A new series of kits by Airfix. They are moulded from vari-coloured plastic in camouflage patterns (for the military planes) and snap together using a lego style system.
Cool!
Incoming goalpost move in 5...4....3...2...1
Oooh! Lego Warhammer 40k... yeah a goalpost move I can live with.
Those Airfix guarantee your lego guys will ride in style.
I think we had some talks about "innovation" you want more model with your lego or more lego with your model?
Some thoughts on things I had seen in models:
How about GW includes screws or various hardware to help with larger models to join?
Or cast-in magnets for given parts to stay is position but can move when needed or failing that, some softer rubber type bushings for posing.
Anyway, pie in the sky stuff.
I have many models to go in the stockpile so I cannot afford to get too tired of 40k.
I just hope there is a game left to play them in a year or so that has evolved or I will have to dust off the old game systems (3rd or 5th?? hmmm...)
Talys wrote: For that matter, the Citadel zigzag carry cases are innovative too, particularly where it comes to transporting 40k models, which are increasingly difficult to move because of their very large and strange shapes.
Not really - the method has been used for transporting delicate and fragile items for a long, long time - from cameras to military bombsights.
Which makes it the proper choice.
Given a choice between innovation and something that has been proven to work, go with the proven design. *EDIT* An engineer will tell you that innovation fails nine times out of ten. A biologist will tell you that engineers are optimists.
The Auld Grump - I use pistol cases for transporting miniatures - egg carton foam has also been around for a long, long time.
As I said many pages ago, whether or not something is an innovation doesn't really matter. The point is whether its profitable. Making bigger miniatures, or better foam cases, or whatever, haven't made GW more money. They've been losing customers for years. The last period GW expanded was when they made a new game which was sold in toy & book stores in part because of its price point (which was low because of using "small" 28mm models).
Innovation only matters if it improves your business. You can innovate your way to bankruptcy pretty easily.
Its hard for me, I have really hard lines for what innovation is and frankly I do not see many innovative things.
But does a game need to be innovative? do models need to be innovative?
I do not think so, an old idea can be redone indefinitely fine-tuning the details and improving on existing parts can make an old thing exist indefinitely.
What games you think they were innovative the past years and in what way? what companies you think redefined the genre?
PsychoticStorm wrote: Its hard for me, I have really hard lines for what innovation is and frankly I do not see many innovative things.
But does a game need to be innovative? do models need to be innovative?
I do not think so, an old idea can be redone indefinitely fine-tuning the details and improving on existing parts can make an old thing exist indefinitely.
What games you think they were innovative the past years and in what way? what companies you think redefined the genre?
A weirdy - the zero sum scoring system in Dreadball.
A pretty danged minor innovation, but there it is.
Given a choice between innovation and something that has been proven to work, go with the proven design.
And certainly, a good company should focus on the bottom line, and keeping on doing what makes money. But by the same measure, a successful company should also keep one eye on the future, and try to undercut potential opposition by innovating before the competition can, emulating the rival innovations where successful, and keeping a watchful on innovations that have to be made as the market evolves.
There's a reason most steam engine manufacturers changed their core product or went out of business, y'know?
Given a choice between innovation and something that has been proven to work, go with the proven design.
And certainly, a good company should focus on the bottom line, and keeping on doing what makes money. But by the same measure, a successful company should also keep one eye on the future, and try to undercut potential opposition by innovating before the competition can, emulating the rival innovations where successful, and keeping a watchful on innovations that have to be made as the market evolves.
There's a reason most steam engine manufacturers changed their core product or went out of business, y'know?
And there are also reasons why you don't find too many Wankel engines in cars these days....
The Otto engine was the one out of ten, and even among steam engines there were some that, well, didn't go far. The Wankel was one of the other nine as far as innovation and the internal combustion engine are concerned.
For innovation to succeed there needs to be a perceived need, in the case of Otto vs. Compression Steam Engine it was a matter of maintenance - a steam engine has more power, square inch for square inch and ton for ton.
But they need to spend an annoying amount of time in the shed, being worked on, while an Otto engine thrives on what passes for minimal upkeep.
Custom fitting foam likely does count as innovation, while the zig zag foam has a long heritage.
Of the two, I actually prefer the zig zag cut foam - it is more adaptable, and less likely to have Battlefoam engage me in a frivolous lawsuit....
GW's using CAD is likely innovative - and properly used would give them a definite edge.
Instead, they are cutting and pasting clutter on their models, and calling it detail, and then they are cutting and pasting striped triangles and calling it 'fur'.
But some of their earlier CAD models are quite well done.
Which leads to another issue - that innovation can be used by your competition, and sometimes they do it better than you do. (I am looking at Dreamforge, right there.) They may not be as innovating, but at the end, the competition really doesn't much care, it gets the job done. (I am tempted to go into a long digression about bread baking... there is an excellent example in that industry, when small bakeries needed an edge to keep up with the bigger companies... but forgot that the bigger companies could use the exact same methods....)
Also, I'm curious as to why you wouldn't categorise troll cast as an innovation. It's a new material, and a new spin-cast manufacturing process. I'd say it's an extremely clear cut case of innovation. It's also been a commercial success, which should tick that criteria for you too.
As I said previously, I pulled my previous examples off the top of my head, I could find more if I wanted to. As such, I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with your prior assertion that there's been no innovation in the wargaming industry, and the apparent implication (forgive me if I'm reading too much into it if incorrect) that we shouldn't judge GW harshly for failing to innovate.
I've actually never seen a Trollcast model, because stuff like Raging Heroes just isn't stocked in any local store here, so I can't say if it's actually better or not, firsthand. Looking at the link that you sent, it sounds like it's main advantage is just cheaper to get to plastic. I really don't know enough about it to know how good it is compared to HIPS. For example: if you make 10,000 sprues, will sprue #1 be identical to sprue #10,000? That's something that's very important to me, because it's one of the primary benefits of plastic -- I can build 9 drop pods or 9 razorbacks, and every single one will be predictable, even in its deficiencies. It's one of the most annoying things about resin -- that #1 and #200 of a Sicaran or a Centurion are nothing alike.
I mean, it's not helpful if something is plastic, but has the downsides of resin casting too. One of the things that makes injection molded plastics expensive are that the molds are tooled from metal, rather than materials like rubber; but the benefit of that is that the molds don't degrade nearly so quickly, so you have much ore consistency in the casts. But if this isn't a problem with Trollcast, you're right, this would be an example of innovative technology. And even if it is a problem with Trollcast, it's still innovative, because maybe some people would prefer plastic, even if it were inconsistent.
We all have a different threshold of what we consider "innovation within the industry", and I don't think it's helpful to argue over where to plunk the needle, though I think failed attempts (things that are NOT commercialized or useful) should simply be deemed a valiant effort. I think that depends a lot on what industry you work in or are influenced by, because some fields just experience much more radical improvements and changes than others. In comparison to consumer electronics or automobiles or medicine, for instance, the rate of innovation in wargaming and plastic (or resin/metal) models is anemic. There aren't really that many paradigm shifts in "a brand new class of wargame" or "a brand new, clearly superior way of making models". But that's because you have industries worth trillions of dollars that draws the world's brightest minds, compared to and industry probably worth not even a billion dollars a year in total.
Anyhow, like I said, I *like* GW's technology iteration All I was trying to convey is that there's a difference between doing little things that gradually make something better, versus mind-blowing stuff that changes the way we think about or do something. Both are good!
But when people read the word 'Innovation' they are primed for world shaking improvement.
To pull out a failed bit of failed GW Innovation, there is Finecast... which spawned a cottage industry in creating mocking variants on its name. (Findcash, Failcast, etc., etc, etc....)
In that case, I am fairly certain that they were looking for a means of resin casting that could be done very quickly, and then did not take the needed time to learn the quirks of the new medium and method.
They still have the minis, but the name 'Finecast' has been tucked under the carpet.
For other companies, Restic was a good idea that was misused - it does a fine job on larger models, not so hot on smaller ones, and care needs to be taken to make the mold lines accessible for cleaning.
As a result, Restic is falling out of use, even for those models that it would actually work well for.
The Auld Grump - I like Restic, but it does take a bit of extra work.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are we actually reduced to arguing that foam rubber is or isn't an innovation?
How about some actual games?
Right. I agree! I'd like to identify some interesting innovations to either the physical aspects of wargaming that have made our lives better or more fun or more interesting, or some innovations in the actual gaming end of it., in the sense of a new type of game.
For example: back in the late 80's, you could say that RTB-01 was highly innovative. Until then, there was nothing like that, where our model soldiers came as configurable components. I think even round/square slotabases were innovative, as they opened up many possibilities that did not exist in the days of models with fixed, molded bases (for instance, movement trays, or modelling the base). A lot of times, innovation doesn't require breaking technology barriers; it just requires a good idea that nobody had before.
It's entirely fair, though, if we conclude that wargaming has matured, and that innovations are therefore much more difficult and unlikely; in the same way that cell phones have, and it's hard to invent groundbreaking technology today, but it's relatively easy to improve little things or add minor features that encourage people to upgrade.
I think the innovative discussion has been beaten to death and back over the past few pages, I don't think Rick talked about innovation at all in the article we are discussing, perhaps time to move on?
SickSix wrote: Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.
Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.
Cadians aren't 20 years old. They came out with the EoT campaign in 2003.
SickSix wrote: Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.
Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.
Cadians aren't 20 years old. They came out with the EoT campaign in 2003.
So, they're only 13 years old compared to cheaper, more detailed competition; yeah that doesn't make them look any better.
SickSix wrote: Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.
Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.
Cadians aren't 20 years old. They came out with the EoT campaign in 2003.
And they where just as ugly and underwhelming back then.
I would like to say that GW has improved on the quality of its kits but they clearly have not. The new kits have terrible detailing - lots of bling, sure, but the actual detailing itself is crappy. Actually I hate even looking at the most recent releases because of the terrible overdressing of the kits. Hell, it looks like the design team was made up of schizophrenic hyperactive children whom just plastered everything on to every surface because 'cool!'. It looks utterly terrible and I do not know how people can even paint them because I know that I sure as hell could not. And then there is the hair. A mixture of flat, undetailed patches with a few bits that look like someone has taken a bit of fresh dough and stretched it. Utterly bloody terrible, and then they con people into paying how much for these? Stupid amounts.
Yes the Dreamforge Leviathan sells less than the Imperial Knight but then again the Leviathan is sold by a small cottage company whereas the knight is practically pasted across a good portion of every store and webpage that a certain multi national company owns. Of course it is going to sell more, billions more people know that it exists whereas the Leviathan is in more of a niche market.
But I guarantee you that if Dreamforge ever became as big as GW the Leviathan would outsell the Knight tenfold.
And just as an FYI people, GWis a gaming company. They sell models which go with the games that they write and sell. Just look at the sales data, you see that the powerful units outsell the weak units massively. More to the point there is in fact only a very small number of people whom purchase GW kits purely to model with. They exist but they are a minority when compared to the gamers.
BTW, historical or not I can get kits at the same size/scale that GW produce and get them a lot cheaper and at a lot better quality. The only reason that GW survives at the moment is a combination of its blacklisting every other company and their produce from even being mentioned within its stores whilst at the same time by riding its fame and reputation even further onwards and advertising as much as possible (which in GW terms means allowing video games to be produced and occasionally sending out flyers). And even then they are struggling.
Think on it.
i just had the Dreamforge Leviathan in my hands again yesterday, and again put it back on the shelf...
even at $55 it just doesn't look as cool as the GW Knight...
there is simply no other mini company on the market that is making plastic kits that i have as much fun painting as a GW kit...
as much as i buy from nearly every company producing quality minis, none of them call for my attention as much as the GW minis...
at the end of the day, that is all that matters to me, and GW will continue to get the lion's share of my money, because they make the kits i want the most...
whatever works for the rest of you is great...
we should all be happy in our hobby...
for me, nothing made me as happy at the FLGS yesterday as the box of Varanguard did at GW, so GW gets my money this time, instead of PP, CB, Wyrd, Dreamforge, Warlord, and all the rest that were on offer...
i may be in the minority, but i am stoked every time i crack open a plastic GW kit, whether a box or a single clampack...
it always feels like money well spent, to me...
One cannot really argue about taste and with models that only ever had one price since their release, you can in the end only really argue about perceived value. Yeah, you can compare them to similar models, but in the end, all discussion will be dragged down to "preference".
It's a little hard to justify that the very same miniature is now more expensive than it was on release. Especially when the moulds show obvious wear.
Yes, subjectively you enjoy GW kits more but objectively there is no comparing the technical mastery involved in the leviathan vs the GW knight. I own 7 knights and 1 leviathan. There aspects of both (3 if you consider the cerastus design separate) that I both like and dislike but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing and appreciating that the leviathan is a much better kit.
jah-joshua wrote: i just had the Dreamforge Leviathan in my hands again yesterday, and again put it back on the shelf...
even at $55 it just doesn't look as cool as the GW Knight...
there is simply no other mini company on the market that is making plastic kits that i have as much fun painting as a GW kit...
as much as i buy from nearly every company producing quality minis, none of them call for my attention as much as the GW minis...
at the end of the day, that is all that matters to me, and GW will continue to get the lion's share of my money, because they make the kits i want the most...
whatever works for the rest of you is great...
we should all be happy in our hobby...
for me, nothing made me as happy at the FLGS yesterday as the box of Varanguard did at GW, so GW gets my money this time, instead of PP, CB, Wyrd, Dreamforge, Warlord, and all the rest that were on offer...
i may be in the minority, but i am stoked every time i crack open a plastic GW kit, whether a box or a single clampack...
it always feels like money well spent, to me...
cheers
jah
You don't have to confirm your undying love for the GW brand every time, it really doesn't add to the discussion.
Quality is objective, taste is subjective in my book.
I find the imperial knigts cool too but they are too expensive in my book. at least with the Dreamforge kit ever part is posable.
Quality, design, aesthetics, taste, are all subjective.
I think the Cadians for their time were good, there were no serious competitors at the time that had the same quality the fact it is the same kit 12 years (and a bit) later and more expensive than when it was first released is another story.
Technically speaking Dreamforge and many GW competitors produce "better" in my opinion kits, more modern in design and more adapted to current technology and in scale with themselves, at least the vehicles can move and can fit the personnel they are supposed to have inside at the place they are supposed to have them.
Does Dreamforge suffer the same issues GW kits have in the eyes of Rick? actually yes, way too many parts they are closer to a models kit than a "classic wargames figure" as are many of GWs kits, CB produces a range of, in my biased opinion, excellent kits but keeps the parts down to as minimum as possible, Hasslefree does the same preferring monoposed models were possible, KDM on the other hand has created a line of excellent models, but the parts count is staggering for a beginner or a casual player, especially if the intention is on fielding massive amounts of troops (KDM admittedly doesn't, but GW armies do).
Reading and observing conversations in different forums and different players, especially not the dedicated hardcore players this forum represents mostly, the idea is less parts the better and the sentiment increases with the model count needed for an army, likewise the variety and care about it decreases by models count the more the less the players care about how varied the poses are, I have encountered for example many GW armies with multipart kits were most models were identical and the response almost invariably was "I hadn't noticed it, don't care really glued and painted them in the week so I can have a tournament force this weekend", likewise when I was an exhibitor this November in the first Con about the Geek hobby in Greece I met a lot of ex wargamers who got into the hobby a decade or more ago mostly due to LOTR and left when they could not or cared not to move to the other GW lines because of the aesthetic and cost mostly, they all showed interest in Infinity's low model count and parts count.
The above experience although limited and subjective since it is my experience in my small part of the global gaming scene, but do support ricks point of view on parts breakdown and how important it is for gaining new blood and retaining it.
@Jehan: don't let facts get in the way of your snark, eh...
my "undying love" is for the good work that the studio artists and designers do, not for the GW brand...
there are plenty of GW products that i don't buy, because i don't think that they are quality products, like anything Finecast...
i love PP's stuff, too, but i wouldn't buy a single one of their PVC/restic minis, because they don't fit my idea of quality...
i still use their paints, and buy their resin and metal minis...
i love CB's stuff, but not every Infinity mini is going to appeal to my aesthetic taste...
honestly, i think Dreamforge does some really great work, but the Leviathan and Mortis are the two models in the line that i don't like the look of...
the infantry are great, as is the APC, the MULE walker bot, and the glimpses we have seen of the aliens, but the Leviathan will never be a better buy than the GW Knight for me, no matter the perceived better quality, or the lower price...
that has nothing to do with brand loyalty, and everything to do with finding the Knight to be a much cooler looking model in comparison to the Leviathans...
jah-joshua wrote: @Jehan: don't let facts get in the way of your snark, eh...
Pots and kettles sunshine, pots and kettles.
what are you even on about???
i'm not the one making personal attacks here...
i'm just trying to express my appreciation for minis, not make it personal...
Rayvon wrote: Quality can also be subjective depending on a persons needs.
No, not really but think what you like. I mean, sure, you can say something's "good enough" but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing that another manufacturer makes a superior product, on a technical level, than their competitor. The knight is a great model but you can't pose it without some serious work, the leviathan comes with screws for cripes sake so that you can pose every little bit to your heart's desire without cutting and modding.
Your statement is like saying, "I only need to get from A to B so this Pinto is the finest quality automobile in the world because it's all that I need." while willfully ignoring that there are mechanically superior automobiles in the world.
Seriously, people don't have to go through mental gymnastics to justify their adoration of all things GW, just say you prefer it and move on.
I find the "love" for certain inanimate objects typically fall under "what you are used to".
After the many years of kits from GW it is like slipping on an old pair of slippers working on those.
Not so much trying to play a game with them.
Looking at a game's elements in isolation I feel is incorrect.
These are tabletop war-game miniatures.
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
Multiple squads would typically only be bought for a game.
Privateer models I do not like very much but the game mechanics for WarmaHordes is awesome.
GW models I like most of them but the game mechanics... ummm... suck (my opinion!) but hope springs eternal for the next update.
Bolt Action is one of the few games I like both the game and kits, the fits for the vehicles in particular I thought were excellent.
I like Star Wars X-wing and Armada but model building and painting is almost completely gone with the pre-painted miniatures.
Still adding custom painted bits to the duplicate models and the tiny Armada unpainted fighters.
Awesome games and look great.
Malifaux and Infinity I had not had a go at yet but appear to be doing well and I do not see much wrong with those models.
I think Rick is correct that until GW can get a bit more Game into their models they will continue to circle the drain.
I can agree with Jah that for him it can be all about the models, but his customer base for commission can be largely based on people who want good looking models to play with which may shrink over time.
jah-joshua wrote: i just had the Dreamforge Leviathan in my hands again yesterday, and again put it back on the shelf...
even at $55 it just doesn't look as cool as the GW Knight...
Hahahahaha. I have a Dreamforge Leviathan on my own shelf. I take the big square box it off my shelf every few months, look at it, and maybe even take the pieces out and imagine it painted. Then, I put it back up, unpainted, and paint something else
I will probably get to it some day. I do like the model. But I like your method better, saves $55 and a chunk of shelf. Plus, I wouldn't feel as guilty about not getting around to painting it every time I put it back on the shelf, lol.
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
When it comes to model collectors, even outside of wargaming and army building people will often buy and build multiples of the same kit.
Even if you look at the purely display models from Tamiya, Airfix, etc, a lot of collectors will buy multiples of the same model either because they think they can do it better the next time, want to try out a different scheme or just enjoyed the build enough to get another one. I know people who have built half a dozen Revell 1/32 Spitfire Mk2a kits. Even the complicated expensive stuff, you see people who have built multiple Tamiya Mosquitos, and that's a $250USD kit and for most people several months time investment.
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
OK, these typical AotM forces are better or worse than my Guard army from 2009? Yes, it's impractical to play the entire lot, due to the composition and sheer volume (not to mention growth from 2009 to 2015/2016). I've never played the entire lot, and don't ever expect to. But I can and do play pieces and portions from time to time. But it'd problably be less than an hour a turn, and could deploy on a 12-16' table. Transport would be a couple duffel bags, plus a backpack - or a rolling suitcase, at most. And yes, there's quite a bit of repetition, with lots of vehicles and ground troops.
But it has become more of a collection than a strict playing force. I don't flat out need anywhere near that much stuff to play a game of 40k. 2,000 pts is plenty, and 3,000 pts is overkill. But I've collected far more than that, because it's stuff that I thought was cool. And a couple hundred infantry models is indeed a sight to see!
