Both 3rd ed 40k and 6th ed fantasy were about increasing the model count of the games to sell more miniatures. I suppose one could make an argument that bigger games can then be played in shorter times and that efficiency is a good thing, but we know from ex-employee interviews that the motive was commercial rather than one based on delivering game excellence.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I swear every time they seem like they're doing something brilliant (like End Times, DoW or Total War: Warhammer) they do something so unbelievably stupid i just can't fathom why they would do it.
To be fair, GW didn't make Total Warhammer or DoW. They simply got paid for the use of the license.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Seriously making 9th edition fantasy and selling the Total War game at the same time would've been brilliant. I mean Total War advertised the Fantasy minis shown in-game on the title page when you enter the Total War: Warhammer game. GW still shoots this brilliant marketing strategy down from the sky before it succeeds.
I completely agree, but GW has always been terrible at leveraging their IP for cross-promotion and enhancing their own brands. Think of all the big non-GW-created GW IP releases and how often they've never done anything to coincide with them. Warhammer Online got a cool Orc mini in the collector's edition and... that's it as far as I can tell.
A bunch of massive Dawn of War games come out, and it took GW nearly twelve years to release a single Blood Raven model.
Space Marine? Nothing.
That (admittedly quite bad) Ultramarine movie? That got a free PDF release from FFG, and nothing from GW.
They just ignore their IP once it's out in the world, and never do anything that would draw people towards them. The first time I saw links to the GW website was for Total Warhammer, and those links take you to AoS because they killed the WFB universe. The splash page might as well have said "Did you like fighting the Chaos Hordes with your Empire army? Well feth you 'cause we blew all that gak up! Now buy some Sigmarines and shut up kid!". It's insane.
I know GW has a level of involvement in everything of theirs that other people are doing, but why can't they get with the program and key some releases to go along with major IP releases? For the one in a hundred people who go "What is this 40K caper anyway?" and log into their website, it'd be great if they came across something that directly related to the video game or board game that they just started playing.
flamingkillamajig wrote: People complain about Sega or CA with all the DLC but at least they're smart enough to know how much people are willing to spend and how to get them interested in something.
Nah they're still write to be gakky at SEGA. They're a bad publisher. Not as bad as some (EA, Ubisoft and especially Warner "Me no smart PC too hard!" Brothers), but it's A-Ok to dislike their DLC policies. And CA? Well they made a game that wasn't unplayable on release and riddled with endless bugs. That alone deserves some massive recognition.
Yeah GW didn't make it which is probably why they were so good but their failure to capitalize on a good situation (not a bad one even but a good one) makes for a poor business strategy.
Actually they did worse later on. All those Total War: Warhammer models were taken down. Total War still promotes the models on the game menu screen and when you click to see them it shows an empty/broken link or no models. I can't remember which the last i checked. I think GW straight up deleted it. I can understand maybe the Total War Warhammer game isn't as hot as it was on release and there's a limit to how much they should show it but the models shown (esp. the affordable ones like mannfred) were consistently 'out of stock'. Gee i wonder why.
Sega is still Dennis the Menace whereas GW is the game company equivalent of the devil. At least CA or Sega are fixing their mistakes to an extent. People complained and then Sega said "Ok we'll allow the Chaos Warriors DLC to be free if you buy the game within a week of Total War: Warhammer being out." GW wouldn't even listen to their customers in the longest time.
Personally just there's so much to hate about GW. Lack of game balance, alienating WHF players, increasing prices, having combined box sets that go for thousands of dollars without one cent of a sale (somewhat being improved), disdain for the customer, lack of listening to customer feedback (may also be somewhat fixed), lack of understanding newer technologies or figuring them out slowest (gonna bet they were the last to figure out iPad, ebooks and similar), IP protection beyond compare, making things out of crappier materials and increasing cost, gutting codexes and rulebooks of story and flavor to add more pictures and slapping a higher price tag on them (anybody remember the dwarfen language and how much they gutted that out of the last dwarf codex in fantasy?), lack of being friendly or smart with game publishers that could legit boost sales on their products by showing video gamers and similar their game and thereby increasing their constantly shrinking hardcore loyal fanbase (which they totally f'ed up with the death of Fantasy and brought old 40k players into AoS instead so nice job on that one GW) and probably more issues i can't think of right now.
I mean if i never played 'Dawn of War' i seriously never would've gotten into 40k and then switched to Fantasy a couple years after. Wargaming is a small market. Video games are a large market. It doesn't take a genius to look at this and figure 'Hey maybe we should expand our player base by dipping into other larger markets like video games, animated series, comics, etc.'
Just wtfGW. I should seriously stop playing GW games and play X-wing already. It sounds affordable and balanced and sounds like an actual good game. There's also a legit chance the company actually listens to player/customer feedback. I mean how sad is it that if i should even want to support GW by going to their stores that i can no longer play Warhammer Fantasy there and not only that but if i choose not to switch to AoS i'm not a true customer and they don't want me. I legit bought most of my stuff from GW and from their stores. If anything these guys should be kissing my *** but instead i'm not a true fan/customer. GW can go **** themselves. Like why support their games when they won't. I should seriously just buy all my GW product crap online from people on Ebay just to show i don't support such unfriendly customer support.
WayneTheGame wrote: Problem is they put out 3rd in the form we know it because they wanted to have a larger sized game to sell more. Supposedly the original version of 3rd was like a cleaned up 2nd edition.
I can't find the interview, but IIRC the 3rd edition we got was actually a ruleset one of the designers (I want to say Rick Preistley but I'm not sure) was working on for their own game. Late in development GW management decided that 3rd edition wasn't going the direction they wanted (whichever direction that may be, more models was ab obvious requirement), so he brought that ruleset in and they quickly adapted it to 40k.
WayneTheGame wrote: Problem is they put out 3rd in the form we know it because they wanted to have a larger sized game to sell more. Supposedly the original version of 3rd was like a cleaned up 2nd edition.
I can't find the interview, but IIRC the 3rd edition we got was actually a ruleset one of the designers (I want to say Rick Preistley but I'm not sure) was working on for their own game. Late in development GW management decided that 3rd edition wasn't going the direction they wanted (whichever direction that may be, more models was ab obvious requirement), so he brought that ruleset in and they quickly adapted it to 40k.
That said, 3rd edition remains my favorite version of the game. (I liked 2nd edition more than 1st, but oh my lords and ladies was the game broken!)
WayneTheGame wrote: Problem is they put out 3rd in the form we know it because they wanted to have a larger sized game to sell more. Supposedly the original version of 3rd was like a cleaned up 2nd edition.
I can't find the interview, but IIRC the 3rd edition we got was actually a ruleset one of the designers (I want to say Rick Preistley but I'm not sure) was working on for their own game. Late in development GW management decided that 3rd edition wasn't going the direction they wanted (whichever direction that may be, more models was ab obvious requirement), so he brought that ruleset in and they quickly adapted it to 40k.
I heard that too. Priestly was doing a 15mm (not sure of that) WW2 set of rules and hastily adapted it to 40k when the revamped 2nd edition was rejected.
Still my point remains. 3rd edition has been the core of the rules for too long, and instead of actually fixing the problems they change the wrong stuff (e.g. let's make shooting good, now let's make assault good, now let's make shooting good) all the while ignoring the core problems that have been an issue since it's inception. I played 2nd edition, and it was kinda clunky overall. I liked the original streamlining of 3rd, but it quickly got out of hand. The entire game needs a core rewrite, from the ground up. I don't even mind if they would use the basics of AoS, because I'll admit the profile style for that is pretty good. They just need to not let visuals/models drive rules and actually look at things outside of a vacuum so gross imbalances can be fixed.
I think the biggest thing though is they need to decide what, exactly, 40k is meant to be, and if necessary have 3 sets of rules (using the same core mind you) for each. So you might have platoon/company level (couple of squads, like 2-3 tanks/walkers/monsters) as the default size. Going down to skirmish level (i.e. Kill team/Combat Patrol) puts more focus on things like individual models (e.g. buying individual upgrades for individual models, no coherency, etc.). Scaling up abstracts things further, possibly involving movement trays like you see in some historical games like SAGA (and I think they were in some LOTR version), but simplifies the rules so games don't take hours to play (e.g. you don't care what heavy weapon a squad has, just that it has a heavy weapon). That's what they need to have; a set of core rules and then add/remove as needed based on scale.
frozenwastes wrote: Both 3rd ed 40k and 6th ed fantasy were about increasing the model count of the games to sell more miniatures. I suppose one could make an argument that bigger games can then be played in shorter times and that efficiency is a good thing, but we know from ex-employee interviews that the motive was commercial rather than one based on delivering game excellence.
Well, the core units weren't selling. So how about we make the game force you to buy core units? That's pretty much what happened. Every thing they change about their game is geared around selling models, whether new models or old models that nobody is buying anymore. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. However, the side effect of this was a more balanced game in both instances. Codex/Army book Creep is what ruined both editions.
The fact 3rd edition rewrote the game from the ground up was a good thing as a lot of the problems were in the codices themselves. It's a shame GW hasn't done a clean wipe in the past 18 years and carrying over old rules + general bad writing is what gives us the stinking pile of junk that we currently have.
3rd also was the start of decent quality multipose plastic, so increasing the size of the game was less painful when you don't have to buy tons of metal models to make an army.
I can never like 3rd ed though because it brought in too many core rules changes that I think are junk and have hung around for the past 18 years.
I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB
Granted I still like the 40k and WHFB universes, but I'm not buying in to it when the games aren't fun.... or non-existent.
I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB
I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.
GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.
I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.
I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB
I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.
GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.
I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.
They just dont know what there customers need. Thats all. Just look at Total War: Warhammer and Fantasy.
By the way they are bringing back the Primarchs, because.....
I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB
I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.
GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.
I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.
/wins thread. What it boils down to for me, is that GW rules are inferior to the competition. So why would I play their games?
