Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.
Tyron wrote: Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?
Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.
i can get behind that theory, agnosto...
luckily, for me, GW continues to push the envelope with more beautiful minis every year, and the art continues to inspire me to paint...
those two things are enough to keep me as a customer...
Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.
If you mean why GW is wobbling, well, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.
If this is true then why is no one in management trying to prevent this? If he is this incompetent then he wouldn't have risen to the position surely?
He didn't "rise" to the position, he put himself there, and he's been in the role a long time, and has appointed people to positions of authority not for their skills, but for their attitude. That attitude being "yes Mr Kirby."
He's also the ultimate boss and a significant equity holder, it really wouldn't matter if members of management did try to prevent it, they'd probably just find themselves looking for jobs.
He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.
Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.
Nomeny wrote: You know Kirby got pushed aside in favour of the former CFO, right?
No. It's generally frowned upon for the same person to hold both the Chairman and CEO positions, so Kirby stepped aside after he lingered in both long enough to solicit comment from stockholders (I used to be one). It also happened at a time when sales volume was in the toilet and several negative reports were making the institutional investors question leadership. Don't be mistaken, Kevin Roundtree speaks with the same voice as Kirby and was hand-picked for the role of CEO.
Tyron wrote: Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?
Here's a shot in the dark. Given his plans to retire (stated several years ago) in the not-too-specified future, and his personal investment shareswise, he's looking to maximize his income for retirement at the expense of the longterm health of the company. Fits all the info (like why they pay above value dividends) and is logical and plausible.
Azreal13 wrote: That doesn't fit the narrative of him deliberately damaging the company for some hitherto unidentified aim, which is what Tyron was advocating.
Well, he's getting on in years...."oh you want a beer and pretzels game do you? And what we gave you before wasn't 'light' enough? Here, this'll show you... ".
" And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog"
Torga_DW wrote: How is that not damaging the company? When he finally golden-parachutes out, it could be a smoking crater for all he'll care.
What Tyron was trying to suggest is that the damage wasn't a consequence of his greed, but a deliberate act as part of some grand plan to ultimately save GW.
I just popped down into the Fantasy forum to see some reactions and read some subthreads. One of the posters defending the new game stated Warhammer Fantasy had been a 'collective hobby' first and a wargame second, because you had to put together plastic miniatures.
As long as GW gets customers with that level of ignorance to buy their products, the company will chug along just fine.
Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.
If you mean why GW is wobbling, well, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.
If this is true then why is no one in management trying to prevent this? If he is this incompetent then he wouldn't have risen to the position surely?
Likely answer? The people with enough control to do something about it own quite some amount of shares themselves. They're not going to stop the gravy train while it's running. The idea of someone stopping him requires someone in a high enough position to want to.
I just popped down into the Fantasy forum to see some reactions and read some subthreads. One of the posters defending the new game stated Warhammer Fantasy had been a 'collective hobby' first and a wargame second, because you had to put together plastic miniatures.
As long as GW gets customers with that level of ignorance to buy their products, the company will chug along just fine.
i must be missing something here...
are you saying they are ignorant for using the word "collective", instead of "collecting", or are you saying they are ignorant for thinking that collecting Warhammer Fantasy miniatures is a hobby???
i must be missing something here...
are you saying they are ignorant for using the word "collective", instead of "collecting", or are you saying they are ignorant for thinking that collecting Warhammer Fantasy miniatures is a hobby???
Neither. Look, here's the actual quote:
warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus
I mean, that's just utterly ignorant of the hobby as the whole. And if that's the kind of new player AoS is bringing under GW's influence, then the company's going to continue for a while yet.
i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???
first you buy a collection of models and books, then you take your collection (if you choose to) and play a wargame...
He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.
Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.
Cough, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, William Redington Hewlett, Steve Jobs. The first 3 for sure; Steve Jobs has served as both, but I'm not sure of he was both at the same time.
jah-joshua wrote: i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???
Seeing as how the hobby is called miniature wargaming and not miniature collecting, assembling and painting, with a slight dabbling in the playing thereof, I would argue that, yes, miniature wargaming is a wargaming hobby first and foremost. Especially since the GW crowd is usually so eager to get to the gaming bit that they'll happily skip the collecting, assembling and painting parts.
jah-joshua wrote: i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???
first you buy a collection of models and books, then you take your collection (if you choose to) and play a wargame...
cheers
jah
Yes, one can certainly argue against it.
Someone can play the game with borrowed minis.
Play with card board cut outs or whatever.
It could be about priorities in that the person cares about the game and not the minis.
I could go on.
jah-joshua wrote: i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???
Seeing as how the hobby is called miniature wargaming and not miniature collecting, assembling and painting, with a slight dabbling in the playing thereof, I would argue that, yes, miniature wargaming is a wargaming hobby first and foremost. Especially since the GW crowd is usually so eager to get to the gaming bit that they'll happily skip the collecting, assembling and painting parts.
I don't agree. The hobby is whatever people make of it, and I would argue that principally, one hobby is modelling, and the other wargaming. Miniature wargaming just happens to combine two different hobbies.
There are lots of people who model stuff and never game with it (GW or otherwise). Some people build dioramas, too.
In the olden days, with lead minis, we didn't even paint them when we played wargames -- Chainmail, for example. But now, I can work 3 years on an army before I ever field a single model in the collection.
While collecting miniatures is definitely a hobby (like collecting stamps), I'm not sure collecting *unpainted* or unassembled miniatures is a hobby. Like, collecting boxes of Revell or Tamiya scale models is not really a hobby, at least not for most people.
Accolade wrote: I like the Producers conspiracy put forth in the News & Rumors thread
You're welcome for my conspiracy theory.
That said, it's possible they may have followed the play/movie too closely and actually squeaked out a hit with AoS.
Despite the public wailing here on dakka, anecdotal reviews from my gaming buddies, local and around the country, sound very positive.
They REALLY like the models and the rules are pretty fun esp. if you use the scenarios that say what each army will field (including # of models in each unit).
I think AOS will be interesting for people for a time. It's got Fantasy Space Marines, and people seem to have a lust for those things greater than I can comprehend. It's also a new game that offers a smaller experience, simplified rules, and unrestrained flexibility in army building.
The problem is that unrestrained nature tends to come back and bite the game. What's the point of playing multiple battles if every game has extremely questionable balance? You might enjoy that with your friends for a bit, but I would wager people would like the opportunity to play a game that has a more quantifiable victory than "I *think* it was a fair game and I *think* I won because of more than just random."
With FLGS play, there's not as much to go on. You'll be banking that the person you play against is reasonable and well-understanding of the game so you both can come up with something. Might be fun while the game is fresh, but I think most will just retreat to 40k.
AOS seems to be marketing on the "Space Marines outsell Fantasy" thought process by saying screw-off to all traditional WHFB players and catering almost exclusively to those Space Marine players. In this regard, it will sell for a time, but I don't see it lasting by any means. And I think the cost will have been too high when it comes time to trying to re-build the audience.
But by then, GW will have figured out how the 40k universe meshes into the new Fantasy realms, and there will just be one game- Sigmarines vs. Ultramarines.
He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.
Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.
Cough, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, William Redington Hewlett, Steve Jobs. The first 3 for sure; Steve Jobs has served as both, but I'm not sure of he was both at the same time.
Again, there is nothing illegal about it; it's just frowned upon. I didn't bother to look up your examples to see if their was significant crossover between tenure as Chairman and CEO. The salient point here is that Mr. Kirby stepped down as CEO and was replaced by the CFO at a time when the company was (is) experiencing repeated reporting periods of declining finances. It is not uncommon for such an event to occur in the business world, a surface level "falling on your sword" and a supposed clearing the decks for new blood and a new strategy.
By all accounts from previous insiders; however, what we're getting with Mr. Roundtree is someone who will speak with the voice of Mr. Kirby but be a different face.....and ultimately a scapegoat if things are not substantially improved; all accomplished while protecting Mr. Kirby's position as Chairman.
If I were to hazard a guess, I would make the assumption that this was all planned out at least a year in advance, about the time the revenues turned negative and the decision was made to restructure the retail chain; this would explain the 26-ish% raise that Mr. Kirby saw fit to give himself when he was CEO and profits were in decline. Generally you don't give yourself so substantial a raise when your company is doing poorly.
I think the sort of people that like buying gw will like buying the latest product. And the haters will be declared a vocal minority. And the revenue of the company will continue to slide. In other words, business as usual.
Talys wrote: I don't agree. The hobby is whatever people make of it, and I would argue that principally, one hobby is modelling, and the other wargaming. Miniature wargaming just happens to combine two different hobbies.
There are lots of people who model stuff and never game with it (GW or otherwise). Some people build dioramas, too.
But the people who exclusively paint miniatures, model miniatures, and build dioramas aren't miniature wargamers. They're painters and modelers. We're talking about the miniature wargaming hobby, where the express end goal of the hobby is to play games with those models. We're not talking about model trains here, either.
And you can't point at a box of, say, Clanrats, and say that they aren't manufactured with the end goal of their existence being to be put down on a table and used as game pieces. That would be the same as picking up the Descent starter set and saying, this isn't meant as a role-playing board game, but as a modelling and painting tool.
In the olden days, with lead minis, we didn't even paint them when we played wargames -- Chainmail, for example. But now, I can work 3 years on an army before I ever field a single model in the collection.
But the only thing that's really changed here is you. We're on a forum where the people who express the opinion that miniatures should be modeled and painted before being played with are decried as 'elitist'. The goal of miniature wargaming is, at the end of the day, to play wargames with those miniatures.
But this is getting away from the point of the thread. The question is whether or not AoS will do crippling damage to Games Workshop. When new hobbyists are coming in and expressing sentiments like this:
warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus
Then GW has a base with which they can continue to mould these newcomers into ardent supporters of the HHHobby.
@infinite_array - I don't want to get into an argument of semantics with you, so I'll just ask -- what do you call a hobbyist interested in 40k for modelling, not gaming purposes?
To your other, valid point, I think there are indeed people who model collections first, and game as a secondary hobby, and these people are no less or more hobbyists than the reverse. I guess you could say collecting the miniatures and imagining them painted and battle ready is also a hobby, as is lining up shrinkwrapped boxes on the shelf, so I retract what I said about accumulating boxes of stuff as not being a hobby.
I don't think it's healthy for GW to ONLY have these customers, or even mostly derive its revenue from these customers. Among other things that's a way to lose mindshare and, eventually, relevance.
Talys wrote: @infinite_array - I don't want to get into an argument of semantics with you, so I'll just ask -- what do you call a hobbyist interested in 40k for modelling, not gaming purposes?
Well, like I said before - that person's a modeler. Their interest lies in modeling miniatures, and not wargaming.
To your other, valid point, I think there are indeed people who model collections first, and game as a secondary hobby, and these people are no less or more hobbyists than the reverse. I guess you could say collecting the miniatures and imagining them painted and battle ready is also a hobby, as is lining up shrinkwrapped boxes on the shelf, so I retract what I said about accumulating boxes of stuff as not being a hobby.
I'm confused as to where you've pulled this from, and I'm not sure what is has to do with this discussion. It sounds more like someone collecting actions figures than miniature wargaming.
I don't think it's healthy for GW to ONLY have these customers, or even mostly derive its revenue from these customers. Among other things that's a way to lose mindshare and, eventually, relevance.
Currently, though, Historicals are going through a bit of a slump.
Uhm, what?
We're seeing plenty of new historical rulesets and miniature lines hitting the market every month. And the release of DBA 3 shows that the WRG guys are still working on their games.
Going by what we see being run at conventions that cater to historical gamers.
Not to mention what we see at conventions period.
DBA is seeing a SLIGHT resurgence. Looking at traffic on the DBA Yahoo Group, and the DBA website Fanaticus, there has been only a slight uptick in the number of posts.
And DBA3 will be the last official version of the game by Phil Barker. He is into his 80s and is reportedly not doing well.
Overall, though, given that from the 1980s through the early-00s, one could go to almost any convention and see a WRG or DBx tournament with dozens to hundreds (at Historicon) players, yet we now see that the tournaments that used to draw dozens of players are now seeing single to low-double digit attendance, and the tournaments at conventions like Little Wars, Fall In, or Historicon dwindle to just a dozen or two players (and some games no longer being played at all), then there is a "slump."
WWII gaming is currently seeing a slight increase in popularity, and Napoleonics, or SYW period gaming does not appear to be changing much.
But the Ancients and Medieval Periods are seeing much less popularity than they used to enjoy, and there is a Fragmentation in the Historical Community over a Rules Standard, driven as much by the failing of the older standard from the increasing size of miniatures, as it is simply older systems falling from favor with new research being done on the historical periods involved.
Also, from the reported sales of Historical Ancients/Medieval miniatures makers, such as Essex, Old Glory, Xyston, or Corvus Belli (which simply faded away, even though providing what were among the best 15mm ancients ever produced), which have reported a decline in sales over the last few years.
This is something that we saw a bit of around 1992 when DBM took over from WRG 6th/7th editions (when people were unhappy with 7th edition, and before DBM had come out), but not nearly to this extent.
Historicon reported, last year, that they had an expanded list of tournaments at their convention. Some of them (like the HotT tournament) actually shifted from fantasy to historical settings, and the only outright non-historical tournament was War Gods of Aegyptus.
The fragmentation, I believe, is the result of the (relative) death of WAB for 28mm, and the resulting fallout. Fragmentation does not mean a decreasing number of players, but an increasing number of rules being played, with some attempting to climb to the top of the heap. I distinctly remember both Clash of Empire and War & Conquest being hailed as the successors of WAB, but much like the follows of Alexander, they've conquered their own kingdoms rather than establishing a new empire. Again, a wealth of new rules isn't exactly a bad thing - it just means less players are dedicated to each ruleset. But is it not a distinct advantage of many historical rulesets that they either share basing methods or are lax in basing requirements?
I don't believe you can use Corvus Belli as an example of declining historical miniature sales (despite my discontent with the hiatus of their 15mm historical line. I was able to find a Ancient British DBA army set at a recent convention and snapped that up without a moment's thought. But I digress...) Corvus Belli also had a Fantasy range as well, and I think it could be argued that Fantasy wargaming is going very strong these days. CB abandoned both their Warcrow and Historical lines in favor of focusing on their main source of income, Infinity.
To your other, valid point, I think there are indeed people who model collections first, and game as a secondary hobby, and these people are no less or more hobbyists than the reverse. I guess you could say collecting the miniatures and imagining them painted and battle ready is also a hobby, as is lining up shrinkwrapped boxes on the shelf, so I retract what I said about accumulating boxes of stuff as not being a hobby.
I'm confused as to where you've pulled this from, and I'm not sure what is has to do with this discussion. It sounds more like someone collecting actions figures than miniature wargaming.
At one point there was some back and forth as to whether miniature wargaming was more about the collecting/modelling miniatures or wargaming. But anyways, it's not important. I do think that the primary collector-hobbyist, primary-modelling hobbyist, and primary gaming-hobbyist are equally important. I don't know how the groups, taken as a whole, rank in profitability. For example, the guy who spends $30,000 a year by snagging everything GW and its subsidiaries produce in multiples is no doubt highly profitable, but there are very few like him. But there might be a lot of guys who spend $10,000 a year (and shelving a lot of it). As a whole they could be very significant revenue. Or not.
Tyron wrote: Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?
In my view WHFB sales probably have fallen to the level that the game is no longer profitable to support. GW have accepted it is a failure, and rather than put a lot of time and effort into redeveloping what is a partially toxic brand, they have decided to write something new that can take over useful assets from WHFB without a lot of cost.
That product is AOS, a very simple game, aimed at newcomers to wargames and casual gamers, obviously written very quickly, that offers a way to reabsorb all the existing WHFB models into a new, simple system. The special rules about shouting and declaiming slogans, are ideal for the kiddy market.
All the rules and scrolls are available free online, an instant taster for people like me, who gave up Fantasy in 2nd edition because I hated Herohammer. I can d/l everything and play some trial games using figures from other systems. If I don't like the shouting rules, or other flaws (base to base, etc) I have the experience and confidence to house rule them away.
To make a WHFB kit into an AOS kit, all GW need to do is substitute the square bases with the new round ones, and print new packaging.
The only flaw in this concept, is that newcomers need some guidance to the relative strengths of units and armies or they will be quickly dismayed by stupid walkover battles. This is achieved in AOS by (1) the boxed starter set is balanced, and (2) the official scenarios will be fairly balanced.
Obviously tournament players are left swinging in the wind, but it has been obvious for some years that GW doesn't care about them anyway.
Most of the money will come from model kit sales. Reaction to the new Sigmarines has been very positive, even people who dislike the rules are buying the figures for 40K armies. (It has to be said, the figures in the boxed set are very cheap by GW standards.) Plus, if GW feel the market will bear it, they can issue special edition compendiums of fluff, scenarios and war scrolls, that will be bought by completists.
In summary, Fantasy has been relaunched with a clear target market, at minimum cost to GW or the player, and ongoing support will be equally cheap to maintain.
The only thing that could go wrong is mistaking the potential of the kiddy and super fan markets.
@infinite your suggestion that gamers are somehow more significant than collectors is, frankly wrong, and mildly insulting to some. We all collect or have collected toy soldiers, that is why we are here. But what you do with them is up to you, and no ones hobby is more prestigious than any one elses. Action figures are as close to miniatures as wargames are to chess. Similarities yes, but reductive to suggest they are the same.
Whatever reasons Corvus Belli gave tends to prove the point:
The historical sites were not doing well enough to justify their continuation.
As for the "flowering of different rules sets," all that means is that no one set of rules has the income that WRG did in their heyday (if people want to mention another mis-managed company).
And an increase in the number of tournaments means nothing if the total number of players involved declines (as it seems to have done).
I can go from two games with five hundred players each to ten games with two dozen players each, and that is still a 75% reduction in the number of players.
And that number of players may not be enough to support the rules set (as many of these rules authors are discovering).
Personally I regard myself as a wargamer rather than a collector. I have never bought models for display only. Every single figure I have ever bought was with the view of using it in a game (RPG, skirmish or mass battle) of some sort. I used to make model kits of planes for display when I was a boy, but then I turned to wargames, and if I buy kits now it is with the idea of using them in a game.
That said, like many wargamers and modellers, I have a lot of stuff stashed away in the attic that I never got around to doing anything with. Some of it has been through a number of house moves over the years. The most extreme example is a couple of boxes of Rouge Trader era Space Marines, both metal and plastic, that I rediscovered when moving house two and a half years ago.
I must have bought them in the late 1980s, removed them from their packaging and packed them into cartons, then ignored them for 25 years while being distracted by many other projects.
Nostalgia apart, GW have the money from those figures, and they don't really care why I bought them.
I also have many more rulebooks than I need or play with. When you can't find time and space to play a game, or paint figures, reading a rulebook gives you a bit of hobby involvement.
even if you game with your miniatures, you have to collect those miniatures first...
i'm just saying that calling someone ignorant for saying that miniature wargaming is a collecting hobby first, and a gaming hobby second, is rude and unnecessary...
i would think that we all, for the most part, would want to be more inclusive to fellow hobbyists, but this new release has been nothing if not polarizing, and people have said a lot of stuff in the heat of the moment ...
@JamesY.
I think the point trying to be made, was that rule sets should ADD value to the product range for people who want to play war games with war game rule sets.
The fact the extreme ends of the spectrum cover the majority of people in between , mean that rules and minatures are equally important.
So writing rules specifically for people who do not play or do not think the rules are all that important .
Although much easier , is not going to grow market share when other companies provide good rules and equally good minatures(subjective appearance aside.)
What has happened over the last 10 years is GW plc has lost sales volumes , as players move to other companies offering rule set which offer added value through the GOOD rule sets they sell.
And so GW plc remaining customers have to pay more each year to make up for falling sales volumes.
The feeling that collectors are rewarding GW plc for writing crappy rules is common among some players.
And some collectors really can not see what they are whinging about.As nothing apart from the retail price has changed negatively for them.
However, what if in an alternate reality it had been the other way?
Before you can buy GW plc minatures you want to paint .(Still awesome art work and back ground narrative, some things would never change..)
You have to buy lots of books you do not really want to read.Most people would have have to buy at least £300 worth of books and skim read them so they know enough about the rules to allow them to buy the GW minatures they really want to paint in a GW store.
Then you have to buy the boxes of minatures that are at least DOUBLE the price of other minatures.(Some things never change ...)
And when you open up the box to finally paint the minatures you have been looking forward to for ages...
Its just a box of wire frames modeling clay and some basic sculpting tools.
When you complain that the way GW plc advertise and sell the box of minatures implies it is fully formed and ready to paint , they say' well we do not cater for the people who want to just get on and paint.
We expect people to 'sculpt a narrative minature' with the products we sell them.
And the players who just stick paper on the wire frames with the name of the model written on say.
'The rules are solid, why are you winging about having to put a bit of effort in to the part of the hobby we do not care about?'
Perhaps this may let collectors understand what GW plc have done the war gamers who used to enjoy GW product?
Deadnight wrote: at least in their minds. whatever they do, the internets will rip it to shreds.
IOW, GW sucks at writing rules so they'd rather ragequit and publish obvious garbage instead. Why are you defending this behavior?
Just because I'm not 'all the negative, all the time' does not mean I'm defending it. I'm just offering an alternative narrative. It's not perfect, it's not even good, but if you're willing, and put (a lot of) effort into personalising it, you can get something out of it.
I sympathise with the 'type of gaming' gw wants to encourage. I certainly don't agree with their methods.
GW seem to want to put the game in your hands, and leave the responsibility for what kind of games get played up to the players. this isnt bad.
Of course it's bad. GW isn't encouraging customization, they're just publishing a half-finished product and saying "do the rest yourself". A good open-ended game provides a solid foundation of careful balance and well-functioning rules so that you can devote all of your time and effort to building the game experience you want instead of trying to fix basic things like "how many knights equal one dragon" or "WTF do I do if my models are on 1" bases". With AoSGW has abandoned this responsibility entirely. It's garbage for competitive play, it's garbage for pickup gaming, and it's garbage for "casual" scenario gaming.
Oh I'm not disagreeing. Models on top of bases is silly. No points costs can work (a lot of historicals go this route) but it does not work in the way they've rolled it out here.
It's good for a kids entry level game, maybe. And that seems to be the target. And it can work, with a lot of effort outside of pugs and tournaments, even if other systems are still better.
too many people dont want the responsibility for ensuring their opponent has a good time, and that the game is 'fun'.
Well yes, because it's a pain to deal with. Why should I have to spend a bunch of time carefully analyzing our respective armies just to have a basic pickup game? If I'm going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game I think I'm justified in expecting it to work "out of the box" without having to be an amateur game designer just to ensure that both players have fun.
Why base it around a pick up game? That's not the type of game gw want to push. We play historicals et. at at mates house - and we discuss what kind of game/scenario we'd like ahead of time. We all get input and we all get our chance to run a game. Do we just slap down armies? No, we put down what makes sense and what's appropriate given the context of the scenario- again, discussed pre game. It's our responsibilit to ensure both sides get to act as participants and that no one side has an overwhelming advantage. It's the same here, I think. You are both responsible for both armies, not just the part you slap down in your deployment zone. Like I said, it puts the responsibilities with the players, not with the game mechanics.
Expecting things to work outside of the box isn't wrong And I'm totally on board with you. But not everything needs to be. at the same time, some thing's require assembly. Things like kit cars to cake baking. And are bought for those exact reasons. So people enjoy all that tinkering and shuffling about with the rules - and the process of creation - I love my tourneys and pugs, but I also enjoy the creative buzz of doing it myself. Some people don't like buying pre made cakes in shops and enjoy cooking up their own. (Then again, One could argue those kits should be built of functional components- your cake should have decent ingredients :p) And in not the only one who enjoys that type of game.
And I still won't be buying aos! Those sigmarites remind me of the guards in Vivec in eldar scrolls 3: morrowind! No thanks.
Of course that's the intent. GW wanted to reboot WHFB, and they wanted to do it in a way that minimized development costs. AoS is pretty obviously a minimal-effort "game" where GW published the first draft without any playtesting or editing. It accomplishes their goal of minimizing costs, but that doesn't mean it's a good game.
there are plenty custom rules/scenarios and mission makers out there.use them, or make up your own. be assertive and take control of your own gaming. at least thats how id push it.
I fail to see how "create your own game that is loosely based on AoS" is a reasonable idea.
Fair enough. And you're not wrong for wanting an organised play, right out of the box kind of game. But that is only one type of gaming. There is more than that out there.and there are more types of gsmees thsn just you, or I. Like I said, some people enjoy tinkering away and 'personalising' their games. They're not wrong. They have a very open ended (ie half finished!) game on their hands that is begging to be tinkered with. There are a lot of different directions to go. It's the whole 'ingredients of the cake' scenario. Now go and do it yourself.
We don't want to do the game designer's job, because we have our own jobs and lives beyond gaming and the hobby.
Hell, I'm already making my own game on the side, so that's me with a full time job, and every waking hour spent not at that job is spent working on my game. Where am I, or anyone supposed to find the time to tinker with someone else's half-baked rules when all I want to do is play in the limited time I have to play?
I wouldn't expect someone else to fix my own game designs on their own time, why would I want to do it on my valuable time?
That's why I think that trying to fix someone else's mistake is a bad idea. There are other games out there that are worth looking into, and trying those out will do more for the industry and community as a whole than trying to latch on even harder to GW. It spread the money out, creates more community, and starts introducing the idea that there is a wider universe of games to play.
The only reason why we've got this hot thread here talking about a game that will obviously fail is that it's GW's monolithic presence that has convinced us that we must only play the most popular game.
As for tinkering in general, sure do it. But we are talking about packaged games here for people who enjoy that element.