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Would that really be any different to what they do already?
Quite, without the rules they will have to rely solely on the strength of the IP and the willingness of their buyers to purchase said forces, for display purposes only, or to play with their own home-brew system.
But then that would require acknowledging the existence of other companies who write compatible rulesets to be used with Warhammer miniatures, and they'd have to lift restrictions on people playing those games in GW stores. because otherwise, what the feth would people have to play?
And that is something that Kirby et al are loathe to do.
This is a company that sells branded paint brushes, paints, sand, glue, clippers and even fething water pots because its leaders want to completely insulate their customers against the existence of other companies and games. They do not cooperate with 3rd parties.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Considering how poor their games are, that woudn't be a bad thing. GW could apply a radical streamlining to 40k and the game would be far better for it.
Talizvar wrote: I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
This is the confusion I was getting at: why would a collector go to such an extreme volume of models unless some rule-set gives incentive? I met a guy who had 60,000 miniatures for Napoleonic armies but they were 10mm, there are exceptions to the rule but again, at least it was for a game.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
They look more impressive when they have purpose.
Parade formation, a diorama, a company of marines, some reason for a bunch of models to be lumped together.
Sure this gives a reason for having more than just one, but there would be few instances you would want 6 groups of 10 marines unless you have a force organization you are trying to meet.
A space marine with a bolter is an easy and fun thing to focus on and paint very well.
Ten you can assembly line paint and see if you can make them different enough from each other to be interesting and you can really get into the groove painting.
One hundred, yeah it is cool but REALLY starts looking like work.
I assembled and painted 100 Imperial guard grunts in one go, it was a "fun" challenge but boy was I happy getting it to a tabletop standard.
My main point is the "incentive" to buy more models.
Trying to meet some force organization is a carrot/stick method to get more sold.
For the joy of just collecting more models is leaving things more to chance to that conflict of quality vs quantity of what = awesome.
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
OK, these typical AotM forces are better or worse than my Guard army from 2009? Yes, it's impractical to play the entire lot, due to the composition and sheer volume (not to mention growth from 2009 to 2015/2016). I've never played the entire lot, and don't ever expect to. But I can and do play pieces and portions from time to time. But it'd problably be less than an hour a turn, and could deploy on a 12-16' table. Transport would be a couple duffel bags, plus a backpack - or a rolling suitcase, at most. And yes, there's quite a bit of repetition, with lots of vehicles and ground troops.
But it has become more of a collection than a strict playing force. I don't flat out need anywhere near that much stuff to play a game of 40k. 2,000 pts is plenty, and 3,000 pts is overkill. But I've collected far more than that, because it's stuff that I thought was cool. And a couple hundred infantry models is indeed a sight to see!
I wasn't trying to say that people who game, whether fanatically or occasionally, don't buy or build large collections, only that there are some collectors who don't game, but build and model complete armies with more than one-offs.
I play relatively infrequently (less than 30 games a year) and model/build/add to my collection a lot. Most of my 40k pieces have seen a gaming table at least once, but a lot of models I don't even bother clear coating, because, for instance, I know Mephiston or Sanguinor will see exactly 1 game and otherwise be in a display case, so why bother? But I have many stormravens and many rhinos, for example, that are also collection pieces that rarely, of ever, get played. Why do I build it then? Well aside from it being fun, I like to assign dedicated vehicles to squads, so my command squad, for instance, has a specific drop pod, rhino, razorback, land raider and stormraven, even though the only vehicles I really use are the drop pod and razorback. The assigned models are not normally loaned to other squads in a motor pool fashion, unless i just want to try something and i need a model temporarily.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Would that really be any different to what they do already?
At least we would all be clear about it.
No-one could attack GW for publishing rotten rules and no-one could defend them for actually being a model kit company not a game company if they did not publish rules. It would avert a lot of arguments.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Would that really be any different to what they do already?
At least we would all be clear about it.
No-one could attack GW for publishing rotten rules and no-one could defend them for actually being a model kit company not a game company if they did not publish rules. It would avert a lot of arguments.
But by keeping up the charade they are able to milk both cows, as it were; they currently get collector and gamer money, albeit arguably less from both camps as proven by their financial records.
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
OK, these typical AotM forces are better or worse than my Guard army from 2009? Yes, it's impractical to play the entire lot, due to the composition and sheer volume (not to mention growth from 2009 to 2015/2016). I've never played the entire lot, and don't ever expect to. But I can and do play pieces and portions from time to time. But it'd problably be less than an hour a turn, and could deploy on a 12-16' table. Transport would be a couple duffel bags, plus a backpack - or a rolling suitcase, at most. And yes, there's quite a bit of repetition, with lots of vehicles and ground troops.
But it has become more of a collection than a strict playing force. I don't flat out need anywhere near that much stuff to play a game of 40k. 2,000 pts is plenty, and 3,000 pts is overkill. But I've collected far more than that, because it's stuff that I thought was cool. And a couple hundred infantry models is indeed a sight to see!
I wasn't trying to say that people who game, whether fanatically or occasionally, don't buy or build large collections, only that there are some collectors who don't game, but build and model complete armies with more than one-offs.
I play relatively infrequently (less than 30 games a year) and model/build/add to my collection a lot. Most of my 40k pieces have seen a gaming table at least once, but a lot of models I don't even bother clear coating, because, for instance, I know Mephiston or Sanguinor will see exactly 1 game and otherwise be in a display case, so why bother? But I have many stormravens and many rhinos, for example, that are also collection pieces that rarely, of ever, get played. Why do I build it then? Well aside from it being fun, I like to assign dedicated vehicles to squads, so my command squad, for instance, has a specific drop pod, rhino, razorback, land raider and stormraven, even though the only vehicles I really use are the drop pod and razorback. The assigned models are not normally loaned to other squads in a motor pool fashion, unless i just want to try something and i need a model temporarily.
Sure, sure, I was just noting that you may have exaggerated ever so slightly in your reply, and share that this is what happens when you field an army of such size.
I play about as often as you do, primarily board games, but I keep my vast 40k collection because we do play Apoc from time to time. Now that I see where the IG are going, it's easier to assign and group things together.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I said it earlier in 40k general, I'll say it again here.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'm pretty sure GW's opinion is that they need a game to draw people in, for something to strive towards, but in reality a lot of people don't actually end up playing it or play it and don't care if it's gak so they don't put any effort in to actually making the game itself any more than (an increasingly diminishing) structure in which you can build your army.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
FW did busts once apon a time?
Huh.
Anyway yes, if they brought some of that back it would be great, except that all those other scales you mentioned were for other games....
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
Azreal13 wrote: Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
This is my opinion as well. Compared to Japanese robot and realistic military vehicle models, GW models look childish and chubby with bad detail.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
FW did busts once apon a time?
Huh.
Anyway yes, if they brought some of that back it would be great, except that all those other scales you mentioned were for other games....
People play / played 6mm 40k with the Epic minis. Same with WFB using the 10mm Warmaster minis. They look better, being closer to ground scale. And they're often cheaper.
Azreal13 wrote: Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
The fact that they're things that don't exist, don't make an sense in terms of our understanding of physics, and their scale is exactly why some people like those vehicles. The guy who buys the Reaver (or a Warlord) is gets giddy at the thought of a robot model built at such a ridiculous scale. And really, giant robots of ANY type make no sense at all, any more than imperial walkers in Star Wars, or the relative usefulness of light sabers and likelihood of batting away projectiles moving faster than the speed of sound, much less the speed of light. My point.. not only does none of that matter ... that's the best part!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But then that would require acknowledging the existence of other companies who write compatible rulesets to be used with Warhammer miniatures, and they'd have to lift restrictions on people playing those games in GW stores. because otherwise, what the feth would people have to play?
They wouldn't play anything. They would collect the minis for the sheer joy of it, and after buying the latest releases would place them on a shelf (assembled and painted or otherwise).
Azreal13 wrote: Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
The fact that they're things that don't exist, don't make an sense in terms of our understanding of physics, and their scale is exactly why some people like those vehicles. The guy who buys the Reaver (or a Warlord) is gets giddy at the thought of a robot model built at such a ridiculous scale. And really, giant robots of ANY type make no sense at all, any more than imperial walkers in Star Wars, or the relative usefulness of light sabers and likelihood of batting away projectiles moving faster than the speed of sound, much less the speed of light. My point.. not only does none of that matter ... that's the best part!
I'm pretty sure the scale comments were about their fictional "supposed function", like transports that aren't actually big enough to transport the number of people the game and the fluff says they should, or tanks who's track pod design means they could only be driven on a perfectly flat road surface, or vehicles equipped with weapons of such a ludicrously large calibre that you couldn't fit the ammunition for it inside the tank let alone plausibly load and fire the weapon.
Those aren't the "KEWL LAZORZ!" part of the setting, that's the psyker powers and handheld GMG-rifles and dark-yet-also-hilariously inefficient societal structures; they're the plot holes and commercially-driven quality compromises and lazy mistakes.
@Yodhrin - The fact that 5 space marines can't fit into a drop pod, and 10 space marines can't fit into a Rhino, or that a Manufactorum should take up an entire 6x4 table is not an issue for 40k fans.
What size should a Rhino be? It should be bigger than a Space Marine. It should function on a game table as a representation of their transport. I should be able to easily pack a half dozen on a table. It should look cool. It should look small compared to a Lord of Skulls. It should be smaller than a Land Raider. Et cetera.
If they made a Rhino the actual size that a Rhino should be, a tree is the size that a tree should be, and a house is the size a house should be, the game would be unplayable. But much more importantly, the game table wouldn't be nearly as awesome.
I personally really like the scale of 40k, not because it's accurate but because soldiers are exactly the size I want them to be, the plastic quasi-titan centerpieces (Wraitknight, Stormsurge, Imperial Knight, etc.) are exactly the size I want them to be, and everything else is kind of scaled to fit in between. I like the sizes of buildings (particularly like cities of death), again, not because they're accurate, but because they work well for the sort of game that 40k is, and they're cool. I mean, what crazy person would build an office building just wide enough for 6 soldiers to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in?!
At the end of the day, the game is so ridiculously unbelievable and its science is so preposterous anyhow that the scale is the least of my worries Like I said, it's no different than a light saber bouncing off projectiles being ridiculous doesn't detract from my enjoyment of Star Wars, but enhances it. Or, like how Scotty in Star Trek just waltzed onto and around the super secret base, or how they HAD to capture Khan alive to save Kirk, even though there was a cargo hold full of enhanced humans with the same blood. As long as those plot holes and scientific deficiencies enhances what I want to enjoy most (the entertaining fiction), it's all good -- much like Rhinos and office buildings that are too small, but look good and fit well on a 6x4 table or the ridiculousness of 9/10 of the "science" of 40k.
GW has a full size Rhino at WHW. It works and is scaled to be the same size as a FV430 (as I understand they used that to make it).
Anyway what's with the hang up on Games Workshops previous statement suggesting (entirely accurately) that they are a model company. It has been true since the 1980s when Livingstone/Jackson sold to Ansell, you know, the Citadel minatures bloke. It's right there in the article that the thread hasn't been about for some time; Warhammer was designed to sell Miniatures. Why are knickers being twisted 30+ years later?
GW sells £100M+ of product in a year 95% of that is probably plastic/resign the rest is material printed by some chaps in China for them. You can see why Tom Kirby would say they make models for a living.
Talys wrote: @Yodhrin - The fact that 5 space marines can't fit into a drop pod, and 10 space marines can't fit into a Rhino, or that a Manufactorum should take up an entire 6x4 table is not an issue for 40k fans.
What size should a Rhino be? It should be bigger than a Space Marine. It should function on a game table as a representation of their transport. I should be able to easily pack a half dozen on a table. It should look cool. It should look small compared to a Lord of Skulls. It should be smaller than a Land Raider. Et cetera.
If they made a Rhino the actual size that a Rhino should be, a tree is the size that a tree should be, and a house is the size a house should be, the game would be unplayable. But much more importantly, the game table wouldn't be nearly as awesome.
I personally really like the scale of 40k...[snip]
It is good to see you can rationalize design flaws and tell yourself it is actually better that way. Good for you.
Us a little more critical thinkers assume "if they can churn out Banestorms, Knights and frikkin Titans, then making a rhino a proper size is both feasible and still practical. The famous "Building double-wide Rhinos" thread shows how to go into the right direction, easily. Forgeworld has some nice ideas as well (Crassus).
Of course that assumption could be challenged with actual plausible arguments like "yes, of course they are out of scale but GW would be stupid to change a generally accepted design - especially since it would cost them quite a lot to get rid of existing stock and create new moulds."
Our buildings are in scale, btw, as are our trees. (Although trees really do come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, you know?)
It really only is an issue for vehicles. And the size difference between Termis and Marines and Marines and normal people/IG.
- Seriously, they are supposed to be living titans...
So anyway, shall we stop the discussion here since you stated what you like? Because no one wants to take that away from you, especially since we know how much money you spend on the hobby!
Talys wrote: @Yodhrin - The fact that 5 space marines can't fit into a drop pod, and 10 space marines can't fit into a Rhino, or that a Manufactorum should take up an entire 6x4 table is not an issue for 40k fans.
Careful, you're coming close to trying to speak on behalf of a whole lot of people and making sweeping statements about what we do and do not like.
The obvious implication of the small size of vehicles is that SMs must be a lot smaller than the propagands makes out. I had always imagined them being eight feet tall or so, but perhaps they are actually normal size and average about six feet.
Still, would it be that hard for them to create good looking kits for once? Is it really difficult to make a RH1N0 exploration vehicle big enough to fit a few Marines? Is it that hard to scale the Leman Russ's cannon barrel down to something that could actually fit within the turret and give it functioning suspension?
No, it is not hard. And do you know what is worse?
Their vehicles are only getting more and more fugly. Look at the Taurox for instance, it is a terrible design with horrible features, bad weapons placement and a track base that is rectangular. It is a terrible model, and it was only recently released.
GW are not a model company. Sure they produce the occasional good figure (Elizabeth Von Carstien) but for the most part their kits are terrible things that look like a childs toy. They fail to stand up to other producers by a long margin.
notprop wrote: Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.
They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!
There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?
Yeah. The game.
They don't out preform other miniature producers, they outperform other wargame producers.
Even then, I think by a factor of 10 is way too generous, not when other companies have been growing rapidly and GW are falling into a death slide. And especially not with x wing on the market.
notprop wrote: Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.
They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!
There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?
We're swiftly approaching a day when your hyperbolic statement will no longer be true (but it's not or Bandai doesn't exist). Compared to any one other company, sure, your statement is likely correct but compared to the growth that their numerous competitors see in aggregate and you see that all of the people who are leaving GW are diffusing to the myriad other alternatives out there. GW is a shrinking giant in a world populated with growing dwarves. If they don't pick a direction that works to draw in new blood, they're going to die the death of a thousand cuts eventually. We'll have to see what comes out of the decision to resurrect Specialist Games and whether it will be actually supported and properly marketed. They once were a big name in the industry and didn't have to actually advertise but that's no longer the case; now they're actually going to have to put in some effort if they want to grow.
notprop wrote: Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.
They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!
There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?
We're swiftly approaching a day when your hyperbolic statement will no longer be true (but it's not or Bandai doesn't exist). Compared to any one other company, sure, your statement is likely correct but compared to the growth that their numerous competitors see in aggregate and you see that all of the people who are leaving GW are diffusing to the myriad other alternatives out there. GW is a shrinking giant in a world populated with growing dwarves. If they don't pick a direction that works to draw in new blood, they're going to die the death of a thousand cuts eventually. We'll have to see what comes out of the decision to resurrect Specialist Games and whether it will be actually supported and properly marketed. They once were a big name in the industry and didn't have to actually advertise but that's no longer the case; now they're actually going to have to put in some effort if they want to grow.
Big P wrote:
notprop wrote: Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.
They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!
There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?
No if we are talking serious bidnez then perhaps we should use the more appropriate companies house delination of Toy Manufacturer. Covers all of the above but might upset those that don't think their Toy Soldiers are toys?
No if we are talking serious bidnez then perhaps we should use the more appropriate companies house delination of Toy Manufacturer. Covers all of the above but might upset those that don't think their Toy Soldiers are toys?
lol. True enough. So then what can you compare them to? Warlord, PP, WYRD, BC, Mantic all make miniatures tied to games. Then you have all the various, smaller companies that just make miniatures that can be used with games, DreamForge, etc. Then you have some truly massive companies that make miniatures that can be used with games OR collected; Tamiya, AirFix, etc.
Where do you draw the line? GW identifies themselves as primarily a miniatures company that produces some rules for a couple of games. They're certainly not their own special snowflake that can exist in a vacuum all by themselves, so, if we're to discuss them in comparison to like companies, where do they fit?
notprop wrote: It's right there in the article that the thread hasn't been about for some time; Warhammer was designed to sell Miniatures. Why are knickers being twisted 30+ years later?
Because of how the company presents itself.
GW then: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, but we love what we do, we're putting effort in to it and we hope you like it! Here's a bunch of hobby articles to enhance your experience! We hope you buy some models because it's a really cool game. We've also made a bunch of cool side games for you to try out!"
GW now: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, it's the same game we bought out 2 years ago but with just enough random changes they you have to buy it to keep up to date, there's still more holes than swiss cheese and we didn't even fix some of the rules that were broken before. Oh, and we shuffled the balance around to ensure you'll be buying more stuff to stay competitive. We know it's junk but it should be enough to let you forge the narrative of buying more stuff. To milk it a bit further we released some new stuff that is 5% more expensive for us to make but we'll charge 50% more money for it."
And the Perry miniatures are actually better models than the GW gimcrackery these days.
GW can, and has, and does make some fine miniatures - but then they go and make some godsawful miniatures to make up for it....
So, you have the last incarnation of the Warhammer High Elves - which had some really, really nice miniatures, even in the starter box... and then they add an eagle with a trailer hitch.
What GW doesn't have these days is common sense - and the ability to ask themselves 'Does this miniature look good? At all? Do these rules work? Are they balanced? At all?'
GW then: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, but we love what we do, we're putting effort in to it and we hope you like it! Here's a bunch of hobby articles to enhance your experience! We hope you buy some models because it's a really cool game. We've also made a bunch of cool side games for you to try out!"
GW now: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, it's the same game we bought out 2 years ago but with just enough random changes they you have to buy it to keep up to date, there's still more holes than swiss cheese and we didn't even fix some of the rules that were broken before. Oh, and we shuffled the balance around to ensure you'll be buying more stuff to stay competitive. We know it's junk but it should be enough to let you forge the narrative of buying more stuff. To milk it a bit further we released some new stuff that is 5% more expensive for us to make but we'll charge 50% more money for it."
It's all in how you look at things. Decades a go, there was a fella down the road who made really good chicken, fried it up himself, and everyone thought he was great value. Friendly, awesome guy too. Now, there's one of those restaurants every other block in some cities, and they're in a hundred countries around the world. Most of the fellas working in it are minimum wage workers who are there because they can't get a job anywhere better, and the chicken is crazy expensive. The restaurant just pumps out food now, it's not particularly healthy, and they just care about making their next hundred million dollars. Some people still swear they have the best chicken in the world, and are happy that they can actually get it anywhere in the world, whether they're vacationing in Berlin or Taipei because they like what they like; other people say it's garbage, and they're looking for the next fella who is frying up good chicken down the road who's just a cool guy looking to earn an honest buck, and who wants go all the way to Berlin or Taipei and eat the same food anyways?
See, it's all perspective. Depending on how you look at it, GW's at the best point it's ever been, or the worst, depending on whether you think $30-$200 model kits are ridiculously expensive or not, how much you value ease of availability, and how much you like GW's current aesthetic, materials and product focus. It's also easier to love them outside of Australia/New Zealand, since the prices are doubled up there. Also, as I've mentioned before, GW has changed their focus to pleasing one crowd while not giving a hoot about the rest, so it's much easier to love them if you belong to that crowd.
At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures. Sure, they've dabbled in other things, but at the end of the day, the one constant about Citadel and GW is the miniatures. And Space Marines. Never in the existence of that game has it been particularly balanced (nor, has the game ever been cheap, at least, it's never felt cheap to me, even in 1990). What bugs some people is that Privateer Press goes out of its way to try to make a balanced game, one that appeals to the skirmish size, pickups, and tournaments, and they want GW to do the same, because this is the type of game and environment that they seek, not an experience that looks like a diorama and that costs six months wages. But GW isn't that company and won't be that company, so why not just call it a day, and be happy with the alternatives that are a better fit? Love GW because you love their models and their vision of a game, which is quite silly, but for some people, eminently fun -- or don't.