Dunno, I think it's kinda tiring hating on a company at the end of the day you vote with your wallet. Stopped doing 40k because CSM were pretty boring.
Could not get into 8th since it was too expensive since I wanted to do counts. Started AOS because it's kinder to my wallet at the end of the day.
Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.
If people dislike GW so much don't buy their stuff. The people who hate GW and still bought total war warhammer are doing it wrong.
shinros wrote: Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.
I work a lot too. So do the people I play against.
We don't argue over a giant rulebook because the rules for the games we play are actually well written.
Well that's just my experience and had a lot of people who did not really play for fun either. When playing AOS barely ever happens anymore and they left for other games so overall I am grateful my community is a lot better now. Still I don't know what games you play but in my store no one really played WHFB anymore.
edit:Still my point is if you no longer enjoy the game you are playing and the company is no longer supporting the way you enjoy it don't give them money anymore. It's that simple.
shinros wrote: Dunno, I think it's kinda tiring hating on a company at the end of the day you vote with your wallet. Stopped doing 40k because CSM were pretty boring.
Could not get into 8th since it was too expensive since I wanted to do counts. Started AOS because it's kinder to my wallet at the end of the day.
Plus I work a lot I don't have time to argue with people over a giant rule book.
If people dislike GW so much don't buy their stuff. The people who hate GW and still bought total war warhammer are doing it wrong.
They wanted to play a game that GW destroyed. Are you saying i should illegally download their game instead?
Have you ever been in a relationship where you hate someone but you're afraid of change so you stay together even though you hate them? That's where a lot of us are with GW. I don't know where i'd move on to and i don't know if i could go to another game store. I think i will though hearing so much about X-wing and how it solves all the issues i have pretty much. GW makes some pretty minis sometimes (though AoS brought most of 8th Fantasy's great model line into the trash can) but the cost just doesn't justify it anymore.
Davor wrote: Is it GW loss if people play other systems but still keep buying GW minis?
It is actually. Not in the short term and obviously it's a lot better for GW than if people neither play the games or buy the models.
However, a huge competitive edge that GW managed to cultivate (either knowingly or accidentally) was the sentiment among players that GW rules and models are inexorably intertwined. Especially since GW games were the big dog on the market. (Now only 40K retains that position).
Someone playing a GW game will generally first consider the GW models and only if they don't like them they'll consider other manufacturers. Some will even buy GW models they don't like the look of because the connection between the game and the models or for fear they won't be able to use other models pleying in GW stores. Someone playing for instance T9A or KoW with their GW models and decide to expand the army or get a new one will probably consider GW, but those models now need to compete on a lot more even playing field with models from Mierce, Puppetswar, Avatars of War, MOM etc...
Short term at least, GW gets a lot of sales from people using the models in T9A, KoW etc, but they lose a lot of mindshare by people playing other games than the one connected to their minis and that means they eventually lose marketshare since their model sales were propped up by the models being connected to widely played games.
The situation is more dire when it comes to 40K since Space marines is such a huge portion of the sales. There's not really any other popular game that I'm aware of where GW Space Marine models fit in (unless we count 30K), so anyone stopping playing 40K will probably soon stop buying Space Marines.
I will admit GW is improving in recent times, but to me the damage is done because their games no longer compel me to buy. Every time I think "Oh maybe I'll get back in to 40k" I remember the junk rules. Every time I think "Maybe I'll build up one of my WHFB armies" I remember they killed WHFB
I left 40K when 3rd edition came out. I wouldn't dream of getting involved with it again. For the price of 40K rules, codex's and miniatures I could buy into multiple other systems. Add price to the rules mess and I view 40K as a product that holds zero appeal to the gamer in me. Nostalgia forces me to keep an eye on 40K but thoughts of re-engaging with the setting leave me the second I start reading some of the threads in Dakka's 40K forum. An expensive mess is all I see.
GW lost me completely with AoS after I'd supported WFB for the guts of twenty-five years. I would have brought more than a hundred players into the 'GW hobby' over those years but all GW saw me as was a moaning veteran. Such is life - I now point new players at KoW, GoA, Frostgrave, Saga and Warlord Games instead. That's GW's loss in the end not mine.
I get that GW is very slowly improving but they are tiny steps in a market where product quality and customer engagement with producers is at an all time high. Why wait for tiny improvements in line with industry standards when the table-top hobby as a whole is going through a golden age? Frankly I've better things to do with my time and money than hope GW changes for the better and becomes like other companies I support at some unspecified time in the far future.
/wins thread. What it boils down to for me, is that GW rules are inferior to the competition. So why would I play their games?
I can answer:. Because in many areas, people still choose to play GW games and either don't know, font care or don't want to play their competitors. You don't know how many times I think about starting one of the games that's mentioned above and then I realized nobody around me plays it, no stores stock it and if I tried to get interest in it I would get told off for trying to steer people away from the games that they do play which almost always includes the GW brand. Even when a new game store opens they immediately try to push Warhammer like the old days because there is people who play it rather than taking a chance on an lesser known game that may or may not work and typically has to be gotten from overseas. That is why. Getting people to try a new game when they already play one is a Monumental task especially when they are so heavily invested in the game like you typically find with Warhammer players.
There is one store by me that has KoW and other Mantic stuff (sadly it seems the competitive gamers have infested it). None of the others know what it is or has anyone (except me likely) who cares because it's not Warhammer. I have never seen anything from warlord or game like infinity or saga or similar games on the Shelf or spoken to anyone who knew what it was and had any desire to find out more. But on the flip side there are plenty of people I know who play Warhammer and are happy doing it so it makes the choice of what to play pretty much decided for you already that is why people still buy it because they know that others buy it and it's easier to get a game, crappy rules notwithstanding
Now, sure, they could just crank out a new AoS-esque 8th edition and say "screw you all, all of the books you've purchased are worthless". I don't remember the time lapse between the latest Fantasy books and their new edition. If they want desperately to lose customers they could go this route. I can guarantee if I'd just paid the ridiculous $55-75 bucks for a GW rulebook and it was replaced within a year, I'd be pretty ticked.
I think that the last End Times book, Archaeon, came out in March 2015 and then AoS was July... What was that you said about desperately wanting to lose customers???
Now, sure, they could just crank out a new AoS-esque 8th edition and say "screw you all, all of the books you've purchased are worthless". I don't remember the time lapse between the latest Fantasy books and their new edition. If they want desperately to lose customers they could go this route. I can guarantee if I'd just paid the ridiculous $55-75 bucks for a GW rulebook and it was replaced within a year, I'd be pretty ticked.
I think that the last End Times book, Archaeon, came out in March 2015 and then AoS was July... What was that you said about desperately wanting to lose customers???
Nagash end of times was Aug 2014
Gottkin end of times was Oct 2014
Khaine Nov 2014
Thaquol Jan 2015
Archaon Mar 2015
All books under a year old
And if their plan was to lose customers, they sure succeeded with flying colors.
I do think it's a pill they have to swallow though. Keeping, even worsening the confusing and incalculable bloat of 40K rules is just not a valid prospect. If they streamline it, they can at least hope to get people into the new game eventually, even if they get pissed initially due to a lot of books being obolete in the new system.
For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow. The problem there was that the new game was arguably the crappiest excuse for a game system ever published. If 40K 8th it actually good, it could work in the long run.
Zywus wrote: And if their plan was to lose customers, they sure succeeded with flying colors.
I do think it's a pill they have to swallow though. Keeping, even worsening the confusing and incalculable bloat of 40K rules is just not a valid prospect. If they streamline it, they can at least hope to get people into the new game eventually, even if they get pissed initially due to a lot of books being obolete in the new system.
For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow. The problem there was that the new game was arguably the crappiest excuse for a game system ever published. If 40K 8th it actually good, it could work in the long run.
I think the endless codex's and other associated army books are to much of a money maker to drop at this stage. Every edition cycle GW make a lot of money with minimal effort by tweaking and republishing these books. Each involved player is spending hundreds of Euro "to stay current" just on the books alone.
That adds up to millions very quickly and a big reason why we see edition changes. The rules, scale and balance stay busted but updating the books with minimal effort brings in bales of cash.
I can answer:. Because in many areas, people still choose to play GW games and either don't know, font care or don't want to play their competitors. You don't know how many times I think about starting one of the games that's mentioned above and then I realized nobody around me plays it, no stores stock it and if I tried to get interest in it I would get told off for trying to steer people away from the games that they do play which almost always includes the GW brand. Even when a new game store opens they immediately try to push Warhammer like the old days because there is people who play it rather than taking a chance on an lesser known game that may or may not work and typically has to be gotten from overseas. That is why. Getting people to try a new game when they already play one is a Monumental task especially when they are so heavily invested in the game like you typically find with Warhammer players.
There is one store by me that has KoW and other Mantic stuff (sadly it seems the competitive gamers have infested it). None of the others know what it is or has anyone (except me likely) who cares because it's not Warhammer. I have never seen anything from warlord or game like infinity or saga or similar games on the Shelf or spoken to anyone who knew what it was and had any desire to find out more. But on the flip side there are plenty of people I know who play Warhammer and are happy doing it so it makes the choice of what to play pretty much decided for you already that is why people still buy it because they know that others buy it and it's easier to get a game, crappy rules notwithstanding
Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
I got a small group involved in Black Powder The Anglo-Zulu War in the last few years. I bought the stater box, painted the forces and demo'd a few scenarios. Before long I had three others collecting small forces with two more that joined in later. Will Black Powder battles in the late Nineteenth Century become the go-to game in my area? No but it will be brought out every now and again as the rules and setting provide lots of fun scenarios.
I'd imaging if I'd asked players locally if they wanted to collect forces or fight battles based of some obscure historical setting I'd have been laughed at but with a bit of work that's exactly what happened. Of course prices and proper scaling help. Players could get heavily into Black Powder The Anglo-Zulu War for less than a hundred Euro.
