i can understand it, "if you are not part of the solution (GW) then you are a part of the problem".
zerosignal wrote: I like where 40K is at now.
It's an enjoyable game, much streamlined, and if you want to play casual, fluffy games, it's perfect. The new codexes are very good quality, the miniatures are amazing, 7th edition has come a long way towards standardising the game.
If I want to play a superbly balanced, well developed competitive game, I play Magic: the Gathering.
If I want to play a beer 'n pretzels fun space-soldiers-with-swords, visually exciting game, I play 40K. 'The Most Important Rule' gets invoked (a lot), but that's what it is. We're not playing $250,000 Pro Tours here.
If GW want to go big - then they'll follow WotC. The competitive side of MTG was used to drive the casual side, by making massive cash tournaments seem accessible to all. 'Living the dream' if you like. Being bought out by Hasbro (the biggest toy and game manufacturer in the world) whilst still managing to remain in creative control of the game was a masterstroke.
Personally, the best thing that could happen to GW for a 'spike' player like me would be a buyout by WotC/Hasbro. But CCG's and tabletop games are such a different kettle of fish, I'm unsure that would work.
I don't know... I have a bad feeling about this. Games Workshop has done a lot of questionable things, but if the company is struggling then it's hiding it well. The only thing that I can't really ignore is my local player base not really having any painted armies. Not that I'm incredibly different at the moment, but hey, at least I have some finished units. Anyways, that's not really a corporate issue as much as a local one. It takes a special kind of crazy to decide to invest this much time and money into miniatures gaming, and especially one as demanding as Warhammer/40k. I understand that the Malifaux/WarmaHordes crowd plays for the rules and more game-like structure, but 40k is and in my opinion should remain the game that focuses more on theater, narrative, and inspiration. Dreadknights and Maulerfiends aside.
zerosignal wrote: It's an enjoyable game, much streamlined, and if you want to play casual, fluffy games, it's perfect.
Err, lol? Did you seriously just call 40k "streamlined"? 40k is a game with massive amounts of rules bloat. You have endless pages of special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, random tables to roll on to see which random things you get to roll, etc. And all of this for a game with little strategic depth beyond "move units to their targets, roll dice to see how much they kill". X-Wing is a streamlined game, 40k is just a mess.
And 40k isn't a good casual/fluff game either. It's way too unbalanced, not even remotely playable "out of the box", it takes forever to learn even the basic rules, etc. It's a game where you dedicate massive amounts of time to playing and hope that the "fluffy" army you invested in doesn't get slaughtered every game by your opponent's "fluffy" army.
'The Most Important Rule' gets invoked (a lot), but that's what it is.
And this is just plain wrong. 40k doesn't need "the most important rule" because a game like 40k inherently contains rule conflicts, it's necessary because GW sucks at writing rules. A good game should be playable without any need to roll a 4+ every time there's a rule question, regardless of how much money is at stake. I don't know why people insist on trying to justify GW's incompetence and competing to see who can have the lowest standards for rule quality.
zerosignal wrote: It's an enjoyable game, much streamlined, and if you want to play casual, fluffy games, it's perfect.
Err, lol? Did you seriously just call 40k "streamlined"? 40k is a game with massive amounts of rules bloat. You have endless pages of special rules followed by exceptions to the special rules followed by exceptions to the exceptions, random tables to roll on to see which random things you get to roll, etc. And all of this for a game with little strategic depth beyond "move units to their targets, roll dice to see how much they kill". X-Wing is a streamlined game, 40k is just a mess.
And 40k isn't a good casual/fluff game either. It's way too unbalanced, not even remotely playable "out of the box", it takes forever to learn even the basic rules, etc. It's a game where you dedicate massive amounts of time to playing and hope that the "fluffy" army you invested in doesn't get slaughtered every game by your opponent's "fluffy" army.
'The Most Important Rule' gets invoked (a lot), but that's what it is.
And this is just plain wrong. 40k doesn't need "the most important rule" because a game like 40k inherently contains rule conflicts, it's necessary because GW sucks at writing rules. A good game should be playable without any need to roll a 4+ every time there's a rule question, regardless of how much money is at stake. I don't know why people insist on trying to justify GW's incompetence and competing to see who can have the lowest standards for rule quality.
zerosignal wrote: I like where 40K is at now.
It's an enjoyable game, much streamlined, and if you want to play casual, fluffy games, it's perfect. The new codexes are very good quality, the miniatures are amazing, 7th edition has come a long way towards standardising the game.
If I want to play a superbly balanced, well developed competitive game, I play Magic: the Gathering.
If I want to play a beer 'n pretzels fun space-soldiers-with-swords, visually exciting game, I play 40K. 'The Most Important Rule' gets invoked (a lot), but that's what it is. We're not playing $250,000 Pro Tours here.
If GW want to go big - then they'll follow WotC. The competitive side of MTG was used to drive the casual side, by making massive cash tournaments seem accessible to all. 'Living the dream' if you like. Being bought out by Hasbro (the biggest toy and game manufacturer in the world) whilst still managing to remain in creative control of the game was a masterstroke.