At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures. Sure, they've dabbled in other things, but at the end of the day, the one constant about Citadel and GW is the miniatures
Not true. As I understand it, this was a result of the Citadel-Gamesworkshop merger, when Citadel (Miniatures) took over Gamesworkshop (Games). And IIRC Rick Priestley remarked on that.
Before Citadel took over, Gamesworkshop really was all about the games.
At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures. Sure, they've dabbled in other things, but at the end of the day, the one constant about Citadel and GW is the miniatures
Not true. As I understand it, this was a result of the Citadel-Gamesworkshop merger, when Citadel (Miniatures) took over Gamesworkshop (Games). And IIRC Rick Priestley remarked on that.
Before Citadel took over, Gamesworkshop really was all about the games.
They actually made wooden boards for games, like backgammon when they started out. At that time, they actually did not write any... games. They also wrote and sold D&D stuff (a little later on), which is how I got introduced to the company. Also, GW founded (not merged with) Citadel miniatures only 4 years after they opened shop.
Founded in 1975 at 15 Bolingbroke Road, London by John Peake, Ian Livingstone, and Steve Jackson (not to be confused with U.S. game designer Steve Jackson), Games Workshop was originally a manufacturer of wooden boards for games such as backgammon, mancala, Nine Men's Morris, and Go.[5] It later became an importer of the U.S. role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons and then a publisher of wargames and role-playing games in its own right, expanding from a bedroom mail-order company in the process. ... In early 1979, Games Workshop provided the funding to found Citadel Miniatures in Newark-on-Trent. Citadel would produce the metal miniatures used in its role-playing games and tabletop wargames. The "Citadel" name became synonymous with Games Workshop Miniatures, and continues to be a trademarked brand name used in association with them long after the Citadel company was absorbed into Games Workshop.[8][9] For a time, Gary Gygax promoted the idea of TSR, Inc. merging with Games Workshop, until Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone backed out.[10]
No people are asking for gw to make balance rules that can be used for small skirmish competitive games or four large narrative story driven campaigns they are not mutually exclusive you can have both. The problem is that gw ignores one aspect of the game, and doesn't even do the other aspect right.
Nobody is asking for them to become Privateer Press, people are asking to have a well written game that can appeal to competitive players and narrative players instead of ignoring one and failing miserably to do the other
Talys wrote:See, it's all perspective. Depending on how you look at it, GW's at the best point it's ever been, or the worst, depending on whether you think $30-$200 model kits are ridiculously expensive or not, how much you value ease of availability, and how much you like GW's current aesthetic, materials and product focus. It's also easier to love them outside of Australia/New Zealand, since the prices are doubled up there. Also, as I've mentioned before, GW has changed their focus to pleasing one crowd while not giving a hoot about the rest, so it's much easier to love them if you belong to that crowd.
Not really, I'm not a competitive gamer, never really have been, outside of a few years in my 20s and CCGs. But I recognise that just because something doesn't directly affect me, I'm part of a community and what harms one harms us all.
But, like HBMC always says, if your attitude is little better than "got mine" then yes, it likely is much easier to love them.
Oh, and it isn't all a matter of perspective, there's a certain objective measure of how GW are doing, and in a few weeks it's going to make interesting reading.
Azreal13 wrote: But, like HBMC always says, if your attitude is little better than "got mine" then yes, it likely is much easier to love them.
Well, it actually doesn't matter to me very much if other people aren't having fun with the current iteration of the game, if that's what you're trying to say. If there are games that they have fun with more, and they should play those. If there aren't, they should do something else. I don't think that GW needs to be a perfect fit for every hobbyist.
It does matter to me that they're a good fit for me. If they're not, I'll go spend my time and money somewhere else; I won't try to change the company. So instead, I just enjoy the things I like, and ignore things I don't.
I am powerless to make the wargaming world a better place, either for me or for anyone else. I live in and participate in a microscopic way in this world and in this hobby; I shape neither.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, and it isn't all a matter of perspective, there's a certain objective measure of how GW are doing, and in a few weeks it's going to make interesting reading.
I was saying that it's a matter of perspective whether you like GW's products (and price points). I wasn't talking about the health of the company.
Again, it actually doesn't matter to me very much if GW makes a ten million or loses ten million. It's interesting, and fun to read, for sure, and since I like the company and its products, I hope they do well. But it has no impact on me in any meaningful sense -- to put it in perspective, it means way more to me if my next door neighbor gets a promotion than if GW has a banner year, or if they lose their job, than if GW goes out of business.
What's the best thing that could happen if GW had explosive growth? There would be more kits, probably of the sort I like, yay! What's the worst thing that could happen if GW imploded? They'd go out of business, and I'd find something else to amuse me, either with miniatures or something else. It's not like the end of the world.
Talys wrote:See, it's all perspective. Depending on how you look at it, GW's at the best point it's ever been, or the worst, depending on whether you think $30-$200 model kits are ridiculously expensive or not, how much you value ease of availability, and how much you like GW's current aesthetic, materials and product focus. It's also easier to love them outside of Australia/New Zealand, since the prices are doubled up there. Also, as I've mentioned before, GW has changed their focus to pleasing one crowd while not giving a hoot about the rest, so it's much easier to love them if you belong to that crowd.
Not really, I'm not a competitive gamer, never really have been, outside of a few years in my 20s and CCGs. But I recognise that just because something doesn't directly affect me, I'm part of a community and what harms one harms us all.
But, like HBMC always says, if your attitude is little better than "got mine" then yes, it likely is much easier to love them.
Oh, and it isn't all a matter of perspective, there's a certain objective measure of how GW are doing, and in a few weeks it's going to make interesting reading.
QFT. And I'm not at all convinced that GW is attempting to just please one crowd; they appear to think that their customers are primarily comprised of collectors but that supposition is derived from their distaste for getting to know their customers (i.e. market research). Some time back there was a thread about an article that an investor who attended a meeting at GWHQ wrote in which he discussed off-hand comments made by upper management about their customers. I can't recall the exact percentage but they do seem to assume that only a minority of their customers care about the games.
As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.
Talys wrote: At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures.
But there approach and attitude has changed. That's what this whole damned article we are discussing is talking about
Of course the game was always designed to sell models, that doesn't mean the game has to suck or that the writers don't put effort in.... except it sure feels like that now.
I would say its more interesting as to what GW says about themselves, in recent years they insist they make models for collectors and try to pass them as works of art, I would say that's delusional, but I am sure it has more to do with the realizations and revelations they had from the Chapterhouse trial and how little protection they have if they accept they sell toy soldiers (as it was in fact written in their mail order boxes back then).
The problem with their statement is they are a company that makes games that sell toy soldiers and not a company that sells (scale) models of a fictional universe.
I firmly believe that GW models do not stand on their own especially against competition from proper scale model companies, their models are designed for gaming and it shows from their heroic proportions (who are never illustrated, all artwork is in proper scale and anatomy) to the decisions on how the kits are constructed (multiposed) and what they will include.
They need the games to make people collect them especially in the quantities GW needs to survive.
So yes they, are not a models company that happens to make rules to play with their models, they are a games company that makes rules to play with their toy soldiers.
As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.
It would be stunning beyond stunning if sales didn't drop after 3 months (half of the period) was exclusively Age of Sigmar. Even if sales only dropped a little bit, GW should be thrilled to bits. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet like a GBP 5-10m loss.
Talys wrote: At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures.
But there approach and attitude has changed. That's what this whole damned article we are discussing is talking about
Of course the game was always designed to sell models, that doesn't mean the game has to suck or that the writers don't put effort in.... except it sure feels like that now.
This is what I mean, though: yes, the company has changed (as all companies do in decades...), and the focus, from a modelling perspective, has certainly changed. That said, to a lot of people who play 40k, the game is a lot of fun and models are great. Not everyone thinks that it sucks, which is what I meant when I said that it's a matter of perspective. Otherwise, it wouldn't sell many times more product just in Australia at its inflated prices than Mantic does in the entire world. Like, some of the people spending millions of dollars there must surely like the game as it is.
Who cares if it's a games company that makes models to go into its games, or a model company that published games into which to put its models. Maybe it's both.
The point is whether the business needs both tracks to be successful, and how well it is doing at that.
Kilkrazy wrote: Who cares if it's a games company that makes models to go into its games, or a model company that published games into which to put its models. Maybe it's both.
The point is whether the business needs both tracks to be successful, and how well it is doing at that.
I agree. The core questions should be:
1) Could GW make more money if the business wrote games that appealed more to the competitive and pickup crowd? Or would they actually make less money?
2) Would the entire hobby community (not just the vocal online pro-gaming component) grow and make the hobby be a more profitable one with more participants if they did?
3) If GW 2015 were more like GW 1990, what would the hobby and competitive landscapes look like?
As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.
It would be stunning beyond stunning if sales didn't drop after 3 months (half of the period) was exclusively Age of Sigmar. Even if sales only dropped a little bit, GW should be thrilled to bits. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet like a GBP 5-10m loss.
Closer to the 10 than the 5 in my estimation but still expected either way and could have been mitigated somewhat if they had thrown a bone to the traditional WHFB players in the form of a familiar ruleset released alongside AoS. There was no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater or the mercantile equivalent of packing your toys and going home because they didn't spend enough. They could have built on AoS while slowly phasing out WHFB instead of the abrupt change that resulted in many just walking away to other companies.
Talys wrote: I agree. The core questions should be:
1) Could GW make more money if the business wrote games that appealed more to the competitive and pickup crowd? Or would they actually make less money?
There's no reason why they would make less money, unless they spent millions of GBP on the writing process. Since the game itself is a driver of sales, making the game more playable should, in theory widen the customer base beyond the "models first, rules... meh".
Talys wrote: 2) Would the entire hobby community (not just the vocal online pro-gaming component) grow and make the hobby be a more profitable one with more participants if they did?
I think this is not the right question. IMHO, the question should be: Given current Games Workshop pricing structure, and monetary barrier to entering the hobby: Will improvement of the core ruleset improve customer uptake (and profitability)?IMHO, this depends on two things: 1. If the customer base still has that critical mass to regenerate itself. The Games Workshop hobby is quite healthy in some markets, gone underground in others, and at practically dead in some areas. In areas where there is strong community, word of mouth should improve customer uptake. In areas where the GW hobby is at death's door, it might be enough to make jaded customers take another look. In areas where it is dead - all bets are off, as the hobby's fate rests directly with those who have left it and/or other hobbyists entering the sales region. 2. If the independents and fan supported initiatives haven't been totally killed off and GW resumes support for them (outside of only product).
Talys wrote: 3) If GW 2015 were more like GW 1990, what would the hobby and competitive landscapes look like?
1990's is a bit too far back... You're talking Rogue Trader. I honestly feel early 2000's was the golden age. Back then, there were Chapter Approved datasheets in White Dwarf... Customer bat-reps in White Dwarf, 'EAVY METAL Masterclasses that go beyond edge highlighting... Sculpting workshops with guys like Chris Fitzpatrick... There was bitz service. There was Canadian Grand Tournament and Games Day. Games Workshop support for Rogue Trader events... IMHO, GW support of the hobby has only improved slightly from the low ebb of the early 2010's... now that they have the "paint-by-numbers" painting system and hobby videos. Support of advanced techniques is all but non-existent though.
1) Definitely they would make more money, making a better product is always more appealing to customers and the effort needed to do so is relatively small.
2) What hobby community? the wargames hobby community who already have a plethora of game systems that are at least try to be balanced and competitive? on that front the two bigger companies (under GW of course) are PP and CB are focused on providing a balanced streamlined game system and their growth is directly tied in with this.
If we talk about the so fondly called here HHHoby community, meaning the people whose only interaction with the wargames hobby is through GW, I think it will at least stop people from leaving because of the mes the rules are, in an ideal state it would also regulate the model count of the game making it affordable for more people.
3) That is impossible to predict, 2nd edition started as a mess but at its end it was a streamlined and quite balanced system, the games they produced are the most remembered (even though their state is dead for more than a decade).
I firmly believe a well written and balanced system will bring in more people, a game system that does the above and delivers the fictional background people read on the table will be even better.
@Keezus & PsychoticStorm - I disagree with you on #1, though I could absolutely be wrong.
I'm quite convinced that GW has mastered the formula for maximizing its short and mid-term profits by shifting the meta and appealing to the crowd that like larger models in an game with an infantry-scaled context. I think those big, expensive kits like Knights and Bloodthirsters and Nagash are super profitable in terms of cost to design, manufacture, and distribute versus selling price.
They are also the bane of the crowd who a game balanced around Imperial Guard, Dwarves, Brettonians, and Orks, or at least where these models are relevant and relatively balanced versus the really big models, instead of being terrain for Warlords to step on. They like the game that was GW's wargaming roots, rather than either Herohammer or, worse, Titanhammer.
If GW made super-heavy and gargantuan monstrous creatures less appealing in the game (ie balanced to the smaller or older models), they'd sell a lot less of them. Would it be "better for the hobby" in the long run? Maybe. Would it be more profitable for GW in the short and mid-term? I think that's pretty doubtful. But in order to make the game more pickup and more competitive friendly, it's pretty much a requisite. I mean, you just can't make the $150 models stupidly easy to play, and the little guys, while not impossible to win with, a task that requires much thought, skill, and a little luck.
To play devil's advocate, too, the market for infantry sized models is mature. The most you can get out of grunts are $5-$10, the most you can get out of the most elite model is maybe $30, there is lots of competition, and most importantly, the people who want these already have truckloads of them. On the other hand, centerpiece models are produced by relatively few companies, and the ones that make them have very few models; and not only do they command prices of $150+, but they're ALSO GW's best-selling models.
In addition, I'm very convinced that GW makes more of what sells. In other words, their creative team is given direction based on things that made profit. And that means, GW is simply giving its customer base that spends money more of what they want. They'll experiment and try other things, and if those things sell well, they'll make more of them; if they sell poorly, those types of things will get fewer releases -- and I presume, less favorable rules, or at least, fewer buffs while the rest of the game escalates in power.
So even though a large percentage of players may bemoan that their Guard army now suck, those people are not buying Guard models, and GW is unmotivated to fix it, because they figure that even if they make Guard models great in the game, the Guard players aren't going to run out and spend money in the same way as if they add a new shoulder-mounted weapon to the Imperial Knight, even though the number of players playin those Knights is smaller. In other words, the 10 Knight players buying $1,000 of knights exceed the spending that the 50 Guard players would spend -- close to nothing -- because their Guard army that they love is already complete.
What does this mean in terms of the company? it's profit-driven, and therefore new-and-shiny driven. If you want to buy stuff and keep it relevant for decades with only occasional buys, forget it; look elsewhere, because this is a company that increases the power level of new stuff without generally increasing the power level of the old stuff *as much*. If you enjoy constantly adding stuff because you like new and shiny, these are your guys. Which coincides with my original position, that GW is catering to its most profitable customers (the people who are constantly adding the new and shiny).
If your strategy is to burn the crops for fast profit instead of cultivating it for larger profit but also in more depth of time then yes, creating unbalanced overpowered new releases that are superior incentives for people to buy, but at the cost of older models and players who either cannot compete to the arms race, or are frustrated to see their collection becoming unplayable.
A balanced system has the advantage of keeping all the models an attractive purchase, allows players with different preferences coexist and has the bonus of people coming back having their old collection ready to play. It is a bad solution if the companies strategy is essentially a pay to win model.
PsychoticStorm wrote: If your strategy is to burn the crops for fast profit instead of cultivating it for larger profit but also in more depth of time then yes, creating unbalanced overpowered new releases that are superior incentives for people to buy, but at the cost of older models and players who either cannot compete to the arms race, or are frustrated to see their collection becoming unplayable.
A balanced system has the advantage of keeping all the models an attractive purchase, allows players with different preferences coexist and has the bonus of people coming back having their old collection ready to play. It is a bad solution if the companies strategy is essentially a pay to win model.
The point of reference upon which I think GW is basing that strategy is Magic the Gathering, where the business model isn't so much "pay to win", but "pay continuously if you want to play with everyone else".
It works a LOT better for people who want to (and can afford to) add to their collection. It doesn't work at all for people who don't enjoy adding to their collection, or can't afford to do so. All I'm saying is, I'm pretty sure that GW thinks that it's using the most profitable strategy, because it's not purposely self-destructive.
It's very hard to keep everything old equally relevant to everything new and still encourage people to buy the new things. It's obviously not just GW with this issue as collections mature, as you can plainly see PP er.... encouraging new model sales
That works for Magic because the effort involved beyond buying the cards is zero, in wargaming were assembling and painting is involved especially in the numbers GW games demand the effort is massive.
People can and do feel that their effort is worthless when their top tier armies become obsolete with the next update, I am not current with PP, but from my local PP players I get that although models get out of rotation they stay current with new characters that make them current again.
PsychoticStorm wrote: That works for Magic because the effort involved beyond buying the cards is zero, in wargaming were assembling and painting is involved especially in the numbers GW games demand the effort is massive.
Sorry, but deckbuilding and testing requires a lot of time. If you want to win...
And if you just want to play, knocking GW minis together isn't very much effort.
I was thinking if I should write in a parenthesis that yes you must visit forums, read blogs, watch tournaments ectr.
But on the most basic level the cards are an effortless acquisition are ready to play from the box and the sentimental bond is usually non existent, in contrast with building your own wargame force.
PsychoticStorm wrote: That works for Magic because the effort involved beyond buying the cards is zero, in wargaming were assembling and painting is involved especially in the numbers GW games demand the effort is massive.
Sorry, but deckbuilding and testing requires a lot of time. If you want to win...
And if you just want to play, knocking GW minis together isn't very much effort.
John, you're being a bit ridiculous. Whatever deckbuilding and testing exists in Magic also exists in minis games (except maybe AOS for reasons you'd disagree with). Also, "knocking" together GW minis still takes an hour for a 5-10 squad compared with 15 seconds for spreading out the magic cards in front of you... and that is of course discounting the additional several hours necessary at a minumum to paint and base the minis as intended (which of course you can skip optionally) compared with another 30 seconds to "sleeve" your magic cards.
I do a lot of boardgaming, and I dispute that it takes anywhere near that kind of time to get a GW starter game up and playing. Especially as painting is NOT required.
PsychoticStorm wrote: If your strategy is to burn the crops for fast profit instead of cultivating it for larger profit but also in more depth of time then yes, creating unbalanced overpowered new releases that are superior incentives for people to buy, but at the cost of older models and players who either cannot compete to the arms race, or are frustrated to see their collection becoming unplayable.
A balanced system has the advantage of keeping all the models an attractive purchase, allows players with different preferences coexist and has the bonus of people coming back having their old collection ready to play. It is a bad solution if the companies strategy is essentially a pay to win model.
The term that i would use is 'Going for the quick dime, not the slow dollar'.
The thing to bear in mind is that balance requires extensive playtesting - and that playtesting takes time.
Add in a paranoia about people finding out what is coming out soon and playtesting becomes unlikely.
Then there is the added problem that game designers don't always like to listen to the playtesters - and why I keep mentioning 4e D&D - the playtesters told the designers about problems with the skill tests, but years later those same problems were in the published version of the game, and led to a massive errata for the first printing. (In regards to Mantic, I rather expect that Thornton has a bit of that same problem - he seems a great person to make the first draft of the rules, but not so great to write the published version.)
As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.
It would be stunning beyond stunning if sales didn't drop after 3 months (half of the period) was exclusively Age of Sigmar. Even if sales only dropped a little bit, GW should be thrilled to bits. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet like a GBP 5-10m loss.
I don't think GW will be thrilled showing a loss, and certainly not one in the neighborhood of £10 million!
As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.
It would be stunning beyond stunning if sales didn't drop after 3 months (half of the period) was exclusively Age of Sigmar. Even if sales only dropped a little bit, GW should be thrilled to bits. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet like a GBP 5-10m loss.
I don't think GW will be thrilled showing a loss, and certainly not one in the neighborhood of £10 million!
Thrilled, no, but they have a new scapegoat now that the single-man stores card has been played out, AoS and the inevitable implementation dip associated with a new system replacing an old one will suffice for the next year or so to distract most investors.
PsychoticStorm wrote: That works for Magic because the effort involved beyond buying the cards is zero, in wargaming were assembling and painting is involved especially in the numbers GW games demand the effort is massive.