I've thought of a way to make Warhammer models compatible with the Age of Sigmar rules (assuming that's still a problem).
I'll just play the Age of Sigmar rules with Warhammer models, with my opponent doing the same.
Sacred feth! Suddenly I don't need to put all my Warhammer models on ebay at a thumping loss in a fit of petulant rage, and I'm a genius and an out-of-the-box thinker.
My answer to the defects in the rules is that they are free and you can't expect the same amount of quality and support for them. GW actually have done a fair bit of work to create the war scrolls for all existing WHFB armies, which obviously is intended to keep existing Fantasy players on board.
As far as collectors (who IMO are people for which completing a set is the objective, while a gamer is buying to create a specific army), GW can't know who buys a model and why, they only know how popular it is relative to others in the range. So the idea that collectors need to pay more to offset crappy rules driving players away is meaningless in terms of GW's marketing behaviour.
Part of me still thinks this is a big Frakk you to all the fans of Fantasy...
GW exploded years of fluff, characters, stories. Made hours painting, reading, assembling and buying stuff pratically worthless.
Many say " But your old models still exist, you can still play with them in AoS". Yes, as a lunatic that speaks to my models, dance, let my facil hair go nuts and pretend to ride in an imaginary horse.
It is fun. Once or twice. But these jokes get boring real fast. Just like in Munchkin( the game that inspired AoS), the 10th time you read the same funny rule made for making fun of an rpg/ nerd culture fact or facet, you just pass over it as quickly as possible.
There's no rules for constructing armies. Is just "play whatever you want". Games have rules. If something has no rules giving it boundaries, is not a game- it's child's play that the floor is on fire.
Many say " We can make some kind of balancing system- like using wounds". But most of us don't want to. We don't want to pay to finnish the design of a game.
I was supe hyped about AoS. I never played fantasy, so a game that had that fantasy feel, easier rules and awesome models it's what I wanted. But GW thought that, instead of giving us simpler rules, they should give almost no rules at all. it's like there's no middle ground: they either make overcomplicated and bloated monstrosities, or they make this garbage of a ruleset.
In one fell move, GW lost the rank and file battle system appeal, and also lost the ruleset appeal. They now can't compete with Mantic, or PP/CB/Wyrd.
Guess I'll be waiting until the Age of Sigmar- 2nd edition to try and join this game.
NoPoet wrote: I
Sacred feth! Suddenly I don't need to put all my Warhammer models on ebay at a thumping loss in a fit of petulant rage, and I'm a genius and an out-of-the-box thinker.
Why don't I just use my sons Lego and transformers instead! Afterall they are more in keeping with the rules.
Most of my Warhammer went on Ebay a long time ago.
I love that people always assume if GW went under, someone else would pick it up so they would still have their game.
GW could choose to let the world burn and tank the whole thing.
Plenty of people wanted WotC to move Heroscape somewhere else to a company that would support it, like FFG. WotC choose to let it burn and we have no Heroscape.
GW could do the same or simply sell the IP for the black library and nothing else.
GW could do the same or simply sell the IP for the black library and nothing else.
The other option is much more realistic. Kirby, and other employees, have shown an open disinterest in the customer base or the brand and its quality and they're ready to do anything for cash. Kirby most likely knows that what he's doing isn't leading anywhere good and thus plans very short-term. Him bailing out by selling the brand at a high price to end with tons of bonus cash is much more likely.
Time 2 Roll wrote: I love that people always assume if GW went under, someone else would pick it up so they would still have their game.
GW could choose to let the world burn and tank the whole thing.
Plenty of people wanted WotC to move Heroscape somewhere else to a company that would support it, like FFG. WotC choose to let it burn and we have no Heroscape.
GW could do the same or simply sell the IP for the black library and nothing else.
Hasbro holds on to IP - even if they never, ever use it again.
Sometimes they will have a decade pass between incarnations of some IP - G.I. Joe went from being a foot tall and having a Kung-Fu Grip to being a much smaller action figure.
Some IP is never seen again.
The only IP that I can think of that Hasbro has let lapse were some that they acquired when they bought out Milton Bradley - HeroQuest being an example.
The Auld Grump - I would love to see some of the old Avalon Hill properties come back...
Deadnight wrote: Why base it around a pick up game? That's not the type of game gw want to push. We play historicals et. at at mates house - and we discuss what kind of game/scenario we'd like ahead of time. We all get input and we all get our chance to run a game. Do we just slap down armies? No, we put down what makes sense and what's appropriate given the context of the scenario- again, discussed pre game. It's our responsibilit to ensure both sides get to act as participants and that no one side has an overwhelming advantage. It's the same here, I think. You are both responsible for both armies, not just the part you slap down in your deployment zone. Like I said, it puts the responsibilities with the players, not with the game mechanics.
This is how we play about 3/4 of our 40k games, actually. We find that 40k is much more enjoyable when it's relatively planned. We don't agree on every unit that's going to be fielded, but often, we'll design the scenario in advance, and sketch out our own guidelines for lists and deployment, and the battle forces are quite often asymmetric (points-wise) because one side or the other has positional or entrenchment advantages, or because one side is going to feature a disproportionate number of suboptimal units (eg we just want to field dreadnoughts), or a suboptimal faction/build vs very strong faction (eg first company terminators assault necron tombworld and must kill overlord), or a survive-the-swarm (essentially unlimited orks vs space marines at center of table; don't get tabled in 6 turns, T7 reinforcements arrive and Orks auto-lose).
It's a lot more varied than "You bring Ultramarines, I bring CWE, we set up terrain, roll on table and kill!". Sometimes the points can be as disproportionate as 3:1, and the side with more points may still lose. Also, sometimes, we'll trade scenarios -- a pair of us will design something for another pair of friends, and we'll swap, so that we don't know what the scenario is ahead of time.
I understand the whole planned game philosophy really well. It works if you're willing to put the effort into it. However, unless every unit in an army is of relatively equivalent value, some kind of indication of their relative strengths is extremely helpful (especially if we've not played the unit before), and also gives us the ability to list-build, which is fun all by itself.
We have some casual players in the KoW games - and they are doing okay. (My good lady started as a casual player.) Most of the armies are repurposed from Warhammer. (And most of the casual players are borrowing their armies from us crusty altacockers that have spares.)
Several of us have histories in game design or as TOs.
Having points makes it easier to create scenarios - even when the scenarios are asymmetric. (Because the dwarfs have been doing so well we are currently doing a Fall of the Dwarfs scenario - to have a clean start with the new edition in a few weeks. 2,000 points of dwarfs, 3,000 points of orcs and allies. Routed orc and ally units come back as reinforcements. Dwarf victory is determined by how long it takes for them to fall....)
Being aimed at casual play is not a good reason not to have a well balanced set of rules.
I've changed my opinion from the first page. It doesn't make me sad anymore. This whole "game" that GW has put out is a travesty. Half-assed rules, ridiculous new sculpts, obliteration of the old fluff in favor of generic garbage and fantasy space marines. It boggles my mind that anyone can defend it. Any positive achievements over GW's 30+ year history have just been called into question by their publishing of Age of Sigmarines.
I hope it does hurt them. I hope that Kirby, Roundtree et al. have to contend with the fact that publishing this "game" significantly, if not fatally, wounded their company.
BlackwaterStudio wrote: Games Workshop is a great company for managing to keep the hobby alive nowadays.
You're new, hi, take a little time to read around GW and their current state in relation to the rest of the wargaming hobby, see if you still feel the same.
NoPoet wrote: I
Sacred feth! Suddenly I don't need to put all my Warhammer models on ebay at a thumping loss in a fit of petulant rage, and I'm a genius and an out-of-the-box thinker.
Why don't I just use my sons Lego and transformers instead! Afterall they are more in keeping with the rules.
Most of my Warhammer went on Ebay a long time ago.
Because BrikWars is the Lego game, it even built on the concept of dumping out you Lego box and going for it. Just like AoS but you know BrikWars works at what it is meant to do.
You know, thinking about it some more I think that this is all a really chancy thing.
Everything seems to suggest it'll definitely be a short-term success, simply due to all the hype. At the same time it seems they've pissed off and alienated A LOT of people too.
So basically whether this is a real success that'll lead to more stuff or a flash in the pan seems to all ride on how they follow this up. The whole "make it up yourself" style has its audience (as some of the posts here show), but it seems to be a niche within a niche and most probably won't stick with it unless it's expanded in a way that makes it more structured. If they do and it's done well enough to get attention, it'll probably grow. Otherwise there won't actually be very far for this game to go, it'll probably grow old after a while and if it's expanded with more of the same, that could probably only last so long either.
But either way, they seem to be set for now. It's just a question of how long that will last.
We don't want to do the game designer's job, because we have our own jobs and lives beyond gaming and the hobby.
We?
So... You speak for everyone?
Not being snarky mate - you don't want to do the game designers job. And fair play. Neither do I, all the time. I also have a job, a life outside of gaming and lots of miles to run for my marathons. Friday gaming though - I can see the value of a half hour chat that preps the game... And for what it's worth, some people enjoy that tinkering, and building a game into something different each time.
Hell, I'm already making my own game on the side, so that's me with a full time job, and every waking hour spent not at that job is spent working on my game. Where am I, or anyone supposed to find the time to tinker with someone else's half-baked rules when all I want to do is play in the limited time I have to play?
I have a job, a life and lots of bits on the side too. The problem you face is that all your time goes to your game. Which is fair enough. I get it. When I'm doing the big miles before a marathon (you know - those 20mile ruls) for several months at a time, along with multiple long runs during the week, other things fall by the wayside. Gaming is one. It's a matter of juggling priorities. But don't confuse your priorities and commitments- especially regarding what you devote to your game- with the idea that neither you nor anyone else can find the time to tinker with a half baked set of rules.
To answer your question - take time out from your game. One evening away from it won't make it crash and burn. As for anyone else? Well, with our Friday night gaming - which is pretty laid back and far from 'out of the box' gaming, we just chat about it, and shoot some ideas to each other. Normally we play flames of war, but it's heavily house ruled and we've chucked and altered a bunch of stuff. We just chat about new ideas and implement them if they sound interesting. Aos is a really silly game (it's more like a drinking game than anything else...) but if I was told 'make it work for me and my group', well, that's how I'd go about doing it...
I wouldn't expect someone else to fix my own game designs on their own time, why would I want to do it on my valuable time?
.
And that's fair enough. But like I was saying earlier, maybe it's less about having a complete system, and more about a very basic framework, and you can do whatever you want with it? Fair enough - you want a complete system thst functions right out of the box, but not everyone wants or appreciates that rigidity....
And by the way, I'm not disagreeing with your pov. I feel the same. I'd rather have a decent set of rules to tinker with than the steaming pile of poo that is aos...
That's why I think that trying to fix someone else's mistake is a bad idea. There are other games out there that are worth looking into, and trying those out will do more for the industry and community as a whole than trying to latch on even harder to GW. It spread the money out, creates more community, and starts introducing the idea that there is a wider universe of games to play.
The only reason why we've got this hot thread here talking about a game that will obviously fail is that it's GW's monolithic presence that has convinced us that we must only play the most popular game.
Agreed. If this was a game by a new company, it would be laughed out,
As for tinkering in general, sure do it. But we are talking about packaged games here for people who enjoy that element.
I'm talking about both, actually. There are plenty of great packaged games out there. This isn't one of them. Approaching it from the perspective of playing it as a packaged game is silly; the only way of making it work is if you approach it from a diy perspective. In my mind, it's just different, I guess. It could be so much more though.
We don't want to do the game designer's job, because we have our own jobs and lives beyond gaming and the hobby.
Hell, I'm already making my own game on the side, so that's me with a full time job, and every waking hour spent not at that job is spent working on my game. Where am I, or anyone supposed to find the time to tinker with someone else's half-baked rules when all I want to do is play in the limited time I have to play?
Well yes it's understandable when someone pays for something they shouldn't have to fix someone else bad job. What I don't understand here is if you have a full time job and every waking hour spent not at the job is spent working on your game, why are you here on a forum complaining about a product you don't like? After all your time is valuable, it seems you are wasting it complaining and not working on your own game.
So either "ever waking hour spent not on your job, but on your game" is false or "you or anyone else is supposed to find the time to tinker with someone lee's half-baked rules" are false. You have already shown something you have said is not true.
What I am trying to say is don't be so dramatic. Obviously you have time for other projects. You have time to work. You have time to work on your game. You have time to complain about a game. So yes you have time to tinker with half-baked rules. Don't say you don't have time to do so, when you can come on Dakka Dakka, read other people's threads and then complain about it.
You do have the time since right now it's not being spent on working on your game and you are not at work.
I'm going to boil down my initial response to this: No one on the internet, ever, is speaking for everyone.
But I'm very sure that I do speak for the vast majority of people. So even if you don't fall into this category, I'm confident that using "we" applies as the majority. You may not like being lumped in incorrectly, but just because there was that misunderstanding, does not mean I was wrong.
Nor, most importantly, does that mean that I was insulting you. In fact, I do wish I had more time to dive deep into the games I love.
Also, I hate line quoting because it destroys the gestalt of the post.
However, you also make the mistake of lumping me into someone that can't manage their own time. Thing is, there's just stuff I love just as much that just still take up time. You seem like you're telling me to, "Manage time better noob!"
No one is ever going to stop anyone from tinkering with rules, but people who will tinker are going to tinker regardless of whether rules are half-baked or fully fleshed out. Your desire for framework rules sets is completely separate from this discussion about the fall of Fantasy GW and the descent of its rules writers into madness. Moreover, your time is probably better spent on better written framework rules sets. But, that's for you to decide.
To me however, a multi million dollar company has no place trying to put out half baked rules and expecting players to fix or deal with them. And this Age of Sigmar mess is not a framework rules set created by a high minded rules writer meant to allow tinkerers like yourself to create a gaming utopia. It's a half-baked attempt from them to vomit something onto the market for the purpose of either seeing how much people will buy when they put in no effort (which history shows is a lot) or deliberately trying to tank the company so that they can sell, or both.
We are not at odds here. I'm just responding to those who want to waste your time fixing GW's mistake, when you could easily go with a different game and make something better out of it.
We don't want to do the game designer's job, because we have our own jobs and lives beyond gaming and the hobby.
We?
So... You speak for everyone?
Not being snarky mate - you don't want to do the game designers job. And fair play. Neither do I, all the time. I also have a job, a life outside of gaming and lots of miles to run for my marathons. Friday gaming though - I can see the value of a half hour chat that preps the game... And for what it's worth, some people enjoy that tinkering, and building a game into something different each time.
[...]
I have a job, a life and lots of bits on the side too. The problem you face is that all your time goes to your game. Which is fair enough. I get it. When I'm doing the big miles before a marathon (you know - those 20mile ruls) for several months at a time, along with multiple long runs during the week, other things fall by the wayside. Gaming is one. It's a matter of juggling priorities. But don't confuse your priorities and commitments- especially regarding what you devote to your game- with the idea that neither you nor anyone else can find the time to tinker with a half baked set of rules.
To answer your question - take time out from your game. One evening away from it won't make it crash and burn. As for anyone else? Well, with our Friday night gaming - which is pretty laid back and far from 'out of the box' gaming, we just chat about it, and shoot some ideas to each other. Normally we play flames of war, but it's heavily house ruled and we've chucked and altered a bunch of stuff. We just chat about new ideas and implement them if they sound interesting. Aos is a really silly game (it's more like a drinking game than anything else...) but if I was told 'make it work for me and my group', well, that's how I'd go about doing it...
[...]
And that's fair enough. But like I was saying earlier, maybe it's less about having a complete system, and more about a very basic framework, and you can do whatever you want with it? Fair enough - you want a complete system thst functions right out of the box, but not everyone wants or appreciates that rigidity....
And by the way, I'm not disagreeing with your pov. I feel the same. I'd rather have a decent set of rules to tinker with than the steaming pile of poo that is aos...
[...]
Agreed about other games point.
[...]
Agreed. If this was a game by a new company, it would be laughed out,
[...]
I'm talking about both, actually. There are plenty of great packaged games out there. This isn't one of them. Approaching it from the perspective of playing it as a packaged game is silly; the only way of making it work is if you approach it from a diy perspective. In my mind, it's just different, I guess. It could be so much more though.
Its just that it would have been SO DAMN EASY to add in points costs and tighten up the rules a little bit.
See, the rules have been known for all of a week, and players have identified 20+ things that just don't make sense. Would it really have killed GW to publish the SECOND (or Sigmar forbid, even the THIRD draft) instead of the first? Would that extra day of delay really spoiled things?
Take an extra week to add in points costs. They don't need to be perfect (no wargame is), they just need to be in the rough ballpark like 40k is, and people would have been happy.
The thing is it takes NOTHING away from the players who want to ride imaginary horses (<= my new term for ultra-fluff players), or who want to set up fantastical scenarios with weird victory conditions. All those things are equally possible regardless of what numbers are written on the rules cards. But it DOES satisfy those players who do want 'competitive' or 'pick up' games a little bit more.
The rules Imaginary Horses, Kneeling, Dancing etc, are literally more ridiculous than the 'rules' I used to use as a 5 year old when playing with green plastic army men. So I'm not sure who exactly GW thinks is going to find the game appealing.
I get that GW has some kind of problem with 'Competitive players'. But writing a game that appeals solely to the Imaginary Horses crowd and not at all to the competitive players crowd is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I'll have to read through the comments here, but this is a question I'd love to answer. Mainly because what GW has done so far to a game and a hobby that I really enjoyed and invested hundreds of dollars in. I'm a husband, a student, and I work, I'm one of those many people that just don't have alot of spare time for hobbies and leisure activities. Warhammer is the game I've always wanted to play. I tried to make up a game very much like Warhammer when I was in 4th or 5th grade with maps, combat rules, and paper cut out unit tokens for fantasy units. I just didn't have any friends interested in playing it with me. I've only been playing WHFB for about a year since a friend got me into it. I feel betrayed by GW, I hope this comes around and bites them hard. I won't say anything bad about AoS, other than it is a dumbed down game from WHFB. But I could have played a number of skirmish level games like AoS, and there are more promising Kickstarter skirmish games coming out. Warhammer Fantasy was pretty much it for massed fantasy army games. I can't even find a group that plays Mantic's Kings of War in my home state. And now it looks like GW has lost their collective minds and just abdicated their lead position in the massed fantasy army niche and turned their backs on the community that built itself up around their games for 30 years. I have hundreds of dollars of painted miniatures that I can either put on a shelf or sell for cheap. It's not even about being angry at them screwing up my favorite army faction. I expected to move forward into a new edition, not be faced with an entirely brand new game with very different rules. Well, one thing is sure, the money I had saved up for new miniatures releases from Warhammer 9th edition will not be going into GW's greedy hands. Now we just need a few hundred thousand ticked off people like me and we can really dent GW's overhead.
Of course there is a persistent rumor about an Age of Steel massed army game set of rules as yet to be released, so I might end up happily eating these angry words.
Vertrucio wrote: I'm going to boil down my initial response to this: No one on the internet, ever, is speaking for everyone.
But I'm very sure that I do speak for the vast majority of people. So even if you don't fall into this category, I'm confident that using "we" applies as the majority. You may not like being lumped in incorrectly, but just because there was that misunderstanding, does not mean I was wrong.
Nor, most importantly, does that mean that I was insulting you. In fact, I do wish I had more time to dive deep into the games I love.
Also, I hate line quoting because it destroys the gestalt of the post.
However, you also make the mistake of lumping me into someone that can't manage their own time. Thing is, there's just stuff I love just as much that just still take up time. You seem like you're telling me to, "Manage time better noob!"
No one is ever going to stop anyone from tinkering with rules, but people who will tinker are going to tinker regardless of whether rules are half-baked or fully fleshed out. Your desire for framework rules sets is completely separate from this discussion about the fall of Fantasy GW and the descent of its rules writers into madness. Moreover, your time is probably better spent on better written framework rules sets. But, that's for you to decide.
To me however, a multi million dollar company has no place trying to put out half baked rules and expecting players to fix or deal with them. And this Age of Sigmar mess is not a framework rules set created by a high minded rules writer meant to allow tinkerers like yourself to create a gaming utopia. It's a half-baked attempt from them to vomit something onto the market for the purpose of either seeing how much people will buy when they put in no effort (which history shows is a lot) or deliberately trying to tank the company so that they can sell, or both.
We are not at odds here. I'm just responding to those who want to waste your time fixing GW's mistake, when you could easily go with a different game and make something better out of it.
Let's be clear - I didn't take it as an insult, and I wasn't implying you can't manage your own time or to 'manage your time better noob' - so please, dont go jumping the gun here - I made it clear I am in exactly the same situation as you when 'running season' (ie not winter) is in and I have a marathon to prep for ie other things go on the back burner for a long time.
I agree one hundred percent with the rest of what you say, I loved organised play, I enjoy tinkering, it's better to tinker with a good set of rules than a bad - you get better results with half the hassle and it's not strictly needed to end up with something functional. With aos, it is. Aos is a minimum effort investment that's expecting the players to pick up the pieces. The kneeling and bearding rules wouldn't be out of place with a drinking game, but have no business anywhere else. And if I'm entirely honest, I'm not sold on the models either.
nareik wrote: GW catch flakk all the time for imperfect points values, so no I don't think it would be 'so damn easy'.
Imperfect point costs are better than no point costs at all, so it really would be that easy. The only reason GW didn't include point values is that their rule authors are incompetent morons.
Plus are the rules really that loose?
Yes. If you'd showed me the rules without telling me that they are an actual product I would have laughed at them and assumed that they're a 10 year old's first attempt at making a game. It's almost unbelievable that a supposed professional rule author working for a legitimate game company could publish something so spectacularly bad.
Trasvi wrote: Its just that it would have been SO DAMN EASY to add in points costs and tighten up the rules a little bit.
GW catch flakk all the time for imperfect points values, so no I don't think it would be 'so damn easy'. Plus are the rules really that loose?
They could literally have given everything from a Goblin to a Dragon a value of 1pt and it would have been better than it is now.
Thankfully, they've also spent the last 20 years getting things roughly in the right ballpark with points values, and everything save the brand new models already has points values, so... yeah, I think it might have taken them maybe a days extra effort to get it all roughly ok. Then at least they'd be catching flak for 'this game is unbalanced for tournament play' instead of 'this game cannot be played as a tournament game ever'.
This is their JOB. There are literally a dozen people working for Games Workshop, 9-5, five days a week, for the last 20 years, whose purpose it is to write these rules. They should be passably ok at it by now.
As for 'are the rules that loose?'... it depends. If you include the catch all 'rules are hard mmmkay, just roll a dice' rule at the start, then they account for every single possible situation! There are a bunch of things that don't make much sense but could be intended - ie, move, shoot, charge, melee all in a turn, or shoot in to combat with no penalty. On the other hand, if you want flying models to ever be able to get in to combat, or dragons to be able to turn around, or you aren't very good at miming an imaginary horse, or perhaps you don't like the Baseketball nature of the Aelf's haughty rule...
The truth about AOS is that it is a pretty crappy ruleset in the sense that it covers only the minimum basics of how to have a fantasy war-game, and there are many obvious problems (e.g. measurement) and omissions (e.g. balancing factors), as well as large sections of what normally goes into war-games (command and control, terrain effects, morale, tactical factors) that have been hugely simplified or even left out in order to get the rules down to four pages.
For all that, it does cover the absolute basics; magic, movement, and fighting. The rules as written allow the playing of a simple game that many people will enjoy and you can either ignore the problettes or find ways round them.
It is not Warhammer Fantasy Battle (that name no longer exists on the GW web site.) If you want that your choices are to carry on with 8th, or move over to Kings Of War or another rival system.
At least AOS is free to play.
Has Games Workshop abdicated their right to be considered the number 1 fantasy war-game company? Arguably so. But what does that matter? They were never a great design company, all things considered. What matters to GW is if they will increase sales through AOS compared to WHFB.
In a funny way I would like 40K to go down the same tube as WHFB. I stopped playing when the game became too expensive. I could have a pretty good time with a simple, free version.
Trasvi wrote:the players who want to ride imaginary horses (<= my new term for ultra-fluff players)
I like it.
Weyuhn wrote:I can't even find a group that plays Mantic's Kings of War in my home state.
You might do soon.
nareik wrote:GW catch flakk all the time for imperfect points values, so no I don't think it would be 'so damn easy'.
It wouldn't be all that impossible if they even tried. Plenty of other games with fewer resources behind them get playtested for a good long while and come out reasonably balanced. By all accounts playtesting at GW consists of a couple of the studio knocking about, 'forging a narrative' and riding imaginary horses, pulling that ballpark number out, and assuming their market is entirely people who want to play the same way. Never mind that, as people have said until they're blue in the face, a bit of balance would help imaginary horse riders and people who want a bit of a challenge.
Kilkrazy wrote:At least AOS is free to play.
The old chestnut 'you get what you pay for' isn't automatically applicable to wargames rules, but in this case...
Has Games Workshop abdicated their right to be considered the number 1 fantasy war-game company? Arguably so. But what does that matter? They were never a great design company, all things considered. What matters to GW is if they will increase sales through AOS compared to WHFB.
I don't know if I want GW to fail. I wouldn't mind if they suddenly because lucid, wailed 'what have we done?' and rushed to make a decent, proportionately priced game again. As opposed to just shilling as much plastic crack as they can for as much as they can get.
But on the other hand, I agree with the above quote. I bailed on WFB so long ago that I wouldn't cry if it, at least, died off completely and allowed another fantasy battle game (or a number of them) to rise to the top position. Most have better crafted rules for this kind of thing anyway. If Mantic took the spot (and used the boom to make better minis) I could live with that.