I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
It went a little something like this for me :-
GW : "You've bought multiple editions with associated army books? Multiple armies? Brought dozens of players into our gaming system? Demo'd our game? Organised campaigns? Took part in tournaments? Over decades? Thanks! Let me spit in your face!"
Me : "Hey guys and girls. I just picked up this Kings of War game. I had a quick read through it looks the business. Lets give it a whirl."
Club Gamer : "Sure lets give it a go."
And hey presto the default mass fantasy table-top game in my group became KoW after twenty-five plus years of WFB.
Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
Reading Wayne's previous posts though, it does seem that, unfortunately for him, the players in his area (and, according to some, American gamers in general, apparently) are completely uninterested in the idea of 'community'. You are an 'opponent' and the relationship ends there. There is no will to take it further. No building. No working together. No 'community'. Just a bunch of disconnected, disinterested individuals. Ultimately self destructive f you ask me, but there are plenty gamers out there like this that can't see beyond the next game and can't see the value in proactive effort, communication, organisation and community building, and instead scoff at these very same ideas.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
I'm on your side Niall but That's the optimistic view. It's not the universal view, sadly. I think there are a lot of entitled gamers out there. I also think that inertia is one of the greatest problems in the community. In other words, I don't see the majority of gamers putting in the effort. I also don't see people interested in other people putting in the effort for other games, and often, it's the store owners that are unwilling to buy in/stock new product and that often puts a bucket of cold water over the entire thing.
I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.
An interesting counterpoint to think on for you Niall - I would rather play an opponent who only plays one game, but plays it in a huge variety of ways, rather than an opponent who plays hundreds of games but approaches every one with the same mindset. Might be a different language, but the conversation remains exactly the same!
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
Reading Wayne's previous posts though, it does seem that, unfortunately for him, the players in his area (and, according to some, American gamers in general, apparently) are completely uninterested in the idea of 'community'. You are an 'opponent' and the relationship ends there. There is no will to take it further. No building. No working together. No 'community'. Just a bunch of disconnected, disinterested individuals. Ultimately self destructive f you ask me, but there are plenty gamers out there like this that can't see beyond the next game and can't see the value in proactive effort, communication, organisation and community building, and instead scoff at these very same ideas.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
I'm on your side Niall but That's the optimistic view. It's not the universal view, sadly. I think there are a lot of entitled gamers out there. I also think that inertia is one of the greatest problems in the community. In other words, I don't see the majority of gamers putting in the effort. I also don't see people interested in other people putting in the effort for other games, and often, it's the store owners that are unwilling to buy in/stock new product and that often puts a bucket of cold water over the entire thing.
I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.
An interesting counterpoint to think on for you Niall - I would rather play an opponent who only plays one game, but plays it in a huge variety of ways, rather than an opponent who plays hundreds of games but approaches every one with the same mindset. Might be a different language, but the conversation remains exactly the same!
Correct. Now obviously I can't speak to American gamers as a whole by my area in particular seems to have little in the way of a "community" and instead you have a game shop that sells X and Y, and it's considered disrespectful to the owner to bring and play game Z because the store doesn't stock it, ergo people would not be buying things at the store (actually had someone, not store staff but a member of the "community" say this). I recall when I first found out about Kings of War, I posted something innocuous on a facebook page for a game shop, basically mentioning how it looked pretty close to WHFB (this was before AoS) but faster and it looked like something to try, even stating that the WHFB people could use their existing armies. I got several rude responses that boiled down to "Looks like Wayne is trying to push his pet game on everyone here" and basically the opinion was if I wasn't going to talk about wanting to play Warhammer, to feth off elsewhere (this wasn't a GW store it was a regular game store). People seem to care the most about having a place to "just show up and play" versus any sort of organization, I've even seen campaign ideas get shot down and fizzle just because people don't seem to want anything other than to post a message asking "Who's up for a game?" and that's the extent of effort involved.
From what I've seen in my area, people gravitate towards "chosen" games (basically that means Warhammer or Warmachine for the most part, sometimes you get some hidden groups that play X-Wing or Infinity or whatnot) and kind of filter out anything else, either because they aren't willing to try something else, or because they just have no interest in it. Malifaux for example, looks like a pretty cool game with nice figures. I don't know of any place that stocks it, anyone who plays it, nor anyone who wants to play it or anyplace that wants to stock it. So if I were to find out it's really a cool game, I'd be left playing with myself (no pun intended) and while I doubt any shop would be rude enough to say "Don't play that here, we don't sell it" there would be no community to play. Or as a better example, any of the myriad of Warlord historical games, which I find to be fascinating but again, zero interest (that I'm aware of, I mean I'm sure there's a club somewhere but the don't advertise and I don't know where to look) so it's pointless to spend money on let's say a Roman army, because it's not like I can go down to the game shop and play it, people would be like "Uhhh... yeah no I'm going to play Warhammer over here". Same could be said for Infinity (which I think might have a tiny following), or Dropzone Commander or that wild west skirmish game or even Malestrom's Edge, basically if it's not something readily available that you can buy at a game shop and play at that same shop, people aren't interested to go out of their way or even to foster a community. Like, I would probably be run out on a rail if I dared to suggest, even to a group of Warhammer or Warmachine players, that we form a sort of "games club" that wasn't tied to a particular game store (or any store at all) and as a result could bring in people who played a variety of games and, hopefully, expand our horizons. People just don't seem interested in doing it, while to me that's much more preferable to flocking around a specific game shop.
With Warhammer at least, it's still a pretty big player (albeit a lot less than it used to be). I can (and have) reasonably decided to buy some 40k stuff and I can be pretty certain when I have a viable army I can get a game in, versus spending money on something and be the only player of that game in a 30+ mile radius, and on top of that be surrounded by people who don't know or care about the game and might even get hostile for me trying to get them to try something different (again, I've had that actually happen to me, just by mentioning how another lesser-known game looks cool and might be something fun to try). It's a weird mentality with game shops I notice (and I could go into depth talking about it), where people are more concerned about doing something to drive business to the game store than actually trying out various games that might strike their fancy.
With that I've gone a bit off topic, so I apologize.
Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's because I play in a club as well as shop setting but I've never had an issue getting players to try demos of new table-top systems. To try new boardgames or to try new RPGs.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
Reading Wayne's previous posts though, it does seem that, unfortunately for him, the players in his area (and, according to some, American gamers in general, apparently) are completely uninterested in the idea of 'community'. You are an 'opponent' and the relationship ends there. There is no will to take it further. No building. No working together. No 'community'. Just a bunch of disconnected, disinterested individuals. Ultimately self destructive f you ask me, but there are plenty gamers out there like this that can't see beyond the next game and can't see the value in proactive effort, communication, organisation and community building, and instead scoff at these very same ideas.
Does it require a bit of effort? Sure. But people respect that effort.
I'm on your side Niall but That's the optimistic view. It's not the universal view, sadly. I think there are a lot of entitled gamers out there. I also think that inertia is one of the greatest problems in the community. In other words, I don't see the majority of gamers putting in the effort. I also don't see people interested in other people putting in the effort for other games, and often, it's the store owners that are unwilling to buy in/stock new product and that often puts a bucket of cold water over the entire thing.
I'm an ancient old gamer at this stage who has played hundreds of different games. I can't imagine ever having a lifelong game that I play exclusively. How boring. My major problem is lack of time to sample the multitudes of good games available now or available in the past and involve others in playing them. It depresses me sometimes seeing great products on my bookshelf that I know I'll never have the time to play.
An interesting counterpoint to think on for you Niall - I would rather play an opponent who only plays one game, but plays it in a huge variety of ways, rather than an opponent who plays hundreds of games but approaches every one with the same mindset. Might be a different language, but the conversation remains exactly the same!
Great post Deadnight - if a little depressing. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I believe a club is vital to allowing multiple games to be played. The benefits are simply enormous.
I've played lots of Bolt Action and Flames of War. I own no forces or terrain for either system. I have guys regularly playing KoW that have no fantasy armies. Without a club such situations are much harder to achieve - in fact probably impossible.
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
Onto your counterpoint - sorry I'll have to learn to break-up posts I'm replying to. I think many gaming tactics are universal no matter the system. Also some games are much deeper tactically than others on the market. Some systems grow stale quickly due to lack of tactical options or lack of force balance or diversity. I've found X-wing and Armada to be very deep - I'm a noob but I love the many options and tactics available and the very decent balance that rewards experimentation in force selection. I play Battletech to an insanely high level after thirty years of table and on line play. WFB was a bit cookie-cutter but still rewarded good play in general - it helped to house-rule it fairly heavily. In my opinion it's great to enjoy your favourites often - especially if they are a rewarding game experience. It's also good to try other things to keep things from going stale - tactics are universal in many cases and it's nice to find ways to implement them in different games.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
Great post Deadnight - if a little depressing. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I believe a club is vital to allowing multiple games to be played. The benefits are simply enormous.
I've played lots of Bolt Action and Flames of War. I own no forces or terrain for either system. I have guys regularly playing KoW that have no fantasy armies. Without a club such situations are much harder to achieve - in fact probably impossible.
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
I think this might be better suited to a topic of its own, but in my experience it's more or less that, at least in the US, gamers don't want to do it. I don't quite know a reason but I know I've seen more insular people that "only" play Warhammer and you're a hater/fanboy/etc. if you dare to suggest another game they might like or one that sounds fun. It's very close-minded here, at least what I can tell (others might have varying viewpoints if they are lucky enough to be in an area that isn't that way). People are more likely to be a "Warhammer player" instead of a "wargamer" if that makes sense. Of course GW/Warhammer isn't the only people who suffer from that, I also know Warmachine players that are "only" Warmachine players, unlike myself where I want to be a "wargamer". I want to explore various games, even if it's something I'm not that interested in just to broaden my horizons. You are also exactly right, a game shop centric mentality doesn't allow this, in fact it's generally considered to be extremely rude to show up and not have your own models (if you play the game, that is, not if you're just interested in it), while in a club you can show up and chances are people will have something set up or whatnot so you can still play, even without buying your own force.