People can and do feel that their effort is worthless when their top tier armies become obsolete with the next update, I am not current with PP, but from my local PP players I get that although models get out of rotation they stay current with new characters that make them current again.
I spent a herculean effort organizing cards and decks Your point is well taken, though, and tongue and cheek aside, I concur. The point I made previously, though, is tat there are people who view the chance to buy new models for their army in exactly the same way as people look at buying cards for a new expansion. The bid difference is, how much do you enjoy putting together and painting these models? if its your favorite thing to do in the world, it's hardly a negative compared to buying more cards.
Keep in mind too, a lot of nerfed cards are worth practically nothing, whileach model offers many hours of modelling fun, and the residual value o a nice model, which is more than the value of most nerved cards.
But yea, the time involvement for many is just too much.
PsychoticStorm wrote: If your strategy is to burn the crops for fast profit instead of cultivating it for larger profit but also in more depth of time then yes, creating unbalanced overpowered new releases that are superior incentives for people to buy, but at the cost of older models and players who either cannot compete to the arms race, or are frustrated to see their collection becoming unplayable.
A balanced system has the advantage of keeping all the models an attractive purchase, allows players with different preferences coexist and has the bonus of people coming back having their old collection ready to play. It is a bad solution if the companies strategy is essentially a pay to win model.
The point of reference upon which I think GW is basing that strategy is Magic the Gathering, where the business model isn't so much "pay to win", but "pay continuously if you want to play with everyone else".
It works a LOT better for people who want to (and can afford to) add to their collection. It doesn't work at all for people who don't enjoy adding to their collection, or can't afford to do so. All I'm saying is, I'm pretty sure that GW thinks that it's using the most profitable strategy, because it's not purposely self-destructive.
It's very hard to keep everything old equally relevant to everything new and still encourage people to buy the new things. It's obviously not just GW with this issue as collections mature, as you can plainly see PP er.... encouraging new model sales
That's exactly the reason I never bothered to play Magic. I was out of games for a couple of years, came back and found my best friend had become a mad magic fan. But I could also see immediately that to catch up with the collection aspect of the game would require lots of spending and trading, rather than playing, so I didn't bother to start.
It is also true, as the next poster said, that it's very cheap and easy to make Magic cards compared to new plastic kits.
The flaws in GW's strategy in my view would be firstly that if they are mainly selling new big models to existing customers, this is not a great incentive for new customers to join, and without new customers eventually GW will run out of new big models to sell. (I've already mentioned the introduction of boats into 40K to justify a new set of rules and models.)
The next flaw is that it seems to make the company even more dependent on 40K. Given most of their costs are absorbed by running their retail chain, it would make sense to diversify into other games -- which in fact we think they are now trying to do. However this of course is off the topic so let's not pursue that avenue any further.
During the years I was actively playing, I bindered my cards. I still have 16" of cards sorted into 9-pocket organizers for deckbuilding. And those are just the playsets, ignoring the duplicates and such. Organizing 1,000s of cards into playsets for efficient deckbuilding is non-trivial.
If I were a Magic competitive 40k player, both my IG, Sisters, Inquisition and CSM all be would be effectively worthless at this point in time. Same with a fair chunk of my Eldar. My SMs are low value, but if I build / buy a few more whatnots for the new Codex, they would be "good", too.
JohnHwangDD wrote: During the years I was actively playing, I bindered my cards. I still have 16" of cards sorted into 9-pocket organizers for deckbuilding. And those are just the playsets, ignoring the duplicates and such. Organizing 1,000s of cards into playsets for efficient deckbuilding is non-trivial.
If I were a Magic competitive 40k player, both my IG, Sisters, Inquisition and CSM all be would be effectively worthless at this point in time. Same with a fair chunk of my Eldar. My SMs are low value, but if I build / buy a few more whatnots for the new Codex, they would be "good", too.
And back when I bothered with CCGs a mate of mine toured the country beating the snot out of folk in MTG tournaments while keeping all his cards in roughly-elasticated-together bundles in an old shoebox.
You can squirm and shift all you like, the fact is no matter what "level" of SeriousBznz you choose, the difference in effort required to meet that standard between a CCG and a miniatures wargame is non-trivial, because you don't have to assemble your cards, or paint them, or base them.
JohnHwangDD wrote: During the years I was actively playing, I bindered my cards. I still have 16" of cards sorted into 9-pocket organizers for deckbuilding. And those are just the playsets, ignoring the duplicates and such. Organizing 1,000s of cards into playsets for efficient deckbuilding is non-trivial.
If I were a Magic competitive 40k player, both my IG, Sisters, Inquisition and CSM all be would be effectively worthless at this point in time. Same with a fair chunk of my Eldar. My SMs are low value, but if I build / buy a few more whatnots for the new Codex, they would be "good", too.
And back when I bothered with CCGs a mate of mine toured the country beating the snot out of folk in MTG tournaments while keeping all his cards in roughly-elasticated-together bundles in an old shoebox.
You can squirm and shift all you like, the fact is no matter what "level" of SeriousBznz you choose, the difference in effort required to meet that standard between a CCG and a miniatures wargame is non-trivial, because you don't have to assemble your cards, or paint them, or base them.
First of all, I agree. At the face of it, and generally speaking, it seems a lot less effort to get a top notch magic deck than it does a top notch 40k army.
But actually, **if you want to own every card without paying a bazillion dollars and having a kazillion total cards** it requires a crap ton of trading, playing dumb games with bad players to make friends, card organizing, deck building, cajoling, and everything else. As a parallel, you can simply pay $800 for models and about $400-$1,500 to paint your entire army ranging from acceptable to play to pretty darn decent. Or you can spend $400 or less on models, buying them cleverly, and paint them all yourself at a playable level for less than $50 of consumables.
For the card collector, it's actually huge fun sifting through cards and popping cases of boosters. I mean, I was positively giddy every time I ripped open a new booster, and I lovingly dumped hundreds of hours into organizing my card collection, building decks, and trading. Likewise, for a modeler, it's huge fun building and painting models.
The problem, I think is much the angst that Rick Priestley describes -- this isn't what the company that he helped build was about. What it's become is a profit-churning machine aimed at pleasing the modelling/collecting super-dedicated fan, rather than... well, whatever it was in the 80's and 90's. I'm sure there are many eloquent descriptions of the young wargaming company that many of us loved 3 decades ago.
Part of that is the pitfall of becoming a public company. You surrender the ability to control the destiny of your company in terms such as, "I want to make fun games accessible to everyone" with unfortunate necessities such as, "what will increase our stock price for the next quarter". But even absent public company perils, as PP is discovering (I think), at some point, your game matures, there's not a lot of new players to be had because it's a pretty small market, and you have to figure out ways of getting your existing players to spend more money. Of course, the more of the market that you own, the more this holds true.
Looking long term, yeah, KK is absolutely right: you must be able to attract new players. But that also can't come at the cost of boring your veterans who actually are screaming for you to take their money. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve, and I therefore don't vilify any company stuck in that predicament. Looking at specifically 40k and the big centerpiece model thing, the irony is that for skilled players, MSU is a really, really good way to win games in the current meta. But it takes a lot more thought and skill than moving four imperial knights or an unkillable deathstar.
Now, could GW be a LITTLE more consistent in its rules, and make the game more enjoyable for people who don't fall into its parameters for an ideal customer, without taking away from those ideal customers? I don't see why not.
Talys wrote: Part of that is the pitfall of becoming a public company. You surrender the ability to control the destiny of your company in terms such as, "I want to make fun games accessible to everyone" with unfortunate necessities such as, "what will increase our stock price for the next quarter".
If I had a £1 for every time I read this falsehood I probably would have retired to my own private island with a complete collection of all the HH Legions. In resin.
Talys wrote: Part of that is the pitfall of becoming a public company. You surrender the ability to control the destiny of your company in terms such as, "I want to make fun games accessible to everyone" with unfortunate necessities such as, "what will increase our stock price for the next quarter".
If I had a £1 for every time I read this falsehood I probably would have retired to my own private island with a complete collection of all the HH Legions. In resin.
It's either disingenuous or shows a complete lack of understanding of how publicly traded companies operate. GW likes to compare themselves to Apple; the investors were screaming for larger screens while Steve Jobs was alive and it literally took his passing for Apple to move to larger screens, investors be damned, the man ran the company how he liked. GW is vested by institutional investors who literally care not one whit about how the company is run on a day-to-day basis as long as the dividends continue to roll and they keep their heads above water financially. No, the big problem with GW management is that they are a combination of risk-averse and seem incapable of differentiated approaches to their product line.
As for Magic.
I have the option of participating in booster drafts on a weekly basis, on Magic Friday, in most areas of the US or picking up pre-builts with each new release as opposed to being chained to a "competitive" mindset. It baffles me that some people are so binary in their games, I read this board and I constantly see talk that people are either ultra-competitive or don't play which ignores large groups of people who are different shades in-between the two poles.
Kilkrazy wrote: Who cares if it's a games company that makes models to go into its games, or a model company that published games into which to put its models. Maybe it's both.
The point is whether the business needs both tracks to be successful, and how well it is doing at that.
I agree. The core questions should be:
1) Could GW make more money if the business wrote games that appealed more to the competitive and pickup crowd? Or would they actually make less money?
2) Would the entire hobby community (not just the vocal online pro-gaming component) grow and make the hobby be a more profitable one with more participants if they did?
3) If GW 2015 were more like GW 1990, what would the hobby and competitive landscapes look like?
1. There is no way to know from the outside as we have no (very limited) data to prove any of our assumptions. We need data in order to isolate the Vital X and find Root Cause. However, I am sure everyone has an opinion on it.
2. Unknown. See point 1.
3. This is a pretty broad categorization. What would this need to entail?
Talys wrote: Part of that is the pitfall of becoming a public company. You surrender the ability to control the destiny of your company in terms such as, "I want to make fun games accessible to everyone" with unfortunate necessities such as, "what will increase our stock price for the next quarter".
If I had a £1 for every time I read this falsehood I probably would have retired to my own private island with a complete collection of all the HH Legions. In resin.
I don't know if you've ever participated in a management position of a company taken public. I have. Twice, successfully. The process is not very much fun, but it can be very lucrative for the founders. Afterwards, it's even less fun for a lot of people, especially the sort more interested in creating things than in just making money. It's unlikely that post-offering, you'll have exactly the same board (even if you weren't forced to do so, this would usually be a bad idea for your share price), and suddenly you have different stakeholders and different forces pulling at you, plus all sorts of regulatory that you didn't have to deal with before.
Especially in the relatively small public company size (like GW), many founders of companies who have gotten wealthy off of IPOs, acquisitions from public companies, and other means of becoming a publicly traded have expressed their regret at doing so, and would keep their company private if they had it all over to do again.
Ooh, is it appeal to authority time? I can play too, as can many others on this forum. None of which precludes the evidence of organizations that smaller public firms like GW with primarily inside and institutional investors have great latitude to run their business as they see fit.
The simple fact that GW leaves money on the table by not pursuing the sale of their product in wider distribution should clue people in that the investors are absent in managerial decision-making and are happy with their dividend checks. Institutional investors generally just dump stock when it doesn't perform rather than get involved in internal squabbles, in my experience anyway.
Baragash wrote: I work as a financial analyst advising company directors for a living. The majority of my experience is in UK retail.
Some of your comments might apply under some circumstances, they don't apply to GW for obvious reasons.
What I quoted is also a fallacy, it is not a mutually exclusive situation.
(Short answers, iPad typing)
As a professional matter, I'm not really a big fan of financial analyst types, stock promoters, and brokers. As you may be able to guess, I have a jaded perspective based on my experiences. I wont argue that IPO can be good for the pocketbook, but I found that it totally ripped out the spirit of doing things that we enjoy and doing them the way we enjoy doing them. Suddenly, it's very important to make money, grow, and show that you can keep growing and making more money. Because it's possible to make a ton of money, everyone with a stake in it feels obligated (or at least highly incentivized) to keep that pattern going.
Personally, I wouldn't do it again. I'd much rather have total control, have my books my own business, and not he beholden to others (invest in me, and I promise to try to make you more money). I do understand that, at a large company size, it's an invaluable tool to raise money, and it remains one of the best exit strategies. But if you want to answer why GW 2015 is a lot different than the company founded by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone, I think this is a big factor.
Now, all this being said, I have no skin in the game from the perspective of what happens inside GW. As a *customer* I'm happy with 40k exactly the way it's evolved (and I acknowledge that I may be in the minority), and if Kirby et al are happy with their company, good for them. I think he said he enjoys running the business and all that at some investor tour, and if this format is their thing, well, good on 'em.
KIrby is an accountant, so he's likely to enjoy running GW as an accounting exercise.
Talys, you say you like the way 40K has evolved. Did you dislike the late 5th edition situation in which Apocalyse was a supplement?
My view is that Apocalypse detracts from the core game, but that was not a problem as long as it was an optional extra.
However I believe that for people who enjoy Apocalypse, it would be equally enjoyable if the rules were a supplement or incorporated in the core rules.
@KK - Yes, I would be happy with something like 5e + Apocalypse. I generally enjoyed 5e very much (definitely a high point in 40k), and I thought that Apocalypse was cool when it came out, though I didn't really add big models, and I still don't really play with many of them.
I didn't much like 6e, but it was around for so short a time that it's barely a footnote. It wasn't so horrible as to be unplayable, IMO.
7e has been a good game for me, and since then, I've really grown fond of Formations. I get all the reasons to NOT like them, and I think a large percentage of the formations are not very good, but I like the concept of getting bonuses for playing groups of models that conform to the storytelling aspect, and I like ways of organizing a battleforce beyond a system where it often feels like you must take bad units to take good units.
I also enjoy the campaign supplements and such that have come out in the last couple of years; I think they add a lot of flavor to the game, and the books like Kauyon and Mont'ka are exactly what I like to see in expansion materials.
Yes, I would like them to be cheaper And preferably, softcover, so as not to weigh and take up so much space... even though I most often play in my own home, lol.
I mean, I get that 40k, AoS, and GW the way it is in 2015 doesn't follow Priestley's vision, and were I him, I'd probably not be a happy camper either. As someone with a creative side who gets both attached and passionate with projects, I tend to become attached to my vision of a company too, and take umbrage and resist that being turned upside down. But strictly speaking, as a player and hobbyist, the current release cadence, type and variety of models they produce, type of books they release, and moderate pace of meta change jive with what I like. That's not to say that if it had grown in another direction, I wouldn't have liked it just as much, or more, though.
Talys wrote: As a professional matter, I'm not really a big fan of financial analyst types, stock promoters, and brokers.
As I'm none of these things I guess we can be friends (well certainly not the second two)? I'm not really sure what to make of this under than a thinly-veiled ad hominem or a very narrow worldview of what "financial analyst" could mean.
Kilkrazy wrote: KIrby is an accountant, so he's likely to enjoy running GW as an accounting exercise.
Only if he's a bad accountant* (I thought his background was tax anyway?). Good accountants understand the balance between hard financials and creativity. The slippery slope of that kind of thinking would lead to DIY stores not selling nails and baby specialists not selling nappies, which of course, is absolutely bonkers.
*Alternatively, you might be thinking about a purely "financial" accountant who might not have sufficient training or understanding of the holistic view of a company. A Management Accountant very much understands the difference.
Formations are a development of several ideas from earlier editions; including Chapter Traits in the 4th edition SM codex, and leader bonuses that came into various codexes such as the Tau Farsight build or the IG orders system..
The potential of this concept was discussed quite widely on DakkaDakka a few years ago, and a lot of us thought it was a good idea, but GW have managed to implement it poorly by not balancing things.
As usual.
Returning to Apocalypse, about half the community loved it and half hated it, judging by reaction on DakkaDakka. So, when GW spooged the Apoc rules into core 40K, they alienated the half of players who didn't want them.
I can never rid my mind of the strange co-incidence that GW recent serious decline in sales started from this point. There is never one cause, of course, but I strongly feel GW would be well advised to split the rules out again if there is an 8th edition.
@Baragash - of course we can be friends. I have friends who are financial analyst types, stock promoters, and brokers
Professionally speaking, I am not a fan of most of the people in the world of investing and public companies, and in particular people whose job it is and who make a living off of taking companies public, selling their stock and increasing their share value. Why?
The IPO process is great for a lot of people, particularly those that need lots of money or want a way out, but it also isn't a great thing for a lot of other people. Those in the business of taking companies public or finding companies funding (and I've met so many that my head spins) seem to think that if a company can be made worth much more, and the founders can be made rich, it's always a good idea. I happen to disagree
But anyhow, I digress. I meant nothing personally against you, and I am friends with and game with people who do jobs that aren't in alignment with my own professional goals and beliefs, well, all the time. No different than I don't believe in reincarnation (I think the concept is crazy), but I can be married to a woman who does believe in it.
The only reason I brought this up, anyhow, was the topic of the discussion, and Rick Priestley's viewpoint. I believe (and have observed) that in many companies, after they go public, the culture, focus, and passion are directed differently. Not always *badly*, but often, differently, and not always in the vision of each of the founders -- who are unlikely homogenous and may have divergent goals anyhow. I'm not making an excuse for anyone, or attacking a fine institution that is perfect for some companies; I'm just proposing one reason of many that may have led Mr. Priestley to feel the way he does in the article.
I offer my own experience as a parallel, as a company I was a senior executive in went public, and made all the people involved lots of money, but then changed the entire focus of the company almost solely to the next quarterly statement, setting expectations, exceeding them, and spinning everything about the company. I don't harbor anyone ill feelings; I just wouldn't do it again, which isn't to say that others shouldn't.
Returning to Apocalypse, about half the community loved it and half hated it, judging by reaction on DakkaDakka. So, when GW spooged the Apoc rules into core 40K, they alienated the half of players who didn't want them.
I can never rid my mind of the strange co-incidence that GW recent serious decline in sales started from this point. There is never one cause, of course, but I strongly feel GW would be well advised to split the rules out again if there is an 8th edition.
I'd have no problem with that, and truthfully, the big models I enjoy building and painting more than playing anyhow.
I don't know how it is in other scenes, but when the superheavy and gargantuan monstrous creatures were rare, nobody had a problem around here with not fielding them if the opponent didn't want to play that, or of the battle would be too lopsided. Now, they're so common and the ways to deal with them are so well known I'm not so sure it's a huge problem anymore.
Kilkrazy wrote: Formations are a development of several ideas from earlier editions; including Chapter Traits in the 4th edition SM codex, and leader bonuses that came into various codexes such as the Tau Farsight build or the IG orders system..
The potential of this concept was discussed quite widely on DakkaDakka a few years ago, and a lot of us thought it was a good idea, but GW have managed to implement it poorly by not balancing things.
As usual.
Returning to Apocalypse, about half the community loved it and half hated it, judging by reaction on DakkaDakka. So, when GW spooged the Apoc rules into core 40K, they alienated the half of players who didn't want them.
I can never rid my mind of the strange co-incidence that GW recent serious decline in sales started from this point. There is never one cause, of course, but I strongly feel GW would be well advised to split the rules out again if there is an 8th edition.
I think it's probably gone to far to break Apoc out from 40K now. Keep 40K as is for those that want to play it that way, and stealth re-boot the game with an additional squad level ruleset.
Kilkrazy wrote: Formations are a development of several ideas from earlier editions; including Chapter Traits in the 4th edition SM codex, and leader bonuses that came into various codexes such as the Tau Farsight build or the IG orders system..
The potential of this concept was discussed quite widely on DakkaDakka a few years ago, and a lot of us thought it was a good idea, but GW have managed to implement it poorly by not balancing things. As usual.
Returning to Apocalypse, about half the community loved it and half hated it, judging by reaction on DakkaDakka. So, when GW spooged the Apoc rules into core 40K, they alienated the half of players who didn't want them.
I can never rid my mind of the strange co-incidence that GW recent serious decline in sales started from this point. There is never one cause, of course, but I strongly feel GW would be well advised to split the rules out again if there is an 8th edition.
I think it's probably gone to far to break Apoc out from 40K now. Keep 40K as is for those that want to play it that way, and stealth re-boot the game with an additional squad level ruleset.
But 40K already is a "squad level ruleset". If anything, it is Apocalypse that should be a separate ruleset with streamlined rules to speed up play in large games (2000pts+). Aircraft, Superheavies etc should be confined to this Apocalypse ruleset, and the "standard" 40K game should be scaled back down to what it was back in 3rd and 4th Ed, 2000pts or less, with mostly infantry and a handful of tanks.