Personally, the best thing that could happen to GW for a 'spike' player like me would be a buyout by WotC/Hasbro. But CCG's and tabletop games are such a different kettle of fish, I'm unsure that would work.
I agree. Some podcasters (Independent Characters among others) are calling this a new "golden age" of 40k, and I'm inclined to agree. The prices are getting silly, but that's the biggest complaint I have. We're getting updated and externally balanced (Necrons being an outlier) 7th Ed Codexes, tournament players saying this is a great edition, an iterative ruleset that improves on 6th, mini-codices with fan favorites like Harlequins returning, spot releases with free rules, an incredible amount of choice and freedom, and overall a really fun game that me and my gaming group are enjoying immensely. The rules can be convoluted and badly written, but it doesn't impact our enjoyment much, since we're a group of friendly people who all know each other. I'm just hoping that GW will drop the "impenetrable fortress" PR strategy sometime in the future. If they keep alienating the community by not interacting with them, things will go badly.
And 40k isn't a good casual/fluff game either. It's way too unbalanced, not even remotely playable "out of the box", it takes forever to learn even the basic rules, etc. It's a game where you dedicate massive amounts of time to playing and hope that the "fluffy" army you invested in doesn't get slaughtered every game by your opponent's "fluffy" army.
.
IE "If you're enjoying yourself, you're doing it wrong."
This is actually an interesting discussion, let's not let it deteriorate into the old "everything about GW is perfect" vs "Everything GW do is sh*t" borefest.
And 40k isn't a good casual/fluff game either. It's way too unbalanced, not even remotely playable "out of the box", it takes forever to learn even the basic rules, etc. It's a game where you dedicate massive amounts of time to playing and hope that the "fluffy" army you invested in doesn't get slaughtered every game by your opponent's "fluffy" army.
.
IE "If you're enjoying yourself, you're doing it wrong."
This is actually an interesting discussion, let's not let it deteriorate into the old "everything about GW is perfect" vs "Everything GW do is sh*t" borefest.
I read it as more "Whilst you enjoy it, the things you're mentioning as a good thing are just artifacts of a bad thing. Think how much more you'd enjoy it without all that added crap."
No-one has said anyone is playing it wrong, just that it's really not a good casual game.
You can enjoy playing a bad game. The fact that some people have fun with casual/fluffy games of 40k doesn't mean that 40k is good for casual/fluffy games, it just means that you're having fun despiteGW's rule authors publishing a terrible casual/fluff game.
You can enjoy playing a bad game. The fact that some people have fun with casual/fluffy games of 40k doesn't mean that 40k is good for casual/fluffy games, it just means that you're having fun despiteGW's rule authors publishing a terrible casual/fluff game.
A "bad" game is subjective, and nothing you say will change that. Sorry.
RunicFIN wrote: A "bad" game is subjective, and nothing you say will change that. Sorry.
No, things like "having clear rules" and "making the game balanced so even people who don't netlist still have a fair chance of winning" and "not having complexity way out of proportion to depth" are objective standards. 40k isn't bad because it doesn't match my preferences, it's a bad game because is full of bad design choices that aren't good for anyone.
You can enjoy playing a bad game. The fact that some people have fun with casual/fluffy games of 40k doesn't mean that 40k is good for casual/fluffy games, it just means that you're having fun despiteGW's rule authors publishing a terrible casual/fluff game.
A "bad" game is subjective, and nothing you say will change that. Sorry.
A "bad" game is objective, a "fun" game is subjective. GW's games can be fun to play despite the bad rules. Monopoly can be dull to play despite the good rules.
It's possible to like a game whilst acknowledging that the rules are badly written.
And good aspects of a game can subjectively make a game ( or whatever product ) a good game for a person, even if it is lackluster in some areas.
A videogame can be considered a good game despite it lacking in some areas, be it graphics, bugs and the like. It can have good critic and/or user ratings despite being lackluster in some areas, making it a good game on average according to it's rating, or a bad one. And that's just the general consesus, not taking into account the individual subjective views ( which in turn, might change the supposed general consesus as a tiny fraction of critics/people actually rate games, pertaining to this very example in this case. ) Better just accept this fact and move on. Alternatively:
RunicFIN wrote: And good aspects of a game can subjectively make a game ( or whatever product ) a good game for a person, even if it is lackluster in some areas.
A videogame can be considered a good game despite it lacking in some areas, be it graphics, bugs and the like. It can have good critic and/or user ratings despite being lackluster in some areas, making it a good game on average according to it's rating, or a bad one. And that's just the general consesus, not taking into account the individual subjective views ( which in turn, might change the supposed general consesus as a tiny fraction of critics/people actually rate games, pertaining to this very example in this case. ) Better just accept this fact and move on. Alternatively:
Like those " peace walls" ever did anything , I had to travel 45 minutes once just to get to something the other side.
RunicFIN wrote: And good aspects of a game can subjectively make a game ( or whatever product ) a good game for a person, even if it is lackluster in some areas.