Again, it's not specifically a US thing (there are areas that have solid gaming clubs) it's more of a side effect of the idea of pick-up game culture and having a game shop be the "hub" for your gaming.
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
The tl;dr answer to the question, if you ask me, is that in my opinion, a lot of gamers are generally self centred and lazy and would rather complain about issues that actually step up and do anything about it.
Onto your counterpoint - sorry I'll have to learn to break-up posts I'm replying to. I think many gaming tactics are universal no matter the system. Also some games are much deeper tactically than others on the market. Some systems grow stale quickly due to lack of tactical options or lack of force balance or diversity. I've found X-wing and Armada to be very deep - I'm a noob but I love the many options and tactics available and the very decent balance that rewards experimentation in force selection. I play Battletech to an insanely high level after thirty years of table and on line play. WFB was a bit cookie-cutter but still rewarded good play in general - it helped to house-rule it fairly heavily. In my opinion it's great to enjoy your favourites often - especially if they are a rewarding game experience. It's also good to try other things to keep things from going stale - tactics are universal in many cases and it's nice to find ways to implement them in different games.
I'll clarify. I don't mean tactics. I mean attitudes. If all you want to do with your hundreds of wargames is play brutal, turn-it-up-to-11, take no prisoners, ultra competitive all the time, every time, against every opponent, and cannot even envision the concept of turning it off, or turning it down a notch, then every game is fundamentally the same. Nothing wrong with competitive mind, I am a competitive player, but there are times when it's nice to do something different.
If you can approach your one game as a competitive one some of the time, as a casual one, some of the time, as a narrative vehicle some of the time, with an attitude where exploring all the aspects of the game, all of the features of the game etc, rather than just picking one and running with it. That's what I mean.
Davor wrote: Is it GW loss if people play other systems but still keep buying GW minis?
It is actually. Not in the short term and obviously it's a lot better for GW than if people neither play the games or buy the models.
However, a huge competitive edge that GW managed to cultivate (either knowingly or accidentally) was the sentiment among players that GW rules and models are inexorably intertwined. Especially since GW games were the big dog on the market. (Now only 40K retains that position).
Someone playing a GW game will generally first consider the GW models and only if they don't like them they'll consider other manufacturers. Some will even buy GW models they don't like the look of because the connection between the game and the models or for fear they won't be able to use other models pleying in GW stores. Someone playing for instance T9A or KoW with their GW models and decide to expand the army or get a new one will probably consider GW, but those models now need to compete on a lot more even playing field with models from Mierce, Puppetswar, Avatars of War, MOM etc...
Short term at least, GW gets a lot of sales from people using the models in T9A, KoW etc, but they lose a lot of mindshare by people playing other games than the one connected to their minis and that means they eventually lose marketshare since their model sales were propped up by the models being connected to widely played games.
The situation is more dire when it comes to 40K since Space marines is such a huge portion of the sales. There's not really any other popular game that I'm aware of where GW Space Marine models fit in (unless we count 30K), so anyone stopping playing 40K will probably soon stop buying Space Marines.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
For you this whole case shoulnd matter you like the Vampire counts and religious side of the Empire, if Warhammer would return you wont have any problem making an army.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you. At most what's going to happen is GW is going to allow CA to make even more DLC to get more money out of people and it's working. People can use their money however they wish, but in my eyes it's strange to hate a company and still give them your money.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you. At most what's going to happen is GW is going to allow CA to make even more DLC to get more money out of people and it's working.
Fine with me. I like game and the setting. It will just show how brain dead their are with thier miniature games, which is their core business.
Why in your opinion do lots of gamers fail to organise properly? Every other hobby organises - if I into photography I join a camera club. If I'm into astronomy I join the local astronomy club. I share resources with others involved in my hobby. I simply don't understand gamers failing to organise in the many areas around the world.
The tl;dr answer to the question, if you ask me, is that in my opinion, a lot of gamers are generally self centred and lazy and would rather complain about issues that actually step up and do anything about it.
Onto your counterpoint - sorry I'll have to learn to break-up posts I'm replying to. I think many gaming tactics are universal no matter the system. Also some games are much deeper tactically than others on the market. Some systems grow stale quickly due to lack of tactical options or lack of force balance or diversity. I've found X-wing and Armada to be very deep - I'm a noob but I love the many options and tactics available and the very decent balance that rewards experimentation in force selection. I play Battletech to an insanely high level after thirty years of table and on line play. WFB was a bit cookie-cutter but still rewarded good play in general - it helped to house-rule it fairly heavily. In my opinion it's great to enjoy your favourites often - especially if they are a rewarding game experience. It's also good to try other things to keep things from going stale - tactics are universal in many cases and it's nice to find ways to implement them in different games.
I'll clarify. I don't mean tactics. I mean attitudes. If all you want to do with your hundreds of wargames is play brutal, turn-it-up-to-11, take no prisoners, ultra competitive all the time, every time, against every opponent, and cannot even envision the concept of turning it off, or turning it down a notch, then every game is fundamentally the same. Nothing wrong with competitive mind, I am a competitive player, but there are times when it's nice to do something different.
If you can approach your one game as a competitive one some of the time, as a casual one, some of the time, as a narrative vehicle some of the time, with an attitude where exploring all the aspects of the game, all of the features of the game etc, rather than just picking one and running with it. That's what I mean.
I get you now. I still think multiple systems are better. In Battletech for instance I usually play scenarios. I'm also involved in RPG campaigns for that system. You can't get fluffier. On the flip side I spent a good few years helping run some of the on-line MegaMek campaign servers where Battletech is played at a cut-throat level.
Game style is dependant on what the group wants in many ways. I tend to find multiple systems bring out the fluff better. Nobody is highly motivated being the best at a certain game.
Their investment and interest is spread wider diluting their competitive edge. It's also much less easier to break a game if you aren't playing it year after year - although game quality can help with this issue.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes, we ended the game you enjoyed playing, but, here! Have a free slap in the face!
Welcome to GW, get a free insult with every order! You're ugly and your mama dresses ya funny, can I take your order, please?
The Auld Grump
Those rules are no longer a part of the grand alliance books. Those are legacy models that barely anyone uses anymore you can't even buy em from GW anymore you gotta go third party.
That doesn't change the fact that on release the funny rules were about as funny a walking in fresh dog dirt for a substantial part of the fan base.
It's good to know though that multiple decades of collecting multiple armies has left me with little but unsupported legacy units in the system they were bought for. Not to worry - I'll find plenty of support for those armies in other systems by other companies and move my gaming groups accordingly.
Then do so? Which is your right as a consumer. As I said in my post if a company is doing something you dislike take your money elsewhere. As I said before those who are still giving money to GW via total war warhammer are doing it wrong if they dislike the company. Those armies have points in the general handbook but if you dislike the game use the models for a system you enjoy.
You think I am trying to convince you how great the new game is?
I dont think they are wrong. They are voting with their money that they like the world of Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you. At most what's going to happen is GW is going to allow CA to make even more DLC to get more money out of people and it's working.
Fine with me. I like game and the setting. It will just show how brain dead their are with thier miniature games, which is their core business.
Mate, if GW wont bring Warhammer then I wont care. I voting for that universe. If GW dont get the massege I dont bother. I am not buying the TW: W, because of Warhammer universe alone. I like Total War series aswell. If GW goes along AoS, eh whatever, its their business. But the recent success of Total War: Warhammer just shows, that thier are doing it wrong.
By the Fantasy Flight is bringing out a rank and flank miniataure game called Runewars so I guess the absence of Warhammer Fantasy left a void in the market.
Zywus wrote: For the most part free rules in AoS softened the blow.
Not as much as you might think - those free rules were pretty widely reviled - the stupid 'special' rules did not help. (Get a bonus if you pretend to be drinking a beer! Yay!)
Yes I remember. That was shameful. Thus my description of the game system as arguably the "crappiest excuse for a game system ever published".
Still, I bet the rules would have been even more reviled if they had cost money as well. That was after all the go-to excuse from the apologists in the beginning. "Would you rather keep paying hundreds of pounds for rules that was unbalanced anyway..." As if bad rules were a universal necessity in this world and the only choice was between eating free excrement and costly excrement. Not between eating free excrement and paying a fiver for a kebab.
Now it seems the excuse has been shifted more towards "Nah, those 'joke rules' rules were just there in the beginning. People lacked humor so GW removed them"
Issue your opponent with a challenge of your own – you can be as mocking, rude or insulting as you dare; if your opponent rises to the bait and they change expression, even so much as crack a smile or a glimmer of shock, Wulfrik’s challenge is successful and you can re-roll failed hit rolls for any attacks he makes this phase against enemy Heroes.
Mate, if GW wont bring Warhammer then I wont care. I voting for that universe. If GW dont get the massege I dont bother. I am not buying the TW: W, because of Warhammer universe alone. I like Total War series aswell. If GW goes along AoS, eh whatever, its their business. But the recent success of Total War: Warhammer just shows, that thier are doing it wrong.
By the Fantasy Flight is bringing out a rank and flank miniataure game called Runewars so I guess the absence of Warhammer Fantasy left a void in the market.
If at least quarter(or less) of those people who bought that game bought the models instead of just reading about the universe it would still be here. I was one of them only read the books due to the price of doing a count army was silly so I did not do the table top. Of course it was axed I was sad but it did not surprise me. Considering the streamed event that just finished I think people are interested in AOS considering the amount of attendee's and the SCGT. Not only warhammer fans bought that game I suspect TT players and those who like the fluff are just a small margin.
GW don't care about the people who only like the universe or fluff they want people to buy models. Honestly I think people underestimate how many people actually like it but what ever opinions are opinions, not everyone likes the same thing.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
To add something here more that has some substance:
Warhammer Fantasy units were good in many reasons. Since the minis could be used for multiple games. Want to have some nice skeletons: Choose the TK or VC skeleton sprue. want some Arthurian knights go pick up some bretonnians. Want some renaissance age soldiers: pick up empire units and so on and so forth.