And then we can use Kill Team for a Necromunda scale skirmish game.
But 40K already is a "squad level ruleset". If anything, it is Apocalypse that should be a separate ruleset with streamlined rules to speed up play in large games (2000pts+). Aircraft, Superheavies etc should be confined to this Apocalypse ruleset, and the "standard" 40K game should be scaled back down to what it was back in 3rd and 4th Ed, 2000pts or less, with mostly infantry and a handful of tanks.
And then we can use Kill Team for a Necromunda scale skirmish game.
I'm OK with "Apocalypse" being 2,000+ pts. But the streamlining should be across the board, for all rules, not just Apocalypse. Otherwise, Apocalypse becomes the immediately superior game from a gaming perspective.
The "standard 40k" game should be scaled back to 40k 3E size: 1,500 pts. I dispute that it needs to be predominantly infantry. Just cap the points.
Necromunda is supposedly the first next-gen Specialist Games product coming out. I look forward to seeing what happens there.
Keep in mind there are 2 different apocalypse games, in reality. One, where people bring every model they own and every turn takes 2 hours. The other is just as many points, but every turn goes quickly, because it's an 8x12 table faith a dozen 500+ point models, and a few small models like a deathstar and some heroes.
The problem with a lot of the gigantic models now, especially with the new rules that came out, is that many of the small models are just a waste of time to field.
Talys wrote: Keep in mind there are 2 different apocalypse games, in reality. One, where people bring every model they own and every turn takes 2 hours. The other is just as many points, but every turn goes quickly, because it's an 8x12 table faith a dozen 500+ point models, and a few small models like a deathstar and some heroes.
The problem with a lot of the gigantic models now, especially with the new rules that came out, is that many of the small models are just a waste of time to field.
I believe that's "a feature not a bug" of GW's strategy for the past couple of years. Shove apoc down everyone's throat with formations that give you free rules (and free models in points) just for buying in bulk with $$$... and then make sure you come out with huge and expensive kits with better rules than the points justify (like the Wraithknight as the extreme example) to make sure that folks who want to exclude them will be encountering folks equally adamant to not do so. In the meantime, gak units like Vespid get nothing ruleswise or pointswise as a unit while shiny newer more expensive kits get buffs or just start out much better in the case of new sculpts.
The problem with a lot of the gigantic models now, especially with the new rules that came out, is that many of the small models are just a waste of time to field.
Exactly. Which is fine for everyone if these rules are optional, but they aren't.
Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.
I believe that's a "feature not a bug" of GW's strategy for the past couple of years. Shove apoc down everyone's throat...
And 40K's decline has been obvious in the past couple of years.
Agreed and I'm a part of that decline. I enjoyed occassionally playing apoc 2-3 times a year during special events at my FLGS and even made special units for it like a Tau warlord titan or my Super Friends Astartes Squad... but I don't enjoy being forced to play it every game potentially by the rules when I show up with my 1000pts of a new army. And before some idiot chimes in with rule #0 bs... the onus on who is the "bad guy" trying to change RAW in his favor switched with 6th then worsened with 7th. If you want to play a "normal" game, you now have to ask your opponent to change the rules as opposed to previously when your opponent fielding some paper thin tacked on "fluff" force of grey knight eldar IG titan combo bs wanted to use his stuff. Unfortunately, AOS doubled down on the stupidity with the lack of any points or balance so I don't have any realistic hope of an incoming return to common sense.
If 40k further devolves into using AOS rules (or lack of), it will be no better than when as a kid I played He Man vs Transformers vs GI Joe vs Barbie (because you couldn't exclude the girl relatives!) under the table with my cousins during holidays. That was fun when I was six years old and spending $50 and 5 minutes on my "army" but I'm looking for more depth and structure as an adult with my thousands of dollars in purchases and hours of hobby effort put into my 20,000pts of painted 40k.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.
How many people play 40K without the melee rules?
Automatically Appended Next Post: When Apoc was introduced about half the audience went, "feth me, this is BEST THING EVAR!" and the other half went,' feth me, this is LOAD OF gak!"
Then the Apoc rules were jammed into 40K's rear facing.
Over the next couple of years, sales dropped dramatically.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.
John, you and I both know that simply not "playing" knights is only half the battle. If someone truly believes superheavies and gargantuans along with the others trappings from apoc like formations that give free rules don't belong and inherently are unbalanced in "normal" 40k, they also don't want to play AGAINST them as well which means forcing their preferences on other players who may not agree. People generally aren't complaining that they "are" investing that time to play what they dislike but rather that they DID invest hundreds to thousands of dollars/hours and then Gw changed the very nature of the game out of greed afterwards.
There's an issue if you do want to play Knights too.
I'd love to give them a go, I've various chassis hanging around in various states of preparation ready to become a Knight army.
However, I have two options - turn up against an unprepared opponent and likely stomp them or arrange a game against a forewarned opponent and likely face an optimised list, even if the opponent in question can be trusted not to full on tailor.
Neither option is likely to result in a fun or even contest for both players, so for now my Knights languish in pieces, in cabinets or collecting dust on my work desk.
But 40K already is a "squad level ruleset". If anything, it is Apocalypse that should be a separate ruleset with streamlined rules to speed up play in large games (2000pts+). Aircraft, Superheavies etc should be confined to this Apocalypse ruleset, and the "standard" 40K game should be scaled back down to what it was back in 3rd and 4th Ed, 2000pts or less, with mostly infantry and a handful of tanks.
And then we can use Kill Team for a Necromunda scale skirmish game.
I'm OK with "Apocalypse" being 2,000+ pts. But the streamlining should be across the board, for all rules, not just Apocalypse. Otherwise, Apocalypse becomes the immediately superior game from a gaming perspective.
The "standard 40k" game should be scaled back to 40k 3E size: 1,500 pts. I dispute that it needs to be predominantly infantry. Just cap the points.
Necromunda is supposedly the first next-gen Specialist Games product coming out. I look forward to seeing what happens there.
Well I disagree that it doesn't need to be predominantly infantry. At the very least, Aircraft and Superheavies (Titans, Baneblades etc) should be confined to apocalypse. And I say that as someone who owns a Storm Talon and whose army is 3000pts at best, not quite apocalypse scale.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.
How many people play 40K without the melee rules?
Automatically Appended Next Post: When Apoc was introduced about half the audience went, "feth me, this is BEST THING EVAR!" and the other half went,' feth me, this is LOAD OF gak!"
Then the Apoc rules were jammed into 40K's rear facing.
Over the next couple of years, sales dropped dramatically.
When Apocalypse is done right, it IS amazing.
I always loved the massive battle reports in White Dwarf with massive diverse armies on each side, with hordes of infantry, dozens of tanks and transports, a couple of aircraft and a handful of superheavies. But a game where everybody just brings their biggest most expensive toys? 3 Riptides? A handful of Knights? 10 Land Raiders? Nope.
My ideal Apocalypse army would be...
Captain/Chapter Master + vanguard Squad. 2 Squads of Assault Marines. 2 Squads of Devastators + rhinos. 4 squads of scouts. 2 squads of Tactical marines + drop pods. 1 Sternguard squad + razorback. A Stormtalon. And some allied units (a few squads of Skitarii and the Ad Mech heavy walkers). I've also got some classic Gaunts Ghost miniatures who might make nice Imperial Guard veterans.
But I would never take something like 3 Titans. That'd be boring for me.
I can say that in my local area, it was not just the sales of GW that dropped with the most recent two editions - folks have sold off their collections, and gotten out of the game.
I sold off my Dark Angels - I hadn't played a game in years, and felt no urge to do so.
Away went the models on eBay - and in came another army for Kings of War.
I think that the big models are actually pretty good 'value' in terms of this $100-$150 does that. I don't think a 2000 pt army with mini titans is any more expensive than most MSU and mech type armies.
But money aside, KK and Az definitely have a point. On one hand, it can force people to play a game they don't want to, especially in the pickup realm. On the other, you can end up with very lopsided, pointless games if your opponent is woefully unequipped to fight titans, or if they're optimized to win against titans, you can't kill enough them before the game is over and you're facing a mathematically impossible game to win (based on how many squads you can kill in 6 turns.
Neither is a problem in private games, of course, and I'm not a fan of the pickup scene (any more), and this is probably a reason why I've said the game works for me. It would be a better game if it worked better n the pickup scene, obviously.
The question in terms of profitability is: by making the large models a part of the core game, did they do the right thing? It's impossible to answer this. It's entirely possible that if 40k didn't change paradigms to include bigger models as a part of the core game, total sales would be even lower and some people would have transitioned to another game (becoming bored with old 40k). I'm of the mind that the game needs to reinvent itself every 5-7 years to keep peoples' interest, but sure, not everyone agrees with this. However, let's be honest - if 40k and WHFB stayed in one of the previous iterations that were very popular with only incremental tweaks, eventually, there would be fatigue and most people would stop buying more models of their favorite faction. Sure, some would end up buying into another faction, but others would just go play another game.
GW has made the calculation that they want as high a percentage of sales to the biggest spenders who have the potential to be 'lifetime customers' as humanly possible, and engineered everything around that.
Talys wrote: I think that the big models are actually pretty good 'value' in terms of this $100-$150 does that. I don't think a 2000 pt army with mini titans is any more expensive than most MSU and mech type armies.
But money aside, KK and Az definitely have a point. On one hand, it can force people to play a game they don't want to, especially in the pickup realm. On the other, you can end up with very lopsided, pointless games if your opponent is woefully unequipped to fight titans, or if they're optimized to win against titans, you can't kill enough them before the game is over and you're facing a mathematically impossible game to win (based on how many squads you can kill in 6 turns.
Neither is a problem in private games, of course, and I'm not a fan of the pickup scene (any more), and this is probably a reason why I've said the game works for me. It would be a better game if it worked better n the pickup scene, obviously.
The question in terms of profitability is: by making the large models a part of the core game, did they do the right thing? It's impossible to answer this. It's entirely possible that if 40k didn't change paradigms to include bigger models as a part of the core game, total sales would be even lower and some people would have transitioned to another game (becoming bored with old 40k). I'm of the mind that the game needs to reinvent itself every 5-7 years to keep peoples' interest, but sure, not everyone agrees with this. However, let's be honest - if 40k and WHFB stayed in one of the previous iterations that were very popular with only incremental tweaks, eventually, there would be fatigue and most people would stop buying more models of their favorite faction. Sure, some would end up buying into another faction, but others would just go play another game.
GW has made the calculation that they want as high a percentage of sales to the biggest spenders who have the potential to be 'lifetime customers' as humanly possible, and engineered everything around that.
I think Talys has a good point. GW keeps making large models because they're more profitable. People bought a LOT of titans. So, GW will keep making them. It helps their short term profits.
The problem is, I think it hurts the community and thus their long term profits. A game survives on the community. For example, 40k is still very popular because it's easy to find a game with it. Because its easy to find a game, more people will buy into it. But...GW is splitting the community and killing the game, so less people are starting it and more people are starting the other games instead. Which leads to less sales and less revenue. It's a downward spiral that unless its stopped, will lead to bad times for GW.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.
How many people play 40K without the melee rules?
When Apoc was introduced about half the audience went, "feth me, this is BEST THING EVAR!" and the other half went,' feth me, this is LOAD OF gak!"
I dunno - how many ex-IG / new Tau players are there? But that's pretty a disingenuous apples-to-oranges statement, because we ALL know that it's perfectly possible to play without Superheavies or Flyers or Formations, just as we all know it's perfectly OK to play without Special Characters or Forgeworld.
I think you have a very poor idea about what constitutes "half", because Apoc was well-received. That's why GW makes so much Apoc-ready stuff now. Maybe 10% didn't like Apoc. And most of that would have been due to how overcosted the early Apoc units were compared to modern Superheavies.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno - how many ex-IG / new Tau players are there? But that's pretty a disingenuous apples-to-oranges statement, because we ALL know that it's perfectly possible to play without Superheavies or Flyers or Formations, just as we all know it's perfectly OK to play without Special Characters or Forgeworld.
But it's really not. They're a part of the core rules.
Someone comes in with an army that only really functions because of superheavies or flyers or formations. Do you have any right to tell them to get fethed? They're playing as accorded to the rules, you'd be the one doing the homebrew rules.
It would be exactly like saying, "Okay, we can play, but only if you don't use ranged weapons." Imagine saying that to a Tau player.
P.S. Forgeworld is a different matter, don't try to equate that to what I'm saying.
But it really is, because we used to play that way, and players can agree on what sort of game they choose to play. If players can choose not to play with Special Characters or Forgeworld, they can choose not to play with Superheavies and/or Flyers.
If we agree to play a game without any of that fancy stuff, and someone reneges on that agreement, then yeah, I'm probably going to tell them not to waste my time.
Homebrew is part of the core rules, too...
And no, FW is not different. It's part of the regular game now. Don't say otherwise.
The fact of the matter is, players need to decide what they want to play, and reach agreement. Simple as that.
And if your argument requires conflating Special Characters and/or Forgeworld with assault and/or shooting, then I think it's pretty clear just how ridiculously weak your argument is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: But it really is, because we used to play that way, and players can agree on what sort of game they choose to play. If players can choose not to play with Special Characters or Forgeworld, they can choose not to play with Superheavies and/or Flyers.
Who's "we"?
Special characters were always a thing when I joined the hobby, not a mention of 'with players permission' or any of that. If someone tried to tell me they didn't want special characters in a game I'd look at them like they were speaking Latin. It's simply always been a part of the game so far as I know and hell yes I'd be annoyed if I showed up with a list built around a character I liked and my opponent asked me not to use him.
And I don't see how that is any different from someone who joined in 7th, where superheavies were always a thing.
Rules exist for a reason, that reason being to provide the structure to play. You and at least a few people in the GW desing studio seem to disagree with that, and I'd say that's exactly the attitudes that have led us to this cliff GW is perched a top.
JohnHwangDD wrote: But it really is, because we used to play that way, and players can agree on what sort of game they choose to play. If players can choose not to play with Special Characters or Forgeworld, they can choose not to play with Superheavies and/or Flyers.
Except that's not true at all. A good deal of factions literally cannot function in any meaningful way without superheavies or fliers. As an example, CSM can't do ANYTHING without having a good number of fliers. You might as well say to a CSM player, "Nah, let's just count this as my win." instead of bothering to neuter them to that point.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And no, FW is not different. It's part of the regular game now. Don't say otherwise.
Yeah, but it is different. It's fundamentally different. They're an entirely different set of books that someone would have to buy to understand. Most tournaments ban the vast majority of FW's stuff because of how overpowered it is.
It's not inherently part of the core rules (unlike everything else we are discussing) so stop trying to involve Forgeworld in this.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The fact of the matter is, players need to decide what they want to play, and reach agreement. Simple as that.
That's great, man. If that's how you want to play, more power to you. When no one wants to play because you don't want to play with core rules features (superheavies etc), then don't come crying here.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And if your argument requires conflating Special Characters and/or Forgeworld with assault and/or shooting, then I think it's pretty clear just how ridiculously weak your argument is.
Your argument is the one conflating SC and FW with assault and shooting. I'm comparing it to fliers which are necessary for some factions to even function.
Again, the introduction of fliers and superheavies is an introduction to the core rules. It's not an optional supplement like Apocalypse is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Go re-read your rulebook. The rules specifically say players can adjust or modify them as they see fit.
Jesus. That doesn't mean homebrew is part of the core rules.
There really is no point talking about homebrew if you're discussing the quality of GWs rules as they are, by definition, not GWs rules at all.
You can homebrew anything you want from any system, but it has no bearing on the quality of the rules, which are again by definition, the ones in the rulebooks, not your own personal variation.
nullBolt wrote: Yeah, but it is different. It's fundamentally different. They're an entirely different set of books that someone would have to buy to understand. Most tournaments ban the vast majority of FW's stuff because of how overpowered it is.
It's not inherently part of the core rules (unlike everything else we are discussing) so stop trying to involve Forgeworld in this.
A this point, there is no such a thing as "core rules" anymore, as virtually everything has been shoehorned into the Core Rules. You can't even claim that Core Rules = rulebook + codices, because dataslates and campaign books are also a thing.
Also, in these days of Wraithknights, Scatterbikes, Decurion, Gladius and Riptides you can't claim Forgeworld stuff is "overpowered" and expect to be taken seriously. The "new wave" 7th edition codices, from Necrons onwards, has reignited the arms race to such degree that even the nastiest Forgeworld rules look pretty tame in comparison.
nullBolt wrote: Yeah, but it is different. It's fundamentally different. They're an entirely different set of books that someone would have to buy to understand. Most tournaments ban the vast majority of FW's stuff because of how overpowered it is.
It's not inherently part of the core rules (unlike everything else we are discussing) so stop trying to involve Forgeworld in this.
A this point, there is no such a thing as "core rules" anymore, as virtually everything has been shoehorned into the Core Rules. You can't even claim that Core Rules = rulebook + codices, because dataslates and campaign books are also a thing.
Also, in these days of Wraithknights, Scatterbikes, Decurion, Gladius and Riptides you can't claim Forgeworld stuff is "overpowered" and expect to be taken seriously. The "new wave" 7th edition codices, from Necrons onwards, has reignited the arms race to such degree that even the nastiest Forgeworld rules look pretty tame in comparison.
I think a few things are still considered expansion, or non-core rules. Like you mentioned, Forgeworld isn't considered core by everyone, but there's also GW stuff like Stronghold Assault, and Kill Team. If you come to a pickup game with a fortification network and say, "Let's go!" someone may look at you funny Or not even know what you're talking about, LOL.
Nothing is integral to the game, everything can be changed. I've played games where we didn't use the built in to hit and to wound systems.
That said, I'd still call them core rules, the same way I'd call Superheavies and Flyers core rules now that they're written in to the main rulebook and codices.
Well of course, everyone can make the game their own. I'm just saying that what you typically may expect if you're going to a pickup or tournament or a game with a relative stranger.
Showing up with reavers or a warlord or a whole wall of martyrs setup is not the norm, and a successful game probably won't happen. But show up with a couple of wraithknights or IKs or a formation out of a campaign book and nobody is going to get excited anymore, one way or the other. If someone's army has no way of killing an IK, that's a deficiency in their army, rather than the norm.
Whatever JohnHwangDD says about Apocalyse being very popular and the core rules optional, I am not the only person on Earth who disliked Apoc and was put off 40K by the rules being spooged into the core book.
Hi folks.
I think the last few posts have highlighted the issue GW corporate management have developed over the years.
Instead of having clearly defined game play for several sized games in the same setting.
RPG skirmish, large skirmish small battle and large battle games, space ship games..
They just crammed everything into one book with no clear definition of the different types of game play they included.
When GW had multiple games in the 40K setting , players liking the same style of game play simply played the game closest to what they wanted.
Getting rid of all the definition just left the customers without any clear focal points to gather around.
So my ideas of what a game of 40k is is completely different to what other people are.And while we argue over who is right, we dont play , and associate the negative response to our opinions, with the GW40k rules.
Hm that is an interesting take on why the rules system is such a mess, beyond the lack of playtesting all named designers have said does not happen anymore.
Lanrak wrote: Hi folks.
I think the last few posts have highlighted the issue GW corporate management have developed over the years.
Instead of having clearly defined game play for several sized games in the same setting.
RPG skirmish, large skirmish small battle and large battle games, space ship games..
They just crammed everything into one book with no clear definition of the different types of game play they included.
When GW had multiple games in the 40K setting , players liking the same style of game play simply played the game closest to what they wanted.
Getting rid of all the definition just left the customers without any clear focal points to gather around.
So my ideas of what a game of 40k is is completely different to what other people are.And while we argue over who is right, we dont play , and associate the negative response to our opinions, with the GW40k rules.
YMMV
I always found it extremely funny that for all the pushing of "the narrative" they offer nothing to actually do it. The dream of yore was that you had 40k at different scales and types, so you could actually fight an entire planetary campaign at all the different sizes; I vaguely recall a White Dwarf that talked about stringing together BFG and either Epic and/or 40k, I can't 100% remember, but it was that you did a BFG game and it affected the next battle, same with Epic and 40k. You could have even brought in Necromunda so you had space battles, large scale battles, platoon-level battles and skirmish battles to focus in on key points of an entire offensive. That's a narrative. Stuffing everything into one book and saying "Here, have a go" is doing nothing for anybody.