What I can't understand is why, given that GW had an effective blank slate to work with they chose to churn out another UGOIGO game with the same overwrought hit/wound/save mechanic as Fantasy Battle. LotR was better than this.
If you like 40k (but don't like AoS) you need AoS to fail otherwise GW will decide it was a great idea and start cross pollinating ideas. Probably starting with the scale creep and no points values.
nareik wrote: GW catch flakk all the time for imperfect points values, so no I don't think it would be 'so damn easy'.
Imperfect point costs are better than no point costs at all, so it really would be that easy. The only reason GW didn't include point values is that their rule authors are incompetent morons.
Eh. I hate it as much as you do, but GW put no points costs in to get money. When Little Timmy loses his 1500pt game of 40k, there's nothing he can really do to win next time, other than buy units he's told are good (which he won't know how to use anyway and so won't be good). Buying, assembling and painting an army is stretching most kids' patience as it is, and having to play multiple games in order to get good and hence wins is probably going to lead most to quit, which means no more money for GW. However, with AoS, if Little Timmy loses his first battle, he can simply buy more models, field them and he has a better chance of winning. If he still loses, then he buys more. And so on until Little Timmy plays with 1000 models every time he plays (as he's allowed to do, in the rules) and is chuffed every time he wins.
Yes that's an extreme, tongue in cheek example, but I'm pretty sure that's why GW have done what they've done, and it's clever.
Still, like people have said, it wouldn't have taken much time to add in points value, and you could have said the main version of the game doesn't use points values (like now) and that they're only there for people who want to use them. That way, in theory, Little Timmy still gets to stop people with his collection of 1000 models, and more veteran gamers can enjoy balanced games.
The Shadow wrote:
Yes that's an extreme, tongue in cheek example, but I'm pretty sure that's why GW have done what they've done, and it's clever.
I used to think GW's main market was Little Timmies. Now I'm not so sure. (Especially after all these daft replacement rules about beards, moustaches and drinking) Although in that case I'm not altogether convinced it's very clever at all. 'Just buy more and bigger' has been the carrot waved in front of their noses for 40K and WFB, and that's failing for GW as it is. It's a lot of money (and potentially fed-up parents) just to try to win against other Little Timmies who are probably doing the exact same thing.
Even though many of GW's remaining grown-man fans seem to want to play like Little Timmies, I still don't know if it's too clever, for the same reasons. (barring fed-up parents, though I'm sure there are some who wish they could step in...)
If you like 40k (but don't like AoS) you need AoS to fail otherwise GW will decide it was a great idea and start cross pollinating ideas. Probably starting with the scale creep and no points values.
scale creep has been going on for a couple of decades already, in both Fantasy and 40K...
i have to say, i am happy for it...
my first minis were small, weedy Chaos Dwarfs back in 1984...
they had a lot of character, and i was sad when the Big Hats came in to replace them, but have to admit the Bull Centaurs looked a lot more impressive than the original anorexic Chaos Centaurs...
then we got Forge World's version, and holy cow did they look awesome...
the Bull Centaurs were absolutely incredible, and massive!!!
today's 5th generation Space Marine is a way cooler model, to me, than my original little Beakies...
i was stoked when the 2013 kit was actually just noticably bigger than the previous kit, and finally has a few straight legged poses...
if the next Marine kit is finally true-scale next to the current Guard minis, i will be even more happy...
Orks have gotten bigger with each generation, and look way better for it...
scale creep is also going on across the industry as a whole...
look at the size of the Dystopian Wars guys, or the new Infinity minis...
it is going on across many companies, because so many people complain about the smaller, more fiddly minis...
just look at the confusion about what is 28mm, what is 32mm, what is 35mm, what is heroic scale, what is true scale...
it's a huge jumble right now...
so yeah, i want AoS to succeed so that slightly bigger, more fun to paint models DO make it over to 40K...
the minis in the AoS box look great for Avatars of two different Gods...
the fact that a Marauder in Fantasy is nearly the same size as a Guard model in 40K, which is nearly the same size as a Space Marine, just shows that Space Marines do need to get bigger...
'While profits are down this year, we had to spend money on a solid gold Sigmarine for the outside of our HQ. It was absolutely necessary. The base is engraved with 'Property of Tom Kirby', and all insurance and ownership is made out in my name, just in case anyone decides to... steal it. Yeah, that's why.'
The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase. Games Workshop is a company that literally flaunts the fact that it doesn't care about it's players, and they can do so because people remain willfully ignorant of their own hobby.
Let's discuss some of their aggressively awful business policies that actively hurt the hobby and the players. The first and primary issue is that they have an incredibly paternalistic approach to business; they know best about the hobby, while fans know nothing and can be ignored, They proudly claim that advertising, focus groups, and market research are unneeded. They don't have a Facebook page, there are no GW message boards, there is no direct line of conversation with the fans, they don't have any company community presence whatsoever. They don't even bother with one way communication, as they suddenly stop supporting factions people have invested hundreds of dollars without any announcements, will go years without releasing rules for less popular factions, and will stop production of entire variant game lines with no warning or communication, and definitely no regard to the people who were playing and putting time and money into those products. Now no one expects a business to continue ventures that aren't profitable, but there is a way to pull products while still showing a modicum of consideration for your customer. All companies ultimately prioritize their bottom line, but some are a lot better than others at attempting to engage the customers as as secondary objective. Almost every company is better than that than GW in this regard, which leads to my next topic.
How GW deals with competition. That is, they don't. They honestly think they have a god given right to the miniature market, and anyone else who wants to make miniatures is infringing on these rights. Historically their approach to dealing with any competitor was legally bullying them out of the market, which was very successful up until recently. Luckily judges have now decided that despite their delusions of grandeur, Games Workshop does not have the rights to things like Miniature Gaming Figurines, Orks, Elves, Marines in Space Armor, and other incredibly generic concepts. Competition is good for any market. It makes companies produce better quality products, pay more attention to fan desires, and cut prices. The fact that GW did not want to do these things, and instead simply wanted to exterminate the competition through external means speaks volumes. They clearly have no interest in changing the quality of their product or their business practices, which means they need to find other ways to stay in business...
When GW makes a poor decision, they double down on it instead of attempting an alternative plan of action. Now that they have no legs in a courtroom, and competitor companies are on the rise, their sales have started dropping. This is when a company might actually admit to some mistakes, take an honest look at why they are losing market share, and attempt to address those issues. Instead GW simply hike up prices to make their existing fanbase cover the difference. They prioritize model lines (Space Marines) that make money at the expensive of other factions, and that's why you see stuff like 2-3 sets of updated rulebooks for money-maker factions, while other less popular ones are left years behind. Not to mention the power creep that comes with new rules, which literally creates a pay to win environment, as the more popular factions require more frequent purchases, and become stronger with each update. They are 100% willing to sacrifice game balance for revenue increases, and don't care that the quality of the game suffers. They completely ignore the other viable business path: finding out why people left, and then improving the quality of the game to get these people back and attract new players. That would actually require engaging their playerbase with things like focus groups and direct communication though, and it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected")
There is one common theme to all these grievances. They pretty much paint a picture of a company that is at best indifferent towards their playerbase and their product, and at worst shows active contempt for both by trying to dodge competition rather than improve the product, edging out fans of any product line that isn't a top seller, and forcing the remaining ones to pay more in compensation while continuing to ignore them. They really are an awful company, whose continued existence is terrible for the hobby. They continue to exist however, because the fans of this hobby are just sort of dense and ignorant in their misplaced loyalty to this company. Just read this thread. You have people saying things like "they deserve to do well because they were around way back when", "I'll support them because they made the hobby what it is today", "Price Hikes are expected", "It's expected that free rules should be less well made than paid for rulebooks". These are all very poor arguments that make little sense if actually explored, but they do illustrate how willingly people will jump to protect a company that shows such active contempt for them with their business practices. One thing I will point out that is particularly pathetic, is that if you look at the first two arguments (which come up a lot), GW has clearly not only managed to convince themselves that they have a basic fundamental right to the miniature market "just because", but also have managed to instill that in a large chunk of the playerbase as well. How they managed to do this given their complete indifference towards their fans is the real enigma, but I think it has more to do with the players' willful ignorance rather than any active measure on GW's part. If you find yourself supporting GW, you really should sit back and actually think about what you are doing with your money. I highly doubt you would be as willing to invest in a bank, restaurant, grocery store, tech company that treated you the same way. But hey man, GW has been doing it forever, so I guess they have the right to act like this, right? Nils Bejerot would be proud.
The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase. Games Workshop is a company that literally flaunts the fact that it doesn't care about it's players, and they can do so because people remain willfully ignorant of their own hobby.
Let's discuss some of their aggressively awful business policies that actively hurt the hobby and the players. The first and primary issue is that they have an incredibly paternalistic approach to business; they know best about the hobby, while fans know nothing and can be ignored, They proudly claim that advertising, focus groups, and market research are unneeded. They don't have a Facebook page, there are no GW message boards, there is no direct line of conversation with the fans, they don't have any company community presence whatsoever. They don't even bother with one way communication, as they suddenly stop supporting factions people have invested hundreds of dollars without any announcements, will go years without releasing rules for less popular factions, and will stop production of entire variant game lines with no warning or communication, and definitely no regard to the people who were playing and putting time and money into those products. Now no one expects a business to continue ventures that aren't profitable, but there is a way to pull products while still showing a modicum of consideration for your customer. All companies ultimately prioritize their bottom line, but some are a lot better than others at attempting to engage the customers as as secondary objective. Almost every company is better than that than GW in this regard, which leads to my next topic.
How GW deals with competition. That is, they don't. They honestly think they have a god given right to the miniature market, and anyone else who wants to make miniatures is infringing on these rights. Historically their approach to dealing with any competitor was legally bullying them out of the market, which was very successful up until recently. Luckily judges have now decided that despite their delusions of grandeur, Games Workshop does not have the rights to things like Miniature Gaming Figurines, Orks, Elves, Marines in Space Armor, and other incredibly generic concepts. Competition is good for any market. It makes companies produce better quality products, pay more attention to fan desires, and cut prices. The fact that GW did not want to do these things, and instead simply wanted to exterminate the competition through external means speaks volumes. They clearly have no interest in changing the quality of their product or their business practices, which means they need to find other ways to stay in business...
When GW makes a poor decision, they double down on it instead of attempting an alternative plan of action. Now that they have no legs in a courtroom, and competitor companies are on the rise, their sales have started dropping. This is when a company might actually admit to some mistakes, take an honest look at why they are losing market share, and attempt to address those issues. Instead GW simply hike up prices to make their existing fanbase cover the difference. They prioritize model lines (Space Marines) that make money at the expensive of other factions, and that's why you see stuff like 2-3 sets of updated rulebooks for money-maker factions, while other less popular ones are left years behind. Not to mention the power creep that comes with new rules, which literally creates a pay to win environment, as the more popular factions require more frequent purchases, and become stronger with each update. They are 100% willing to sacrifice game balance for revenue increases, and don't care that the quality of the game suffers. They completely ignore the other viable business path: finding out why people left, and then improving the quality of the game to get these people back and attract new players. That would actually require engaging their playerbase with things like focus groups and direct communication though, and it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected")
There is one common theme to all these grievances. They pretty much paint a picture of a company that is at best indifferent towards their playerbase and their product, and at worst shows active contempt for both by trying to dodge competition rather than improve the product, edging out fans of any product line that isn't a top seller, and forcing the remaining ones to pay more in compensation while continuing to ignore them. They really are an awful company, whose continued existence is terrible for the hobby. They continue to exist however, because the fans of this hobby are just sort of dense and ignorant in their misplaced loyalty to this company. Just read this thread. You have people saying things like "they deserve to do well because they were around way back when", "I'll support them because they made the hobby what it is today", "Price Hikes are expected", "It's expected that free rules should be less well made than paid for rulebooks". These are all very poor arguments that make little sense if actually explored, but they do illustrate how willingly people will jump to protect a company that shows such active contempt for them with their business practices. One thing I will point out that is particularly pathetic, is that if you look at the first two arguments (which come up a lot), GW has clearly not only managed to convince themselves that they have a basic fundamental right to the miniature market "just because", but also have managed to instill that in a large chunk of the playerbase as well. How they managed to do this given their complete indifference towards their fans is the real enigma, but I think it has more to do with the players' willful ignorance rather than any active measure on GW's part. If you find yourself supporting GW, you really should sit back and actually think about what you are doing with your money. I highly doubt you would be as willing to invest in a bank, restaurant, grocery store, tech company that treated you the same way. But hey man, GW has been doing it forever, so I guess they have the right to act like this, right? Nils Bejerot would be proud.
Wonderful post, though now you'll be labelled as one of the "haterz" by said people.
The thing is, a lot of us "haterz" do not want GW to die. Do they deserve to die? Absolutely. But that is something completely different.
Nkcell wrote: The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase. Games Workshop is a company that literally flaunts the fact that it doesn't care about it's players, and they can do so because people remain willfully ignorant of their own hobby.
Let's discuss some of their aggressively awful business policies that actively hurt the hobby and the players. The first and primary issue is that they have an incredibly paternalistic approach to business; they know best about the hobby, while fans know nothing and can be ignored, They proudly claim that advertising, focus groups, and market research are unneeded. They don't have a Facebook page, there are no GW message boards, there is no direct line of conversation with the fans, they don't have any company community presence whatsoever. They don't even bother with one way communication, as they suddenly stop supporting factions people have invested hundreds of dollars without any announcements, will go years without releasing rules for less popular factions, and will stop production of entire variant game lines with no warning or communication, and definitely no regard to the people who were playing and putting time and money into those products. Now no one expects a business to continue ventures that aren't profitable, but there is a way to pull products while still showing a modicum of consideration for your customer. All companies ultimately prioritize their bottom line, but some are a lot better than others at attempting to engage the customers as as secondary objective. Almost every company is better than that than GW in this regard, which leads to my next topic.
How GW deals with competition. That is, they don't. They honestly think they have a god given right to the miniature market, and anyone else who wants to make miniatures is infringing on these rights. Historically their approach to dealing with any competitor was legally bullying them out of the market, which was very successful up until recently. Luckily judges have now decided that despite their delusions of grandeur, Games Workshop does not have the rights to things like Miniature Gaming Figurines, Orks, Elves, Marines in Space Armor, and other incredibly generic concepts. Competition is good for any market. It makes companies produce better quality products, pay more attention to fan desires, and cut prices. The fact that GW did not want to do these things, and instead simply wanted to exterminate the competition through external means speaks volumes. They clearly have no interest in changing the quality of their product or their business practices, which means they need to find other ways to stay in business...
When GW makes a poor decision, they double down on it instead of attempting an alternative plan of action. Now that they have no legs in a courtroom, and competitor companies are on the rise, their sales have started dropping. This is when a company might actually admit to some mistakes, take an honest look at why they are losing market share, and attempt to address those issues. Instead GW simply hike up prices to make their existing fanbase cover the difference. They prioritize model lines (Space Marines) that make money at the expensive of other factions, and that's why you see stuff like 2-3 sets of updated rulebooks for money-maker factions, while other less popular ones are left years behind. Not to mention the power creep that comes with new rules, which literally creates a pay to win environment, as the more popular factions require more frequent purchases, and become stronger with each update. They are 100% willing to sacrifice game balance for revenue increases, and don't care that the quality of the game suffers. They completely ignore the other viable business path: finding out why people left, and then improving the quality of the game to get these people back and attract new players. That would actually require engaging their playerbase with things like focus groups and direct communication though, and it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected")
There is one common theme to all these grievances. They pretty much paint a picture of a company that is at best indifferent towards their playerbase and their product, and at worst shows active contempt for both by trying to dodge competition rather than improve the product, edging out fans of any product line that isn't a top seller, and forcing the remaining ones to pay more in compensation while continuing to ignore them. They really are an awful company, whose continued existence is terrible for the hobby. They continue to exist however, because the fans of this hobby are just sort of dense and ignorant in their misplaced loyalty to this company. Just read this thread. You have people saying things like "they deserve to do well because they were around way back when", "I'll support them because they made the hobby what it is today", "Price Hikes are expected", "It's expected that free rules should be less well made than paid for rulebooks". These are all very poor arguments that make little sense if actually explored, but they do illustrate how willingly people will jump to protect a company that shows such active contempt for them with their business practices. One thing I will point out that is particularly pathetic, is that if you look at the first two arguments (which come up a lot), GW has clearly not only managed to convince themselves that they have a basic fundamental right to the miniature market "just because", but also have managed to instill that in a large chunk of the playerbase as well. How they managed to do this given their complete indifference towards their fans is the real enigma, but I think it has more to do with the players' willful ignorance rather than any active measure on GW's part. If you find yourself supporting GW, you really should sit back and actually think about what you are doing with your money. I highly doubt you would be as willing to invest in a bank, restaurant, grocery store, tech company that treated you the same way. But hey man, GW has been doing it forever, so I guess they have the right to act like this, right? Nils Bejerot would be proud.
Hey, just a quick suggestion, if you want the people that this diatribe is aimed at to read it, then a better choice of opening sentence would be advised.
Sheesh, so much griping over a luxury product. Three words come to mind:
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
But if GW is doing such a bad job, why doesn't everyone focus on a different company with a different game? There are boards for them here, the minis are available, yet most of what everyone's talking (complaining) about is GW. It's a game people, just have fun. And even if there was a point system, people would still complain about some perceived imbalance. And this:
you really think that a guy's first post here, telling GW fans that they are dense, ignorant idiots is wonderful, Grimtuff???
he could have made his points just as easily without insulting people who want to enjoy GW products...
having an opinion on a company's behavior is one thing, but attacking the fans as mindless apologists is out of line...
some of us have done the critical thinking, and decided that we like GW minis just as much as we enjoy other companies' minis, and so will continue to buy GW products...
one does not have to be stupid to buy product that they like...
we are all free to spend our hard-earned money how we like, and should not be criticized for it...
it's not like we are talking about Blood Diamonds here, or products made with the modern equivalent of slave labor...
at the end of the day, it's just toy soldiers...
jah-joshua wrote: you really think that a guy's first post here, telling GW fans that they are dense, ignorant idiots is wonderful, Grimtuff???
he could have made his points just as easily without insulting people who want to enjoy GW products...
having an opinion on a company's behavior is one thing, but attacking the fans as mindless apologists is out of line...
some of us have done the critical thinking, and decided that we like GW minis just as much as we enjoy other companies' minis, and so will continue to buy GW products...
one does not have to be stupid to buy product that they like...
we are all free to spend our hard-earned money how we like, and should not be criticized for it...
it's not like we are talking about Blood Diamonds here, or products made with the modern equivalent of slave labor...
at the end of the day, it's just toy soldiers...
cheers
jah
For sure, some people like stuff and some don't, telling those that don't agree with you that they are wrong is pretty pointless anyway.
i'm just trying to clarify if Grimtuff really thought that Nkcell's first post was really "wonderful", because i have never been put off by any of his posts in my 9 years on here...
i am a bit surprised, but like i said yesterday, this release has been quite polarizing...
did i tell anyone that they were wrong???
i just thought the guy could have made all those points very eloquently without making it a personal attack on the fans...
being angry with the company i can understand, but why be so pissed off at the fans, especially when some people, like myself, do feel that the miniatures are improving every year, and are worth the price...
pax macharia wrote: Sheesh, so much griping over a luxury product. Three words come to mind:
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
But if GW is doing such a bad job, why doesn't everyone focus on a different company with a different game? There are boards for them here, the minis are available, yet most of what everyone's talking (complaining) about is GW. It's a game people, just have fun. And even if there was a point system, people would still complain about some perceived imbalance.
Because the vocal minority is online, meanwhile the quiet majority just simply fades away; unless of course you think absolutely everyone who is "griping" throughout the entire world is here on Dakka doing so, in which case, I have some swampland...errr ocean-front property to sale you.
Since you may not look elsewhere, people are walking away in droves to at least one other company; Mantic has said that they had a sudden rush of preorders for their upcoming KoW rules.
jah-joshua wrote: i'm just trying to clarify if Grimtuff really thought that Nkcell's first post was really "wonderful", because i have never been put off by any of his posts in my 9 years on here...
i am a bit surprised, but like i said yesterday, this release has been quite polarizing...
Why?
Do we want to see GW die? No. People's jobs are on the line and there is no guarantee their IP will be picked up by anyone.
Do they deserve to die? Absolutely. They're on a self destructive path that is like watching the world's slowest sinking ship. It's disheartening to watch this happen to them. Something you once loved and put so much of your time into be mismanaged and serving as a personal golden parachute for its Chairman.
Welcome, Nkcell. Man, that's a wall o' text I would be proud of. There's another reason why GW dying wouldn't be an entirely bad thing - the fans that stick around in the wargaming hobby would see that things can be done in a much better way.
pax macharia wrote: Sheesh, so much griping over a luxury product. Three words come to mind:
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
But Pax, we live in the first world. And plenty of other companies put out 'luxury products' without such a lack of care and respect.
But if GW is doing such a bad job, why doesn't everyone focus on a different company with a different game? There are boards for them here, the minis are available, yet most of what everyone's talking (complaining) about is GW. It's a game people, just have fun.
Normally I would agree with you. As hinted, just about any other game is more carefully constructed and conscentious about it's players. But the situation is that GW's two core games are still two of the biggest wargames with some of the biggest player bases and an awful lot of nostalgia, though rapidly slipping, and what seems plain is that the decline is down to the deterioration (and canning) of decent-good rules and the rise of a ruthlessly mercenary attitude. They could so easily be good again, and so many want them to be, but from appearances GW doesn't care. Not one jot. It's like talking to the wall. That's the problem.
Oh, and 'it's a game' is in no way a justification for why we shouldn't care, either.
And even if there was a point system, people would still complain about some perceived imbalance.
Maybe, but (blue in the face...) far fewer if GW actually cared about decent playtesting and working out a balanced points system. Or as close as is actually possible. Riding an imaginary horse and plucking a number out of the air =/= autobalance.
pax macharia wrote: Sheesh, so much griping over a luxury product. Three words come to mind:
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
And? So? Therefore?
Because I live in a developed nation I'm never allowed to complain about anything because other people have it worse? Should I also never feel happy because other people are better off?
Its just such a stupid and ignorant thing to say.
But if GW is doing such a bad job, why doesn't everyone focus on a different company with a different game? There are boards for them here, the minis are available, yet most of what everyone's talking (complaining) about is GW. It's a game people, just have fun. And even if there was a point system, people would still complain about some perceived imbalance.
People have and are moving on to other games. The rise of WM/H and Infinity spring to mind, not to mention the countless Kickstarters, several in the 6 figure range, a handful in the 7 figure range if memory serves. Games are popping up that are similar to the games GW axed from their specialist range. Its happening everywhere, and if GW financials are telling us anything, its happening at a consistent, if not accelerating rate.
The reason people are often found complaining about GW is that they're the largest and many people have or still play. People are invested, monetarily and emotionally. There's upwards of two decades of memories, friendships, and countless hours spent painting, modelling, and gaming within the universes GW have built. When they constantly produce gakky rules and produce uninspired writing and art, people are bummed out or irritated about it, and rightfully so.
Finally, if they had a point system, it would have to be a good one, otherwise, yes, people would complain. But that's a good thing. Accepting mediocrity under some pretense that not everyone will be happy or won't ever be perfect is absolutely idiotic. You should honestly feel bad if that's what you think. Good things deserve praise. Bad things deserve criticism. If GW releases a rule set that barely functions, your damn right people will complain, and they'd be right in doing so. When GW produces a rule set that functions as well as the likes of Infinity, or shows a dedication to improvement like Spartan, they'll get some praise.
Complaining is not inherently a bad thing. Frame it as criticism with some actual thought and effort. Ignore the people who spout unsupported nonsense, regardless of whether its praise or negative.
I still can't believe gak like this needs to be re-iterated constantly because some people are tired of listening to opposing view points about a company they like.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would love to know the numbers of currently active players of WHFB, DBA and FoG. Probably there is no way of ever knowing.
No, because that would require GW to perform market research.....you know, that thing so "otiose" to a niche market; it's much better to have no idea who you're selling your product to, obviously.
Nkcell wrote: The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase.
I don't see how this statement can be challenged, given the most common arguments from GW apologists are usually "if you hate it so much why do you bother posting here" and "L2P noob". Honorable mention to "no other company produces models as good as GW" and "WHFB is the only game that allows you to represent fantastic mass battles".
jah-joshua wrote: you really think that a guy's first post here, telling GW fans that they are dense, ignorant idiots is wonderful, Grimtuff???
he could have made his points just as easily without insulting people who want to enjoy GW products...
having an opinion on a company's behavior is one thing, but attacking the fans as mindless apologists is out of line...
some of us have done the critical thinking, and decided that we like GW minis just as much as we enjoy other companies' minis, and so will continue to buy GW products...
one does not have to be stupid to buy product that they like...
we are all free to spend our hard-earned money how we like, and should not be criticized for it...
it's not like we are talking about Blood Diamonds here, or products made with the modern equivalent of slave labor...
at the end of the day, it's just toy soldiers...
cheers
jah
You took issue in the fact that I attacked the fans instead of the company. You are correct-- I did intentionally attacks the fans. GW is only allowed to continue with this awful business model, because the fans keep supporting it. That deserves to be criticized. Fans have every right to spend their hard earned money any way they want, but it doesn't make them immune to criticism. I believe the company is clearly toxic for the reasons I outlined above, and therefore I think anyone who supports such awful business practices is deserving of criticism. I did not call anyone stupid, idiotic, or mindless. I called people willfully ignorant and uninformed, which is what my issue with their actions is. There is a difference. Are you not admitting your willful ignorance in your own post "we like GW minis just as much as we enjoy other companies' minis, and so will continue to buy GW products". You like their product, so you are choosing to ignore their horrible business practices. I think that makes you a selfish consumer, because you are actively supporting a company that is hurting the hobby you enjoy. I'm not name-slinging, but I don't agree with you are doing, I feel you are making things worse for the hobby by doing it, and I think you should be criticized for it.