Its was also good since people could get hooked in a lot ways, because the range was diverse enought that people would find something that they like. The way that I look it AoS has only 2 steoreotypes, when come to the new models:
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
The big problem with AoS is they killed WHFB to make it, so guess what, you're going to get a lot of WHFB fans canning it.
And as you said, not everyone likes the same thing, which is why it would have made sense to maintain WHFB and add AoS instead of killing WHFB.
Mate, if GW wont bring Warhammer then I wont care. I voting for that universe. If GW dont get the massege I dont bother. I am not buying the TW: W, because of Warhammer universe alone. I like Total War series aswell. If GW goes along AoS, eh whatever, its their business. But the recent success of Total War: Warhammer just shows, that thier are doing it wrong.
By the Fantasy Flight is bringing out a rank and flank miniataure game called Runewars so I guess the absence of Warhammer Fantasy left a void in the market.
If at least quarter(or less) of those people who bought that game bought the models instead of just reading about the universe it would still be here. I was one of them only read the books due to the price of doing a count army was silly so I did not do the table top. Of course it was axed I was sad but it did not surprise me. Considering the streamed event that just finished I think people are interested in AOS considering the amount of attendee's and the SCGT. Not only warhammer fans bought that game I suspect TT players and those who like the fluff are just a small margin.
GW don't care about the people who only like the universe or fluff they want people to buy models. Honestly I think people underestimate how many people actually like it but what ever opinions are opinions, not everyone likes the same thing.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
Mate the problem is that I didnt know Fantasy existed in the first place. I know about GW and 40k for about 7 years, but I know about Fantasy about a year ago. I think I am not the only one that is in a similar situation.
The closest thing that I got to Warhammer Fantasy was the "Mark of Chaos" trailer, but even then I was wtf Warhammer is in space. Total War: Warhammer brought me into Fantasy, simular way like Dawn of War to the 40k universe.
About TW:W there are some good numbers to estimate the Warhammer fans. Rome 2 sold around 120k in the first week. Total War: Warhammer 500k.
I wont go around pricing of Warhammer, because thats a really old topic, but it was and still is an issue with GW.
Plus if those rules are so offensive to you? Or to your intelligence? Don't play them? Don't play the game? I don't really see the problem with them myself but whatever.
The big problem with AoS is they killed WHFB to make it, so guess what, you're going to get a lot of WHFB fans canning it.
And as you said, not everyone likes the same thing, which is why it would have made sense to maintain WHFB and add AoS instead of killing WHFB.
Of course there will be some whfb fans that will dislike the new game but they canned it to focus on a new game due to low sales you can't focus on two systems there is limited shelf space etc and along with the new AOS releases. So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad? It's too soon to say according to some people. Plus whats stopping you from playing 8th? Did GW take away your army books? Your miniatures? Mini war gaming still does bat raps for 8th. Maybe forge world might make a horus heresy like game in the future? who knows?
Still there are plenty of alternatives for those who liked whfb like KOW or 9th age. The whole point of my posts it's understandable why people are upset but there are other options out there like no longer giving them your money or finding a company that supports rank and file games. I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
According to the current stream they are interested in feedback to improve things for the game they are supporting like the general's handbook matched play and are planning to make the general handbook yearly with updated stuff going by certain results from tournmanets and feedback. Now if this game is not for you? Plenty of other stuff out there.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
shinros wrote: If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT?
Because GW fethed up and made it unappealing to buy.
8th edition simultaneously pissed off a lot of vets and also encouraged larger games at high model prices which made it hard for new players to get in to it. So you neither have the old fans buying in to it because they don't like the rules and potential new fans get put off by the insane price.
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
Right, don't see this going anywhere cya then.
Cool, don't let the door hit you on the way out I guess.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would you played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
shinros wrote: I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
Pro tip, you don't need to tell us you're not going to argue with someone and you are leaving the discussion, you can just not argue and leave the discussion. That's a wonderful thing about internet forums, unlike real life it's not impolite to simply stop replying
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
Sooo you are telling me I chickened out? Sure buddy whatever you think. I am quite sure you make good arugments when you still give money to a company that has screwed over the thing you love several times. I am quite sure you know how to be a good consumer. As I said before I am done with the topic because I don't see the discussion going anywhere it does not matter if it has 30 years of lore if it's not making money in terms of models.
edit:Now honestly? If I had the choice between the two I would go with AOS because when I bought a few models I disliked ranking up because it prevented me from putting together the model how I wished. Plus I like converting how the game played largely got in the way of that since I like the more narrative battles for my armies and personalizing my stuff.
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
Sooo you are telling me I chickened out? Sure buddy whatever you think. I am quite sure you make good arugments when you still give money to a company that has screwed over the thing you love several times. I am quite sure you know how to be a good consumer. As I said before I am done with the topic because I don't see the discussion going anywhere it does not matter if it has 30 years of lore if it's not making money in terms of models.
Who says I buy my stuff at GW? GW didnt screw me over. If you read my posts carefully. Can you answer my question?
shinros wrote: So they went in a new direction is this new direction good or bad?
Maybe, maybe not, but this is a thread about "why do so many players demonize GW", so whether it was a good or bad direction is less relevant to the thread at hand than the way GW handled AoS was bad.
Also relevant is how stupid they were killing the game just before a video game based on the IP came out.
I personally think they won't bring it back and shouting at them won't change it.
Well if the new management over at GW is more receptive to feedback, who knows. But either way, we aren't really shouting at GW, we are discussing our dislike on a forum. If you don't like it then maybe find another thread that's more to your liking.
AllSeeingSkink we are explaining why people demonize GW. No problem here.
Let me just say this right now not only warhammer fans bought total war. If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT? If it was so popular how come the AOS stream had overall more viewers than the people playing total war warhammer on twitch? Don't just assume because a lot of people bought the game it means that translates to people who buy models.
Maybe, because the last big wave of releases where in the early and mid 2000s ( GW admitted they get most of their money at the release of the models ). Maybe, because 7th and 8th edition was not the best rulesets to sell minis. Maybe because other companies sell more minis ( somethimes slightly worst, but sometimes better quality ones ) for the less money. Maybe because some factions used ancient sprues ( looking at you Tomb Kings skeleton sprue and skeleton horses, Bretonnian horses ).
I am not going to really argue the point since we both clearly disagree with each other so agree to disagree. As I said I am not going to pay much attention to the topic anymore since I am leaving the discussion.
You just chickened out, when you see the real reasons. I am not mad at you. Nor AoS. Nor GW. I just find it strange that a pedigreed brand that has 32 years, behind it and would get a big reveal in form of another pedigreed video game franchise got canned.
By the way would played a VC army, if WHFB had a skirmish game?
Sooo you are telling me I chickened out? Sure buddy whatever you think. I am quite sure you make good arugments when you still give money to a company that has screwed over the thing you love several times. I am quite sure you know how to be a good consumer. As I said before I am done with the topic because I don't see the discussion going anywhere it does not matter if it has 30 years of lore if it's not making money in terms of models.
Who says I buy my stuff at GW? GW didnt screw me over. If you read my posts carefully. Can you answer my question?
You are because you bought total war and possibly DLC through that you are still giving them money. What do you think GW are going to do with all those lovely royalties you gave them? Last post on the matter.
You are because you bought total war and possibly DLC through that you are still giving them money.
Sure, but its a Total War game aswell. Can you answer my question?
Would you play a VC army in a WHFB low model count skirmish game?
And I said you chickened out since you dont see that obvious points that people are making here. Just look at End Times, they released new models and WHFB was selling better again.
shinros wrote: If the number of sales is meant to show how popular the game is why was it doing poorly in TT?
Because GW fethed up and made it unappealing to buy.
8th edition simultaneously pissed off a lot of vets and also encouraged larger games at high model prices which made it hard for new players to get in to it. So you neither have the old fans buying in to it because they don't like the rules and potential new fans get put off by the insane price.
In my local group, the Kings of War rules did a better job of selling the starter for Warhammer 8th edition than the rules inside of the box.
The rules for 8th just were not what the group wanted - at all.
The local changeover to KoW started in 8th.
Then GW dropped AoS on an unsuspecting populace - and changed the scale of the minis so that they would not really work that well for KoW.
So folks in my group stopped buying GW miniatures.
GW had managed to make a terrible situation worse.
The reason people are buying TW: W, and not the new AOS stuff is because they don't care about the Mortal Realms, and the WFB world appeals to them. How this sends a message to GW is that if the sales of AOS stuff is slipping and they see revenue coming in from WFB stuff, even video games, it sends a clear message of what the gaming populace actually wants. Now whether they go with that or not is a different thing entirely. From what I understand they are more focused on IP protection and copyright/trademarking stuff. This means they are probably committed to AOS for at least another year. If it continues to sell as well as it does currently, then SOMETHING will have to be done. For GW's sake, I hope all their competitors don't eat up the market before that change comes.
The reason people are buying TW: W, and not the new AOS stuff is because they don't care about the Mortal Realms, and the WFB world appeals to them. How this sends a message to GW is that if the sales of AOS stuff is slipping and they see revenue coming in from WFB stuff, even video games, it sends a clear message of what the gaming populace actually wants. Now whether they go with that or not is a different thing entirely. From what I understand they are more focused on IP protection and copyright/trademarking stuff. This means they are probably committed to AOS for at least another year. If it continues to sell as well as it does currently, then SOMETHING will have to be done. For GW's sake, I hope all their competitors don't eat up the market before that change comes.
shinros wrote: Yes and GW are taking your money and pretty much laughing at you.
From the way they acted in the chapterhouse case and from how ex-employees say they view their customers, they're laughing at all of their customers. Even the 'loyal' ones. Because they hate you and only want what's in your wallet.