Overall I think that's my biggest problem with 40k: The rules appeal to nobody. They aren't balanced enough for competitive play, and the imbalance hurts casual play more (one person's fluffy army can be worlds better than someone else's, just because), but they offer no support or direction for narrative gaming for the casual players that they claim are their focus.
@Wayne - I may sound like a broken record, but to say the rules appeal to nobody just isn't accurate, as I'm sure there are other people like me who would label 7e + as their favorite version of the game (I mean, 7th post Decurion).
First, it's a great game and rules balance matters not at all, dare I say, if you set it up a little bit like Age of Sigmar: the two sides collaborate on setting up the scenario and acknowledge and allow for lopsided matchups and weak units. You want to play with 50 terminators with storm bolters? Well, okay, we can make that work. All of the shortcomings of 40k's rules (which I happily acknowledge), are highly mitigated when playing amongst friends and regulars who are like-minded, rather than pickup groups and competitive play. If you have the attitude that a game with as many units that are as varied as 40k won't ever be balanced in terms of x points are always equal, the game is a lot more fun. If that's what you want, I don't think 40k will ever work, in the context of today's models (without excluding many of them, like in kill team).
Second, 40k can be a visually spectacular game if you choose for it to be, in a way that no other tabletop wargame can, especially if scifi is your thing. The players and spectators can marvel at the game table as they move around their thousands of hours of modelling efforts, and for those whose interest is in this, none of the rules really matter anyways.
Third, for people who like or are invested in the fluff, 40k provides a fantastic setting to play out these battles.
I would disagree that there's no support for narrative gaming. I mean, what would you call books like Mont'ka and Kauyon? In the last 2 years, Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, White Scars, Ravenguard, Tau have all had significant storyline campaigns, and some great models made for those.
Part of it is that players don't just divide into Competitive vs Casual. There are so many other factors, like people who play in regular groups versus pickups, players who weigh spectacle or strategy more highly, gamers who like small collections or large, hobbyists whose priorities lie in modelling or not, people who like to play on small tables versus people who like to play on much larger tables, the length of game people enjoy, and so on and so forth.
40k scratches a very particular itch, but I think it's a pretty big (and obviously profitable) niche.
Just as a contribution the whole reason for 'dropping specialist games' thing from Tony Ackland.
GW had decided to drop Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay because it didn't promote miniature sales. However, we did get a lot of mail asking when the next scenarios would be published. They also had a lot of unedited manuscripts they had never payed for. The solution GW came up with was to create a small subsidiary to publish them. They could also use it to claw back some tax and prevent three of the more difficult staff from contaminating all the other staff. And hopefully those three would realise by running their own unit that they weren't as clever as they thought they were. We actually became the most productive part of the company.
Talys wrote: @Wayne - I may sound like a broken record, but to say the rules appeal to nobody just isn't accurate, as I'm sure there are other people like me who would label 7e + as their favorite version of the game (I mean, 7th post Decurion).
First, it's a great game and rules balance matters not at all, dare I say, if you set it up a little bit like Age of Sigmar: the two sides collaborate on setting up the scenario and acknowledge and allow for lopsided matchups and weak units. You want to play with 50 terminators with storm bolters? Well, okay, we can make that work. All of the shortcomings of 40k's rules (which I happily acknowledge), are highly mitigated when playing amongst friends and regulars who are like-minded, rather than pickup groups and competitive play. If you have the attitude that a game with as many units that are as varied as 40k won't ever be balanced in terms of x points are always equal, the game is a lot more fun. If that's what you want, I don't think 40k will ever work, in the context of today's models (without excluding many of them, like in kill team).
Second, 40k can be a visually spectacular game if you choose for it to be, in a way that no other tabletop wargame can, especially if scifi is your thing. The players and spectators can marvel at the game table as they move around their thousands of hours of modelling efforts, and for those whose interest is in this, none of the rules really matter anyways.
Third, for people who like or are invested in the fluff, 40k provides a fantastic setting to play out these battles.
I would disagree that there's no support for narrative gaming. I mean, what would you call books like Mont'ka and Kauyon? In the last 2 years, Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, White Scars, Ravenguard, Tau have all had significant storyline campaigns, and some great models made for those.
Part of it is that players don't just divide into Competitive vs Casual. There are so many other factors, like people who play in regular groups versus pickups, players who weigh spectacle or strategy more highly, gamers who like small collections or large, hobbyists whose priorities lie in modelling or not, people who like to play on small tables versus people who like to play on much larger tables, the length of game people enjoy, and so on and so forth.
40k scratches a very particular itch, but I think it's a pretty big (and obviously profitable) niche.
Game rules and balance always matters, the fact you must make your own mods in a game to balance it is problematic, the money you payed for the rules include them working and the game is balanced, I d not think anybody would say "this garden hose is really great if you take your time to plug the holes" and no 40k (or any GW game) does not have "such a huge amount of units it cannot be balanced" smaller companies show it can be done, GW just doesn't care and as many ex designers have attested there is no playtesting anymore there, so how can there be a game balance?
As for visually stunning? depends n what you think, sure the huge units and carpet of models must catch your eye they take up half (or more) of the table anyway but a good skirmish game with nice scenery can be equally eye garbing with 20 to 40 models only and make more sense to the eye
Obviously the rules as they stand do appeal to someone, but would they appeal to more or fewer people if they were split into core 40K and some optionan supplement for Apocalypse, Flyers, and so on -- roughly equivalent to 5th edition?
The sales figures say the rules appealed to more people when they were separated. (As always, I am sure that price is a factor too.)
Talys wrote: @Wayne - I may sound like a broken record, but to say the rules appeal to nobody just isn't accurate, as I'm sure there are other people like me who would label 7e + as their favorite version of the game (I mean, 7th post Decurion).
First, it's a great game and rules balance matters not at all, dare I say, if you set it up a little bit like Age of Sigmar: the two sides collaborate on setting up the scenario and acknowledge and allow for lopsided matchups and weak units. You want to play with 50 terminators with storm bolters? Well, okay, we can make that work. All of the shortcomings of 40k's rules (which I happily acknowledge), are highly mitigated when playing amongst friends and regulars who are like-minded, rather than pickup groups and competitive play. If you have the attitude that a game with as many units that are as varied as 40k won't ever be balanced in terms of x points are always equal, the game is a lot more fun. If that's what you want, I don't think 40k will ever work, in the context of today's models (without excluding many of them, like in kill team).
Second, 40k can be a visually spectacular game if you choose for it to be, in a way that no other tabletop wargame can, especially if scifi is your thing. The players and spectators can marvel at the game table as they move around their thousands of hours of modelling efforts, and for those whose interest is in this, none of the rules really matter anyways.
Third, for people who like or are invested in the fluff, 40k provides a fantastic setting to play out these battles.
I would disagree that there's no support for narrative gaming. I mean, what would you call books like Mont'ka and Kauyon? In the last 2 years, Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, White Scars, Ravenguard, Tau have all had significant storyline campaigns, and some great models made for those.
Part of it is that players don't just divide into Competitive vs Casual. There are so many other factors, like people who play in regular groups versus pickups, players who weigh spectacle or strategy more highly, gamers who like small collections or large, hobbyists whose priorities lie in modelling or not, people who like to play on small tables versus people who like to play on much larger tables, the length of game people enjoy, and so on and so forth.
40k scratches a very particular itch, but I think it's a pretty big (and obviously profitable) niche.
By the logic in your post, the 40k as a game isn't for:
1. Competitive players.
2. Casual players who lack a regular play group.
3. Casual players who have a regular game group but don't have like minded players.
4. Casual players who have a regular game group but dislike the pre-game balancing phase.
5. Players who want a skirmish size game, but don't have like minded players / lack a regular play group.
6. Players who are only in it for game-play and are not background/modelling/painting enthusiasts.
On top of this, the way GW has set up 40k... its not a game for those tight on money either as the cost of entry is among the highest in the war-gaming market. If GW produced proper rules, they wouldn't be artificially removing customers 1-4 (and 6 arguably). Kill Team is a thing, but it's an unsupported thing... much like how battle box games and 15 point Warmachine/Hordes battles are technically possible, but nobody plays them because the game isn't designed that way.
@keezus - it's pretty hard to find gaming entertainment that's a 100% match, so we often settle for the closest thing.
Going down your list, if someone fits many of those criteria, some other game is probably better for them. As it is, there must still be a lot of people who enjoy 40k. If I were to make a list it would be that 40k is ideal if you
1. Have or are willing to start with friends a good play group
2. Not a list-tailoring ultra-competitive type
3. Willing to spend a few hundred dollars to get into a warfare
4. Enjoy meta changes every couple of years (usually requiring some new models)
5. Enjoy adding to your armies
6. Like relatively large table games
7. Enjoy a mix of small through giant models
8. Not a person who is obsessive about the rules interpretation
There won't be many people who answer YES to EVERYTHING, but if you answer yes to enough of it, 40k can be a terrific game. If you say yes to some of it, 40k may be the only game for you. For example, if you're really excited by tanks jets, giant robots and infantry on a 6x4+ table, there's nothing else. If you love building apocalypse size armies in a scifi game, there is no alternative (without crazy repetition of models).
I personally think 40k does really well in gaming clubs and basement groups; less well in pickups, and so-so in competitive play with modified rules. It's also a great game for people who just happen to love 40k models.
For example, if you're really excited by tanks jets, giant robots and infantry on a 6x4+ table, there's nothing else.
Well...
I personally think 40k does really well in gaming clubs and basement groups; less well in pickups, and so-so in competitive play with modified rules. It's also a great game for people who just happen to love 40k models.
I'd say that's where the game works best.
But I think that's mainly to do with the balance being so poor it requires a lot of agreements to make it somewhat playable.
The fact that GW's game designers have pushed out anything but casual club type playing isn't a good thing and won't grow the 40k community.
@mwh - well I never said there are no games with giant robots other than 40k
There's no way around it. If you want a game with rules you can dissect and build and compete based on, with factions and units well-balanced against each other out-of-the-box, 40k will NOT be the best game for you. If you want a game where spectacle is important, and the ability to play large and awesome collections is paramount, 40k is probably work well. Go to a GW store, and you'll sew nice looking game tables with nice terrain. There will be a pretty decent percentage of players with reasonably painted models. Go in with a grey army, and you may receive a cold welcome. Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.
It doesn't make any of them a bad game; they're just games targeted at different groups.
Now, like I keep saying, it would be pretty easy to make 40k a *little* better for people who want competitive type play.
Talys wrote: @mwh - well I never said there are no games with giant robots other than 40k
There's no way around it. If you want a game with rules you can dissect and build and compete based on, with factions and units well-balanced against each other out-of-the-box, 40k will NOT be the best game for you. If you want a game where spectacle is important, and the ability to play large and awesome collections is paramount, 40k is probably work well. Go to a GW store, and you'll sew nice looking game tables with nice terrain. There will be a pretty decent percentage of players with reasonably painted models. Go in with a grey army, and you may receive a cold welcome. Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.
It doesn't make any of them a bad game; they're just games targeted at different groups.
Now, like I keep saying, it would be pretty easy to make 40k a *little* better for people who want competitive type play.
The only game that I play/have played for which I would claim that it is significantly more likely for my opponents force to be fully painted is X-wing.
Talys wrote: @mwh - well I never said there are no games with giant robots other than 40k
There's no way around it. If you want a game with rules you can dissect and build and compete based on, with factions and units well-balanced against each other out-of-the-box, 40k will NOT be the best game for you. If you want a game where spectacle is important, and the ability to play large and awesome collections is paramount, 40k is probably work well.
The problem is... most gamers aren't that black and white. I like a game which is a spectacle, but I also like a game that is competitive, I don't care if I win or lose but I do care that the game is balanced and I don't enjoy spending lots of time balancing it myself (mainly because it's hard to get players to agree on what is and is not balanced) I think most gamers are in the same boat.
So it's not that 40k is good for certain people and bad for other people, it's that it's a mix of somewhat good and somewhat bad for almost everyone, with a few standouts who say it's entirely good for them or entirely bad for them. I'd suggest the latter group isn't a group you'd frequently argue with on the internet forum because they'd have no interest in the game to begin with
The frustrating thing is that 40k is simultaneously so close and so far from being a decent game in both aspects, so close because it wouldn't actually take much work from the developers and so far because GW is utterly uninterested in putting in the small amount of effort to do it.
The other problem is new players aren't going to be able to tell how good or bad a game is in different aspects until they've bought the models and spent a while playing it, by which time they're over invested and cranky that they've paid good money for rules which haven't been refined by the writers.
Go to a GW store, and you'll sew nice looking game tables with nice terrain. There will be a pretty decent percentage of players with reasonably painted models. Go in with a grey army, and you may receive a cold welcome. Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.
You're describing local quirks, not features of specific games.
I go to my local GW and at a guess I'd say more than half the armies contain at least some unpainted models, probably a quarter or so of the armies are mostly unpainted and I often come across armies that are almost entirely a sea of grey or a sea of primer. There's only the 1 employee who paints the terrain as well, so sometimes you come across terrain that isn't fully painted as well (there was that city terrain a while back which took him several months to slowly paint up). If I went to the local GW 10 years ago (different staff) it was rare to see unpainted models, the bulk of armies were painted and maybe just the new unit someone had bought recently was unpainted. If I went to the local GW 20 years ago (different staff again) there was never an unpainted model on the table, it was a rule, even if you weren't playing a game and were just working on the painted table and left some of your models on the gaming table the staff would tell you to take it off the gaming table and put it on the painting table or put it away.... there were also a lot of very poorly painted armies in those days
I go to my local club (well, I haven't been there in a few years, maybe it's changed) and it's rare to see an unpainted model. Be it 40k, WMH, LotR, whatever game they're playing, there won't be unpainted figures.
There was a local store which closed down which tended to have a real mix, I don't think people went there for pick ups so much as prearranged games with people they knew, so you tended to see games of painted vs painted or unpainted vs unpainted (compared to the local GW where you often see a fully painted army against a fully unpainted army).
I actually haven't seen anyone playing WMH with unpainted models, but then I've never really sought out the game because it doesn't appeal to me, maybe there's an enclave of non-painters that I haven't run in to.
The only games where I can really say that universally the players reject unpainted models is historic gaming, and again maybe I just haven't met the non-painting historic players, but everyone I have met or even spoken to on the internet who plays a historic game will always paint before they play. EDIT: Actually it may just be WW2 historics, as I'm sure I've seen some older historics being played with blocks of semi-painted troops.
@skink - I agree totally that everyone isn't black or white, which is why players will prioritize aspects, consider their local scene, and ultimately, make a compromise.
Even if 40k is perfect for you, unless you're willing to hire an army of painters or buy a fully painted collection, it's going to be a while before your army remotely resembles what you see in your minds eye.
Remember, this line of discussion started with my response to the assertion that nobody finds the game playable. Just based on the strangers I chatted with today (boxing day, 33% off, yay!), some of whom were walking out with $1000+ of models and books and love the game (much more than me, in terms of the game, at least) this just isn't so.
Most people, I think, would agree the game could be better, but I think a lot of people still enjoy playing it.
Enjoy playing it, invested too much to go away, ignorant of the overall offerings, choosing a bigger player base over a smaller one, been terrified of metal models because of propaganda, enjoying the aesthetics more than the game, preferring the pay to win aspect of GW games over more balanced games, love the lore more than anything, really like a cluttered table with a sea of models over a tactically engaging game, ectr ectr.
There are many reasons why people buy GW games especially 40k, not all are good or valiant, the fact of GWs numbers is the pool of people that do so is shrinking every year without reaching a plateau yet, will this stop before it becomes unsustainable? I don't know does it mean that the game is unsustainable relying only on spectacle and mass of models (either big or many)? I think yes.
Edit also local GW, way too few places have that and most of their customer base has not seen one, let alone play in one local game stores are more sane in not alienating players for not having painted armies especially the ones that rank over 100 models (which is the majority really) and clubs usually have the same mentality too, most GW armies I have seen are either unpainted or in various stages of been partially painted.
@Talys.
In every poll conducted over the last decade or so, the quality of the 40K rules was not in the top 5 reasons why people bought into 40k. Top 5 reasons.(In no particular order.)
Game Setting.
Art style/minature sculpts.
Range of products (mainly minatures I think but could include hobby supplies?,)
Friends interested in 40k.
Depth of background
Now that does not mean the quality of the rules are not important.its just they are not the things people think about too much when they start a new game.
BUT it is the quality of the rules that keeps people playing the game after the initial appeal has faded a bit.
And this is where the GW corporate management made their biggest mistake IMO. (GW seem to rely on sunk cost fallacy instead?)
They wanted to believe the churn and burn of new customers could sustain them, and forgot about the long term players.(Write rules focusing on short term sales at the expense of long term growth.)
As the churn and burn of new customers has led to falling sales volumes.
Now with the inclusion of new stuff for longer term collectors, new players are priced out some what.
Rather than focusing on new customers OR vets.
Good game development can include both equally, when rules are well written.As they are easy for new players to get to grips with , but give enough tactical depth to keep players interested in the long term
If you break it down into the gamer types I listed, the current rules for 40k only really appeal to those that like the spectacle of larger battle games.(Epic/Apoc)
The gamers who wanted to play RPG small Skirmish play other games instead of Kill team.
The gamers who anted to play smaller games play other games rather than 40k in 40 mins type games.
The gamers who wanted to play larger skirmish /small battle games ,are having a hard time ATM. after the 'compulsory'(as some players see it) inclusion of larger models.And so tend to splinter in to sub groups that wont play each other.
The gamers who wanted to play narrative massive battle games are playing other games instead of Epic.Or are 'muddling through' with 7th ed 40k.
And the players that 'muddling through' with 7th ed 40k are having to used a horribly compromised rule set.
It has been made backward compatible to WHFB 3rd edition rules , (to appeal to WHFB players who were the target audience back in RT days.)
It has had lots of detail removed from the old skirmish core rules in the attempt to speed up play.(And GW kept the stuff that made the damn rules so clunky!)
And then has had lots of special rules patches applied to try to make the fantasy skirmish rules cope with the large battle scifi game.
If 40k 7th ed rules were a car.
It would be a small /large, town/off road, touring/formula one,car,Suitable for trips to the shops family holidays local off road / track days, international competition type driving.
See that appeals to all driver types in theory, the the mess of a vehicle that is made NO ONE WANTS TO DRIVE!!
No matter how nice you think it might look nice parked on your drive way/garage.
I can understand people enjoying the intended game play of 7th ed 40k. But when you have rules written for the game play . you arrive at it much quicker and without so much 'hassle.'
Which is what most people complaining about 7th ed seem to want?
In summery my issue with 7th ed 40 rule set.
A rule set is supposed to be an instruction set to explain the intended game play to the players of the game.
7th ed 40k has no clearly defined game play , so the rules are just a confused mess as a result.
I hope that helps explain where the issues with the 40k 7th ed are IMO.
I agree the idea of 7th ed 40k is cool.Its just the implementation is awful , IMO.
All I know is that I went to one of the hobby shops that has 40k going on yesterday, figured I'd socialize and watch a game. I have to say, it didn't look exciting or interesting at all. It was IG (sorry, AM haha) versus Dark Angels, not sure of points but had to be high because the Guard player had like 6-7 tanks (4 battle tanks, like 3 transports) and the DA player had a Knight.
Anyways, while I was there the Guard player basically didn't move anything, just shot stuff across the board and rolled a lot of dice, then I think the Deathwing had a Drop Pod land behind him and I presume (I left around this time) carved him up.
In all honesty, it didn't look engaging or exciting and the players both didn't sound like they were enjoying it, at least not in the way I've seen people enjoy other games. It was very... bland is the best word I can describe it. The terrain was cool (had all of these laser-cut MDF ruins), but I mean just watching it I could see myself not enjoying it the way I was seeing it unfold.
A friend of mine who used to play 40k (not with me) and I were talking about it, and he was saying I just have nostalgic memories about the game that's preventing me from seeing how it really is; after watching that game I kind of agree because it did not look fun, interesting, or engaging in any way at all to my eyes.
That's me, and I'm not denying that others might find their games engaging and fun, but it didn't look like something I'd even remotely care about, and as I've stated before the miniatures alone aren't enough to entice me because ultimately I want a game to play, not figures to collect and sometimes play a game with them. Right now, 40k doesn't seem to offer enough in the game department (if it ever did, but I don't want to get into that argument), and the figures alone aren't enough to compensate for not having a good game surrounding it.