Also your other point is silly in my opinion. You are creating a false dichotomy by bringing up things like "Blood Diamonds". Just because other companies have morally reprehensible business practices does not make it ok to support GW's. Basically your point is "Well look at these other companies that are even worse... at least I don't support them". That's not a very convincing argument.
Instead of getting insulted by my points, make a counter argument addressing the 3 issues I brought up. Tell me why I'm wrong about the company, and why they deserve to be supported. You need some meat to your argument beyond "you made me feel bad". "They make nice miniatures" is a point you brought up, and is actually quite valid, but still makes you a selfish consumer in my opinion. If you disagree, tell me why you disagree.
Honestly, no but the Chairmen of other companies don't feel the need to brag about it in the preambles of their companies earning statements; therein lies the difference.
Nkcell wrote: The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase. Games Workshop is a company that literally flaunts the fact that it doesn't care about it's players, and they can do so because people remain willfully ignorant of their own hobby.
Let's discuss some of their aggressively awful business policies that actively hurt the hobby and the players. The first and primary issue is that they have an incredibly paternalistic approach to business; they know best about the hobby, while fans know nothing and can be ignored, They proudly claim that advertising, focus groups, and market research are unneeded. They don't have a Facebook page, there are no GW message boards, there is no direct line of conversation with the fans, they don't have any company community presence whatsoever. They don't even bother with one way communication, as they suddenly stop supporting factions people have invested hundreds of dollars without any announcements, will go years without releasing rules for less popular factions, and will stop production of entire variant game lines with no warning or communication, and definitely no regard to the people who were playing and putting time and money into those products. Now no one expects a business to continue ventures that aren't profitable, but there is a way to pull products while still showing a modicum of consideration for your customer. All companies ultimately prioritize their bottom line, but some are a lot better than others at attempting to engage the customers as as secondary objective. Almost every company is better than that than GW in this regard, which leads to my next topic.
How GW deals with competition. That is, they don't. They honestly think they have a god given right to the miniature market, and anyone else who wants to make miniatures is infringing on these rights. Historically their approach to dealing with any competitor was legally bullying them out of the market, which was very successful up until recently. Luckily judges have now decided that despite their delusions of grandeur, Games Workshop does not have the rights to things like Miniature Gaming Figurines, Orks, Elves, Marines in Space Armor, and other incredibly generic concepts. Competition is good for any market. It makes companies produce better quality products, pay more attention to fan desires, and cut prices. The fact that GW did not want to do these things, and instead simply wanted to exterminate the competition through external means speaks volumes. They clearly have no interest in changing the quality of their product or their business practices, which means they need to find other ways to stay in business...
When GW makes a poor decision, they double down on it instead of attempting an alternative plan of action. Now that they have no legs in a courtroom, and competitor companies are on the rise, their sales have started dropping. This is when a company might actually admit to some mistakes, take an honest look at why they are losing market share, and attempt to address those issues. Instead GW simply hike up prices to make their existing fanbase cover the difference. They prioritize model lines (Space Marines) that make money at the expensive of other factions, and that's why you see stuff like 2-3 sets of updated rulebooks for money-maker factions, while other less popular ones are left years behind. Not to mention the power creep that comes with new rules, which literally creates a pay to win environment, as the more popular factions require more frequent purchases, and become stronger with each update. They are 100% willing to sacrifice game balance for revenue increases, and don't care that the quality of the game suffers. They completely ignore the other viable business path: finding out why people left, and then improving the quality of the game to get these people back and attract new players. That would actually require engaging their playerbase with things like focus groups and direct communication though, and it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected")
There is one common theme to all these grievances. They pretty much paint a picture of a company that is at best indifferent towards their playerbase and their product, and at worst shows active contempt for both by trying to dodge competition rather than improve the product, edging out fans of any product line that isn't a top seller, and forcing the remaining ones to pay more in compensation while continuing to ignore them. They really are an awful company, whose continued existence is terrible for the hobby. They continue to exist however, because the fans of this hobby are just sort of dense and ignorant in their misplaced loyalty to this company. Just read this thread. You have people saying things like "they deserve to do well because they were around way back when", "I'll support them because they made the hobby what it is today", "Price Hikes are expected", "It's expected that free rules should be less well made than paid for rulebooks". These are all very poor arguments that make little sense if actually explored, but they do illustrate how willingly people will jump to protect a company that shows such active contempt for them with their business practices. One thing I will point out that is particularly pathetic, is that if you look at the first two arguments (which come up a lot), GW has clearly not only managed to convince themselves that they have a basic fundamental right to the miniature market "just because", but also have managed to instill that in a large chunk of the playerbase as well. How they managed to do this given their complete indifference towards their fans is the real enigma, but I think it has more to do with the players' willful ignorance rather than any active measure on GW's part. If you find yourself supporting GW, you really should sit back and actually think about what you are doing with your money. I highly doubt you would be as willing to invest in a bank, restaurant, grocery store, tech company that treated you the same way. But hey man, GW has been doing it forever, so I guess they have the right to act like this, right? Nils Bejerot would be proud.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
jah-joshua wrote: scale creep is also going on across the industry as a whole...
look at the size of the Dystopian Wars guys, or the new Infinity minis...
I'm not sure you understand what scale creep is. Do feel free to give me examples of what you're talking about from the ranges you mentioned.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
jah-joshua wrote: scale creep is also going on across the industry as a whole...
look at the size of the Dystopian Wars guys, or the new Infinity minis...
I'm not sure you understand what scale creep is. Do feel free to give me examples of what you're talking about from the ranges you mentioned.
Have you looked at any of the recent Infinity models compared to models released not even a year ago?
It's definitely a thing in that case--but primarily it's coming from a shift from hand-sculpts to CAD.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Ah, the Swiss Variation of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Ah, the Swiss Variation of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence.
Clever girl.
Never know. A man that make such sweeping comments on the low intelligence of people because they like something he doesn't might actually have something cool going on that we might want to know about. Not usually, though..
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Ah, the Swiss Variation of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence.
Clever girl.
Never know. A man that make such sweeping comments on the low intelligence of people because they like something he doesn't might actually have something cool going on that we might want to know about. Not usually, though..
You could always refute his point by specifying how GW is not showing disdain for their customers; it would be a much more erudite approach.
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Ah, the Swiss Variation of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence.
Clever girl.
Never know. A man that make such sweeping comments on the low intelligence of people because they like something he doesn't might actually have something cool going on that we might want to know about. Not usually, though..
You could always refute his point by specifying how GW is not showing disdain for their customers; it would be a much more erudite approach.
When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Relapse wrote: No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
Can you refute, or at least counter, any of it? Or even point out what bits you don't agree with and why?
S/he doesn't need to have made millions to make shrewd assertions and make use of critical thinking.
Usually, when trying to put someone down, it's customary to attach some kind of counter-argument instead of jumping straight to ad-homien attacks.
Let's face it, on reading that post you'll either recognise he's got a point and nod sagely to yourself, or recognise yourself and take offence, because that's easier than recognising he's got a point.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Usually, when trying to put someone down, it's customary to attach some kind of counter-argument instead of jumping straight to ad-homien attacks.
Welcome to Dakka. Or...rather...the internet.
I don't think there's much to discuss about GW. Their numbers are ever-shrinking, sales going down for a long time to the point of only being able to make profit because of cutting human ressources. No market research...actually, full stop. You do no market research, you're a terrible company. Kirby knows he's doing a terrible job, but he wants to get out with as much cash as possible.
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Ah, the Swiss Variation of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence.
Clever girl.
Never know. A man that make such sweeping comments on the low intelligence of people because they like something he doesn't might actually have something cool going on that we might want to know about. Not usually, though..
You could always refute his point by specifying how GW is not showing disdain for their customers; it would be a much more erudite approach.
When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
I'm not defending him; his post could have been worded better BUT he didn't call anyone stupid; if you think so, I recommend that you get out a dictionary and look up the words he spoke about informed decision making and critical thinking. If you actually read the full wall-of-text, you'd understand his point and possibly not be so upset about it. My take-away, is that he is attempting to dissuade people from purchasing GW products because if you do so, you are supporting their business practices and quality of product. You can disagree with his opinion but I don't see any overt slight in his remarks sans the word, "apologists" but even that isn't extraordinarily negative as people are in fact defending and making excuses for the objectively poor rules that were recently released, by definition making them apologists for the company's actions.
I don't have a dog in the fight between you two, just my observations. I'll go back to looking at my closet full of now useless miniatures.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
GW may have done no market research for designing AOS but it is undeniable a lot of people on DakkaDakka think the game is best thing since sliced bread, so GW got something right even if it was a lucky accident.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
A couple of quotes from your opening post:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
I've now directly asked you to please address my points instead of my perceived insult against you, and yet you continue to ignore the actual meat of the debate. You've spent 3-4 posts bemoaning your insulted honor (repeatedly point out word choice that I never actually employed) without adding a shred of actual substance to the debate. That makes it clear that either you don't have a logical counter argument or simply don't want to engage in an actual debate. I'd gladly be willing to engage in a discussion with you if you can get over the fact that I called you ignorant, which I will say you've done nothing to disprove so far.
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
Do you think it is the CAD that causes the scale creep? CAD designs can be scaled up and down very easily in the computer, and the amount of detail sculpted is independent of size of the model, so I should think Corvus Belli made a deliberate decision to make the new figures larger. Admittedly I don't know the newer Infinity models. I bought a bunch of stuff a couple of years ago when Beast Of War did their big push, but nothing since.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I suggest you reread his post or look at his quotes. Unless comments saying people who might like and buy GW products lack critical thinking or are idiots equate to something other than stupid in your dictionary, I'd say the point stands.
Some quotes of his I posted earlier you might have missed:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
I've now directly asked you to please address my points instead of my perceived insult against you, and yet you continue to ignore the actual meat of the debate. You've spent 3-4 posts bemoaning your insulted honor (repeatedly point out word choice that I never actually employed) without adding a shred of actual substance to the debate. That makes it clear that either you don't have a logical counter argument or simply don't want to engage in an actual debate. I'd gladly be willing to engage in a discussion with you if you can get over the fact that I called you ignorant, which I will say you've done nothing to disprove so far.
Have you already forgotten calling people idiots? You aren't worth talking to.
You are right. I did use the word idiot once. If you read the sentence I meant it to be from the viewpoint of GW, as in "well let these idiots pay the difference with price hikes" is there viewpoint, but never the less I used the word. I apologize for that word, and that word alone. I still maintain it is ignorant to purchase from GW if you like the hobby. Are you ready to engage in meaningful debate now, or are you going to dodge having to put any thought in the argument because your feelings were hurt?
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I suggest you reread his post or look at his quotes. Unless comments saying people who might like and buy GW products lack critical thinking or are idiots equate to something other than stupid in your dictionary, I'd say the point stands.
Some quotes of his I posted earlier you might have missed:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
So, notstupid then?
Even if you've decided to take offence as his use of the term idiot, you're really going to have to persuade me that continuing to pay higher and higher prices for essentially the same thing (often recycled) to compensate for fewer and fewer customers being prepared to stay on that treadmill isn't at least a little idiotic?
But then, I guess you're identifying with that description otherwise you wouldn't feel offended, so I don't think there's much discussion to be had on that point.
It's really not though.
MarcoSkoll heavily converts his models and mixed models from several factions, across a large timespan together.
He even admitted as much in the second page--and when you actually look at his "scale shot" on the second page, it becomes laughable how heavily he was trying to defend the idea of it being genuine dimorphism within the range.
If you were to have taken releases from each timespan altogether(remember that Infinity doesn't have a "This month is X faction, next month is Y faction" model--they release multiple models for multiple factions at the same time) and compared them to releases from the most recent timespan? There would have been HUGE differences.
No they all look pretty close. Again you can give me some examples. Anyone can pick two models from a range that are different and declare scale creep.
You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
Do you think it is the CAD that causes the scale creep? CAD designs can be scaled up and down very easily in the computer, and the amount of detail sculpted is independent of size of the model, so I should think Corvus Belli made a deliberate decision to make the new figures larger. Admittedly I don't know the newer Infinity models. I bought a bunch of stuff a couple of years ago when Beast Of War did their big push, but nothing since.
If I had to guess, it comes from the fact that previously they only used CAD for their TAG(mechs) and hand-sculpted basically everything else and a conscious decision to push CAD designs as heavily as possible while the members of the design staff weren't still 100% familiar with the tech when it came to doing infantry.
The only other alternative is that they advertised the Corregidor starter and blisters that accompanied them as "the start of the new, redesigned range!" and then flat-out chose to ignore that when doing the CAD designs for Icestorm.
I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
Can you get over the use of the words idiots and add some substance to your argument?
He can't. It is an argument that can only be rationalised emotionally, under any sort of logical, objective analysis it dissolves very quickly, hence how frequently GW defenders get upset and start attacking people, because while they're perfectly entitled to feel the way they do, they have no substance on which to base those feelings.
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
A way to balance the game? Have you been reading the complaints??
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
Including many people who are critical of (not hate, that's a stupid term) GW. Which is why it is so frustrating to see it so badly mismanaged.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
Good for you! You like things! I like things too! I liked having a mechanism for judging roughly equal forces in a game!
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
To be honest, if people genuinely like AOS and the new models, why shouldn't they buy them? It seems to me the obvious inverse behaviour to not buying them if you don't like them. I do not understand why it is such a crime either way.
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
A way to balance the game? Have you been reading the complaints??
This is my big single complaint.
I'll say that some of the mechanics of the game seem pretty positive. There are lots of interesting things going on with AoS, and it seems simple to pick up the basic rules.
However, I absolutely despair at ever finding a game where the sides are even remotely balanced.
Edit: Let me clarify. Any game which resulted in relatively balanced sides would be a matter of luck more than anything else.
chaosmarauder wrote: I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
It is the internet though man and people with nothing better to do will keep on banging that same drum, even if no one is listening.
No one is making you read it all, but it is not all that hard to edit out what you don't like seeing.
I personally ignored a hand full of posters on my profile page and all of a sudden the atmosphere of this place changes dramatically, not everyone is here to tell you what you should and should not think, thankfully.
The only positive thing that can possibly be said about AoS is that it seems pretty simple to pick up.
What good things does it have apart from that?
Games finish very quickly. Both sides suffer attrition after combat, not just the losing side (though the losing side should suffer more). Very simplified combat and shooting (though, I can understand that some people like complexity). Some interesting interactions when unit sizes reach a certain point or if heroes are nearby.
Rayvon wrote: It is the internet though man and people with nothing better to do will keep on banging that same drum, even if no one is listening.
No one is making you read it all, but it is not all that hard to edit out what you don't like seeing.
I personally ignored a hand full of posters on my profile page and all of a sudden the atmosphere of this place changes dramatically, not everyone is here to tell you what you should and should not think, thankfully.
While I agree that sometimes the best answer to something is to entirely ignore it... isn't an internet forum a place to discuss things with people who may hold different opinions to yours?
When you say the atmosphere of the place "changes dramatically", what do you mean? You're no longer forced to read opinions you disagree with?
If you're not ready to face criticism for what you do and/or challenge other people's arguments with arguments of your own (instead of ignoring them) then perhaps an internet forum is simply not suited for you?
Just to clarify, I don't mean this as a personal attack, it's just a general question aimed to people who seem to have issues with lines of thought that do not match theirs.
Rayvon wrote: It is the internet though man and people with nothing better to do will keep on banging that same drum, even if no one is listening.
No one is making you read it all, but it is not all that hard to edit out what you don't like seeing.
I personally ignored a hand full of posters on my profile page and all of a sudden the atmosphere of this place changes dramatically, not everyone is here to tell you what you should and should not think, thankfully.
While I agree that sometimes the best answer to something is to entirely ignore it... isn't an internet forum a place to discuss things with people who may hold different opinions to yours?
When you say the atmosphere of the place "changes dramatically", what do you mean? You're no longer forced to read opinions you disagree with?
If you're not ready to face criticism for what you do and/or challenge other people's arguments with arguments of your own (instead of ignoring them) then perhaps an internet forum is simply not suited for you?
Just to clarify, I don't mean this as a personal attack, it's just a general question aimed to people who seem to have issues with lines of thought that do not match theirs.
I can see what you are getting at, I don't ignore things I disagree with, just people with a constantly negative attitude that repeatedly post the same stuff, there's only a handful on there.
I come here occasionally for a bit of a discussion, but normally for a light hearted read to cheer myself up from the boredom and drudgery of day to day life, the last thing I want to read is a load of whine, over and over.
I understand that people get upset over all sorts of things and I sympathise with a lot, but just like in real life, there are people here that I would rather avoid.
The only positive thing that can possibly be said about AoS is that it seems pretty simple to pick up.
What good things does it have apart from that?
Games finish very quickly. Both sides suffer attrition after combat, not just the losing side (though the losing side should suffer more). Very simplified combat and shooting (though, I can understand that some people like complexity). Some interesting interactions when unit sizes reach a certain point or if heroes are nearby.
Like I said, simplicity is the only good thing that can be said about it.
There is no tactical depth, or there is very little of it since like you said its limited to battle shock and its interactions with heroes. There is no strategical depth because its pure pay-to-win. And to make the pure trifecta of bad rules design, it complicates PUGs even more than Fantasy or 40K ever did...
chaosmarauder wrote: I like the hero phase, it really makes a difference now who you pick as your general.
Love that they adopted skirmish/pile in combat style, is a lot more fluid than rank up method on move trays.
Battleshock is great, both sides can have guys flee if they fail bravery check - thats awesome.
You know, the "Battleshock" thing is both interesting as well as something that makes lack of points values a significant balance issue.
Obviously, things with higher levels of bravery will be better than those with lower levels since you risk losing models even after a victorious round of combat. This would mean, all other things being equal, a lower bravery unit would need more models than a higher bravery unit to keep balance. But, how many more? It gets even more wonky when you look at some of the weird things that can happen on a Battleshock roll, such as with Bloodletters. If they roll a "1" for the BS roll (haha, pun intended), instead of losing any models, the unit regains 1d6 models. Obviously, a unit that regains models on 17% of BS rolls is more valuable than a unit that doesn't have this benefit.
Kanluwen wrote: You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
You've just done what I specified was insufficient to prove scale creep. One small figure and one large figure does not make scale creep.
Maybe if you hadn't picked one of smallest figures from the box as your first exhibit.
Relapse wrote: When a man starts out by calling people stupid, I have found that the approach I used makes any actually worth talking to reflect on themselves a bit, opening the way for further discussion.
Has that approach ever worked before? Further discussion was already open, you just need to engage in discussion instead of digs.
Several times. His opening comments would have had some merit without the personal attacks on people that shut down any discussion. As it is, he sabotaged his points with the attacks.
One would as easily ask how many times a conversation where someone opened up by calling people stupid and peppered the sentiment throughout the rest of their statement goes.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Do you believe that only people who have created multi-million dollar businesses have the right to an opinion? Do you believe that only those people can make an informed opinion? I don't believe either be true, but that's really not related to my points at all. What are you doing here is called a red herring argument. Instead of trying to create some type of tangential related side argument by asking me that frivolous question, why don't you actually address the issues I brought up about Games Workshop's business practices? Or better yet directly address my point by providing an on-point counter argument on why you feel it's not ignorant to knowingly give money to a company with such horrific marketing strategies?
Also your are the second person to put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid or an idiot. I was harsh with my words, but I think I chose them correctly, and I've yet to see anyone make a valid counterargument to my actual points, beyond stating how hostile I came off in my post.
I believe people who I don't know opening a conversation by calling me stupid should expect to be asked what makes them a cut above. In your case, you've shown me nothing.
By insisting you were called stupid when you weren't really isn't helping your "not stupid" argument.
I suggest you reread his post or look at his quotes. Unless comments saying people who might like and buy GW products lack critical thinking or are idiots equate to something other than stupid in your dictionary, I'd say the point stands.
Some quotes of his I posted earlier you might have missed:
"The apologist arguments for Games Workshop in this thread are embarrassing, and frankly indicative of a fundamental lack of critical thinking or informed decision making in this hobby's playerbase"
" it's much easier to just let people leave, and let the idiots who stay pay the difference via price increases. (These are the people you see in this thread, who say things like "well price hikes are expected") "
So, notstupid then?
Even if you've decided to take offence as his use of the term idiot, you're really going to have to persuade me that continuing to pay higher and higher prices for essentially the same thing (often recycled) to compensate for fewer and fewer customers being prepared to stay on that treadmill isn't at least a little idiotic?
But then, I guess you're identifying with that description otherwise you wouldn't feel offended, so I don't think there's much discussion to be had on that point.
And yet, here you are, putting money into or at least time to write extensive posts about a game company you seem to hate, but can't leave.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
How does it looks awesome? Visually? Mechanically?
I am honestly curious, because I just don't see it. I've been playing since 4th...bought sold and traded probably every army in play at one time or another and still have more lizards and DE than a reasonable man could ever use at once.
AoS isn't what I have been buying and collecting for. GW has effectively "squatted" my entire collection if I want to use them for the sole purpose of playing GW games. Yep, the new "rules" are free. They better be given that four pages hardly qualifies as something to charge people money for.
I am not doing myself a disservice. I am saving my time to play something that actually interests me. AoS does not interest me in the least.
I happen to have plenty of time on my hands right now, and my objectives in posting aren't something you're in a position to really judge.
But this isn't about me, is it?
Since you seem to be in attack mode on me, I would say I am in good position to judge you. But this line of discussion is pointless, and I have other things to do now then waste time with you.
To the original thread: Something tells me AoS is going the Hobbit/LoTR path.... along with rest of the Fantasy. Meaning 40k will be the sole source of major income for GW.... and judging by how they've been running it since 5th Ed, it's gonna tank at one point.... I think...?
I happen to have plenty of time on my hands right now, and my objectives in posting aren't something you're in a position to really judge.
But this isn't about me, is it?
Since you seem to be in attack mode on me, I would say I am in good position to judge you. But this line of discussion is pointless, and I have other things to do now then waste time with you.
Now, let's be clear, I'm not attacking you, I was attacking your argument that you'd been called stupid, when, in reality, you never were.
You were already being told to refute the arguments rather than attack posters, you've simply carried on doing that, but seem to have transferred to me.
But bravo, you've managed to fulfil practically every criteria of a GW defender, right up to the dramatic storming off.
Kanluwen wrote: You understand that the two models I showed were created for the exact same range, roughly a year apart, with the only difference being CAD(Alguacile--model on the right in bare metal) versus hand sculpt(Wildcat--model on the left, basecoated brown) right?
Which goes into what I put in my post: scale creep is very real for Infinity, and it centers around CAD v. Handsculpt.
You've just done what I specified was insufficient to prove scale creep. One small figure and one large figure does not make scale creep.
Maybe if you hadn't picked one of smallest figures from the box as your first exhibit.
Spoiler:
You understand that the reason I posted that specific model was dealing with the fact that I was focused primarily upon showcasing the nonsense of the "average" Wildcat model from the Corregidor starter pack(the only one who is male and closest to genuinely standing straight), who are wearing armor plates and armored voidsuits, being tiny compared to the new Alguaciles(Light Infantry who are wearing nothing but a chestplate over their work suit) right?
In any case, you can keep pretending that what I showed was "insufficient to prove scale creep". The vast majority of Infinity players have made mention of it before, and I've said my piece on my reasons for being so upset about the whole situation to begin with before.
You understand that the reason I posted that specific model was dealing with the fact that I was focused primarily upon showcasing the nonsense of the "average" Wildcat model from the Corregidor starter pack(the only one who is male and closest to genuinely standing straight), who are wearing armor plates and armored voidsuits, being tiny compared to the new Alguaciles(Light Infantry who are wearing nothing but a chestplate over their work suit) right?
In any case, you can keep pretending that what I showed was "insufficient to prove scale creep". The vast majority of Infinity players have made mention of it before, and I've said my piece on my reasons for being so upset about the whole situation to begin with before.
Have fun being wrong in any case.
Yes they're wearing armour plates and such yet they're still smaller than other models from the same box who are not (hacker). The Nomad model is clearly wearing some sort of padded armour, the only difference is the shoulder pads. You need to try looking at the models you have, The scale of the miniature was variable within the same box, that's not scale creep. By the way all those Corregidor minis are wearing soft plimsolls or they have freakishly undersized feet. You have literally no idea what you're talking about so save your taunts pal.
No, I do not want GW to fail. There is no replacement for GW as a unpainted model company that makes product I want to buy. I don't have faith in any other company to make new impressive multi-part models with variations, most everybody else just copies something GW didn't do great or dropped. I have not seen any producer pumping out Mortis Engine, Celestial Hurricanum, and Stegadon qualty kits or Islands of Blood/Drak Vengeance starter sets.
Everybody else wants the money, but I dont see their limited product lines as worth putting money into. Game with whatever model you want, but GW to me is the best producer. If they had not started increasing the quality of their kits I would have dropped Warhammer kits altogether. I been burned by buying crappy GW models aswell though(mostly older stuff). They have made an impressive comeback in my book(Granted I cherry pick models)
If they fail, I doubt anybody would even try and come up with new stuff. Cutting the amount of money investment for fantasy infantry, per-army, would be the best thing GW could do. I also don't worship the oop models
JNC wrote: No, I do not want GW to fail. There is no replacement for GW as a unpainted model company that makes product I want to buy. I don't have faith in any other company to make new impressive multi-part models with variations, most everybody else just copies something GW didn't do great or dropped. I have not seen any producer pumping out Mortis Engine, Celestial Hurricanum, and Stegadon qualty kits or Islands of Blood/Drak Vengeance starter sets.