Things like this is what hurts Games Workshop.. Here are two new plastic Terminator lords.. My sister in law lives in Malaysia and asked her to check in
on getting the Chaplin terminator for me.. She went to the new Warhammer store was told they could not be purchase until after 10 stamps are collected.
Of course stamps where linked to in store purchases. So kind of a bait and switch with no mention of this in the ad for them..
Wait, so they essentially did a Skullz program where the reward was being able to buy more stuff rather than getting free stuff?
Wow.
Right after Wyrd implemented their reward program where you simply get given tokens to get an LE model after attending official events, more if you win the event.
I just... right when GW start looking like they're trying to right the ship.
-Loki- wrote: Wait, so they essentially did a Skullz program where the reward was being able to buy more stuff rather than getting free stuff?
Wow.
Right after Wyrd implemented their reward program where you simply get given tokens to get an LE model after attending official events, more if you win the event.
I just... right when GW start looking like they're trying to right the ship.
-Loki- wrote: Wait, so they essentially did a Skullz program where the reward was being able to buy more stuff rather than getting free stuff?
Wow.
Right after Wyrd implemented their reward program where you simply get given tokens to get an LE model after attending official events, more if you win the event.
I just... right when GW start looking like they're trying to right the ship.
Yeah I think it shows desperation on their part.
Not sure what the point of it is - stuff like this just brings bad press. All it does is highlight the value of real deals offered by other companies.
-Loki- wrote: Wait, so they essentially did a Skullz program where the reward was being able to buy more stuff rather than getting free stuff?
Wow.
Right after Wyrd implemented their reward program where you simply get given tokens to get an LE model after attending official events, more if you win the event.
I just... right when GW start looking like they're trying to right the ship.
Yeah I think it shows desperation on their part.
Not sure what the point of it is - stuff like this just brings bad press. All it does is highlight the value of real deals offered by other companies.
Back when I was a kid, when a new GW opened they had a sale where you could buy 3 kits for the price of 2.
Now when a GW opens they release a limited model that you have to buy a bunch of other stuff to have the opportunity to purchase the limited model.
But people by GWLE models as quickly as they are produced.
It's a bit of unsavoury practice sure; but why give away what people will pay for?
I miss the old sale too (actually I miss the old model rages more) but it really isn't hard to get a 3rd off a GW kit. Back when GW did those sales there wasn't really a network of 3rd party discount sellers. That deal is a bit redundant when the people that will by (and queue) at a new GW shop will be happy paying RRP anyway. Give them something unique (that they will pay for) and it may well attract just as many customers.
It seems counter intuitive but allot of GW practice is, so clearly they believe it works for them.
notprop wrote: But people by GWLE models as quickly as they are produced.
To an extent yes. But these latest ones are so obscure that it's almost not possible to get hold of them, so GW isn't seeing much money from that.
It cost GW the same to create a Hard Plastic mold whether they sell three models or three thousand of it. (although I've heads tales of cheaper aluminum molds that's cheaper to make but can make a limited number of HIPS models before they degrade).
notprop wrote: But people by GWLE models as quickly as they are produced.
It's a bit of unsavoury practice sure; but why give away what people will pay for?
I don't think there's a problem with charging for the LE model.
Having a reward system to allow you to buy that LE model and you can only get it from a store opening falls right in to the category of "Why do so many players demonize GW?"
I miss the old sale too (actually I miss the old model rages more) but it really isn't hard to get a 3rd off a GW kit. Back when GW did those sales there wasn't really a network of 3rd party discount sellers. That deal is a bit redundant when the people that will by (and queue) at a new GW shop will be happy paying RRP anyway. Give them something unique (that they will pay for) and it may well attract just as many customers.
Because if you have sales in your own shops you pull customers who would otherwise buy from 3rd parties to buying from direct sources, direct sources have higher profit margins.
It also gets more people through the door and acts as advertising. Back when the store near me opened and they had a sale, there was a queue out the door for the whole day, it disrupted the shopping centre the store was located in which is a good thing.
Also where do you get GW stuff a 3rd off? There's a few places that sell 20-25%, most places are more like the 10-15% range.
It seems counter intuitive but allot of GW practice is, so clearly they believe it works for them.
Just because they believe it works for them doesn't make it a good idea.
notprop wrote: But people by GWLE models as quickly as they are produced.
It's a bit of unsavoury practice sure; but why give away what people will pay for?
Ignoring the fact that they also (or at least, back when I played) produced them in incredibly small numbers means they sell fast. For all people like to say there's less people buying GW products, they're still the biggest fish in the pond, and those still buying are the people who don't care about the pricing, or they'd have stopped. Producing 1000 LE books to sell to devoted players with too much money is a very small amount which is guaranteed to sell out very, very quickly.
What baffles me is that they're offering the chance to purchaseLE models as a reward, rather than offering LE models as a reward. Maybe I'm spoiled? I play Malifaux and Infinity now. Both of those give ample chance to get LE figures from pre-orders, rewards to buying product during sales, in tournament and league packs, and so on. They don't offer the chance to pay more money again on top of that from select store openings for the LE models. Hell, every second month Wyrd gives people LE models simply for spending $60 at your FLGS, and every other month sticks an LE model every box for one of their new products.
-Loki-'s on the money here. GW's way of selling these minis is baffling. So many obstacles to buy a couple of Terminator minis?
Just let me buy them. I'll give money right now to GW for those minis. No muss, no fuss. Just let me buy them. Why is that so difficult? I've been playing this game 20 or so years, so I don't need to purchase things to get skulls, or participate in store run events to get skulls, or whatever the silly promotion is.
Instead, like a lot of adults, I have money, and I'd like to use it.
Not really, they want you to buy from their stores not scabs.
You buy from the store you get access to models only loyal customers do. It encourages people to buy from that store models they would/should buy from there anyways.
They need to pay the rent and have a face inorder to get new players. They cant have a bunch of stores with no one entering. Encouragment to come into the store and buy stuff is a great idea.
OgreChubbs wrote: Not really, they want you to buy from their stores not scabs.
You buy from the store you get access to models only loyal customers do. It encourages people to buy from that store models they would/should buy from there anyways.
They need to pay the rent and have a face inorder to get new players. They cant have a bunch of stores with no one entering. Encouragment to come into the store and buy stuff is a great idea.
And again we come back to the title of this thread....
"Why do so many players demonize GW?"
You can justify GW doing these things, but these are the reasons GW gets canned on internet forums, games stores and games clubs, it's because they aren't good about hiding the fact all they care about is money.
Obviously all companies care about money, GW are just really terrible at letting customers know that's all they care about and it drives a wedge between them and their customers. It's a problem when you walk in to an independent retailer (which is where most of GW's revenue comes from) and hear people complaining about how GW have become a gakky company because they only care about money and their games and practices reflect it.
OgreChubbs wrote: Not really, they want you to buy from their stores not scabs.
You buy from the store you get access to models only loyal customers do. It encourages people to buy from that store models they would/should buy from there anyways.
They need to pay the rent and have a face inorder to get new players. They cant have a bunch of stores with no one entering. Encouragment to come into the store and buy stuff is a great idea.
And again we come back to the title of this thread....
"Why do so many players demonize GW?"
You can justify GW doing these things, but these are the reasons GW gets canned on internet forums, games stores and games clubs, it's because they aren't good about hiding the fact all they care about is money.
Obviously all companies care about money, GW are just really terrible at letting customers know that's all they care about and it drives a wedge between them and their customers. It's a problem when you walk in to an independent retailer (which is where most of GW's revenue comes from) and hear people complaining about how GW have become a gakky company because they only care about money and their games and practices reflect it.
I actually get they care more then most. Hell apple release apps only for their devices.... a money grab. I had a broken ipad and it took me 3 weeks to get a replacement and countless phone calls saying I opened it and broke it just to get a free be or some crap.
Xbox makes games that are ONLY for xbox1 and I cant play them on a xbox360, so they expect me to ditch it and get a new one.
They are all money hungery, they are not your friends they make a product and want to sell it. Once you buy it I can almost promise you they dont care what you do with it.
They dont get a free pass because people like to show up other people and talk crap. Thats why all games have a leaderboard and a forum where you get to shoot off. GW removed the ability to shoot off to others, but opened a facepage thing so you can show off your stuff and rules to have in house tornies.
People complain about GW as much as people complain about any other companys. Hell go to hots forum 99 pages of kids bit..... You know.
Also those who complain tend to never shut up and tell everyone even tho no one cares why they are mad. well the content will simply be happy with what they bought
Sorry, if a company accuses you of trying to scam them when you attempt to take advantage of the warranty they promised you, you should complain. Even if the rest of your post seems to be an incoherent denigration of those who complain.
frozenwastes wrote: Sorry, if a company accuses you of trying to scam them when you attempt to take advantage of the warranty they promised you, you should complain. Even if the rest of your post seems to be an incoherent denigration of those who complain.
Ya sorry trying to write on a tablet. It lets me type 3 words every 20 seconds, so by the time I get threw a paragraph there is missing letters and such I need to fix. So by the time I get threw the fixes I lost my train of thought and almost start a new topic.
OgreChubbs wrote: I actually get they care more then most. Hell apple release apps only for their devices.... a money grab. I had a broken ipad and it took me 3 weeks to get a replacement and countless phone calls saying I opened it and broke it just to get a free be or some crap.
That's something you should most definitely complain about.
Xbox makes games that are ONLY for xbox1 and I cant play them on a xbox360, so they expect me to ditch it and get a new one.
Huh? Gaming technology moves forward, complaining that your out of date console doesn't play newer games is stupid.
The rest of your post is kind of incoherent and I don't really understand the point you are trying to make.
I specifically said that obviously all companies care about money, GW just does a piss poor job of making sure customers know that and it hurts their relationship with customers.