So once again, likely for good this time (there's a chance someone might offer to run an actual 40k demo for me in the coming weeks, in which case I'd agree just to experience it instead of only watching), time to shelve 40k and fondly remember the GW that was, not the GW that is.
PsychoticStorm wrote:Enjoy playing it, invested too much to go away, ignorant of the overall offerings, choosing a bigger player base over a smaller one, been terrified of metal models because of propaganda, enjoying the aesthetics more than the game, preferring the pay to win aspect of GW games over more balanced games, love the lore more than anything, really like a cluttered table with a sea of models over a tactically engaging game, ectr ectr.
There are many reasons why people buy GW games especially 40k, not all are good or valiant
Exalted. I've seen these rationalisations too many times before. It creates an impression of fear, not just of metal models, but other games. Gaming insecurities, which GW may or may not have fostered or set loose, but which they seem to lean on these days.
Lanrak wrote:its just they are not the things people think about too much when they start a new game.
Well, starting 40K, anyway.
the current rules for 40k only really appeal to those that like the spectacle of larger battle games.(Epic/Apoc)
The gamers who wanted to play narrative massive battle games are playing other games instead of Epic.
Wait, what? Are you presenting Epic as an example of a bad large battle game?
the current rules for 40k only really appeal to those that like the spectacle of larger battle games.(Epic/Apoc)
The gamers who wanted to play narrative massive battle games are playing other games instead of Epic.
Wait, what? Are you presenting Epic as an example of a bad large battle game?
By the looks of it he is and has just lost many credibility points for doing so.
Epic was an amazing massed battle game and actually gave one a feel of, well, epic engagements. Titans and other Super Heavies felt right there unlike in 40K where it feels like someone has taken a crowbar and some grease and forced them in with a few wallops of a hammer,
@master of ordinance - Epic was a fine game. I had always said that if Epic could be translated directly into 28mm scale, I would be very happy, because I didn't enjoy painting tiny models that you couldn't paint much detail on.... and boom... giant models in 40k. Hence, me being one of those that like 40k with giant models (and little models too). If only I owned a massive enough table to play it
I do agree that Epic was a better *game* for playing that scale than 40k, in almost every way that matters. The thing is, in terms of the hobby, the kits are really important, because I spend way more time modelling than playing. I didn't really enjoy Epic models very much and I have a ton more fun with 40k kits. Secondly, I like the look of modern 40k on the tabletop more than Epic, and this is a very important factor for me as a wargamer.
Without models I'm *really* attached to, I'd just much rather spend my gaming time on computer games, which is something that I also very much enjoy.
@Lanrak - like I said, no question, 40k could have better rules. I just don't think it's unplayable, and it's very enjoyable to some of us who do play it, to the point where it's more enjoyable than other games. Would it be better with some tweaks? Yes, I think so.
I don't see how you can say that 7e doesn't have clearly defined game play. I think it's pretty clear, and there are campaign scenarios if you want it further defined. Now, I do believe that that because of the potential arsenal of 40k, designing a game scenario to play makes a much more enjoyable game than random deployment and a random battle. It's like, if you have a game where there are bikers with chains, policemen with pistols, cartel members with assault rifles, army soldiers with tanks, and the airforce with smartbombs *all potentially in the same game*, everything can make for great games, but everything can't be good together, at the same time. Throw them all into an open field, and a thousand bikers with chains charging a single Abrams will all die a horrible death. It doesn't mean the two units can't ever be in the same game successfully, though.
I think 40k is a lot like this: because the environment extremely open ended and has models as destructive as a Warlord and as puny as a grot, while it's technically possible to have them both in the same game, it's usually not really productive. If you follow the fluff, one member of the Custodes or Astartes could best an entire legion of normal humans. One of the Primarchs could essentially dodge ten thousand bullets (or just walk through them) and use a pocket knife to slay an army. But what fun would that be to play on the tabletop, if both sides don't have access to something similar? It all makes it so that it's less ideal a game for pickup gamers, and points-centric competitive types.
The real question for GW would be, what is the formula for churn -- encouraging people to keep buying hundreds of dollars of models and books every year and not losing any of the vets to boredom -- while being an attractive game for new players. Is it even possible to make a game to pleases a ton of people AND makes GW a ton of money in an ongoing fashion?
@Talys.
I am sure you and your friends enjoy YOUR VERSION of the 40k rules. The way you chose to interpret /adapt the rules to get the game play you want.
So please define the game play of 7th ed as described by GW plc in the 40k 7th ed rule book..
And specify the pages and quote the designers notes that tell you this.
Or cite the game mechanics and resolution methods used to confirm this is the only game play people can associate with the 40k rules.
(Objective assessment of what is actually in the 40k rules please. )
My point is many players can say their opinion of what game play 40k should have, is supported by some parts of the rule book /codex books.
And many of them can be completely different to each other!
That is why 40k has not got clearly defined game play.
It is much better to have 3 or 4 great games in the same setting than one big mess people have to try to sort out themselves .
There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.
1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.
2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.
3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.
4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.
Polonius wrote: There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.
1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.
2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.
3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.
4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.
Talys wrote: The real question for GW would be, what is the formula for churn -- encouraging people to keep buying hundreds of dollars of models and books every year and not losing any of the vets to boredom -- while being an attractive game for new players. Is it even possible to make a game to pleases a ton of people AND makes GW a ton of money in an ongoing fashion?
Yes. GW seems to be operating on the false assumption that supporting veterans / competitive gamers would lead to diminishing returns as they have already purchased everything they need in their army. This is a very damaging assumption as in all other systems, having a strong rule system that supports veterans / competitive gamers just leads to players owning multiple armies when they have purchased everything they need in their army. GW was more interested in shoo-ing the greybeards out the door in favor of someone new who would have to climb the increasingly steep cost of entry... retention be damned.
Will have to see if they've changed that mindset. With the high prices attached to the new releases aimed at "enthusiasts", yet necessary to compete in the game, it looks like GW is burning the candle at both ends. That sort of thing isn't sustainable and usually doesn't end well.
Talys wrote: Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.
You probably shouldn't try to pass off gak you make up as fact. It's more than a little dishonest.
@Lanrak - our version of 7e rules is basically everything printed in BRB, current codices, campaigns, imperial armor, stronghold assault, black library, white dwarf or dataslates that originates from GWHQ (which would include things like skyhammer). Also experimental FW. Essentially, as permissive as possible to allow players to use whatever neat thing GW publishes.
That being said, we are a very reasonable and cooperative bunch. If someone wants to play terminators holding down a fortification, we will make that happen, and the opposing battleforce will be roughly equivalent, if not points equivalent. Of it turns out badly, we'll do it again with force adjustments. Nobody would play decurion vs dark eldar without a handicap. Someone might want to try out a super powerful list: no problem, someone else will take them up on it, also with a very strong list. If there's a disagreement that can't be easily resolved, a third person makes the call and everyone continues happily. You get the idea.
Mostly, we're guys that love minis and enjoy the chance to war game with them with friends every couple of weeks or so.
@keezus - keep in mind that out of all of GW's competitors, probably PP and FFG are the only companies that have made any serious profit. When you look at Mantic, for instance, they're like, 3% or smaller than the size of GW. And many people in the WMH world are unhappy with creep over there as the game matures, the rate of new players/ne faction purchases slow, and PP tries to get more money out of its playerbase.
It's worthy of discussion, I think, how to get someone to spend more on your game as it ages. Another faction sounds great, 'til you see GW veterans with 6+ armies and WMH veterans with 4+ armies. At some point, people have bought all the factions that they're interested in, and companies like GW and PP would prefer their fans NOT try other companies' games, as it's hard to get someone back once the fall in love with something else.
Talys wrote: Go to a figs on malifaux or WMH night, and how the tables look is usually not that key. There's lots of semi or unpainted armies, and the vast majority of tableaus are anything but a spectacle; certainly none of them are large.
You probably shouldn't try to pass off gak you make up as fact. It's more than a little dishonest.
I'm only stating my observations in terms of modelling. YMMV, but definitely, my observations over 2+ decades is that the GW crowd is more adamant about painted armies and culturally rewards awesomely painted spectacles more.
In any case it is factual that malifaux and WMH are not played on large tables. The games aren't made for it, and if you long to play on a 8x12, don't bother. Likewise, if your perfect game is on a 4x4, or you want to get to tour game on transit or a bike, 2000pt 40k will probably suck.
@Az - there's no doubt that there exist players in all games who enjoy painting armies and those who don't.
Part of it may hail back to the gaming groups around my area from the 80s (when GW was the only show in town) -- in those, you HAD to paint your models, or you weren't allowed to field them. Newer gaming groups for other games OR 40k generally don't have this requirement, but like I said, it's just a gaming culture thing I've observed, and other people may have other experiences.
I can't say I've ever seen anyone bring a 40k army in ziplock bags (though grey armies certainly abound).
Its quite simply really, GW enforced it because they wanted to sell their other products, its been more than a decade now that they withdrew all their support form everywhere, no tournament organizer, or club, has any incentive to enforce such destructive rules and since it is not enforced, why bother?
@Talys.
Please do not think for one moment I am trying to say you should not buy into 40k as you can not enjoy playing games in the 40k setting.Its obvious some people still do.And there is fun to be had, IF you put enough time and effort into digging it out of the kludge.
My point is the confused mess of rules and higher cost of entry , have put many people off 40k.And the lack of game play focus is part of this problem.
40k 7th ed,tries to appeal to everyone , and ends up being an over complicated mess.
And so people wanting a particular type of game play are often better served by another rule set that just gives them what they want 'out of the box'.
40k could and should in my opinion, be split into 4 basic game play types with their own separate rules focus,
1)Competitive skirmish for new players. Balanced for random pick up game in stores.
The 'easy in' for new players.
2) Campaign books to support more narrative games using the skirmish rules.
The support for narrative play and all the weird and wacky stuff that messes up balance for pick up games.
3) Competitive battle game, suitable for random pick up games at larger organised events.
4) Campaign books to support more narrative play with the larger wacky stuff that messes up balance for random pick up games.
This way there is clear definition in the type of game players want .And like minded players can gather round the focus they like best.
If this was done properly,all current 40k game play could be served in easily identifiable packets, the customers could navigate and explore at the pace they find comfortable.
And would make a nice change from GW sales departments current influence.
@Lanrak - I agree completely that if 40k had different rulesets to appeal to different groups, that would help tremendously.
Definitely having a smaller game mode that's somewhere between Kill Team (which is really restrictive) and everything-goes-bring-your-ten-titans 40k would be great.
And don't get me wrong, either: I think there are serious balance issues between most pre- and post-2015 factions, and internal balance makes it so that half the GW collection is very unappealing in game choice terms, unless your opponent is understanding (which is hard if you're strangers). I think that *small* corrections here could make a tremendous difference, and I hold out hope that as the factions get updated, they'll at least externally be balanced to the 2015 levels.
Azreal13 wrote: Well, if we're doing appeals to authority, in my 2+ decades of observations, you get people who like painting armies, and those that don't.
I've only seen 40K players turn up with lbs of unpainted grey plastic in ziplock baggies though.
It's just local groups have different trends. I believe Talys when he said *in his experience* 40k people tend to paint their stuff.... but it has NOTHING to do with 40k and EVERYTHING to do with that specific local community.
40k promotes seas of grey plastic as much if not more than other games simply because of the sheer size of the army you need to paint.
There's definitely nothing special about 40k in that regard.
The only games which, IMO, genuinely foster a community of painting are historics.
Polonius wrote: There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.
1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.
2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.
3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.
4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.
I'd play most, if not all of those games!
That is all. (Except for 30k. 30k bores me to death).
Polonius wrote: There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.
1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.
2) 30k... Just letting forge world run it completely.
3) competitive/pick up and play 40k. Use the basic core of rules, streamlined and balanced. Keep a lot of the rules crunch, but simply get over the fear of roll modifiers.
4) apocalypse! Include rules for everything, but make the game fully unit based rather than model based. Keep models for wound trackers and to calculate attacks and shots, but base all shooting, melee and saves on the unit.
I'd play most, if not all of those games!
Someone actually did that over on Lead Adventure by converting the Infinity ruleset. It's really god damn good.
Polonius wrote: There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.
1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.
Someone actually did that over on Lead Adventure by converting the Infinity ruleset. It's really god damn good.
That's a really great battle report! Based on my very limited understanding of Infinity, it's not the ideal rules engine for a 40k skirmish game. My understanding is that cover and line of sight is critical, and very few models shrug off damage.
I see infinity as being a really great engine for a Necromunda reboot, but true 40k skirmish should be more space opera, more fantasy with lasers.
OTOH, I can see a lot of fun in having a more claustrophobic and tight infinity style game between a Biel Tan strike force and a Platoon of IG Stormtroopers...
@keezus - keep in mind that out of all of GW's competitors, probably PP and FFG are the only companies that have made any serious profit. When you look at Mantic, for instance, they're like, 3% or smaller than the size of GW. And many people in the WMH world are unhappy with creep over there as the game matures, the rate of new players/ne faction purchases slow, and PP tries to get more money out of its playerbase.
This is the thing though; why do GW fans give a gak how much money they make, as long as they make enough? Mantic might be 3% the size of GW financially, but through adroit use of crowdfunding and choosing manufacturing methods suited to their size they've managed to publish more games than GW has in years. If GW was taken private again and began taking decisions that reduced their profit as an absolute number in exchange for supporting the kind of broad game base and solid rules that keeps vets interested and ensures the network effect remains strong, thus ensuring the long-term stability of the company, would you say that was a bad thing?
It's worthy of discussion, I think, how to get someone to spend more on your game as it ages. Another faction sounds great, 'til you see GW veterans with 6+ armies and WMH veterans with 4+ armies. At some point, people have bought all the factions that they're interested in, and companies like GW and PP would prefer their fans NOT try other companies' games, as it's hard to get someone back once the fall in love with something else.
And that's the problem GW have - the only value they understand is cash. They see the (minimal)effort and time they would have to expend keeping the rules tight and providing new scenarios etc to keep those 6+ army vets interested as a waste of money, because it's not going to get said vet to buy their 7th army, but what they seem incapable of grasping is that 6-Army-Guy is probably down at their local club/store every time it meets with 4-Army-Guy and 9-Army-Girl playing the game, playing other people, providing visible proof to anyone who walks in that 40K(and once, Fantasy) is an active game worth getting in to, and will likely extol the virtues of the game, the fluff, the models to anyone who asks. 6-Army-Guy might never buy his 7th army, but if every club and store has a 6-Army-Guy and his mates then the chances that lots and lots of no-Army-Guys will end up buying GW product rather than from a competitor is much higher.
Further, if GW don't wants their fans to try other companies games, they're morons, because their actions over the last decade or so seem calculated to do exactly that.
GW has completely ignored the benefits of mutli-army guys and gals being free ambassadors to the hobby. These are the guys and gals with the huge converted armies, painstakingly painted providing the "spectacle" that draws in new customers. When GW pushes these guys away - first of all, it takes a tremendous amount of force to alienate the multi-army guys. They love the hobby, and have lots of time and money invested... However, pile on enough abuse, and they will leave - AND they WILL find other hobbies and become enthusiastic ambassadors for GW's competitors.
Sure they don't spend as much as they used to, but they still spend... pushing them out of the hobby reduces their GW spending to 0.
Talys wrote: I'm only stating my observations in terms of modelling. YMMV, but definitely, my observations over 2+ decades is that the GW crowd is more adamant about painted armies and culturally rewards awesomely painted spectacles more.
In any case it is factual that malifaux and WMH are not played on large tables. The games aren't made for it, and if you long to play on a 8x12, don't bother. Likewise, if your perfect game is on a 4x4, or you want to get to tour game on transit or a bike, 2000pt 40k will probably suck.
In my decade+ of experience, it doesn't matter what game people play. Ambitious and creative types will make incredible spectacles. 40k has the largest player base, so statistically you'll have more of those types. On the flipside, you'll have way more gray-plastic-carry-models-in-egg-carton folks. I've seen more games of 40k that looked like garbage than I've seen games of Malifaux. So again, don't try to pass off your anecdotes as fact.
If you're willing to look, you'll see plenty of fantastic tables and models for many other games. At Nova alone, there was a huge Malifaux table of a rickety bayou brewery. It had a nasty swamp on the bottom and a network of bridges, walkways and such above floor level ending at the distillery at the top, well over a foot off the ground. I've seen a WMH Convergence themed table with working gears underneath the surface you could see through clear plastic. There were great tables for LotR and Hobbit, recreations of sets from the films with all the scale that encompasses a "small" table area. There's far more detail and spectacle in that 3'x3' area than an 8'x12' with paper, cardboard, and buckets haphazardly placed around empty bases and half-assembled gray plastic.
And if you're a size queen, the massive to-scale(?) Star Destroyer at Nova is bigger than most 40k tables.
The hobby is what you make of it. Creativity is not the exclusive purview of people who purchase GW products.
This is the thing though; why do GW fans give a gak how much money they make, as long as they make enough? Mantic might be 3% the size of GW financially, but through adroit use of crowdfunding and choosing manufacturing methods suited to their size they've managed to publish more games than GW has in years. If GW was taken private again and began taking decisions that reduced their profit as an absolute number in exchange for supporting the kind of broad game base and solid rules that keeps vets interested and ensures the network effect remains strong, thus ensuring the long-term stability of the company, would you say that was a bad thing?
No, I don't really care about GW's profitability (or Mantic's) at the end of the day, as they're both "big enough" to look at, IMO. But making a lot of money affects release cadence and affects material investments. I like that I can rely on GW and PP to release stuff essentially new stuff every week, and that they have a long pipeline in terms of product and books planned out. This isn't possible if you're doing everything in kickstarter.
I also want my company to invest in new technology -- for instance, I wish PP (and heck, every other competitor...) would invest in CAD, tooling and injection molding equipment like GW's, so that they could produce plastics as crisp as GW. That matters to me.
It's worthy of discussion, I think, how to get someone to spend more on your game as it ages. Another faction sounds great, 'til you see GW veterans with 6+ armies and WMH veterans with 4+ armies. At some point, people have bought all the factions that they're interested in, and companies like GW and PP would prefer their fans NOT try other companies' games, as it's hard to get someone back once the fall in love with something else.
And that's the problem GW have - the only value they understand is cash. They see the (minimal)effort and time they would have to expend keeping the rules tight and providing new scenarios etc to keep those 6+ army vets interested as a waste of money, because it's not going to get said vet to buy their 7th army, but what they seem incapable of grasping is that 6-Army-Guy is probably down at their local club/store every time it meets with 4-Army-Guy and 9-Army-Girl playing the game, playing other people, providing visible proof to anyone who walks in that 40K(and once, Fantasy) is an active game worth getting in to, and will likely extol the virtues of the game, the fluff, the models to anyone who asks. 6-Army-Guy might never buy his 7th army, but if every club and store has a 6-Army-Guy and his mates then the chances that lots and lots of no-Army-Guys will end up buying GW product rather than from a competitor is much higher.
Further, if GW don't wants their fans to try other companies games, they're morons, because their actions over the last decade or so seem calculated to do exactly that.
You're not getting my point, though. It's not enough to have a great, stable game to have a guy with 6 armies (and interested in no other factions) to keep buying stuff FOR THIRTY YEARS. For a long time, Talisman was my favorite board game. Guess what? I don't play it anymore, because eventually, the expansions were just too samey. The reason 40k makes GW the kind of money it does is because GW, more than any other company, has identified the attributes of desirability for people who want to keep spending money on 40k, and given them a reason to keep spending money on 40k. It was vehicles for a while, then flyers, then centerpiece models. Newer, higher resolution plastic multipart kits, et cetera.
Therefore, in my opinion, 40k has turned into a great game for people who want to essentially keep on buying product to play a wargame (either because they really like to build new models, or they get bored quickly), and a terrible game for people who want to make a finite investment, and just enjoy the damned game. That's not to say that you need to spend an infinite amount of money, but no matter what you buy, there will always be something around the corner that changes things up so that you must make some adjustment to stay relevant. If that's not your thing, 40k is not the right game for you, IMO.
It's not that GW takes away your books and you can't play with old rules. The fact is, most people play with the newest, current rules and models, and finding a group that's happy to be stuck in the past, and finding new people to fill shoes when players inevitably leave is not easy.