Everybody else wants the money, but I dont see their limited product lines as worth putting money into. Game with whatever model you want, but GW to me is the best producer. If they had not started increasing the quality of their kits I would have dropped Warhammer kits altogether. I been burned by buying crappy GW models aswell though(mostly older stuff). They have made an impressive comeback in my book(Granted I cherry pick models)
If they fail, I doubt anybody would even try and come up with new stuff. Cutting the amount of money investment for fantasy infantry, per-army, would be the best thing GW could do. I also don't worship the oop models
The creators of Warzone: Ressurection would like to have word with you.
I do not hope that GW will fail, but it should fall atleast hard enough to cast out the whole managment layer, plus some rule designers.
What should be especially neccessary for GW's managment, is that it realises that tabletop wargaming is and probably will stay an niche market.
@JNC - I, like you, place extraordinary weight in the importance of the models, and I happen to like GW kits very much.
If I were to assign importance to various aspects of the hobby on a scale of 1 to 10, I would rank quality of rules at 3, quality of fluff at 5, and quality of models at 10. It really trumps everything by so much that I can live with anything else as long as the models are awesome. In addition, I place size of collection at 7 -- I won't invest more than a pittance in a collection that is small.
The reason that I place such a small priority to rules quality is because the number of pickup games I play is almost zero, and in a private setting, it's easy to fix, whereas you can't 'fix' the models in a collection you don't like. To me, the rules and fluff are a context for the models; rather than the models being pieces for a game. (case in point, I haven't played with most of my PP models, but I keep buying and paintig them).
Other than an aesthetic and model quality that I personally really like, I like configurable kits a lot. I spend a TON of time deciding how to build 40k buildings, space marines, tanks, etc. Just the planning is a hobby for me.
No doubt, your critical thinking skills have led you to a decades long internationally successful business. Tell all of us non critical thinkers of it and the secret to how you made your millions.
You misunderstand. GW has nailed their strategy to a tee, and clearly has some shrewd businessmen behind it. It's the playerbase who buys into their awful system that lack the critical thinking skills. As I said to the other poster, this is why I'm criticizing the players and defenders of GW. Buying their models because you really just love them is one thing, but defending the company after they show such clear unmarked contempt for their players is something I just can't wrap my head around.
I ask you again, what have you created, based on your great knowledge, that people are interested in enough to fork over to you several millions in cash? Or are you just someone who has nothing to offer except telling people they're stupid for liking something?
Ah, the Swiss Variation of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defence.
Clever girl.
In other words - 'You don't need to be a carpenter to know the roof is leaking'.
Even if I had never tarred a roof, it is easy to know that water dripping from the ceiling is a bad thing....
The Auld Grump - until last year I had never hot tarred a roof....
I don't wish for GW to fail. I like the pre-AoS fantasy and 40k IP. But I hope Age of Sigmar is enough of a failure to make them wake up to how far they have fallen.
@George Spiggot: please explain to me where i have so wrongly understood your definition of scale creep....
i pointed out the Chaos Dwarves, who have gone from the original Chaos Centaurs, to the bigger Bull Centaurs, then on to the even bigger FW Bull Centaurs...
the same with Space Marines, as each generation of mini has gotten a little bigger, until we have a huge difference in size between the original RT Beakie box, and the 2013 Tac. Squad...
anyway, what is the big deal with me liking the move to slightly larger minis as the years have gone by???
@Nkcell: you think i am a selfish customer for enjoying GW minis...
ok, i can't argue with your personal opinion, because you have already made up your mind, without even knowing me...
it is a shame, too, because my whole purpose in this hobby is to provide my clients with beautiful paintjobs that make them happy...
i try to do something positive, and can't see that as a bad thing...
How did this thread get to 16 pages without someone correcting the painful spelling error in the title?
Anyway, I've stopped hoping that GW goes under because it's kind of spiteful. You know, if you like the stuff GW is producing good for you, enjoy yourself. I just think it's garbage.
I do hope that other games keep rising in popularity, and maybe that one day a different company will have the number one spot.
chaosmarauder wrote:I think this line of thinking is getting old and has been done to pieces, we get it - some people hate GW - just let it go and understand that a huge amount of people love their product.
New AOS looks awesome, give it a chance for gods sake if not ur doing yourself a disservice.
I like how both sides in combat have to take battleshock tests, that each unit has a set to hit and to wound roll, that each army entry has all special rules listed for it, and each turn you roll to see who goes first.
And they did a free downloadable codex for every single old army! What more could you want?!
And those rules are nothing - NOTHING - that you can't find in a wide range of other wargames rules where the author was actually allowed to give a fig about rules quality or balance. Including some that you can slot your AoS minis into.
You do yourself a disservice if you don't give them a chance.
JNC wrote:No, I do not want GW to fail. There is no replacement for GW as a unpainted model company that makes product I want to buy. I don't have faith in any other company to make new impressive multi-part models with variations, most everybody else just copies something GW didn't do great or dropped. I have not seen any producer pumping out Mortis Engine, Celestial Hurricanum, and Stegadon qualty kits or Islands of Blood/Drak Vengeance starter sets.
Mysterious Pants wrote: How did this thread get to 16 pages without someone correcting the painful spelling error in the title?
Anyway, I've stopped hoping that GW goes under because it's kind of spiteful. You know, if you like the stuff GW is producing good for you, enjoy yourself. I just think it's garbage.
I do hope that other games keep rising in popularity, and maybe that one day a different company will have the number one spot.
I know huh? I've asked for the OP to change it twice >.<
HOPING BEYOND HOPE!
But to your other point, I think that's a farm more positive (and constructive) attitude to cheer for your team than to pray that another one will crash and burn!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vermis wrote: And those rules are nothing - NOTHING - that you can't find in a wide range of other wargames rules where the author was actually allowed to give a fig about rules quality or balance. Including some that you can slot your AoS minis into.
You do yourself a disservice if you don't give them a chance.
The difference is how much you care, and what kind of game you want to play. As I said a couple of posts back, as long as the game is relatively playable and I can enjoy myself with my friends, the models and to a lesser extent, the context in which the models are being played, are just a lot more important than the mechanics of the rules for me.
Pretty much no matter what the rules for the wargame are (and we've played easily many dozens over the years), we can have a good time. However, it's impossible to fix models that you don't like, fluff (context) that doesn't suit your tastes, or game scale (if you want a small game or a big game).
The competitive angle isn't really a big deal for me, because we strive for close games, no matter what the reason is, we'll make the adjustments to give both players reasonably equal chances to win, even if one player is much better than the other. Just the way we are, because it's not really much fun to beat my buddy 9 times in a row. In this sense, as I read it somewhere, the "dialogue/conversation with your opponent" and "narrative based play" and "social gaming" is very much our group, though we're probably very modelling/collection heavy, too. We're all pretty excited to see any new models others have finished, just as much so as (or more than) a new codex release.
However, where AoS falls short for me: list building is important, because I really enjoy building lists, something that is not really a part of what we see of AoS so far. Configuration and Loadouts are a big deal for me, and that's not there (though I understand why). Also, context and scale hurt AoS for me, because I (greatly) prefer scifi games, and I like them with a lot of models, and AoS is just not designed with big games in mind.
JNC wrote:No, I do not want GW to fail. There is no replacement for GW as a unpainted model company that makes product I want to buy. I don't have faith in any other company to make new impressive multi-part models with variations, most everybody else just copies something GW didn't do great or dropped. I have not seen any producer pumping out Mortis Engine, Celestial Hurricanum, and Stegadon qualty kits or Islands of Blood/Drak Vengeance starter sets.
And now you won't see GW pump them out either.
GW makes awesome, configurable kits. There are other companies that make excellent models, too, but I think GW's are, overall, better and they have a more complete collection. Swappable multipart kits aren't for everyone, but there is no model line in the world with as many possible configurations as space marines; there are no vehicles in the world with as many swappable parts and options as GW ones.
Some people probably think that GW models are ugly and a waste of time to build. But looking at recent models, I love many of the large premium models like Bloodthirster, Treeman Ancient, Nagash, many of the small models like Jetbike Farseer, the Dark Angels Chaplain, and AdMech Dominus. I love the build complexity, how they are all zero-undercut parts, and I love that they are all in high resolution HIPS, and how must kits have more than one way to be built. I mean, how much would PP fans like for their models to all be in plastic instead of resin, restic, or metal?
Also, I am a HUGE fan of GW's 40k scenery products. There is nothing even remotely comparable to what's available for Cities of Death/Wall of Martyrs stuff, not to mention the RoB city boards, and the Forgeworld premium boards.
Vermis wrote: And now you won't see GW pump them out either.
Uh... oh, I could have sworn they just dropped a multi-part Bloodthirster and other multi-part kits recently. I didn't buy it but it so much better than the metal Bloodthirster I paid 50$ for.
We are at the tip of a product launch, yet it's still the END TIMES What happened to that 'in 5 months GW will be death spiraling' thing?
Honestly I'll reiterate what I said before.
I'm a new 40k player and I want 40k to stick around.
I'll get GW models but I know their flaws and weaknesses and it could be a lot better.
I would love for the game I'm interested in to be handled better, however that happens. Whether that's GW wising up, someone buying out GW or someone else entirely taking over their properties. Don't give a damn how it happens.
Vermis wrote: And now you won't see GW pump them out either.
Uh... oh, I could have sworn they just dropped a multi-part Bloodthirster and other multi-part kits recently. I didn't buy it but it so much better than the metal Bloodthirster I paid 50$ for.
We are at the tip of a product launch, yet it's still the END TIMES What happened to that 'in 5 months GW will be death spiraling' thing?
Indeed... Bloodthirster, Nagash, Morghasts, Treeman Ancient were all super-premium fantasy models.
On top of Age of Sigmar with 47 brand-new minis, a few pieces of fantasy terrain, a box of Sigmarites coming the week after, and a Sigmarite clampack, these products were released in 2015 as part of GW's Death Spiral --
Harlequin Troupe, Skyweaver, Starweaver, Death Jester, Solitaire Shadowseer, Farseer jetbike, Windrider, Autarch, Necron Overlord, Skitarii Rangers, Ballistarius, Dunecrawler, Ironstrider, Ruststalkers, Kataphron, Kastelan Robots, Kastelan Tech-dude, Electro-Priests, Dominus, Devastators, Assault Marines, Librarian, Chaplain, Plasma Obliterator, Promethium Pipes, Land Raider Excelsior, Rhino Priamris, and upgrade sprues for 4 space marine factions.
Oh yes -- a whole new brush range that's way bigger than the old one, new paints, a line of figurine cases, and something like a codex a month, and the Khorne fellas that I can't remember the name of.
Soooo... if GW Death Spiraled anymore, they'd need new releases twice a week O.o
jah-joshua wrote: @George Spiggot: please explain to me where i have so wrongly understood your definition of scale creep....
On both the other ranges you mentioned.
Whether you or I like it is irrelevant since my original comment was aimed at people with existing gaming collections who don't want (more) scale creep.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW may have done no market research for designing AOS but it is undeniable a lot of people on DakkaDakka think the game is best thing since sliced bread, so GW got something right even if it was a lucky accident.
Only if it leads to increased sales. There's always a group of people who will like product x, a group in the middle and a group who hates it. People liking the game is to be expected, the million pound question is: is there enough of those people to sustain their revenue, let alone increase it?
Kilkrazy wrote: GW may have done no market research for designing AOS but it is undeniable a lot of people on DakkaDakka think the game is best thing since sliced bread, so GW got something right even if it was a lucky accident.
Only if it leads to increased sales. There's always a group of people who will like product x, a group in the middle and a group who hates it. People liking the game is to be expected, the million pound question is: is there enough of those people to sustain their revenue, let alone increase it?
Well, since Fantasy sales were pitiful, I don't think it takes much to increase it.
A lot of 40k'ers will give Sigmar a go because it's a low model count game with an aesthetic that they're probably going to like. As a primary 40k modeler and gamer, I never got into Fantasy *partly* because the model requirements were high AND the models, when ranked up, felt very samey. I mean, it's like painting 200 snapfit marines or guardians. That would just be so boring, even for a guy that loves painting, and it's daunting to do it for a game you might not play a lot.
We actually found it was way more fun than we thought it would be -- and we took stupid models that was literally whatever we owned in Fantasy that was painted (because none of us own anything vaguely resembling a compete Fantasy army). The other thing that was cool was that 2 girlfriends who are just super-casual Magic players joined in to see what it was all about for a game, and they picked it up in no time at all, and enjoyed themselves enough to consider playing again. I think if the game were much more complex, that wouldn't have been the case.
I didn't *love* the game, but it was fun, short, and skirmish. I don't think it was particularly better than WMH or anything, and it's sure not going to replace 40k as our game.
On the other hand, we actually played a game set in Fantasy, which has never happened for us, and most of us are likely to buy AoS on launch day -- though the number that buy the Sigmarites box or clampack the week following might be sharply lower.
And yet, here you are, putting money into or at least time to write extensive posts about a game company you seem to hate, but can't leave.
Some people find the practices of gw to be interesting, and worth discussion. This is a forum for the discussion of gw. If they liked the game, they would presumably still be playing it which is completely unrelated to the discussion of the game. Likewise, if they hate it they can still go to a site for the discussion of the game and have a discussion about it.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW may have done no market research for designing AOS but it is undeniable a lot of people on DakkaDakka think the game is best thing since sliced bread, so GW got something right even if it was a lucky accident.
Only if it leads to increased sales. There's always a group of people who will like product x, a group in the middle and a group who hates it. People liking the game is to be expected, the million pound question is: is there enough of those people to sustain their revenue, let alone increase it?
Well, since Fantasy sales were pitiful, I don't think it takes much to increase it.
A lot of 40k'ers will give Sigmar a go because it's a low model count game with an aesthetic that they're probably going to like. As a primary 40k modeler and gamer, I never got into Fantasy *partly* because the model requirements were high AND the models, when ranked up, felt very samey. I mean, it's like painting 200 snapfit marines or guardians. That would just be so boring, even for a guy that loves painting, and it's daunting to do it for a game you might not play a lot.
We actually found it was way more fun than we thought it would be -- and we took stupid models that was literally whatever we owned in Fantasy that was painted (because none of us own anything vaguely resembling a compete Fantasy army). The other thing that was cool was that 2 girlfriends who are just super-casual Magic players joined in to see what it was all about for a game, and they picked it up in no time at all, and enjoyed themselves enough to consider playing again. I think if the game were much more complex, that wouldn't have been the case.
I didn't *love* the game, but it was fun, short, and skirmish. I don't think it was particularly better than WMH or anything, and it's sure not going to replace 40k as our game.
On the other hand, we actually played a game set in Fantasy, which has never happened for us, and most of us are likely to buy AoS on launch day -- though the number that buy the Sigmarites box or clampack the week following might be sharply lower.
You're assuming there that sales can only go up for fantasy. That is incorrect, they can still go down at this point. Enough to kill the particular franchise completely. What happens remains to be seen.
Lockark wrote: I don't wish for GW to fail. I like the pre-AoS fantasy and 40k IP. But I hope Age of Sigmar is enough of a failure to make them wake up to how far they have fallen.
It probably won't happen. I mean, part of me is chortling at the wacky AoS stuff, but at the same time, I feel honestly bad for Fantasy players who approached WHF as even a semi-competitive game. Regardless of how good AoS is, it's a terrible successor to Fantasy, essentially telling a big chunk of the customer base that they were having the wrong sort of fun.
And heck, if I were a 40K player, I'd be wondering with a feeling of dread if the style of AoS will be seen in the next edition.
Torga_DW wrote: You're assuming there that sales can only go up for fantasy. That is incorrect, they can still go down at this point. Enough to kill the particular franchise completely. What happens remains to be seen.
In the mid/long term, I agree; it could be a flame that burns out. In the immediate future, I think Sigmar will do fine.
The few people that I know who play 8e Fantasy rarely (almost never?) buy new models for their armies -- certainly not like the 40k folks I know.
jah-joshua wrote: @George Spiggot: please explain to me where i have so wrongly understood your definition of scale creep....
On both the other ranges you mentioned.
Whether you or I like it is irrelevant since my original comment was aimed at people with existing gaming collections who don't want (more) scale creep.
so it is not valid to say that the industry itself is going through a scale creep???
when i first started, Citadel miniatures were called 25mm scale...
now companies are creating wargaming minis in 28mm, 32mm, 35mm, 42mm, 54mm, 75mm and more...
it is a bit hard to keep it all straight, and come up with terminology that is acceptable to everyone...
i'm not trying to be right here, but it just seems like we are really splitting hairs, and that is pointless in my opinion...
there is something out there for everyone really...
you can get minis from 6mm scale all the way up to 200mm, which is great as far as i'm concerned...
if you think that Infinity is not going through its first bout of scale creep, i'm not going to go 'round and 'round to convince you of what i see...
i would say that you liking it or not liking it is very relevant, as the individual is the one buying products...
if you want to crusade for someone else, that's cool...
many people on this site have already made it very clear that i am a very selfish customer, even though i have never said that anyone else's opinion is irelevant or invalid...
if it is selfish to speak with my own voice, about the things that i like, instead of trying to champion the cause of some faceless "them", when everyone seems to have wildly varying desires about what they would like to see from a company's product, then i will just have to accept someone else's labeling of me...
if people are put-off by scale creep, while others are not, there doesn't really seem to be any one answer...
since that seems to be the case, why should i not just voice my opinion about what i personally enjoy???
i have never told any one to suck it up and get over it, or anything dismissive like that...
i have only said why i enjoy the different generations of minis...
i'm not trying to do that at the expense of others, since we are not in control of any mini manufacturer's choices...
all we can do is vote with our wallet...
if you choose not to buy GW because you don't want to support the new bigger minis, that's fine...
i like it, so i buy them...
And heck, if I were a 40K player, I'd be wondering with a feeling of dread if the style of AoS will be seen in the next edition.
I don't have that feeling at all. Why would GW give up the incredibly lucrative codex cash cow for a free rules model? For heavens sake, there's one guy in our group who buys the LE version of every freakin' codex just so he can put it on a shelf, then buys the digital copy so that he doesn't mess up his collector items. And when he's at my place, uses my books so that he can leave me French Fry grease on my books!
I think if WHFB were doing half as well as 40k, GW would have been quite content with churning out the editions ad infinitum.
To the original thread: Something tells me AoS is going the Hobbit/LoTR path.... along with rest of the Fantasy. Meaning 40k will be the sole source of major income for GW.... and judging by how they've been running it since 5th Ed, it's gonna tank at one point.... I think...?
Um, where have you been? GW already is tanking, its has been for over a year now. Or do you think that they went from released a new dex every 3 months and new models every month to churning out next models and books every week out of the goodness of their hearts?
Everything GW has done since 7e came out reeks of company that sees the writing on the wall and is doing everything they can to hide it from their investors short of actually giving the customers what they want, because as GW so proudly boasted, they have no idea what we want, nor do they care.
Torga_DW wrote: You're assuming there that sales can only go up for fantasy. That is incorrect, they can still go down at this point. Enough to kill the particular franchise completely. What happens remains to be seen.
In the mid/long term, I agree; it could be a flame that burns out. In the immediate future, I think Sigmar will do fine.
My prediction is it will struggle to do fine in the immediate future, but we'll know either way when the financials are released for this half. Kinda funny to me that the last financials haven't been released yet and already i feel like they're obsolete.
Talys wrote: The few people that I know who play 8e Fantasy rarely (almost never?) buy new models for their armies -- certainly not like the 40k folks I know.
Thats a correlation/causation issue though. Are they not buying because they are the sort of people that generally don't buy new things? Or are they not buying because they're dissatisfied with the way things were going? Would be interesting to know.
And heck, if I were a 40K player, I'd be wondering with a feeling of dread if the style of AoS will be seen in the next edition.
I don't have that feeling at all. Why would GW give up the incredibly lucrative codex cash cow for a free rules model? For heavens sake, there's one guy in our group who buys the LE version of every freakin' codex just so he can put it on a shelf, then buys the digital copy so that he doesn't mess up his collector items. And when he's at my place, uses my books so that he can leave me French Fry grease on my books!
I think if WHFB were doing half as well as 40k, GW would have been quite content with churning out the editions ad infinitum.
They didn't have to keep on churning out new editions... I think a lot of people (and I know a bunch of WFB playing guys who were really into the game, playing lots of tournaments each year etc.) might have hoped they had just kept the previous 8th edition on sale, alongside, AoS.
I don't think anyone begrudges GW releasing this new game. It's more the fact that they've set up something new, while completely disregarding the loyal fanbase of WHFB who have played the game for 20-30 years. TOs now have a difficult choice of trying to keep appeal to those players, or do they go with the new AoS? What will probably happen is a split down the middle, with a detriment to those tournaments that lose players to other games as well as AoS, and those that just stop bothering with it.
And this new game isn't WHFB in terms of the character of play, mechanics, balance, tactics employed to play. The chances are it's not going to scratch that itch for a lot of players, and the fact that forums are already abuzz with attempts to try and introduce some semblance of a balance mechanic before the game has even be released; you don't know whether to laugh or cry about it.
The whole thing is actually like a nightmare.. I still can't believe it has happened, or that GW would do something so crass.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats a correlation/causation issue though. Are they not buying because they are the sort of people that generally don't buy new things? Or are they not buying because they're dissatisfied with the way things were going? Would be interesting to know.
Anecdotally, there's a bunch that haven't bought stuff for a *really* long time, because they're pretty happy with what they have and are pretty happy playing their 7e games, with no real desire to move on to much else. There isn't this burning "OMGIGOTTAHAVEIT" of my 40k acquaintances.
And of course, I don't mean they don't buy *anything*. A couple of boxes of minis or a really nifty premium model of their faction, sure, but that's about it. GW desires the fans that will basically purchase a weekly product release subscription
Obviously, the majority fall somewhere in between. But I'm curious, for example, what the X-Wing average annual spend is in Y1, Y2, Y3.. and what it will be in Y10 and Y15. Also -- there's a philosophy of "well, let's sell them another game", and then, there's the philosophy of, "let's get them to buy more stuff for the game they're playing", and we all know where GW's mojo is at.
They didn't have to keep on churning out new editions... I think a lot of people (and I know a bunch of WFB playing guys who were really into the game, playing lots of tournaments each year etc.) might have hoped they had just kept the previous 8th edition on sale, alongside, AoS.
I don't think anyone begrudges GW releasing this new game. It's more the fact that they've set up something new, while completely disregarding the loyal fanbase of WHFB who have played the game for 20-30 years. TOs now have a difficult choice of trying to keep appeal to those players, or do they go with the new AoS? What will probably happen is a split down the middle, with a detriment to those tournaments that lose players to other games as well as AoS, and those that just stop bothering with it.
And this new game isn't WHFB in terms of the character of play, mechanics, balance, tactics employed to play. The chances are it's not going to scratch that itch for a lot of players, and the fact that forums are already abuzz with attempts to try and introduce some semblance of a balance mechanic before the game has even be released; you don't know whether to laugh or cry about it.
The whole thing is actually like a nightmare.. I still can't believe it has happened, or that GW would do something so crass.
I suppose, they could have. I personally think they should have forked the product into a skirmisher and a big-model-count game. But I'm not sure keeping 8e out there makes any sense; I mean, it obviously isn't attracting new players, so who's going to buy all those books that take up space on the shelf?
@ jah-joshua:
With those other ranges you're talking about a completely different thing, miniatures ranges being released with larger miniatures. That's not the same thing as miniatures for the dame thing getting bigger in a game causing the old figures to be dwarfed by the new ones and look out of place. This is no crusade, just a single comment that two posters thought they needed to dispute.
Just this week I've just started painting 28mm miniatures again after a long period paining 15mm miniatures. So I can appreciate the benefits of a larger canvas. This has nothing to do with old miniatures looking out of place next to new ones because the new miniatures for the same thing are bigger.
Vermis wrote: I dunno. I never said anything about five month.
So sorry, did not mean to attach that to you directly; just a little passive-aggressively
--Below is pointed at no-one.--
In the future, there may be some kick-arse Tzeentch(or Nurgle) 'marines', some people who are not currently impressed, may or may not like, that improves the consumption of product.....maybe.
Nb43rdparty 'true-scale' bolt gun.
It is hard for me to outright believe the good models just stop coming. I personally think 'End Times' was a pretty good send-off. Did the general consensus ever like the fantasy rules, for any edition?
Talys wrote: Oh yes -- a whole new brush range that's way bigger than the old one, new paints, a line of figurine cases, and something like a codex a month, and the Khorne fellas that I can't remember the name of.
Soooo... if GW Death Spiraled anymore, they'd need new releases twice a week O.o
A lot of people see this as furiously bailing out the boat as its sinking: yes, they're working hard (and producing some amazing kits!) but ultimately they're not getting anywhere.
You would hope that with the amazing rate of releases, they would be improving. Last year saw a significant increase in release schedule over the previous, but ended up with falling sales. I think we might see the same again this year despite (or perhaps because of) the rapid release rate.
Compare this to Warmachine, Infinity, XWing where the release schedule is much more leisurely yet sales appear to be growing steadily.
So yes, I think if we DO see GW releasing every Wednesday AND Saturday and they still don't increase their sales numbers, that definitely would be signs of imminent collapse.
Mysterious Pants wrote: How did this thread get to 16 pages without someone correcting the painful spelling error in the title?
Anyway, I've stopped hoping that GW goes under because it's kind of spiteful. You know, if you like the stuff GW is producing good for you, enjoy yourself. I just think it's garbage.