Hurting your relationship with customers directly impacts how much money you can make off them because unhappy customers tend to spend less, so as much as your company might be money hungry, it's usually best to appear to your customers about caring about something more than money.... like the quality of the product you're selling or making customers happy.
reds8n wrote: We'll end this little tangent here then yes ?
Thank you.
Sorry, honest question, I didn't quite catch, what tangent do we have to end? Other than the first post, the current page seemed to be reasonably on topic, it was the previous page that probably could have used some moderation
So it is true what they said in the court case then. The hobby is people buying GW product. "Here is your reward for buying from us, you can buy more now."
-Loki- wrote: Wait, so they essentially did a Skullz program where the reward was being able to buy more stuff rather than getting free stuff?
Wow.
Right after Wyrd implemented their reward program where you simply get given tokens to get an LE model after attending official events, more if you win the event.
I just... right when GW start looking like they're trying to right the ship.
Remember, buyingGW miniatures is your favorite thing to do!
TheAuldGrump wrote: Locally, the group playing KoW is small - yet it is still larger than the number playing AoS - so, yeah....
Being smaller than KoW's local base is a worse thing.
The Auld Grump - 9th Age is also being played more than AoS....
I'm sure there are parts of the world where locally KoW is successful. This doesn't mean much in the wider scheme of things though as KoW's playerbase globally remains small, at least as far as I can tell.
Your argument that GW is losing sales from KoW players cuts both ways as it is unlikely AoS players would be using Mantic kits for AoS due to differences in style and scale, whereas the Mantic kits are more similar to the old WHFB armies.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Locally, the group playing KoW is small - yet it is still larger than the number playing AoS - so, yeah....
Being smaller than KoW's local base is a worse thing.
The Auld Grump - 9th Age is also being played more than AoS....
I'm sure there are parts of the world where locally KoW is successful. This doesn't mean much in the wider scheme of things though as KoW's playerbase globally remains small, at least as far as I can tell.
Your argument that GW is losing sales from KoW players cuts both ways as it is unlikely AoS players would be using Mantic kits for AoS due to differences in style and scale, whereas the Mantic kits are more similar to the old WHFB armies.
The Mantic army deals are doing good business in my area - especially with new players or guys starting new armies. You can have a very good sized army for a hundred Euro. An old WFB army will set a person back multiples of that. This has been a boon locally as many now rock multiple armies - allowing more diversity and more ability to lend armies to fresh blood.
Of course we've alllowed proxying for years around here - if not GW prices would have destroyed new player capture and slowly killed the fantasy scene many moons ago. So players using non-system specific fantasy miniatures is common in any case.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Locally, the group playing KoW is small - yet it is still larger than the number playing AoS - so, yeah....
Being smaller than KoW's local base is a worse thing.
The Auld Grump - 9th Age is also being played more than AoS....
I'm sure there are parts of the world where locally KoW is successful. This doesn't mean much in the wider scheme of things though as KoW's playerbase globally remains small, at least as far as I can tell.
Your argument that GW is losing sales from KoW players cuts both ways as it is unlikely AoS players would be using Mantic kits for AoS due to differences in style and scale, whereas the Mantic kits are more similar to the old WHFB armies.
Whats any of this got to do with why players demonise GW?
I'm tweaking my Vampire Counts army for Kings of War as an ongoing project, and I find myself at a sticking point.
To keep things aesthetically homogeneous, I'd like to get 10 more GW ghouls and 20-40 more GW skeletons...but even via an internet discounter, the prices are laughable compared to getting Mantic stuff via the FLGS. I could get an entire Mantic starter army box for less than 4 troop boxes of 10 models each from GW discounters!
I've already sold off 3 boxes of GW grave guard (30 models) at 1/2 retail on ebay to cover the cost of 2 Mantic revenant regiments (40 models).
That is a dilemma. I would like to think a common paint scheme and basing scheme might make up for the difference in aesthetic, but it probably won't be quite enough.
What about adding the non GW stuff as back rankers?
TheAuldGrump wrote: Locally, the group playing KoW is small - yet it is still larger than the number playing AoS - so, yeah....
Being smaller than KoW's local base is a worse thing.
The Auld Grump - 9th Age is also being played more than AoS....
I'm sure there are parts of the world where locally KoW is successful. This doesn't mean much in the wider scheme of things though as KoW's playerbase globally remains small, at least as far as I can tell.
Your argument that GW is losing sales from KoW players cuts both ways as it is unlikely AoS players would be using Mantic kits for AoS due to differences in style and scale, whereas the Mantic kits are more similar to the old WHFB armies.
Whats any of this got to do with why players demonise GW?
It has to do with how white knights will leap upon their horses to defend the company from the evil haters that point out GW's myriad flaws.
Both 9th Age and Kings of War are being played locally because GW's fantasy rules have, for several years and multiple iterations... sucked
That either 9th Age or Kings of War should be selling better than Warhammer means that in spite of their market dominance, GW is failing in the fantasy market - and largely because they have done a rather poor job of writing rules for the past decade or so.
At this point in time, not even their miniatures are selling better than those of Mantic for fantasy - on a local level, at least. Reaper, likewise, is doing a better job of selling to local players.
GW's changing the scale and style of the miniatures has meant that even folks that play armies that weren't dropped down the jakes by GW are still not buying the latest GW miniatures for their armies.
But those same players were willing to go digging online to find copies of Island of Blood - for the minis, and not the rules.
40K has also fallen to a back burner in the local groups - though it seems more likely that game could be saved by a better edition. Most players have kept their old armies, even if they are currently not playing the game. (I was an exception - when I realized that I had not played 40K for two entire editions, off it went to the magical land of eBay.)
But 40K is likewise suffering because of a poorly considered and poorly executed edition.
The bad rules point can't be hammered home enough. The war gaming world outside Games Workshop right now is amazing. Frostgrave and Kings of War have simple, elegant systems that still allow for emergent complexity in tactical play. Deadzone 2 isn't quite as solid, but its still a very fun, tense, and lethal little sci-fi skirmish game. Nevermind other out-of-genre stuff, like Strange Aeons for investigators-vs-the-Mythos campaign games or This is Not a Test for Fallout-meets-Gamma-World post apocalypse.
I look at the rare game of 40K being played at the local store nowadays, and wonder why anyone would put up with that bloated stinker of a ruleset. I myself stopped playing over 4 years ago, after a "let's try out the new 6th edition" tournament. I was in the middle of a game between my Eldar and some stranger's Necrons and realized, "I would have had a lot more fun this afternoon if I'd stayed at home and watched TV by myself. That's how bad this game has gotten."
As I stated upthread, I'm still looking for some sci-fi ruleset that would let me run my Eldar in a platoon scale similar to 2e 40K and actually have fun doing so. I'm not sure that Mantic's Warpath will be that game. I'm going to give my search another month or three before 15 years of hobby collecting and painting goes on eBay. (This is a not so subtle hint that I'm open to suggestions.)
The bad rules point can't be hammered home enough. The war gaming world outside Games Workshop right now is amazing. Frostgrave and Kings of War have simple, elegant systems that still allow for emergent complexity in tactical play. Deadzone 2 isn't quite as solid, but its still a very fun, tense, and lethal little sci-fi skirmish game. Nevermind other out-of-genre stuff, like Strange Aeons for investigators-vs-the-Mythos campaign games or This is Not a Test for Fallout-meets-Gamma-World post apocalypse.
I look at the rare game of 40K being played at the local store nowadays, and wonder why anyone would put up with that bloated stinker of a ruleset. I myself stopped playing over 4 years ago, after a "let's try out the new 6th edition" tournament. I was in the middle of a game between my Eldar and some stranger's Necrons and realized, "I would have had a lot more fun this afternoon if I'd stayed at home and watched TV by myself. That's how bad this game has gotten."
As I stated upthread, I'm still looking for some sci-fi ruleset that would let me run my Eldar in a platoon scale similar to 2e 40K and actually have fun doing so. I'm not sure that Mantic's Warpath will be that game. I'm going to give my search another month or three before 15 years of hobby collecting and painting goes on eBay. (This is a not so subtle hint that I'm open to suggestions.)
Go retro. Use social media to find people that are in the same mindset as you, and start a gaming club. If the boards are to be believed, then 2nd Ed. was a beloved renaissance of gaming where nobody was unhappy. I find it baffling that you can't Oldhammer with other people. I play 3rd E. 40K and 6th Ed. WFB myself and I've never been happier.
As I stated upthread, I'm still looking for some sci-fi ruleset that would let me run my Eldar in a platoon scale similar to 2e 40K and actually have fun doing so. I'm not sure that Mantic's Warpath will be that game. I'm going to give my search another month or three before 15 years of hobby collecting and painting goes on eBay. (This is a not so subtle hint that I'm open to suggestions.)
One Page 40k? The rules in small font might fit on a page, but the document is about 20 pages or so once you add in the army lists. And there's some supplemental stuff like an 11 page beginning guide. A default game is 750 points and 5 guardians are 115, so it should be just about right in terms of what the game is designed to handle.
Just Tony wrote: Go retro. Use social media to find people that are in the same mindset as you, and start a gaming club. If the boards are to be believed, then 2nd Ed. was a beloved renaissance of gaming where nobody was unhappy. I find it baffling that you can't Oldhammer with other people. I play 3rd E. 40K and 6th Ed. WFB myself and I've never been happier.
I don't think anyone is crazy enough to say 2nd edition was perfect and no one was unhappy. 2nd ed. had tons of balance issues and in some areas the rules were a bit overly complicated.
The thing I like about 2nd is even though the armies were unbalanced, the core rules were a better basis for a game than 3rd ed onwards.
I've never had much luck trying to play Oldhammer. You can usually find a few people willing to play it but it gets boring playing with the same few people with the same few armies after a short while. One of the main things 40k has going for it is its popularity, which means it's easy to find opponents and you often get fresh blood and new armies in your local group.
If you can manage a decent sized group playing previous editions then good for you, it's never really worked for me.