Also, there are people who are highly invested in many games and happy playing a wide variety of wargames. I'm not that type: whatever wargame is my MAIN wargame, I'll spend a ton of time in, and the other games, I'll paint minis for and maybe occasionally play, but the ratio, whether it's a GW game or another game, will be 95% vs 5%. I don't want many games to obsess over; I want ONE game to spend most of my hobby time over, so it's important that the one game comes up with lots of new stuff all the time. It's no different than computer games -- if I find a game I really like, I'll play it to the exclusion of all others until I get bored with it, and in the case of a successful game, like the Diablo franchise, or a couple of MMORPGs I've played, that cycle can be *years* of exclusively playing one PC game. I do not mind giving that PC game more of my money, in order to give me more content; and I'd rather it change it up reasonably frequently, than stay the same for too long.
But on the flip side of it too. If 40k ever gets to the point where it doesn't amuse me anymore, I'll shelve it all, and it will probably be a *long* time, if ever, before I return to it. That could happen, for instance, if GW doesn't come up with a fresh idea to keep me amused after centerpiece models (which, at most, have a run of a few more years). I'm not really interested in building an army of Thunderhawks, even if they are plastic, so size only goes so far If there's another wargame that catches me as much as 40k then, I'll happily wander that way. If not, I'll happily do something else with my life!
@Talys.
I agree that the game needs to be developed and the product range expanded to keep the interest and sales volumes increasing.
However the complete lack of game development at GW , beyond writing rules retrospectively to shift new product.Has left sales volumes diminishing at quite an alarming rate.
If we look at games where the focus is on game play as well as developing the minature range.The growth of the interest and product range is much steadier and much more positive than found in GW s 40k.
So I agree that great game development with out product range support is not enough.
Equally, product range development with out any significant game development support is not good enough either!
I hope you are aware that lots of people believe a wargame is more to do with what you can do in game than what minatures you have collected?
And it is these customers GW have driven away...
Bottle wrote: I wonder when GW changed from making the rules first and then designing a miniature to go with it - to the other way round of making miniatures and then making up some rules to go with them.
In 3rd edition 40k they were definitely still making rules first. White Dwarf would post "concept" miniatures the game designers had put together from time to time.
Anyone got an idea when the shift occurred?
After 5th edition.
It was things like the Mycetic Spore Pod and female Farseer that GW particularly attacked in their case versus Chapter House. These were units for which rules existed but not models, and third parties produced modes to fill that gap.
Once GW understood that making a 2D picture plus rules of a Mycetic Spore did not prevent another company from making a Mycetic Spore model, they withdrew the Mycetic Spore from the rules, until they had a model ready, then they issued rules to fit the model.
In other words, this policy has been in use for about two to three years, following the Chapter House case.
Warhammer 1st ed was written for the existing minis, indeed I believe the brief was to write a game that had rules for all existing citadel minis. So from one perspective that has always been that way.
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree that game and models need to both evolve in order to keep players' interest. I'd argue that 40k has evolved - just not in the direction that a lot of people, perhaps the majority of wargamers, would like. The question I posed is whether there are game changes that are possible within the context of 3 decades that doesn't involve drastic model changes that makes the game practically unrecognizable.
I don't think it's a legitimate solution to say, make a good game and people will keep buying factions, because after a decade or two, those people will have bought every daction of primary interest to them, and it's easier to sell up than across (ie a new model rather than a new faction). Let's face it, if 40k hadn't changed since 5e except for minor improvements as much as I liked 5e, I'd be doing something else.
Secondly, I'm not at all blind to both newcomers and veterans who are disgruntled with GW's rules. Just because they work for me doesn't mean they are fun for a lot of other people. By chance, GW evolved the game and their models in a way that is desirable to me, so I just post the reasons that it works for me. Of course people in a different context where the game is now just to frustrating will be unhappy, and perhaps move on. I do believe it's possible to keep me very happy while concurrently satisfying some people in a different gaming and hobby environment.
At the end of the day, I'm just saying... It's not easy figurig out ways to retain people who essentially have bought everything you make that they like, knowing that if you don't come out with new stuff you'll lose them, while attracting people who are more interested in the game that you used to make.
As much as players rail against power creep, they reward publishers for it, by spending their money. People get excited by new, shiny, more powerful. They don't buy things that are new, shiny, but weak.
And like I keep saying, just because I'm content with 7e, it's not like GW can't do better on the rules front.
I know that at least since 3rd edition 40k, there have been handfuls of units missing models, allowing converters to step in. The 3rd Edition BBB lists included rules for things like Wave Serpents and Landraiders, which didn't have models for years.
Other units (or options) like Beasts of Nurgle, SM Scouts with Autocannon, Wildrider Chief, and Leman Russ Vanquisher had rules through third edition but no models. Fourth edition famously introduced drop pods as in game models, with no actual kit for many years. Fifth edition was in many ways the high water mark for this, as units like Thunderwolves, Mycetic Spores, Jetbike Seer Councils, and even the Vendetta all were popular without models.
GW has completely ignored the benefits of mutli-army guys and gals being free ambassadors to the hobby. These are the guys and gals with the huge converted armies, painstakingly painted providing the "spectacle" that draws in new customers. When GW pushes these guys away - first of all, it takes a tremendous amount of force to alienate the multi-army guys. They love the hobby, and have lots of time and money invested... However, pile on enough abuse, and they will leave - AND they WILL find other hobbies and become enthusiastic ambassadors for GW's competitors.
Sure they don't spend as much as they used to, but they still spend... pushing them out of the hobby reduces their GW spending to 0.
Talk about short sighted.
You say that as though those multi-army guys and gals might start hanging around web forums, talking about what a great game Kings of War is.....
The Auld Grump - and how well those old Warhammer armies fit into Kings of War.... (Not that I know anybody like that....)
Why would other companies than GW shift to plastic its not a panacea and for many companies it would create more problems than it could solve just to appeal to some "plastic elitists"
And for GW the plastic shift is debatable if it was a good thing.
@PsychoticStorm - I'm building some Forge World Outriders right now, and it reminds me of how much better GW plastic bikes are for fit. In fact, EVERY TIME I build a FW kit, I'm reminded of how much cleaner post-2009 plastic is to FW resin.
Here are a comparison of a couple of bits (resin is from Outrider, plastic is from Calth):
1. On the top image, notice how the circles are imperfect. The photo is taken at 20MP with a 100mm at Macro, so you can zoon and see very clearly how much superior the circles are on the plastic.
2. On the second image, to the left, you can see how because the rubber mold has been worn out some, the resolution is sucky. I'm sure that Outrider Backpack #1 looks fantastic; Backpack #100 looks like the one I got. There's no way around it: resin is not as consistent as plastic.
3. On the second image to the right, you can see how resin has a hard time keeping perfectly straight lines. You see this on FW tanks all the time: the amount of work, in terms of greenstuff, putty, and all that, just to get all the pieces to be square is huge. On plastic models, *they just fit*. But even on small models, straight lines are perfectly straight on plastic, and often, unfixable without extraordinary effort on resin.
4. On the legs, well, just look how much better the plastic version is to the resin. At the hip, the crispness isn't comparable. For the feet, the feet are just pain better in every way.
At the end of the day, *consistency* is one the biggest things for me. If I'm making 9 drop pods or 10 razorbacks, or 100 space marines, I don't want to run into a different problem in each of them. With resin, every model is an adventure, whereas with plastic, they're all identically good or bad. Oh, and plastic cement is a nice tool to be able to use
I don't think you'll find anyone that will say that plastic isn't the best medium for large vehicles and very large models, and that's clearly the direction 40k is headed in (just look at the number of large models on bestselling 2015 -- only 6 out of 28 so far are 32mm base or smaller), so yeah, plastic is a big thing in that format.
Some people just don't care, because it's just a game piece anyhow. But if you're spending 10-100 hours a model, getting it to be just the way you want it, damn straight, I want the canvas before I start to be as perfect as possible, with as little repair as possible.
@Az - yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, which should be obvious, but PsychoticStorm was asking what the big hard-on for plastic is, so, as I'm currently working on a resin/plastic mini, I took some photos to show
Yeah, tungsten carbide tooled molds for plastic that began with a CAD design and ends with a perfect fit and laser-straigth lines is something of value to me.
Since FW/GW are about the only company that makes equivalent models in resin and plastic, it's hard to compare apples to apples with other companies, but I take your point: there are better resin casts, for sure. Still, I much, much prefer the big models in plastic. A Castigator takes 10x longer to prep than an IK. And a Sicaran weighs WAY more than a Land Raider. Plus, practical aspects of being able to airbrush in pieces more easily for plastic models (because they'll just magically fit together afterwards; you can't do this if you need GS everywhere).
First of all you established GW is atrocious in non plastics production, this is known, but it does not mean everybody else doing metal or resin is that bad, on the contrary companies that care about their quality offer better and crisper detail than GW plastics in metal or resin.
CAD design is something most modern companies do, its not limited to plastic manufacturing and of course it produces crispier and more constant sculpts.
Plastic has issues with many things such as organic shapes and the need to sell more than a wargame usually can, this is the reason why 40k has ended in this condition and why the updates in models is so limited.
KDM is a nice demonstration on why plastic is bad on organic shapes, one can compare the models in plastic and resin and see the parts increase as well as the loss of detail.
Plastic is great for vehicles, though.
Should all companies move to plastic? I believe no most companies are not helped by that move and I am debating how much the move has helped really GW or put them at a disadvantage.
KDM is a nice demonstration on why plastic is bad on organic shapes, one can compare the models in plastic and resin and see the parts increase as well as the loss of detail.
And yet KDM is generally regarded by alot of folks as an example of just how good plastics can get when given TLC instead of just dumped haphazardly from 3d model to a sprue (like Robotech). I'm not a KDM backer (the 70's porn meets 80's fantasy/horror movie look doesn't appeal to me personally) but the technical aspects of the minis and sprues impress me.
Talys wrote: I also want my company to invest in new technology -- for instance, I wish PP (and heck, every other competitor...) would invest in CAD, tooling and injection molding equipment like GW's, so that they could produce plastics as crisp as GW. That matters to me.
This is happening. Slowly with PP, as some new kits are injection molded... Stormclad springs to mind. Wyrd has discontinued support of its metal line and has gone to entirely CAD plastics. Corvus Belli is entirely CAD designed, though still in metal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: With resin, every model is an adventure, whereas with plastic, they're all identically good or bad.
I have to disagree... With plastic, you get a different bad. Fixing warped hulls is a particularly annoying task. This doesn't occur so much with the small kits, but it is very noticeable on the larger vehicle kits. The terrain kits in particular are very hard to unwarp. I have the ruined tower they put out a few years back and it was so badly warped I had to abandon 1/2 the wall sections and build it in a reduced state.
Talys wrote: @PsychoticStorm - I'm building some Forge World Outriders right now, and it reminds me of how much better GW plastic bikes are for fit. In fact, EVERY TIME I build a FW kit, I'm reminded of how much cleaner post-2009 plastic is to FW resin.
Here are a comparison of a couple of bits (resin is from Outrider, plastic is from Calth):
1. On the top image, notice how the circles are imperfect. The photo is taken at 20MP with a 100mm at Macro, so you can zoon and see very clearly how much superior the circles are on the plastic.
2. On the second image, to the left, you can see how because the rubber mold has been worn out some, the resolution is sucky. I'm sure that Outrider Backpack #1 looks fantastic; Backpack #100 looks like the one I got. There's no way around it: resin is not as consistent as plastic.
3. On the second image to the right, you can see how resin has a hard time keeping perfectly straight lines. You see this on FW tanks all the time: the amount of work, in terms of greenstuff, putty, and all that, just to get all the pieces to be square is huge. On plastic models, *they just fit*. But even on small models, straight lines are perfectly straight on plastic, and often, unfixable without extraordinary effort on resin.
4. On the legs, well, just look how much better the plastic version is to the resin. At the hip, the crispness isn't comparable. For the feet, the feet are just pain better in every way.
At the end of the day, *consistency* is one the biggest things for me. If I'm making 9 drop pods or 10 razorbacks, or 100 space marines, I don't want to run into a different problem in each of them. With resin, every model is an adventure, whereas with plastic, they're all identically good or bad. Oh, and plastic cement is a nice tool to be able to use
I don't think you'll find anyone that will say that plastic isn't the best medium for large vehicles and very large models, and that's clearly the direction 40k is headed in (just look at the number of large models on bestselling 2015 -- only 6 out of 28 so far are 32mm base or smaller), so yeah, plastic is a big thing in that format.
Some people just don't care, because it's just a game piece anyhow. But if you're spending 10-100 hours a model, getting it to be just the way you want it, damn straight, I want the canvas before I start to be as perfect as possible, with as little repair as possible.
How is the circles on the top (as in the direction pointing up once assembled) row of the plastic one not the absolute worst part of any of those pieces and proof the resin is better?
Their circles might not be perfectly round but they also don't cut into the model at a bad angle due to the limitations on the casting method.
@jonolikespie - There are several different backpacks with calth, and the one with smaller holes doesn't have what you're describing (at least to that degree). But to me, a circle should be always be a perfect circle, a square should always be a perfect square, and a line should always be perfectly straight. It annoys me to no end when a two lines intended to be straight aren't, and I'll blow 5 hours fixing it.
Incidentally the reason the holes can line up that way on the resin model isn't technology or technique -- it's that the backpack is cast by itself and is cast on a funny angle, which allows all the holes to work out. The piece is tossed into a bag and hung on a wall. On the plastic model, the backpack is on a sprue with 100 other parts, and the entire sprue can only be so high vertically, because it must be packed with 6 other sprues into the box. As an example, on a character model that's $40, you will see that avoided, because the sprue is just for the one model, and may occupy a clampack all by itself (no height restriction).
While I was happy with metal minis in my youth that had all sorts of imperfections, it's 2015 now, and I want laser straight perfection as my starting canvas if possible
I mean, look, I'm actually not in love with PLASTIC as much as I am with the precise instruments used to make the plastic molds. If "they" (meaning any company) made steel molds to cast resin models and they were flawless replicas of each other with perfectly machined edges and pieces, I'd be more than happy with that (and I would put my money where my mouth is and pay the premium for it too, whether from GW/FW or other companies).
It's worth mentioning that FW generates as much sales as a lot of other companies, and most of those sales are in a relatively small number of really popular kits. The problem with that is that it's hit and miss: if you get a model at the beginning of the mold's life cycle, it's gorgeous. If you get one at the end, it's a piece of poo. It's a bigger problem with FW than some of the competitors, just because they move more models and, I'm sure, try to stretch out those molds.
It also has happened with me with Secret Weapon Miniatures, on their more popular bases. I've been miffed with some really awful casts, which Justin at SWM attributed to molds being at the end of their life (and since they couldn't quickly replace them, they gave me a full refund, so props to SWM for customer service).
@keezus - I agree that if plastic is warped, it's a lot of work to fix. That's horrible. However, looking at post 2009 GW kits made in the UK (some of the Chinese terrain kits are a great example of poor fit, perfectly reproduced), the fit is generally awesome, and the number of warped pieces I've seen is zero. Whether it's a Voidraven, Imperial Knight, Nagash, or Treeman, the pieces just fit awesomely, much better than models of that size made out of resin from GW or any other company that I can think of. Also, much better than the 2002 era models, like land raiders.
Why are we discussing the relative merits of different manufacturing processes for game counters?
When the customers ,(and GW staff), are walking away from the 40k product in droves due to high prices and poor investment in game play?
The only discussion on why GW moved to plastic production should be about how they originally wanted to reduce the start up cost for new players.[i]
Which was why they originally moved more lines to plastic production.Then completely destroyed the reason to move to plastic production , with decisions based on corporate short sighted greed and apathy.
I am sure the remaining customers are 'collectors' who obsess about the quality of the look and sound of 40k.As there is not a lot other than that to get enthusiastic about 40k anymore.
BUT if more people actually enjoyed playing with the 40k range of minatures, sales volumes would be higher , and prices lower, and generate actual growth.
IF I was the lead game developer on a game, I would be driven to improve the rules if ONLY ONE THIRD of customers actually played the game I was in charge of.
Rather than use it as an excuse not to bother with the rules at all!
KDM is a nice demonstration on why plastic is bad on organic shapes, one can compare the models in plastic and resin and see the parts increase as well as the loss of detail.
And yet KDM is generally regarded by alot of folks as an example of just how good plastics can get when given TLC instead of just dumped haphazardly from 3d model to a sprue (like Robotech). I'm not a KDM backer (the 70's porn meets 80's fantasy/horror movie look doesn't appeal to me personally) but the technical aspects of the minis and sprues impress me.
Yes, it is regarded by myself how good one can be with plastics too, their sprews illustrate the fundamental issues plastic production and how to overcome them.
The problem is the solution, increasing parts count solves the problem but makes kits more complicated, not an issue with KDM whose target audience is ready for it (it is really not targeted for the bardgame audience) but for a wargame the less parts count the better, sure you will get the hardcore modelers complaining but for the wider player base the less is better, especially if the model count for an army is huge.
The problem is the solution, increasing parts count solves the problem but makes kits more complicated, not an issue with KDM whose target audience is ready for it (it is really not targeted for the bardgame audience) but for a wargame the less parts count the better, sure you will get the hardcore modelers complaining but for the wider player base the less is better, especially if the model count for an army is huge.
I disagree with this. There is data to support that too -- GW's top seller list is ALL of models and kits that are high parts count. I don't know of very many people who stick with 40k who would prefer snapfit (for instance, Cultists or snapfit Space Marines) to multipart. I don't even know of any Dark Angels players who seek out snapfit bolter marines from Dark Vengeance after they get 1-2 starter boxes, even though that's the cheapest, easiest and fastest way to get DA marines -- and they look great, to boot.
Personally, the only way I would be happy with snapfit models for a wargame with a lot of models is if there was literally a catalogue of hundreds of poses to choose from, as I like my models in squads to be "similar, but not the same".
The problem is the solution, increasing parts count solves the problem but makes kits more complicated, not an issue with KDM whose target audience is ready for it (it is really not targeted for the bardgame audience) but for a wargame the less parts count the better, sure you will get the hardcore modelers complaining but for the wider player base the less is better, especially if the model count for an army is huge.
I disagree with this. There is data to support that too -- GW's top seller list is ALL of models and kits that are high parts count. I don't know of very many people who stick with 40k who would prefer snapfit (for instance, Cultists or snapfit Space Marines) to multipart. I don't even know of any Dark Angels players who seek out snapfit bolter marines from Dark Vengeance after they get 1-2 starter boxes, even though that's the cheapest, easiest and fastest way to get DA marines -- and they look great, to boot.
Personally, the only way I would be happy with snapfit models for a wargame with a lot of models is if there was literally a catalogue of hundreds of poses to choose from, as I like my models in squads to be "similar, but not the same".
Ah, but is it the parts count that's selling the models or the OP rules attached to whatever formation the models are a part of? Chicken > Egg?
If I were a DA player, I would absolutely be buying 50+ snapfit DV Tacticals, along wtih 10 Termies and making the difference with Devs / Assault / Veterans.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If I were a DA player, I would absolutely be buying 50+ snapfit DV Tacticals, along wtih 10 Termies and making the difference with Devs / Assault / Veterans.
If you want them, I have about 30 or 40 DA snapfits (brand new on the spree) that you can have really cheap . Got them for a song, but will never paint them.
This is exactly why I will never use the snapfits I have a lifetime supply of SM multipart to build, hehe. But one day, I will find an aspiring DA player that they'll be perfect for. Actually, the left shoulder pad is detached, so it is easy to make them for any faction (though the right shoulder pad is connected to the arm and has a double arrow that is DA tactical iconography).
Talys wrote: This is exactly why I will never use the snapfits I have a lifetime supply of SM multipart to build, hehe. But one day, I will find an aspiring DA player that they'll be perfect for. Actually, the left shoulder pad is detached, so it is easy to make them for any faction (though the right shoulder pad is connected to the arm and has a double arrow that is DA tactical iconography).
the DA snapfits are great, the problem I had was integrating any other models into the squad. If I could use the basic bolters and plasma, but add say Missile Launchers or Lascannons without them looking out of place, I'd be very tempted to blitz paint a DA force for knock around play.
Wrong forum for this, but the snapfits are in packs of 5 like this (two packs are shown, with the front and the back of the same sprue). Funny thing, I posted these to the P&M forum a year+ ago
I have six-ish packs (maybe more?) Anyone who wants, PM me Cheap.
...
I think most gamers are in the same boat.
)