I do hope that other games keep rising in popularity, and maybe that one day a different company will have the number one spot.
you think GW miniatures are garbage? what juju powder are you smoking? if any thing GW are the leaders of making miniatures... their games are average sure... but come on, this hobby is all about the miniatures.... I am just surprised more people are not using GW miniatures in their others games (or do those game creators stop them from doing so)
Talys wrote: Oh yes -- a whole new brush range that's way bigger than the old one, new paints, a line of figurine cases, and something like a codex a month, and the Khorne fellas that I can't remember the name of.
Soooo... if GW Death Spiraled anymore, they'd need new releases twice a week O.o
A lot of people see this as furiously bailing out the boat as its sinking: yes, they're working hard (and producing some amazing kits!) but ultimately they're not getting anywhere.
You would hope that with the amazing rate of releases, they would be improving. Last year saw a significant increase in release schedule over the previous, but ended up with falling sales. I think we might see the same again this year despite (or perhaps because of) the rapid release rate.
Compare this to Warmachine, Infinity, XWing where the release schedule is much more leisurely yet sales appear to be growing steadily.
So yes, I think if we DO see GW releasing every Wednesday AND Saturday and they still don't increase their sales numbers, that definitely would be signs of imminent collapse.
GW is so successful and large that it (in a business sense) has multiple ways to survive, even if they close down all their stores and stop producing fantasy and other stuff like their "hobby kits" (which are expensive, buy any hardware store quality ones) and focus only on 40k (which technically would make PERFECT business sense) they would still be the top dogs in miniature world... GW is not going to die in any way, it has layers upon layers of safety nets to keep alive, at worst if AoS fails GW will leave fantasy and close down the majority of their stores (apart from the popular ones) :/ it will still be alive and kicking though
Talys wrote: Oh yes -- a whole new brush range that's way bigger than the old one, new paints, a line of figurine cases, and something like a codex a month, and the Khorne fellas that I can't remember the name of.
Soooo... if GW Death Spiraled anymore, they'd need new releases twice a week O.o
A lot of people see this as furiously bailing out the boat as its sinking: yes, they're working hard (and producing some amazing kits!) but ultimately they're not getting anywhere.
You would hope that with the amazing rate of releases, they would be improving. Last year saw a significant increase in release schedule over the previous, but ended up with falling sales. I think we might see the same again this year despite (or perhaps because of) the rapid release rate.
Compare this to Warmachine, Infinity, XWing where the release schedule is much more leisurely yet sales appear to be growing steadily.
So yes, I think if we DO see GW releasing every Wednesday AND Saturday and they still don't increase their sales numbers, that definitely would be signs of imminent collapse.
>.<
Those models are very expensive to tool up and produce in plastic. I don't think any other company could even afford to do so. Of course, since we don't have their financials, it's impossible to obsess over their performance.
An alternate view: 40k is selling better than ever, Fantasy was flagging, and LoTR is fading into nothingness. In the midst of this, GW is still highly profitable, enough so to produce TONS of new sculpts (and books and art, etc.) and make them a reality.
If all those releases were just books, yes, I'd agree that it was all just a desperate last gasp. But they aren't. They are a brick ton of real, actual models -- that people who enjoy the aesthetic think are the some of GW's best work ever, with even more models coming down the pipeline. In half a year, they're producing more new stuff than the next 3 largest companies put together without breaking a sweat.
Talys wrote: Oh yes -- a whole new brush range that's way bigger than the old one, new paints, a line of figurine cases, and something like a codex a month, and the Khorne fellas that I can't remember the name of.
Soooo... if GW Death Spiraled anymore, they'd need new releases twice a week O.o
A lot of people see this as furiously bailing out the boat as its sinking: yes, they're working hard (and producing some amazing kits!) but ultimately they're not getting anywhere.
You would hope that with the amazing rate of releases, they would be improving. Last year saw a significant increase in release schedule over the previous, but ended up with falling sales. I think we might see the same again this year despite (or perhaps because of) the rapid release rate.
Compare this to Warmachine, Infinity, XWing where the release schedule is much more leisurely yet sales appear to be growing steadily.
So yes, I think if we DO see GW releasing every Wednesday AND Saturday and they still don't increase their sales numbers, that definitely would be signs of imminent collapse.
>.<
Those models are very expensive to tool up and produce in plastic. I don't think any other company could even afford to do so. Of course, since we don't have their financials, it's impossible to obsess over their performance.
An alternate view: 40k is selling better than ever, Fantasy was flagging, and LoTR is fading into nothingness. In the midst of this, GW is still highly profitable, enough so to produce TONS of new sculpts (and books and art, etc.) and make them a reality.
If all those releases were just books, yes, I'd agree that it was all just a desperate last gasp. But they aren't. They are a brick ton of real, actual models -- that people who enjoy the aesthetic think are the some of GW's best work ever, with even more models coming down the pipeline. In half a year, they're producing more new stuff than the next 3 largest companies put together without breaking a sweat.
From all appearances here it looks like there is a fair number of people in my area looking forward to the new look of Warhammer and are pre ordering as well as getting back into fantasy. Mantic is also benefitting from the change because of those that don't like the new direction.
A rising tide raises all boats, at least in this area. I think I'll enjoy playing both game systems.
Talys wrote: An alternate view: 40k is selling better than ever, Fantasy was flagging, and LoTR is fading into nothingness. In the midst of this, GW is still highly profitable, enough so to produce TONS of new sculpts (and books and art, etc.) and make them a reality.
They produce them because they're still hiring the people to make them. No point hiring a design team and manufacturing personnel if they're sitting on their asses doing nothing. Even the very rapid releases shows a short term mindset. Much of it is limited time availability, and restricted to online sales directly from them. This shows that while they're tooling molds (not very much a big deal for them, they have staff and equipment on their payroll to do it themselves, it's only expensive when you're outsourcing it), they don't have the staff or production resources to actually make enough, so they're strangling sales avenues to maximise direct sales, and giving quick 'limited time' tag to those releases.
GW are cutting costs everywhere they can to bring profits up. Yes, this is normal behaviour. However, you cut costs and raise prices to increase your profit. As it is, it's been flat for many years. Which says that price rises and lower operation costs are merely making the company keep up with declining sales.
Which isn't too bad, until you run out of costs to cut and market will no longer bare your price increases. Falling sales (again, indicated by flat revenue, cut costs and raised prices - the only place for it to happen is lower sales) would indicate that the market is no longer baring the costs - people are either not buying altogether, or, as research suggests with other miniature companies expanding rapidly, buying elsewhere. The fact that stores are pretty regularly closing and opening in less than favourable areas, staffed by single people and the design team is a shadow of what it was, they're really running out of costs to cut. They can't exactly cut stores altogether, since they're been very antagonistic to independent retailers over recent years.
It takes a very special type of person to look at GW's aggressive pricing, cost cutting and flat revenue to say 'yep, everything looks rosy'.
It takes a very special type of person to look at GW's aggressive pricing, cost cutting and flat revenue to say 'yep, everything looks rosy'.
In that case, half the people here on Dakka and all the other 40k forums are Special, since so many of them INSIST that there is nothing wrong with GW right now and those who are complaining are just a "vocal minority."
They didn't have to keep on churning out new editions... I think a lot of people (and I know a bunch of WFB playing guys who were really into the game, playing lots of tournaments each year etc.) might have hoped they had just kept the previous 8th edition on sale, alongside, AoS.
I don't think anyone begrudges GW releasing this new game. It's more the fact that they've set up something new, while completely disregarding the loyal fanbase of WHFB who have played the game for 20-30 years. TOs now have a difficult choice of trying to keep appeal to those players, or do they go with the new AoS? What will probably happen is a split down the middle, with a detriment to those tournaments that lose players to other games as well as AoS, and those that just stop bothering with it.
And this new game isn't WHFB in terms of the character of play, mechanics, balance, tactics employed to play. The chances are it's not going to scratch that itch for a lot of players, and the fact that forums are already abuzz with attempts to try and introduce some semblance of a balance mechanic before the game has even be released; you don't know whether to laugh or cry about it.
The whole thing is actually like a nightmare.. I still can't believe it has happened, or that GW would do something so crass.
I suppose, they could have. I personally think they should have forked the product into a skirmisher and a big-model-count game. But I'm not sure keeping 8e out there makes any sense; I mean, it obviously isn't attracting new players, so who's going to buy all those books that take up space on the shelf?
The game could have continued in a similar manner to how Specialist Games functioned for many years. Reduce to a core product line, have a service so you print the rules as people buy them once existing stock levels have been depleted. GW have this production capacity in place as they use it with some of the older BL books.
You wouldn't have even had to have it on sale in GW stores and independents, just direct only. In terms of effort, it would have taken very, very little. In fact, I heard that when the 'Specialist Games' lines (although they weren't called that at the time) were taken off sale they were going to be dropped entirely. No rules available, no miniatures. But, Jervis Johnson agreed to take them under his wing (in addition to his other duties in the company), which is why they lived on for as long as they did.
It would have taken very little effort and would have been kind to the tens of thousands of veteran fans who play and love the game. AoS isn't warhammer, but instead I think (by the very fact that GWhaven't continued to sell 8th edition) that they are trying to shoe-horn all of those veterans into the new game.
I hope I don't need to point out to you why this might have been a 'good' thing to do..
bitethythumb wrote: their games are average sure... but come on, this hobby is all about the miniatures...
For some people, crazy as it sounds, the wargaming hobby is about the games.
I am just surprised more people are not using GW miniatures in their others games (or do those game creators stop them from doing so)
They don't, for the most part. GW themselves do that, with their goofy prices and the 'official' attitude they seem to have infected people with.
GW is so successful and large that it (in a business sense) has multiple ways to survive, even if they close down all their stores and stop producing fantasy and other stuff like their "hobby kits" (which are expensive, buy any hardware store quality ones) and focus only on 40k (which technically would make PERFECT business sense) they would still be the top dogs in miniature world... GW is not going to die in any way, it has layers upon layers of safety nets to keep alive, at worst if AoS fails GW will leave fantasy and close down the majority of their stores (apart from the popular ones) :/ it will still be alive and kicking though
Holy moley.
How long can GW be the top dog if even their 40K revenues continue to drop? What are their layers and layers of safety nets? (From what I hear, they've already fallen through quite a few of those) How large and successful (in a business sense) do you think GW is, compared to bigger, more successful businesses that have since croaked? I'm pretty sure some people thought TSR would be around forever, too, just because it's demise was unthinkable to the fans. But wishful thinking doesn't trump astoundingly bad business decisions and cold, hard, financial report facts.
A rising tide raises all boats, at least in this area.
It depends if the tide rises over the sharp, pointy rocks that the good ship GW has been steadily chugging towards, lately. In either eventuality, I don't know if your area will be enough to save them.
With GW, I think it is a case of death by a thousand cuts. At the moment, there is no one GW-sized competitor coming up on the inside track stealing GW market share. What there is instead are a myriad of smaller companies and rulesets all nibbling away at the GW hegemony. I think gamers now have an unprecedented choice in what games to play; even going back as short a timespan as 5 years you can see the difference - so many more games and companies have sprung up and they are all claiming their piece of the pie. This whole AoS business is a reaction to that; GW are in a bit of flap, especially regarding tanking Fantasy sales and AoS is the attempt to reboot it and reignite interest. I don't think it will work in the long term, for many of the reasons already given. I do find it interesting that GW are effectively willing to adopt a 'scorched earth' policy regarding their, what?, 30 years of Fantasy lore in order to follow this line of thinking. I find it a shame really and that is coming from someone who doesn't play fantasy and has no real attachment to the fluff so God knows how those who are primarily Fantasy players are taking it.
It will be interesting to see if GW take this to the ultimate conclusion and apply it to 40K too. At the moment, I think 40K sales are just about keeping on track, thanks in part to a frenetic release schedule, but I don't think that can be sustained for long and nor are there too many costs that can be cut that haven't already been cut. If 40K sales start to slide, how long will Kirby's finger be hovering over the AoS40k button?
filbert wrote: W even going back as short a timespan as 5 years you can see the difference - so many more games and companies have sprung up and they are all claiming their piece of the pie.
Over a 5 years time span, GW improved their piece of the pie.
filbert wrote: W even going back as short a timespan as 5 years you can see the difference - so many more games and companies have sprung up and they are all claiming their piece of the pie.
Over a 5 years time span, GW improved their piece of the pie.
It would be interesting to see GWs revenue before LotR. If it was more along the lines of their current revenue or even less, then is it not possible that what happened is this: The success of LotR caused GW to grow faster than they could reasonably sustain in the long run. With LotR and Fantasy sales falling rapidly, and the competition growing fiercer every day, they are now forced to take desperate cost-cutting measures to avoid shrinking back to a more sustainable size (which is probably what they actually should do). At the same time they cut LotR and make a last ditch effort to save Fantasy.
This is a graph I've kept running for the last few years, well decade. You can see how GW's revenues and profits have performed since 1997, and the impact that the stock exchange listing and the LOTR effect have both had in that time.
The dark lines show real value (i.e. discounted for RPI), and the lighter lines show cash values.
Just to confirm that the LOTR bubble effect seems to have ended in 2006, and since then LOTR sales have been pretty negligable overall. As was said earlier in the thread, the real sales, which are a proxy for their voume sales show a very worrying trend, i.e. that the amount of product sold now is no larger than it was at the turn of the century, and given GWs price rises proably outstrip UK RPI, they are probably actually somewhat less. 15 years of no net volume growth says all it needs to say about Kirby and his teams abiities to grow a business.
Lies, damned lies and statistics or something...
Fact is, GW saw a slight rise due to some pretty heavy handed cost cutting (one man stores and all that) that can't really be repeated (unless they go to a revolutionary 0 man store model!) but as Osbad points out, they have fallen right back again. It remains to be seen if the trend continues but I think my point still stands; despite GWs attempts to prop up falling sales volumes with cost cutting and price rises, the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing and more companies than ever are taking a share of that pie.
filbert wrote: W even going back as short a timespan as 5 years you can see the difference - so many more games and companies have sprung up and they are all claiming their piece of the pie.
Over a 5 years time span, GW improved their piece of the pie.
So while they have increased their profits (thanks to very aggressive cost cutting measures that happened in 2010, if you analyse the profit evolution since 2010, their profits are down as well), their revenue has actually declined.
filbert wrote: W even going back as short a timespan as 5 years you can see the difference - so many more games and companies have sprung up and they are all claiming their piece of the pie.
Over a 5 years time span, GW improved their piece of the pie.
If you assume the pie did not grow, but if it grew only 15% over five years, GW's share fell.
It did only if you count things like boardgames and CCG like MtG. Strictly wargames did not grow.
There was an article in ICV2 a while ago that stated that non-collectable wargame sales are growing.
We've had individual company reports stating growth from the likes of Privateer Press (10-15%) Corvus Belli (40%), Hawk Wargames, Wyrd Warlord Bolt Action (which is apparently selling extremely well) I don't need to mention FFG and X-Wing/Armada in there.. Slitherine, who make FOG, are reporting big growth in that sector.
Attendance figures for the UK's largest wargaming and miniature show, Salute, were bigger this year and they had to expand the hall size.
While the ICV2 article is muddy in terms of where it segregates tabletop wargaming/CCGs/board games, I think there are more than enough evidence there of an overall growing market, rather than a stagnant or shrinking one. Certainly, anecdotally, I will say the shelves of the better FLGS are a hell of a lot more varied and colourful than I remember them being 4-5 years ago even!
If you assume the pie did not grow, but if it grew only 15% over five years, GW's share fell.
It did only if you count things like boardgames and CCG like MtG. Strictly wargames did not grow.
We just don't have accurate figures.
Empirical evidence is that wargames have grown significantly. One only needs to consider the large number of new rulebooks published during the period,. including Field of Glory, Bolt Action, Kings of War, De Bellis Magistorum Milites, 7TV, Hail Caesar, Star Wars X Wing, and others . Also the many new 28mm plastic soldier boxes coming from Perry Bros, Warlord, and SF/Fantasy manufacturers like Mantic. Plenty of 28mm metal and resin too, not to mention 10mm (Dropzone) and space and naval games.
I could go on, but I feel my point is amply made. It is very hard to suppose that all this new stuff would come on to the market if people were not starting to buy it in increasing amounts.
Anyway, why exclude boardgames? Super Dungeon Explore, Zombicide and Gears Of War are the kind of cross-over 3D Boardgame that AOS is rather comparable to.
Talys wrote: A lot of 40k'ers will give Sigmar a go because it's a low model count game with an aesthetic that they're probably going to like.
I beg to differ. A lot of 40k'ers will give Age of Sigmar a pass precisely because there is no points values or army building structure. Whether the new models are awesome or not is irrelevant. Some 40k'ers may buy AoS for conversion fodder. While your meta is full of superfans that buy every release, my meta is full of hobby enthusiasts who have entirely moved on. Any interest in AoS has been strongly dampened by the perceived unplayability of the rules.
IMHO, while I think that GW's plastic miniature technology is generally beyond reproach, the competition is rapidly catching up. In a few years, Malifaux may be ready to challenge them for the crown. At present, they have some model assembly issues to sort out in engineering, but in terms of detail, they are very close, if not better (in some cases) than GW.
Maybe it is b/c I lack interest in the war gaming side, but when I look around, the other producers are just as expensive, with less to offer. I'm not seeing the great GW thereafter, where happiness reigns for all, with great rules.
I have no delusion, GW needs to do better, but the alternatives are not as great as they are made out to be, IMO. I'd hate to think FFG was the best/top rules/game company. I like Descent, but it ain't no D&D. Arkham Horror better than Ravenloft, LOL no. Nice dinky little cheap games, yes. I like Privateer Press, only got so much time and money, never hit me as something worthwhile.
I don't care for sci-fi skirmish, so I'm not qualified to comment on alot of other games/companies; Except none have caught my eye, or the eye of anyone around me.
I collect D&D and Pathfinder pre-painted minis, and the current cost per piece is pretty high these days. Each piece costs a little more than 2 dollars, in random sealed product. Look around ,the cost of gaming is crazy period.
Talys wrote: A lot of 40k'ers will give Sigmar a go because it's a low model count game with an aesthetic that they're probably going to like.
I beg to differ. A lot of 40k'ers will give Age of Sigmar a pass precisely because there is no points values or army building structure. Whether the new models are awesome or not is irrelevant. Some 40k'ers may buy AoS for conversion fodder. While your meta is full of superfans that buy every release, my meta is full of hobby enthusiasts who have entirely moved on. Any interest in AoS has been strongly dampened by the perceived unplayability of the rules..
A lot of 40Kers will give AoS a go because it has Space Meh-rines now and they love space marines enough to take any ol rubbish GW salty warms down their throats.
Torga_DW wrote: You're assuming there that sales can only go up for fantasy. That is incorrect, they can still go down at this point. Enough to kill the particular franchise completely. What happens remains to be seen.
In the mid/long term, I agree; it could be a flame that burns out. In the immediate future, I think Sigmar will do fine.
My prediction is it will struggle to do fine in the immediate future, but we'll know either way when the financials are released for this half. Kinda funny to me that the last financials haven't been released yet and already i feel like they're obsolete.
Talys wrote: The few people that I know who play 8e Fantasy rarely (almost never?) buy new models for their armies -- certainly not like the 40k folks I know.
Thats a correlation/causation issue though. Are they not buying because they are the sort of people that generally don't buy new things? Or are they not buying because they're dissatisfied with the way things were going? Would be interesting to know.
In my local group it was the rules that drove the bulk of us to Kings of War.
One of the players went and bought several sets of Islands of Blood and threw the rules away - he plays elves in Kings of War, and is actually likely to buy a few more IoB sets if he can get them cheap on eBay.
Pretty much everyone else is using their old Warhammer armies - though there is a new Mantic Orc army being built, and I have a crap ton of Mantic Dwarfs. (As well as a big pile of Mantic Orcs, which I am mostly using for RPGs at the moment, though my good lady has played them as an army.)
So, for a lot of us, yes, it is because we do not like the way the direction that Fantasy was going - and AoS only confirmed a decision made with eighth edition.
As for not liking change... we all piled onto a new game system, and I was one of the few that had tried it before we made the jump. (Those few of us were fairly persuasive.).
A third category uses a big old pile of minis from every which where - in part because Mantic is willing to allow this, even in official tourneys. (One of these centuries there may even be a local tourney....)
This includes newcomers that had never played Warhammer. (Though most of them had played Mordheim.)
I am afraid that eighth edition made leaving Warhammer all too easy.
I think what'll keep WH-AOS from becoming more popular, other than the balance issues, will be the costs of future releases.
The box set is a good/reasonable price, but with upcoming items like the $40 dice shaker, and GW's singular focus on profit above all else, I imagine the cost of all future items is going to be quite extraordinary. Might just be a hunch, but I'm guessing that part of this dial-down in army size will result in units being more expensive than previous.
I stopped buying WHFB because of the direction of the game. The crucial moment for me was when I looked at my existing collection and realized that I would've had to spend hundreds of dollars more to field a full-sized, effective army. (Granted, I was building skaven, but still.) The costs were too much.
Age of Sigmarines could've gotten me back in. While I sold most of my armies, I kept the fun stuff, like my doomwheel, and my character models. If I could've played a decent skirmish game with my collection, plus one or two new boxes, I'd have tried it, especially with free rules.
Instead of a decent skirmish game, we got Age of Sigmarines.
Guildsman wrote: I stopped buying WHFB because of the direction of the game. The crucial moment for me was when I looked at my existing collection and realized that I would've had to spend hundreds of dollars more to field a full-sized, effective army. (Granted, I was building skaven, but still.) The costs were too much.
Age of Sigmarines could've gotten me back in. While I sold most of my armies, I kept the fun stuff, like my doomwheel, and my character models. If I could've played a decent skirmish game with my collection, plus one or two new boxes, I'd have tried it, especially with free rules.
Instead of a decent skirmish game, we got Age of Sigmarines.
Pretty sure you'd have no problems playing a decent game of AoS using you collection...
AOS will not be the final nail, that will only happen the day that GW puts literally all the eggs in 40k, they have been doing it more and more and thats the reason other systems are obsolete in therms of sales at GW. The extremely accelerated rate of 40k new releases is IMO killing it.
So I hope AOS diversifies GW offers and 40k gets a bit of space to regroup from the avalanche of dexes. If AOS fails GW will go for moar 40k than ever, problem is they cannot screw it up because that would actually be their final nail.
Thing is I do not hope that GW fails because that would mean lots of good people would lose their jobs and thats not silly toys IP issues, its actually families lives.
In my local group it was the rules that drove the bulk of us to Kings of War.
One of the players went and bought several sets of Islands of Blood and threw the rules away - he plays elves in Kings of War, and is actually likely to buy a few more IoB sets if he can get them cheap on eBay.
Pretty much everyone else is using their old Warhammer armies - though there is a new Mantic Orc army being built, and I have a crap ton of Mantic Dwarfs. (As well as a big pile of Mantic Orcs, which I am mostly using for RPGs at the moment, though my good lady has played them as an army.)
So, for a lot of us, yes, it is because we do not like the way the direction that Fantasy was going - and AoS only confirmed a decision made with eighth edition.
As for not liking change... we all piled onto a new game system, and I was one of the few that had tried it before we made the jump. (Those few of us were fairly persuasive.).
A third category uses a big old pile of minis from every which where - in part because Mantic is willing to allow this, even in official tourneys. (One of these centuries there may even be a local tourney....)
This includes newcomers that had never played Warhammer. (Though most of them had played Mordheim.)
I am afraid that eighth edition made leaving Warhammer all too easy.
The Auld Grump
I dunno what the business model is though: if people are buying Isle of Blood (which is a great model value) and other GW models, plus their old models, to play Kings of War, how does Manti make money? O.o
Yes, it's mindshare, but it's not marketshare (expressed in dollars), and it contributes little to the bottom line.
Out of the 3 hobby shops I frequent, only one carries a decent amount of KoW, and it's tucked so far in a back cubbyhole that it's nigh impossible to wander into. The inventory is horribly stagnant. They sell more Deadzone than anything else from Mantic, I think -- and the landing pad, that people use as a proxy for a non-imperium Skyshield.
I've never played WHFB, and never intended to, so I can't speak as to what 8e did to it as a game. I do know that even in 7e, the people who played it never had the "I must buy each new release for my faction" mentality that 40k players often have the mentality of.
NAVARRO wrote: AOS will not be the final nail, that will only happen the day that GW puts literally all the eggs in 40k, they have been doing it more and more and thats the reason other systems are obsolete in therms of sales at GW. The extremely accelerated rate of 40k new releases is IMO killing it.
So I hope AOS diversifies GW offers and 40k gets a bit of space to regroup from the avalanche of dexes. If AOS fails GW will go for moar 40k than ever, problem is they cannot screw it up because that would actually be their final nail.
Thing is I do not hope that GW fails because that would mean lots of good people would lose their jobs and thats not silly toys IP issues, its actually families lives.
How about hoping for a major change in leadership for the company, then?
I honestly do not believe that the IP is as attractive as GW thinks that it is - and that if GW sinks then it will leave fewer and smaller ripples than they believe.
But that it was worth more ten years ago than it is today - the longer it is being driven into the ground, the less the IP is worth.
The new round of renaming everything in their IP is... not going to help with name recognition.
I do not hope of a Hasbro buyout - I think that ship has sailed, if it was ever headed to port to begin with.
Guildsman wrote: I stopped buying WHFB because of the direction of the game. The crucial moment for me was when I looked at my existing collection and realized that I would've had to spend hundreds of dollars more to field a full-sized, effective army. (Granted, I was building skaven, but still.) The costs were too much.
Age of Sigmarines could've gotten me back in. While I sold most of my armies, I kept the fun stuff, like my doomwheel, and my character models. If I could've played a decent skirmish game with my collection, plus one or two new boxes, I'd have tried it, especially with free rules.