A videogame can be considered a good game despite it lacking in some areas, be it graphics, bugs and the like. It can have good critic and/or user ratings despite being lackluster in some areas, making it a good game on average according to it's rating, or a bad one. And that's just the general consesus, not taking into account the individual subjective views ( which in turn, might change the supposed general consesus as a tiny fraction of critics/people actually rate games, pertaining to this very example in this case. ) Better just accept this fact and move on. Alternatively:
You do know that just because you say something is a fact doesn't actually make it so?
Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.
In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.
But just because they are bad games, doesn't mean that people can't still have fun playing them anyway.
RunicFIN wrote: And good aspects of a game can subjectively make a game ( or whatever product ) a good game for a person, even if it is lackluster in some areas.
A videogame can be considered a good game despite it lacking in some areas, be it graphics, bugs and the like. It can have good critic and/or user ratings despite being lackluster in some areas, making it a good game on average according to it's rating, or a bad one. And that's just the general consesus, not taking into account the individual subjective views ( which in turn, might change the supposed general consesus as a tiny fraction of critics/people actually rate games, pertaining to this very example in this case. ) Better just accept this fact and move on. Alternatively:
You do know that just because you say something is a fact doesn't actually make it so?
Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.
In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.
But just because they are bad games, doesn't mean that people can't still have fun playing them anyway.
This. There seems to be the idea that someone who has fun with 40k like Runic invalidates someone who thinks the game is gak like Peregrine. That's incorrect. 40k rules are objectively bad, that doesn't mean that you can't still find it fun. But the argument "I find it fun, so the rules are good" is wrong when used in the context of the quality of the game.
Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.
In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.
And this exactly, is your subjective view. For others the good outweigh the bad, making it a good game for them, just like the bad outweighing the good makes it a bad game for you. Thank you for deadlocking this.
No comment for Wayne since I don't think the way you describe atleast. Either party doesn't invalidate the other afaic.
Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.
In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.
And this exactly, is your subjective view. For others the good outweigh the bad, making it a good game for them. Thank you for deadlocking this.
Good:
- It has nice models if you like that look;
- It has a nice background;
Bad:
- Rules are too bloated;
- Rules are too complicated;
- Rules are imprecisely or even badly written;
- The game is too random;
- The game is unbalanced;
- The game is tactically shallow;
- It lacks support after the product buy stage (FAQs take way too long to be released and most of the time don't actually answer what needs to be clarified);
- It takes way too long to finish for such a simple game;
...
Threads in Warmachine YMDC = 590, 4300 posts
Threads in 40KYMDC = 36000, 523000 posts.
Even allowing for the disparity in the size of player base, it's easy to infer that even assuming 100% resolution (which frequently doesn't happen in 40K IME) it takes a great deal more debate to arrive at a conclusion for 40K than it does for WMH.
I can't think of a more plausible reason to explain this than the 40K rules are less clear and more open to interpretation, and, for what is essentially a set of instructions, this should surely be considered objectively worse even if what you consider "bad" is slightly different for each person.
Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.
In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.
And this exactly, is your subjective view. For others the good outweigh the bad, making it a good game for them. Thank you for deadlocking this.
Good:
- It has nice models if you like that look; opinion
- It has a nice background; opinion
Bad:
- Rules are too bloated; opinion
- Rules are too complicated; opinion
- Rules are imprecisely or even badly written; true
- The game is too random; opinion
- The game is unbalanced; true
- The game is tactically shallow; opinion
- It lacks support after the product buy stage (FAQs take way too long to be released and most of the time don't actually answer what needs to be clarified); hard to say if this is simply true or an opinion
- It takes way too long to finish for such a simple game; opinion
...
And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish ( a good game, in this instance ) it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.
Azreal, nothing unclear about 40K's rules aspect ( an aspect of a game as a whole ) causing more difficulties than WM/H's for me atleast.
And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish, it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.
Ok, so you don't even know what facts and opinions are, your argument has been completely disproved so you'll just leave the thread?
I guess that works as well, I'll happily take your concession.
And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish, it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.
Ok, so you don't even know what facts and opinions are, your argument has been completely disproved so you'll just leave the thread?
I guess that works as well, I'll happily take your concession.
I wonder if you could get any more childish. In any case, I was right to beginwith regarding the argument I made, and yours has been completely obliterated, partially thanks to yourself when you basically said the exact thing that I was saying. Reread what I wrote, as that is exactly what I mean. To understand differently is to have reading comprehension difficulty. That is all.
And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish, it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.
Ok, so you don't even know what facts and opinions are, your argument has been completely disproved so you'll just leave the thread?
I guess that works as well, I'll happily take your concession.
I wonder if you could get any more childish. In any case, I was right to beginwith regarding the argument I made, and yours has been completely obliterated, partially thanks to yourself when you basically said the exact thing that I was saying. Reread what I wrote, as that is exactly what I mean. To understand differently is to have reading comprehension difficulty. That is all.
Again, just you stating something doesn't actually making it a fact, just like you saying that something is "opinion" doesn't make it so. You've also failed to contradict anything that I said.
And you keep saying "that is all" and "am not interested in continuing further", yet you are still here... You really should make up your mind and stick with it.
) That is quite common. I find it quite rare for someone to have no intention whatsoever to play and buy armies and armies of 