Instead of a decent skirmish game, we got Age of Sigmarines.
Pretty sure you'd have no problems playing a decent game of AoS using you collection...
In actuality, Guildsman, you'd have a much easier time playing AoS than anything else. And before you dump on the rules, try them out. They're free, after all. As a skirmisher, it was more fun than we expected. One great thing about those rules being so simple is that they are very easy to learn -- which is a boon for a *secondary* game.
In my local group it was the rules that drove the bulk of us to Kings of War.
One of the players went and bought several sets of Islands of Blood and threw the rules away - he plays elves in Kings of War, and is actually likely to buy a few more IoB sets if he can get them cheap on eBay.
Pretty much everyone else is using their old Warhammer armies - though there is a new Mantic Orc army being built, and I have a crap ton of Mantic Dwarfs. (As well as a big pile of Mantic Orcs, which I am mostly using for RPGs at the moment, though my good lady has played them as an army.)
So, for a lot of us, yes, it is because we do not like the way the direction that Fantasy was going - and AoS only confirmed a decision made with eighth edition.
As for not liking change... we all piled onto a new game system, and I was one of the few that had tried it before we made the jump. (Those few of us were fairly persuasive.).
A third category uses a big old pile of minis from every which where - in part because Mantic is willing to allow this, even in official tourneys. (One of these centuries there may even be a local tourney....)
This includes newcomers that had never played Warhammer. (Though most of them had played Mordheim.)
I am afraid that eighth edition made leaving Warhammer all too easy.
The Auld Grump
I dunno what the business model is though: if people are buying Isle of Blood (which is a great model value) and other GW models, plus their old models, to play Kings of War, how does Mantic make money? O.o
Yes, it's mindshare, but it's not marketshare (expressed in dollars), and it contributes little to the bottom line.
Out of the 3 hobby shops I frequent, only one carries a decent amount of KoW, and it's tucked so far in a back cubbyhole that it's nigh impossible to wander into. The inventory is horribly stagnant. They sell more Deadzone than anything else from Mantic, I think -- and the landing pad, that people use as a proxy for a non-imperium Skyshield.
I've never played WHFB, and never intended to, so I can't speak as to what 8e did to it as a game. I do know that even in 7e, the people who played it never had the "I must buy each new release for my faction" mentality that 40k players often have the mentality of.
Warhammer 8th increased the importance of random chance - which hurt in regards to a group of players that, as a whole, prefer a tactical game to a game of chance.
I buy Mantic models - for some lines I prefer the Mantic models to their GW equivalent. (Ogres, undead, and orcs.) Some are pretty much equal (dwarfs).
But most of the local group are buying through mail order, or are special ordering through the friendly, but not so local, game store. We play at each other's houses, not in the store.
Mantic's rules are vastly superior, in my opinion*, but their minis... I think that GW models have wider appeal. (The exception has been the undead - there were several Mantic undead armies in use for Warhammer, long before Kings of War was even on the drawing board.)
The thinking is that if you like the rules then you will at least consider the minis - and it is happening, though slowly.
I like the Mantic elves - they do not look like humans wearing latex ears - but they were, perhaps, too much of a departure from the GW elves. (Who do look like humans with latex appliances.)
So, one of their early armies was kind of crippled, getting out of the gate. (Bit of irony - I have seen the Mantic elves being used more often for Lord of the Rings than Warhammer or Kings of War.)
As for GW getting the money from IoB... he bought them used on eBay - GW had already gotten their money, but did not make more.
And... I will even admit that the aesthetics on the new terrain for AoS is not horrible - I am about a million times more likely to buy the terrain than any of the miniatures, or the game itself. (Used... on eBay. )
I think that if GW just did a little more advertising they would get a lot more people into the hobby. Now sure what there key selling points would be though...
100$ for 50 plastic toy soldiers that you have to glue and paint yourself!!! *Paint and glue sold separately.
Guildsman wrote: I stopped buying WHFB because of the direction of the game. The crucial moment for me was when I looked at my existing collection and realized that I would've had to spend hundreds of dollars more to field a full-sized, effective army. (Granted, I was building skaven, but still.) The costs were too much.
Age of Sigmarines could've gotten me back in. While I sold most of my armies, I kept the fun stuff, like my doomwheel, and my character models. If I could've played a decent skirmish game with my collection, plus one or two new boxes, I'd have tried it, especially with free rules.
Instead of a decent skirmish game, we got Age of Sigmarines.
Pretty sure you'd have no problems playing a decent game of AoS using you collection...
Let me clarify: I don't think that Age of Sigmar is capable of providing a "decent" game. Regardless of my model collection, I don't believe that I could have an enjoyable game with this system.
Answer me this: how much of an army do I have? How much is my army worth? What would be a fair match-up?
Instead of a decent skirmish game, we got the simplistic, error-ridden, balance-free mess that is Age of Sigmarines.
In actuality, Guildsman, you'd have a much easier time playing AoS than anything else. And before you dump on the rules, try them out. They're free, after all. As a skirmisher, it was more fun than we expected. One great thing about those rules being so simple is that they are very easy to learn -- which is a boon for a *secondary* game.
Plenty other games with free and better rules; ones that are actual games and not pretend time. If you play a game with actually satisfactory core rules, you wouldn't particularly want or need a secondary game as you'll be busy perfecting the art of the primary.
YMMV, but I still stand by no one would be defending AoS if it had an $85 BRB buy-in.
In actuality, Guildsman, you'd have a much easier time playing AoS than anything else. And before you dump on the rules, try them out. They're free, after all. As a skirmisher, it was more fun than we expected. One great thing about those rules being so simple is that they are very easy to learn -- which is a boon for a *secondary* game.
Plenty other games with free and better rules; ones that are actual games and not pretend time. If you play a game with actually satisfactory core rules, you wouldn't particularly want or need a secondary game as you'll be busy perfecting the art of the primary.
YMMV, but I still stand by no one would be defending AoS if it had an $85 BRB buy-in.
Actually, that's not true. I want a primary game that is high model count scifi. As a secondary game, I don't want high model count (because there is only one game that I care to own thousands of miniatures for). Also, for secondary games, the aesthetic doesn't have to he my favorite (I would prefer for it to beck different) and the genre can be different too.
I don't believe that one game system can handle all of the type of models 40k has at its popular game sizes, plus only the types of models that Infinity uses at its model sizes. And, be fun in both.
For my other games, of which I'm happy to have a dozens of, I'd like to have about 20-50 infantry-mostly miniatures each (keep in mind, collectively, that's still a 500+ model collection). I don't want to have to read a 50-100 page rulebook for most of those, though (I just won't).
If you think that there is a game system that can work with everything from jets, tanks, magic, infantry and transports in 100 model games AND work as an infantry skirmisher, please let me know. Ironically, the closest to that is 40k with Kill Team for small games.
In actuality, Guildsman, you'd have a much easier time playing AoS than anything else. And before you dump on the rules, try them out. They're free, after all. As a skirmisher, it was more fun than we expected. One great thing about those rules being so simple is that they are very easy to learn -- which is a boon for a *secondary* game.
Plenty other games with free and better rules; ones that are actual games and not pretend time. If you play a game with actually satisfactory core rules, you wouldn't particularly want or need a secondary game as you'll be busy perfecting the art of the primary.
YMMV, but I still stand by no one would be defending AoS if it had an $85 BRB buy-in.
I very very much like to play 40k. It's my "primary game", if you will. I also play WMH, because its not the same. Just because I like one, it does not preclude me from liking others. Indeed, focusing all of ones energy on a single game is a really good way to "burn out" on it. I played WoW from release until mid-Cataclysm regularly (3 nights of raiding a week, plus more). I got tired of doing the same thing over and over and over and... well, you get the point. So now, when I play video games (which is admittedly getting more and more rare these days) I play a few different ones. Because they're different. People like different things, and everyone has different reasons for liking them.
And let's be real. ALL the games you're playing are "pretend time". Don't try and church it up, Dirt
AoS isn't the final nail, but it is approaching "The End Times".
Is it me or has the sideways mention of the Death of the Emperor edging closer and closer in the various 40K books?
When we see them unleash the "End Times" for 40K, we'll know then that GW has lost their final marble. They will end up not only nuking their current 40K, but Forgeworld's 30K modeling universe as well.
Talys wrote: If you think that there is a game system that can work with everything from jets, tanks, magic, infantry and transports in 100 model games AND work as an infantry skirmisher, please let me know. Ironically, the closest to that is 40k with Kill Team for small games.
If you drop the magic requirement, then Bolt Action does a pretty good job at scaling from 20 to 200+ mini's.
IMHO, while I think that GW's plastic miniature technology is generally beyond reproach, the competition is rapidly catching up. In a few years, Malifaux may be ready to challenge them for the crown.
I think Malifaux overtook them in terms of quality a while ago, they just aren't big enough to match the release rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guildsman wrote: I stopped buying WHFB because of the direction of the game. The crucial moment for me was when I looked at my existing collection and realized that I would've had to spend hundreds of dollars more to field a full-sized, effective army. (Granted, I was building skaven, but still.) The costs were too much.
I'm the same; I was hoping for Warhammer: Skirmish instead of Warhammer: WTF. I've got enough mini's kicking about for warbands for most factions, but I can't see them getting used like this.
Man. . . It is depressing to think about all of the games that exist that fulfill the requirements people put forward here, yet are not played because they never got the support of games like WH or 40K.
It is a pity that more isn't done to highlight these games.
And if and when GW sinks below the horizon... I will not be depressed.
I won't be jubilant, either - I remember when they were a better choice than they are now.
But I will not be depressed.
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* As to doing more to promote other games... the thing to do is to do it.
It took one night of playing Kings of War for my entire group to switch to KoW from Warhammer.
Being able to use their own existing armies was a major selling point.
If you don't like AoS, then don't play it! - bring along your existing armies and play Kings of War, an older edition of Warhammer, Hordes of the Things, or even the old Battlesystem game from the eighties.
And get others to play, or at least try, [Insert Game Here].
Cobra66 wrote: I think that if GW just did a little more advertising they would get a lot more people into the hobby. Now sure what there key selling points would be though...
100$ for 50 plastic toy soldiers that you have to glue and paint yourself!!! *Paint and glue sold separately.
they are, look at how much people are talking about AoS... remember BAD NEWS SELLS MORE... if anything this is brand advertising (brand awareness) at its finest... its funny a lot of people "hope" a company dies (which I do not, it means hundreds of workers out of work and sculptors and writers etc) but they go about it in a way that actually makes that company more money... for every 100 people who bash GW, 1 will buy their products and as long as there are more people who buy their products than before the more even if there are 10x more of people who bash it the more successful they get... the best way to make GW feel any type of "pain" is to stop talking about it but then I do not want that, I like GW...
If you don't like AoS, then don't play it! - bring along your existing armies and play Kings of War, an older edition of Warhammer, Hordes of the Things, or even the old Battlesystem game from the eighties.
Isn't HotT out of print? Or have I just not been able to find the company that sells the 2.1 version (that's the latest, right?).
bitethythumb wrote: for every 100 people who bash GW, 1 will buy their products and as long as there are more people who buy their products than before
Really great math there. And we know from their falling sales number that more people aren't buying their products.
the more even if there are 10x more of people who bash it the more successful they get...
Was that 10 or 100? C'mon, GW needs a ratio to maintain here!
If you don't like AoS, then don't play it! - bring along your existing armies and play Kings of War, an older edition of Warhammer, Hordes of the Things, or even the old Battlesystem game from the eighties.
And get others to play, or at least try, [Insert Game Here].
I couldn't agree with both of your sentiments more.
1. If you don't like AoS, play something else.
2. If you do like AoS, you should still try other things.
I'd add that if you just like the AoS models and don't like the rules, buy the models and use other rules, or mix and match and use whatever rules you want. Never have we had so much choice.
On the other hand, if you do like AoS... you should play it and be happy that you're having a good time.
If you don't like AoS, then don't play it! - bring along your existing armies and play Kings of War, an older edition of Warhammer, Hordes of the Things, or even the old Battlesystem game from the eighties.
Isn't HotT out of print? Or have I just not been able to find the company that sells the 2.1 version (that's the latest, right?).
bitethythumb wrote: for every 100 people who bash GW, 1 will buy their products and as long as there are more people who buy their products than before
Really great math there. And we know from their falling sales number that more people aren't buying their products.
the more even if there are 10x more of people who bash it the more successful they get...
Was that 10 or 100? C'mon, GW needs a ratio to maintain here!
if sales are down that does not mean a company is not making a profit, they just make less... could be multiple factors, could be the economy, as long as GW still makes a profit and covers their costs of production etc GW is succeeding
or in short, DOWNED SALES DOES NOT = NO PROFITS... just means less profits... still profits though
What people are and have been saying is that the downed profits are appearing in spite of price increases, cost cutting measures, rapid releases, 'big gun releases' (Knights, Marine codices, Ad Mech), and that other companies and the hobby industry growing, indicating its not the general economy affecting them.
If you have anything other to add to this conversation besides "They're making money, so everything is fine", please do so, otherwise, we get it.
What people are and have been saying is that the downed profits are appearing in spite of price increases, cost cutting measures, rapid releases, 'big gun releases' (Knights, Marine codices, Ad Mech), and that other companies and the hobby industry growing, indicating its not the general economy affecting them.
If you have anything other to add to this conversation besides "They're making money, so everything is fine", please do so, otherwise, we get it.
40k profits are probably rising, but Fantasy and LoTR profits are probably sinking faster. For all we know, those franchises could be *losing* money.
Since AoS is a radical reboot, everything is NOT fine. But it's not the end of the world for GW, either. There are a lot of shades between, 'we're happy' and 'we're bankrupt'.
40k profits are probably rising, but Fantasy and LoTR profits are probably sinking faster. For all we know, those franchises could be *losing* money.
Since AoS is a radical reboot, everything is NOT fine. But it's not the end of the world for GW, either. There are a lot of shades between, 'we're happy' and 'we're bankrupt'.
That's the thing though; we simply don't know if 40k is increasing and the drop in revenue is entirely on the other lines. Its not an unreasonable assumption to make, but so would the assumption that all their lines are shrinking, just at differing rates.
It may not be the end of world for GW right now, but I think they need to walk a much finer line and produce some quality rules to support their minis. AoS is not a quality ruleset, regardless of whether its monetized or not. I'm just a little shocked its all free, so I guess kudos to them. The rules are worth precisely 0$, but at least that's what they're charging.
What people are and have been saying is that the downed profits are appearing in spite of price increases, cost cutting measures, rapid releases, 'big gun releases' (Knights, Marine codices, Ad Mech), and that other companies and the hobby industry growing, indicating its not the general economy affecting them.
If you have anything other to add to this conversation besides "They're making money, so everything is fine", please do so, otherwise, we get it.
when did I say everything is fine? and you are simplifying the economics of things to such an extent that it is funny, rapid releases, big gun releases, cost cutting, price increases are all due to multiple factors and in spite of all of that, they still make a profit" and therefore succeeding in the most basic of business sense... other hobbies or compnaies GROWING is great and most of the time could be attributed to them being small companies and therefore growing, as the nature of economics would dictate... they growing and GW making less is not a sign that GW is dying.. it just means the miniature industry is alive and kicking.
so your argument that
"other companies are growing and gw is not therefore GW sucks and is going bankrupt"
is not an argument or even a discussion..
so I will be like you
if you have anything else to add other than "GW IS MAKING LESS AND THEREFORE SUCKS" please do, otherwise, we get it.
Check the thread in N&R. A picture of the chaos emblem with the sigils of the four gods leaked, and Slaanesh's symbol is replaced with something else. Definitely suggests some sort of change...
Guildsman wrote: Check the thread in N&R. A picture of the chaos emblem with the sigils of the four gods leaked, and Slaanesh's symbol is replaced with something else. Definitely suggests some sort of change...
infinite_array wrote:
Isn't HotT out of print? Or have I just not been able to find the company that sells the 2.1 version (that's the latest, right?).
Guildsman wrote: Check the thread in N&R. A picture of the chaos emblem with the sigils of the four gods leaked, and Slaanesh's symbol is replaced with something else. Definitely suggests some sort of change...
oh god, most probably more mothers complaining the symbol is too close to something sexual... I miss naked daemonettes
40k profits are probably rising, but Fantasy and LoTR profits are probably sinking faster. For all we know, those franchises could be *losing* money.
Since AoS is a radical reboot, everything is NOT fine. But it's not the end of the world for GW, either. There are a lot of shades between, 'we're happy' and 'we're bankrupt'.
That's the thing though; we simply don't know if 40k is increasing and the drop in revenue is entirely on the other lines. Its not an unreasonable assumption to make, but so would the assumption that all their lines are shrinking, just at differing rates.
It may not be the end of world for GW right now, but I think they need to walk a much finer line and produce some quality rules to support their minis. AoS is not a quality ruleset, regardless of whether its monetized or not. I'm just a little shocked its all free, so I guess kudos to them. The rules are worth precisely 0$, but at least that's what they're charging.
You're absolutely right that we don't have the information to draw these conclusions. It's just a likely scenario hypothesis based on revenues declining by less than what we've heard LoTR to be worth, and the certainty that Fantasy has been flagging.
I think a lot of people who have played AoS disagree with you that the rules are worthless. I actually think it's a great, secondary game that is really easy to learn, super easy to balance, and quite fun. It's not really my thing and lacks the depth for a sustained hobby (I'm not going to go out and buy $5,000 of Fantasy miniatures), but I don't know that out was ever meant to be.
Practically speaking, without the rules, I would have bought the AoS box for the models (just like I did with Isle of Blood, every PP battle box and starter). But because the rules are kinda fun and I like the plate mail heroic human knight aesthetic, I will buy the $50 box too. It isn't a ton and won't keep Fantasy afloat, but those are sales GW wouldn't have made from me if they just dropped 9e into Isle of Blood (as they did with Dark Vengeance 7e).
AoS seems very polarizing - I have heard good things from some players, and terrible things from others.
None seem to claim that there is much depth to the game - at best that it is fun, but not tactically deep.
Video battle reports seem to bear this argument up.
And every single one seems to end up with a pileup in the middle of the board.
I compare that with games of Mordheim, and AoS just comes up short.
I compare it with WARMACHINE, and it comes up short. (And I am not a huge fan of WARMACHINE - I like the 'Jacks better than the rules.)
I compare it to Warhammer... and it isn't even the same type of game. Kings of War is much, much closer to Warhammer than this piece of .
If I am making predictions... it will do better than the last version of Warhammer for a short while, then it will drop like a rock as the players find something else to play.
A flash in the pan, aimed at people with short attention spans.
Or, to paraphrase MacBeth 'It is a story told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying... nothing'.
Battles do not shape the fate of the world - 'cause the world done been blowed up.
The Auld Grump - my highschool drama teacher was named MacBeth... guess which play he had us do? (The only time I had the lead.)
Yeah, which makes me wonder if Slaaanesh is just getting a new symbol or being entirely replaced, hidden away through that story of Tyrion capturing him/her/shlim...although I'm not sure how an elf captures a god in the first place
TheAuldGrump wrote: AoS seems very polarizing - I have heard good things from some players, and terrible things from others.
None seem to claim that there is much depth to the game - at best that it is fun, but not tactically deep.
Video battle reports seem to bear this argument up.
AoS is definitely polarizing, though I would like to add that a lot of people who are bashing it haven't tried it with proxy models, or whatever. It's better than it looks on paper (remarkably, balance was not an issue at all for us) , and a lot of the silly rules are just silly rules that most people will ignore -- it's a red herring that's good for a laugh, not a reason to love or hate the game.
The game doesn't have a lot of depth to the mechanics, but the special rules are legion. I think to be 'successful' in it -- have a high win ratio against other people who are seasoned players, will require more strategy than we envision at the moment. Presently (and for me, probably forever), we're just playing it as a "hey, let's have fun" skirmisher and not looking for any depth. We're not trying to make combinations of units better; we're just playing with what we have and figuring things out as we go along.
Of course, once there are more competitive events that inevitably sprout, the Internet will sporty many super duper combos (no different than WMH) that "casual" players who just randomly take units won't be able to effectively deal with. Right now, everything kind of just working and being fun is probably just a byproduct of nobody really knowing how to play it "properly".
Some things are for sure, for me. Even if the aesthetic of the models were perfect, AoS would not be the game for me; less so than Warhammer Fantasy Battle would have been, because it doesn't look/feel like it scales well with more models, which is what I crave. On the other hand, my hobby doesn't have enough time and energy for 2 massive army games, so this is not entirely a bad thing for GW. I'm happy to keep AoS for occasional play, the same way as X-Wing or Malifaux. At least the model requirements are super-duper-easy to satisfy.
You're absolutely right that we don't have the information to draw these conclusions. It's just a likely scenario hypothesis based on revenues declining by less than what we've heard LoTR to be worth, and the certainty that Fantasy has been flagging.
Fantasy has been flagging, but I think End Times may have kept it floating for a little longer at least for the purpose of this upcoming report. Again, its a totally reasonable claim that I find 100% plausible that 40k may very well be largely stagnant in growth while the other lines are what's dragging GW down. I'd love to see the actual numbers for curiosity, but such is life I suppose.
I think a lot of people who have played AoS disagree with you that the rules are worthless. I actually think it's a great, secondary game that is really easy to learn, super easy to balance, and quite fun. It's not really my thing and lacks the depth for a sustained hobby (I'm not going to go out and buy $5,000 of Fantasy miniatures), but I don't know that out was ever meant to be.
My issues with it are that it lacks so much depth. Its simple, which is a plus, but its simple in the wrong ways. Measuring to models is actually more complicated than just using bases. Assault rules are wonky, there are loopholes that are immediately apparent the rules don't really cover or break the game. There is zero balance, no scenarios, and no army construction.
Just so we're clear, I like two things about the rules. They're free, and they're simple/short. Those two things are steps in the right direction. However, like all things GW, those two steps are accompanied by three steps back. Wonky 'narrative' rules are a bad joke (literally), total lack of balance (no, wounds are not a good balancing mechanism, the same way attacks/damage or bravery aren't good indicators), and basic rules writing is still lacking with regards to measuring, assault, and movement issues. There's little to no depth or real tactics, due in part to the lack of balance. There's no way to accurately determine why you won; could it be that the game wasn't balanced in the first place, or did you actually out play your opponent...by getting into assault first or basic target priority.
What I'll be curious about is in a few months to a year how many people will still say AoS is good/awesome if the game doesn't get fleshed out significantly.
Time will tell I suppose.
Practically speaking, without the rules, I would have bought the AoS box for the models (just like I did with Isle of Blood, every PP battle box and starter). But because the rules are kinda fun and I like the plate mail heroic human knight aesthetic, I will buy the $50 box too. It isn't a ton and won't keep Fantasy afloat, but those are sales GW wouldn't have made from me if they just dropped 9e into Isle of Blood (as they did with Dark Vengeance 7e).
The models certainly aren't bad. Fantasy Mehreens are not my shtick, so I'll wait and see what the new factions (the renaming was pretty stupid) look like before I judge too harshly.
The real shame though is the lack of a real successor to 8th for all those players.
*Edit* On a lighter note, some guys on reddit figured out that MSRP is as good a balancing benchmark. Pretty funny idea.
Blacksails wrote: The real shame though is the lack of a real successor to 8th for all those players.
Yeah, I can certainly sympathize.
Blacksails wrote: *Edit* On a lighter note, some guys on reddit figured out that MSRP is as good a balancing benchmark. Pretty funny idea.
ROFL. I didn't think of this. That's actually a pretty good idea, LOL.
It certainly got a chuckle out of me anyways.
Ah well, I'm not a fantasy player, though I have a box of lizardmen in the house somewhere. AoS doesn't appeal to me in its current form, and may continue to be unappealing to me, but I'll watching regardless to see what happens, and more importantly, what leaks into 40k.
If they really did kill of slaanesh, I'll be rather disappointed.
Relapse wrote: After seeing White Dwarves selling on Ebay for $15 and more, I think AoS is going to be a shot in the arm for Fantasy instead of a nail in the coffin.
No, that's got to be an anomaly or some sort of weird groupthink. Assuming people are buying them for $10 and they're not simply being listed for that that is.
The mini is available in the box from Sat, and one could simply download the magazine (at no cost, if you're that way inclined) if you wanted to read it.
I suspect the free mini has caused a spike in demand for WD, which I expect GW forgot to account for, given the they've underestimated demand in the past (cause research is so otiose) but anyone paying more than cover price + postage is being a little illogical.
Or somehow some people have convinced themselves this issue will become a collector's item.
Relapse wrote: After seeing White Dwarves selling on Ebay for $15 and more, I think AoS is going to be a shot in the arm for Fantasy instead of a nail in the coffin.
No, that's got to be an anomaly or some sort of weird groupthink. Assuming people are buying them for $10 and they're not simply being listed for that that is.
The mini is available in the box from Sat, and one could simply download the magazine (at no cost, if you're that way inclined) if you wanted to read it.
I suspect the free mini has caused a spike in demand for WD, which I expect GW forgot to account for, given the they've underestimated demand in the past (cause research is so otiose) but anyone paying more than cover price + postage is being a little illogical.
Or somehow some people have convinced themselves this issue will become a collector's item.
There are multiple bids on these White Dwarves, so it's not just a listed price.
There are 4 game stores within a half hour of each other here, giving a fair chance for feedback and almost everyone that's actually played the game like it.
Not quite seeing the link with the WDs, but ok - ah, you edited, still not a logical purchase though, but then, I've seen used kits of available models go for over RRP on eBay, it isn't a place to make logical assumptions.
Maybe it will work, personally I haven't played it, I didn't play Fantasy either, and I'm disinclined to try because of the lack of points and stupid rules. I will condemn it for the lack of a balancing system, but I won't condemn it as a poor game unless I try it.
But sadly for GW there's a world between liking a game and investing hundreds of currency into it. I mean, I like Cards Against Humanity, but I won't be spending hundreds of pounds on it.
Before you buy something, though, you have to like it. Indications around here are that it's going to sell pretty well. One of the game store owners here is so confident in what he's been seeing, he's giving out a $35 dollar unit box free with each purchase.
We shall see. But if the reaction to the new version around here is anything to go by, it'll do well for GW.
For myself, I'll play both this and KoW, because there're parts of both systems I like.
Relapse wrote: Before you buy something, though, you have to like it. Indications around here are that it's going to sell pretty well. One of the game store owners here is so confident in what he's been seeing, he's giving out a $35 dollar unit box free with each purchase.
You say that like the store is not still making $50+ with that "bundle".
All ways up, giving something away with something people are allegedly keen to buy already makes not a lick of sense, unless there's particularly intense competition in the area.
Look at X Wing starters last year, people really wanted those, and when stock started getting thin on the ground they started paying above RRP for them. I don't see the same thing happening with AoS (which is partly due to GW not having the supply chain issues FFG did, but still..)
Azreal13 wrote: All ways up, giving something away with something people are allegedly keen to buy already makes not a lick of sense, unless there's particularly intense competition in the area.
Look at X Wing starters last year, people really wanted those, and when stock started getting thin on the ground they started paying above RRP for them. I don't see the same thing happening with AoS (which is partly due to GW not having the supply chain issues FFG did, but still..)
As I said, there are 4 game stores really close together here, and there's another about half an hour north a couple towns over. It's a fair sized community of gamers here.
Azreal13 wrote: Which makes more sense than giving stuff away because he is confident it will sell.
I say give it a go. You might like it, you might not, but if you would like the game, it would be too bad if you missed it. I was hooked on the old Chronopia system which this reminds me of.
I like the AOS box, I might even buy it... but I doubt I'll play it. Like nearly all of GW's box bundles, its fairly good value for the number and quality on miniatures you get (if you like the aesthetic) if you can find a use for them.
As for getting MORE of my money/time to play AOS?... I'm a gamer first and foremost, and from the demo game I played of AOS its not going to do anything for me that Warmachine doesn't do better.
snurl wrote: Good value?!?
Skull Pass had 100 figures and a rule book for $60.
Aos has 47 figures and a 4 page rule folder for $125.
Bah.
Skull Pass was a great set.
Isle of Blood comes with a crap ton of miniatures too. It's also a fantastic value. I think the miniatures that come with AoS are just a lot cooler -- in the sense that, I'm more excited in these 47 miniatures than if they bundled 100 existing Fantasy miniatures.
But what can I say, I'm a sucker for knights with big shoulder pads, and I am actually a huge cat guy (my wife is to blame, though). Yeah, believe it or not, I am the proud owner of a purebred championship show cat If there were a fire or earthquake, I'd let all my minis burn without a second thought and find my cat.
That's assuming you weren't trapped in the burning building Talys as you were so busy typing out another 9 paragraph reply either here or in N&R?
I haven't had a game yet unfortunately but have watched some demos. It certainly looks quite snappy to play compared to WHFB. But, it's completely different to that game, and what got people playing Fantasy for so many years was the replay value through tactical depth. The crunch test will be how long AoS manages to keep people interested and still playing, beyond buying more stuff to spam and throw at your opponent. Answer to that as soon as I get to play a game..
Pacific wrote: That's assuming you weren't trapped in the burning building Talys as you were so busy typing out another 9 paragraph reply either here or in N&R?
I haven't had a game yet unfortunately but have watched some demos. It certainly looks quite snappy to play compared to WHFB. But, it's completely different to that game, and what got people playing Fantasy for so many years was the replay value through tactical depth. The crunch test will be how long AoS manages to keep people interested and still playing, beyond buying more stuff to spam and throw at your opponent. Answer to that as soon as I get to play a game..
I post a lot because it takes a long time for glazes to dry. Because I thin them, they take even LONGER. Right now, it's for lights on a Shrine of Aquilla :X I would pay $20 a pot for quick-dry glazes! As a bonus, I'm also watching some Anime thing on Netflix at the same time.
AoS is TOTALLY a different game. It's not even recognizable, other than the models. I mean, I've never seen a reboot so hard, lol.
Well, I played a game or two. AoS is.......different.
In the hands of competent writers it could have been a lot of fun for me and I may even have brought into it for some stand alone fun.
As is I probably won't play it again. Life is too short for rewriting a set of rules.
Relapse wrote: After seeing White Dwarves selling on Ebay for $15 and more, I think AoS is going to be a shot in the arm for Fantasy instead of a nail in the coffin.
Someone else mentioned WD selling out quickly for the free mini, a different thread, I think, there are so many concerning AOS which is a good thing in itself.
To play Devil's Advocate, rapid selling out of WD and its appearance on eBay for £15 might simply reflect a shorter print run than usual to save money on the free figure.
That said, I think AOS will do well to start with. I have some doubts about its long term prospects. I have two reasons for thinging this.
Firstly, I agree with Blacksails overall analysis that the rules are not bad but lack depth. (The worst that can be said about them in my view is that they could have been written in 1970, and don't show any awareness of developments in wargames since then.)
This kind of quick to learn and play skirmish game can sell a lot quickly when new, but then relies on continually recruiting new players, as it does not hold the ongoing attention of experienced players so well. By experienced players I mean not only current veterans, but also people who start with AOS and develop their level of knowledge and involvement through that game.
However, there are rumours of advanced rulebooks coming, so perhaps that problem will be addressed.
Secondly, GW's strategy wthAOS seems to be to sell model kits. Financial logic says if the rules are free and the armies are smaller than WHFB, then the individual models will have to be a lot more expensive than now. (Plus a bit of cream on the cake from special edition rulebooks and stuff like the gold dice cup currently offered.)
This naturally raises the danger that people may play the game using alternative models. Of course there are always the super fans and figure collectors, who prefer the GW models whatever the price, and newcomers who are more likely to buy the GW models because they probably will start with a GW starter box set.
My own feelings on it are divided. On the one hand, if I make a small army and a set of terrain pieces, the total cost is relatively limited and it would be fun to do a nice AOS set. On the other hand, I don't like the scale crept Land Marines, and GW aren't offering any new models for any of the other factions yet, so maybe it would be best to plonk down £100 for a Mantic Dwarf army and have done with it. Either way, I don't see it as a game that will justify my spending money every year to continually upgrade my setup.
To play Devil's Advocate, rapid selling out of WD and its appearance on eBay for £15 might simply reflect a shorter print run than usual to save money on the free figure.
I don't think this is the case. If you look at a regular FLGS, they get X number of copies of White Dwarf every week (let's just say 8 for argument's sake). Of those, 3 might be subscriptions, and 2 might be people who are regulars that usually buy them, and after the week is done, is over 1-2 copies might be left over.
Stores did not order more copies than usual because of the mini (they didn't know about it), and they didn't receive fewer copies, either. The copies that weren't regular store subscriptions were simply phone-reserved and gone before the issues even arrived. I ended up with a second copy only because a non-regular didn't pick theirs up within a few days (and they were told that it would only be held until the end of the day).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: My own feelings on it are divided. On the one hand, if I make a small army and a set of terrain pieces, the total cost is relatively limited and it would be fun to do a nice AOS set. On the other hand, I don't like the scale crept Land Marines, and GW aren't offering any new models for any of the other factions yet, so maybe it would be best to plonk down £100 for a Mantic Dwarf army and have done with it. Either way, I don't see it as a game that will justify my spending money every year to continually upgrade my setup.
I don't think you're the exception to the rule here. Frankly, I'm not sure how I see people spending money in a significant way to upgrade their army every year. But then again, I say that about WMH and Malifaux, too. Most people buy their gaming pieces, and they do add to that, but sparingly. An annual spend might be a couple hundred dollars? Maybe every couple of years they decide they want another army, and might buy a war box; but even that's only a hundred dollars or so. Then they add a couple more models. It's still not huge.
It is certainly *nothing* to the scale of 40k spend, where there are multiple $50+ books that a lot of serious players feel compelled to buy (some serious players feel compelled to buy them all, and there's one or more a month), and where the most popular factions feel like there are hundreds of dollars of cool things to get just to "keep up with the Jones'" -- ie, new edition, new kits, new formations etc.
Also, the army spend is just going to be less, because you're talking about 20-50 model armies, instead of 200-500 model monstrosities.
So your question is pretty good -- how do they make money in a fashion that is significant to GW? I have no idea. I'm sure my $200 I'll spend on AoS is a drop in the bucket, and GW is just in the same boat as everyone else selling low model count games -- they need a lot of people play it. Or, I guess, unless they sell a lot of campaign books.
To play Devil's Advocate, rapid selling out of WD and its appearance on eBay for £15 might simply reflect a shorter print run than usual to save money on the free figure.
I don't think this is the case. If you look at a regular FLGS, they get X number of copies of White Dwarf every week (let's just say 8 for argument's sake). Of those, 3 might be subscriptions, and 2 might be people who are regulars that usually buy them, and after the week is done, is over 1-2 copies might be left over.
Stores did not order more copies than usual because of the mini (they didn't know about it), and they didn't receive fewer copies, either.
That would be false, I know of at least one store that had their normal shipment zeroed out.
Kilkrazy wrote: My own feelings on it are divided. On the one hand, if I make a small army and a set of terrain pieces, the total cost is relatively limited and it would be fun to do a nice AOS set. On the other hand, I don't like the scale crept Land Marines, and GW aren't offering any new models for any of the other factions yet, so maybe it would be best to plonk down £100 for a Mantic Dwarf army and have done with it. Either way, I don't see it as a game that will justify my spending money every year to continually upgrade my setup.
I don't think you're the exception to the rule here. Frankly, I'm not sure how I see people spending money in a significant way to upgrade their army every year. But then again, I say that about WMH and Malifaux, too. Most people buy their gaming pieces, and they do add to that, but sparingly. An annual spend might be a couple hundred dollars? Maybe every couple of years they decide they want another army, and might buy a war box; but even that's only a hundred dollars or so. Then they add a couple more models. It's still not huge.
It is certainly *nothing* to the scale of 40k spend, where there are multiple $50+ books that a lot of serious players feel compelled to buy (some serious players feel compelled to buy them all, and there's one or more a month), and where the most popular factions feel like there are hundreds of dollars of cool things to get just to "keep up with the Jones'" -- ie, new edition, new kits, new formations etc.
Also, the army spend is just going to be less, because you're talking about 20-50 model armies, instead of 200-500 model monstrosities.
So your question is pretty good -- how do they make money in a fashion that is significant to GW? I have no idea. I'm sure my $200 I'll spend on AoS is a drop in the bucket, and GW is just in the same boat as everyone else selling low model count games -- they need a lot of people play it. Or, I guess, unless they sell a lot of campaign books.
You seem to be assuming the purchasing pattern is game defined and not budget defined. If I've got a fixed budget of, say, $100/month, and I play Malifaux, I can likely spend all of that on Malifaux (and have one of everything), that I could spend more on 40K doesn't matter if I don't have more to spend. If my 40K spend isn't enough to keep up, I'll probably drop it.
It gets more complicated when budget is split; I play 4 games but still only have my $100/month budget. I'll likely spend that on what seems the best value at the time, be it X-Wing ships, malifaux mini's, 40K books, whatever. But it generally goes on either what I need most, or what seems like the best idea. If I need to drop $200 on 40K to get my new force on the table, it has to be worth buying nothing else for 2 months.
Of course, I have a collecting problem so I spend way more than that, but still.
I think it can be defined by both. Certainly I could afford 40K miniatures when I gave up buying them in 2011, but I decided the latest price rises had made them not worth the money any more.
Nowadays I am put off buying anything 40K related by a combination of game dissatisfaction and high prices. Although I gave up buying rules and codexes in 6th edition due to pricing, the changes in the game (Unbound, Flyers, etc) mean I am not very attracted to the game now even if GW halved the price of rules and codexes.
Talys wrote: I dunno what the business model is though: if people are buying Isle of Blood (which is a great model value) and other GW models, plus their old models, to play Kings of War, how does Manti make money? O.o
Yes, it's mindshare, but it's not marketshare (expressed in dollars), and it contributes little to the bottom line.
I think you are underestimating the effects of word of mouth and/or free advertising in the form of player base. Purchases of Island of Blood to play KoW won't get Mantic any money INITIALLY, but it will make newcomers to the genre aware of their line and potentially look at their products. Considering that this cost them "$0", while this does not contribute to their bottom line in an obvious way, I can't imagine it harms it either.
You can still pre-order it, which means they haven't sold out. This could be a good or bad depending on the print run. You do get a lot of models, but at least some of them are specific within a given faction (Khorne warriors) and may end up being shelf decorations later.
I think $125 is still a pretty high cost when you can get starter from Privateer Press and Dropzone for a $100 or less. I can get fully painted started from FFG and Wizkids for around $100 as well. There are psychological finance break points that up the scrutiny with $100 being a big one. It's a good deal for GW, but not sure people will look past that.
I've seen 2 games be flashes in the pan at my FLGS store because of a combination of limited supply and poor rules. Star Trek Attack Wing has failed because the rules are a giant mess and the ships are not balanced in their points cost. People grew tired of the treadmill and inconsistent rulings. Dice Masters is the second game and it had severe issues with supply of the starter and then later had rules issues that made people punt.
I suspect once the newness wares off, people won't be as thrilled with AoS unless they heavily house rule it, which then starts issues with "being able to get a game anywhere".
You can still pre-order it, which means they haven't sold out. This could be a good or bad depending on the print run. You do get a lot of models, but at least some of them are specific within a given faction (Khorne warriors) and may end up being shelf decorations later.
I think $125 is still a pretty high cost when you can get starter from Privateer Press and Dropzone for a $100 or less. I can get fully painted started from FFG and Wizkids for around $100 as well. There are psychological finance break points that up the scrutiny with $100 being a big one. It's a good deal for GW, but not sure people will look past that.
I've seen 2 games be flashes in the pan at my FLGS store because of a combination of limited supply and poor rules. Star Trek Attack Wing has failed because the rules are a giant mess and the ships are not balanced in their points cost. People grew tired of the treadmill and inconsistent rulings. Dice Masters is the second game and it had severe issues with supply of the starter and then later had rules issues that made people punt.
I suspect once the newness wares off, people won't be as thrilled with AoS unless they heavily house rule it, which then starts issues with "being able to get a game anywhere".
Indeed, this is the mindset I've taken with it. There are many arguably good features of AOS, but without opportunity for deeper gameplay or actually being able to play a fair game without throwing darts at a board, it seems the game will struggle to maintain even the small sales of WHFB after the initial excitement wears off and people go back to fantasy-in-space 40k.
I went the other way, probably because someone else is footing the bill on this for me.
I quite fancy the Khorne models (will be my first "evil" army for sometime). The Eternals aren't offensive to me and I like them in the flesh and should make good airbrush fodder so quick to paint.
The rules intrigue me. Most of the rules seem to be in the warscrolls, which is fine as it keeps the basics straight forward. They'll be good for quick games at the club either before or after something else.
The final part of the rules is that they are a living rulebook, so while i'm expecting an advanced set at some point I also expect the basic set to be updated in due course. No Errata on this one just a revised rule sheet - I hate Errata sheets so this should be a good thing!
GW seem to be taking the launch seriously enough so hopefully the continued support is up to standard.
@notprop: Is it explicitly stated that the rules are a living rulebook? Everything I've read seems to suggest that there will be no advanced rules.
GW does not have the most sterling record of providing timely errata as their FAQs have in the past left some contentious issues unresolved or worse, applied the 4+ rule to them, so my expectations are not very high. I hope you are correct and that they will soldier through any adversity with updates and errata rather than their more customary "kill unprofitable lines" approach.
Talys wrote: Yes, it's mindshare, but it's not marketshare (expressed in dollars), and it contributes little to the bottom line.
I strongly disagree with this. Mind share isn't directly translated into market share, but in a community-based industry like miniature wargaming there's a strong "critical mass" effect where the popular games get and stay popular. For example, if you're a MTG player and you happen to stop by your local store on miniatures night the game with the highest mind share is the one you're most likely to see. And that's also the game you're most likely to buy, if you think that the genre is appealing at all. That's a big part of why GW's games continue to dominate the industry, despite having rules that are textbook examples of terrible game design.
So in the case of Mantic those ex-WHFB players might not be buying new Mantic models right away, but they are going to be sending that hypothetical MTG player over to look at the shelf of KoW starter sets. And when that person goes home to look at the KoW rulebook online they're going to see all those wonderful new Mantic products that they could buy. Meanwhile nobody is going to be doing the same for AoS, outside of GW's official stores.
Talys wrote: Yes, it's mindshare, but it's not marketshare (expressed in dollars), and it contributes little to the bottom line.
I strongly disagree with this. Mind share isn't directly translated into market share, but in a community-based industry like miniature wargaming there's a strong "critical mass" effect where the popular games get and stay popular. For example, if you're a MTG player and you happen to stop by your local store on miniatures night the game with the highest mind share is the one you're most likely to see. And that's also the game you're most likely to buy, if you think that the genre is appealing at all. That's a big part of why GW's games continue to dominate the industry, despite having rules that are textbook examples of terrible game design.
Agreed.
Free rules and designing for other company's models until they get the Mindshare and critical mass of player base.
Then start building up their more unique factions, special rules, etc once you have people playing and enjoying your game enough to buy models specifically for it.
Talys wrote: Yes, it's mindshare, but it's not marketshare (expressed in dollars), and it contributes little to the bottom line.
I strongly disagree with this. Mind share isn't directly translated into market share, but in a community-based industry like miniature wargaming there's a strong "critical mass" effect where the popular games get and stay popular. For example, if you're a MTG player and you happen to stop by your local store on miniatures night the game with the highest mind share is the one you're most likely to see. And that's also the game you're most likely to buy, if you think that the genre is appealing at all. That's a big part of why GW's games continue to dominate the industry, despite having rules that are textbook examples of terrible game design.
So in the case of Mantic those ex-WHFB players might not be buying new Mantic models right away, but they are going to be sending that hypothetical MTG player over to look at the shelf of KoW starter sets. And when that person goes home to look at the KoW rulebook online they're going to see all those wonderful new Mantic products that they could buy. Meanwhile nobody is going to be doing the same for AoS, outside of GW's official stores.
For a moment, let's just say that everything you're saying is true.
Why then, at most hobby shops, does, Mantic occupy a cubbyhole in a corner, while GW and Privateer Press get premium, prominent display? I used to travel an awful lot (80+ flights a year to major cities around the world), and visited hobby shops wherever I could -- picking up a model or two at a strange city was my little reward to myself I'm not sure I've ever seen even ONE hobby shop with Mantic product in the pimp spot (prominently displayed as you enter the store) except maybe on a New Arrivals shelf . KoW models sit, literally forever. I mean, I go back to the same store 2 years later, and the same box of dwarves is still there, marked down 50%, and a year later it's STILL there. Really, what I see the most prominent from Mantic... is Mars Attacks. Heck, 95% of the time, I see Dreamforge with significantly more prominence than Mantic.
The answer is pretty simple: when I chat with hobby shop owners and managers, it's all about MtG, 40k, and WMH when it comes to profits. Citadel paints, Vallejo at the few places that sell them, and miscellaneous hobby supplies. Woodland Scenics is big where it's sold. At the end of the day, all the hobby shops care about is what moves and what makes them profit.. They don't care about what rules system people love; they care about what sells.
For Age of Sigmar, lots of stores are doing 12:01 July 11 Launch Parties (stores are under strict orders not to sell it before Saturday). Other than Magic, I'm not sure there's any other company that I see that type of thing for.
As a comparison, I'll bet you that during the launch window, Age of Sigmar will outsell the Deadzone box set's lifetime sales. Not that we'll have the data to answer that question, unfortunately -- but how many people do you know who own Deadzone? (I actually have a box, as well as some expansions... but to use as xenos scenery for 40k, lol).
Anyways, TLDR - Hobby shops care about profits, not great rules. The models and books people spend money on are the ones that will be displayed front and center.
Talys wrote: Why then, at most hobby shops, does, Mantic occupy a cubbyhole in a corner, while GW and Privateer Press get premium, prominent display?
Because until very recently WHFB was a legitimate game with a dominant market position. Why give a prominent position to KoW when you have WHFB and most of the KoW sales are going to people who just want cheaper WHFB models? Maybe you'll keep an inventory in case someone comes in looking for those specific models, but you'd rather sell them a more expensive WHFB box and rulebooks. But now all of that just changed. GW committed suicide in the fantasy genre and replaced a legitimate game with a trainwreck that will probably make "worst game ever" lists for a long time. If the community moves to KoW (instead of some other rules, or continuing to play old versions of WHFB) then the smart stores are going to reverse those shelf positions.
For Age of Sigmar, lots of stores are doing 12:01 July 11 Launch Parties (stores are under strict orders not to sell it before Saturday). Other than Magic, I'm not sure there's any other company that I see that type of thing for.
But how many of those stores are doing it because they expect AoS to be a success, compared to the number that are desperately hyping the game because they know that GW's stupidity has the potential to cost them a lot of money if/when AoS fails? And how sustainable will that hype be? Will AoS continue to sell once everyone has tried it and can no longer dismiss its flaws as "just rumors"?
As a comparison, I'll bet you that during the launch window, Age of Sigmar will outsell the Deadzone box set's lifetime sales. Not that we'll have the data to answer that question, unfortunately -- but how many people do you know who own Deadzone? (I actually have a box, as well as some expansions... but to use as xenos scenery for 40k, lol).
But, again, you're talking about the situation as it was a week ago, when GW produced a legitimate fantasy game. With AoS they've essentially conceded that niche in the market to other companies, and that's a priceless opportunity for those half-forgotten and poor-selling WHFB alternatives to stop being poor sellers. A year from now we'll probably be asking how many people know someone who plays AoS, and speculating about how to use AoS models in KoW/WHFB/whatever.
Peregrine wrote: But how many of those stores are doing it because they expect AoS to be a success, compared to the number that are desperately hyping the game because they know that GW's stupidity has the potential to cost them a lot of money if/when AoS fails? And how sustainable will that hype be? Will AoS continue to sell once everyone has tried it and can no longer dismiss its flaws as "just rumors"?
Most certainly, AoS is a gamble. It may play out terribly, but I assert that Fantasy sales weren't all that great anyhow, and getting worse by the day, so it's not like GW had a whole lot to lose.
The problem is that you're presenting things as fact, that aren't. You might think that they're the crappiest rules in the world, the worst balanced, and totally unplayable. AoS is polarizing that way, because there are folks who certainly think that.
And yet, there are people who play it and actually find it enjoyable. Folks who would not have bought KoW OR Warhammer Fantasy for various reasons.
Is AoS a flame that flickers and dies, one the burns bright but short, or one that will be a guiding light for GW for years to come? I can't answer that. Frankly, it's not even my sort of game (but neither is KoW, or WHFB). But it was fun to play and I'll buy some models here and there. There's the POSSIBILITY that I'll play it occasionally, whereas there was no possibility that I'd ever play classic Fantasy.
But, again, you're talking about the situation as it was a week ago, when GW produced a legitimate fantasy game. With AoS they've essentially conceded that niche in the market to other companies, and that's a priceless opportunity for those half-forgotten and poor-selling WHFB alternatives to stop being poor sellers. A year from now we'll probably be asking how many people know someone who plays AoS, and speculating about how to use AoS models in KoW/WHFB/whatever.
That's possible! And it's also possible GW will do an about face and produce 9e WHFB set in the Sigmar timeframe.
I think that AoS opens a legitmate demographic for Games Workshop, though it loses an unprofitable one concurrently. Is the new demographic worth what GW loses? I cannot answer that (nor, I think can GW today). I appreciate that you hate a game structured like AoS, but you should see that there are some people who like scenario-based play a lot more than "my points your points, fight!", and you must concede that if two players play a scenario, the likelihood that they'll have a bad matchup is virtually zero.
Does that scratch MY itch? No, not at all. It's clear that AoS is not really for either of us. I want to build thousands of lists, configure thousands of models, and realize hundreds of those combinations in complex games with so hobbyists who really like, and have the time to realize, large, nicely painted armies with exotic models packed with scenery and fortifications -- and largely in a friendly and non-ultra-competitive atmosphere. I don't want to play a game with 20-30 models a side, no matter how great that game is, because it lacks table awesomeness, and that to me is very important.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Does anyone else feel that AoS is different enough from Warhammer that GW would have been better served as selling it in tandem with WHFB?
If they were going to have the war scrolls anyway... then the cannibalized sales would simply have been... sales.
The Auld Grump - I felt the same way about D&D 4th edition... it would have been better run in tandem with 3.X.
But that requires research and effort.
Yeah, AoS should have been positioned as a smaller, more fun/light-hearted/beer and pretzels approach to WHFB, and put alongside a cleaned up (balanced!) WHFB rulebook for larger battles, with a lot of hoopla made over them being interchangeable.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Does anyone else feel that AoS is different enough from Warhammer that GW would have been better served as selling it in tandem with WHFB?
If they were going to have the war scrolls anyway... then the cannibalized sales would simply have been... sales.
The Auld Grump - I felt the same way about D&D 4th edition... it would have been better run in tandem with 3.X.
I think there would have been huge potential for confusion between the two games.
The war scrolls look like stat lines from WHFB army books but a bit simplified. The new models look like the old ones but a bit larger, on different stands and with new (whacky) names. You would have two superficially similar games that actually are incompatible.
...
There's another reason why 
What happened to that 'in 5 months 
)