I should have specified that I'm looking for something that doesn't use any iteration of the 40K system. It's old hat, and the best it's ever done for me was, "It's okay, I guess, but it's all anyone plays these days..." Luckily those days are gone. I'd like something with fresh thinking and simple rule design. (And 40K 2e is neither of those.)
frozenwastes wrote: That is a dilemma. I would like to think a common paint scheme and basing scheme might make up for the difference in aesthetic, but it probably won't be quite enough.
What about adding the non GW stuff as back rankers?
Add them in with the 40mm bases. Mix them in together...
The paint scheme helps, but it is the size that does it. the Mantic ones are a head or so shorter them the GW stuff. Not bad, but in a larger picture, a zombie is a zombie.
On my end, I added in a Reaper Necromancer, and I use the figures on both ends of the street. Some with Mordhiem, some with KOW, some with Dungeon Saga. (I am slowly growing on Dungeon Saga, and adding in the Mantic Kickstarter army and snacks in along with the stuff from the Dungeon Master pledge level.
A good game, and it is really worth it to use the Mantic for the Warhammer Fantasy lore/ realm. "Mantica" never really sold it for me, but then again, I am one of those old dogs that cut his teeth with the old school Hogshead RPG.
Psychopomp wrote: I should have specified that I'm looking for something that doesn't use any iteration of the 40K system. It's old hat, and the best it's ever done for me was, "It's okay, I guess, but it's all anyone plays these days..." Luckily those days are gone. I'd like something with fresh thinking and simple rule design. (And 40K 2e is neither of those.)
Rogue Stars published by Osprey could be your thing if you want small scale skirmish.
Not sure if there a direct crossover game that would mimic the forces you already have - saying that I'm a big fan of proxying miniatures so who really cares? Use your stuff in Gates of Antares
If you do sell your old collection make sure to look at alternative scales as well. 6-10mm science-fiction gaming is great allowing all types of combined arms fun in a scale that such things actually work. 28mm breaks down in my opinion once you go much beyond infantry heavy company versus company engagements. Ideally 28mm should be skirmish only or scaled and abstracted like in stuff like KoW or the old WFB.
niall78 wrote: 6-10mm science-fiction gaming is great allowing all types of combined arms fun in a scale that such things actually work. 28mm breaks down in my opinion once you go much beyond infantry heavy company versus company engagements. Ideally 28mm should be skirmish only or scaled and abstracted like in stuff like KoW or the old WFB.
I'm very much agreed with you there. One of my grievances with what GW is trying to do with 40K these days is that I really enjoyed it more when they did this scale of conflict with Epic instead. That's why I'm looking for a company-sized game for my 28mm stuff, or I'm divesting myself of it and reinvesting the proceeds into minis for multiple games with more rational pricing and scale schemes.
40k does play very well at 1000-1500 points with lots of terrain in my experience. A parking lot of tanks on a 6' x 4' table doesn't play good or look good. Super Heavies and Flyers just have no place in a regular game.
It mystifies me why people view 1850+ points on the small tables as a sensible thing.
Way back in 2nd edition we had hero hammer where one figure was way more impactful than even groups of others. GW might sell that metal blister for $10-15.
Now we have super heavies where one figure is way more impactful than even groups of others. GW might sell that plastic kit for $100.
Seems like the natural progression of bloating the game to me.
I wouldn't say I 'demonize' GW.
They're a company. They make a few good things. They make a lot of gak. They make a lot of mistakes. Personally, they can do what they want. It's their money and their company.
What irritates me more than anything GW do, are the GW-ophiles. The people that believe that everything GW produce is fantastic. Those that believe everything else is trash. They're what make GW worth demonzing. Those that believe GW plastics are the only decent thing going. That GW invented the whole hhhobby. That any figure made by a different company is always "90's style". etc.
I've had some great times with GW games in the past (and I started on my first WHFB games in 1984 and played rather a lot of their stuff since).
GW finally died for me when the End Times came out with those Limited Edition rule books that I wasn't quick enough to get. So, I stopped bothering. Less than a year later, Warhammer fantasy really did die.
40k had already died for me when giant plastic flyers came into the game.
I still subscribe to WD, I have done for a long time, in fact I've been buying WD since issue 91 dated July 1987.
However, there is a whole world of miniature wargames out there that are far better than anything GW make... Bolt Action, Frostgrave, Kings of War, Maelstrom's Edge, Deadzone, Saga, Gates of Antares, Iron Cross, Blood Eagle, Open Combat, Zombicide, Tanks, X-Wing. And I'm sure there's a million more that I've yet to discover.
GW used to be another decent figure manufacturer. Now they've gone so mad in protecting their own IP, their figures are so out of scale, or covered in ridiculous iconography that they are more or less unusable in any other game. That's their loss of sales.
I think the title should be "Why do so many players pity GW".
My reasons:
WFB:
What they did with it(My first TT-game!) The last Dark Elves armybook.
40k:
Powercreep.
Random-tables of randomnish randomness(Deamons and other...).....
Basicly killing my beloved Word Bearers. More Powercreep.
Killing my Tyranid-Midbug-swarm.... Even more Powercreep.
What they did with the WD.
Ultramarines(Movie).
What they did with the AdMech-codices.
Spamming of detachments, metadetachments and formations instead of fixing stuff....
AoS:
Because it replaced my first TT-system and basicly killed off fantasy in general here for now.
ShockTroopahs wrote: I can't really see what the problem is with them. I just started playing Warhammer
Just answered your own question.
You have no history with them.
I can only speak as a 21 year veteran, but here are some of the reasons I have a love hate relationship:
1. Prices are silly, especially when im some cases you are paying premium prices for models that haven't been updated in many, many years
2. I've had whole armies that I have spent hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours hobbying eliminated from the game
3. Likewise all that time and money spent on specialist games that have come and gone due to dropped support
4. The killing of Games Days and White Dwarf (somewhat rectified)
5. The bs of having to deal directly with them as a former LGS owner
6: utter neglect of certain armies in favor of "moar speeez marines".
7. Questionable attempts to balance game in a timely fashion
8. Lack of community interaction (getting better recently)
9. Did I mention prices? Their paints and hobby tools are criminally overpriced and while thankfully alternatives exist the fact they have the Gaul
To ask what they do for say spray paint is mind numbing.
notprop wrote: 40k does play very well at 1000-1500 points with lots of terrain in my experience. A parking lot of tanks on a 6' x 4' table doesn't play good or look good. Super Heavies and Flyers just have no place in a regular game.
It mystifies me why people view 1850+ points on the small tables as a sensible thing.
I really think 40K as it currently stands needs tables bigger than a standard 6x4. It's brilliant on 12x6.
Conversely, current 40K would play brilliantly in 10-15mm on a 6x4.
notprop wrote: 40k does play very well at 1000-1500 points with lots of terrain in my experience. A parking lot of tanks on a 6' x 4' table doesn't play good or look good. Super Heavies and Flyers just have no place in a regular game.
It mystifies me why people view 1850+ points on the small tables as a sensible thing.
I really think 40K as it currently stands needs tables bigger than a standard 6x4. It's brilliant on 12x6. Conversely, current 40K would play brilliantly in 10-15mm on a 6x4.
This is my issue with 40k as a game these days. GW want it to be Epic in 28mm. Even at 1500pts, there's a lot more models on the table these days. Some armies have jam packed deployment zones. There's a few issues with that. First is table size, as you pointed out. Most people can barely fit twenty square feet of table in whatever room they're playing in, let alone, as you suggested, over seventy square feet of gaming table. Second is the prices, which I really just don't want to get into.
Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.
I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.
I get the same feeling of 40k 28 mm epic is what they want.. I do enjoy a game of Apocalypse every once in a while.. but I like just standard 40k games to, without giant stompy stuff everywhere.
Games Workshop has a great Intellectual property with images and backgrounds that can move product. As we seen in the hands of Fantasy Flight games if done right product flies off the shelves.
But most of the time they are their worst enemy on pricing and bundling.. yes they are getting better but why is there even a topic like this if there was no problem...
Plus I know a lot of old timers complain about Age of Sigmar, but I think if you look at the images from the last tournament at Warhammer world it shows most of the armies played were ones that
just came out recently and specifically made for the new version of the game.. Why did they kill off warhammer??... so you would need to buy all new armies... Just like the Games Workshop Accountants want..
Wouldn't surprise me at all if something happens like Age of Sigmar to 40k in the next few years to spur new sales... Sorry .. We are going true scale on Marines.. so you need to rebuy your whole army
And we are changes all the other races... but here is a pdf if you want to use your old forces..
Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.
I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.
News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.
notprop wrote: 40k does play very well at 1000-1500 points with lots of terrain in my experience. A parking lot of tanks on a 6' x 4' table doesn't play good or look good. Super Heavies and Flyers just have no place in a regular game.
It mystifies me why people view 1850+ points on the small tables as a sensible thing.
I really think 40K as it currently stands needs tables bigger than a standard 6x4. It's brilliant on 12x6. Conversely, current 40K would play brilliantly in 10-15mm on a 6x4.
This is my issue with 40k as a game these days. GW want it to be Epic in 28mm. Even at 1500pts, there's a lot more models on the table these days. Some armies have jam packed deployment zones. There's a few issues with that. First is table size, as you pointed out. Most people can barely fit twenty square feet of table in whatever room they're playing in, let alone, as you suggested, over seventy square feet of gaming table. Second is the prices, which I really just don't want to get into.
Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.
I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.
The thing I've found about big units in 40k and WHFB is that once they are common they are no longer cool.
When I first bought a Stegadon for my Lizardmen back in 5th edition, it was so cool, a big lumbering dinosaur surrounded by smaller infantry. Or my Giant in my Goblin army, the thing that makes it cool isn't that it's 7" tall, it's that it's surrounded by a bunch of Goblins that are only 1" tall....
That's why I've always supported hard limits on big models, they shouldn't be more than 20-25% of the entire army, you shouldn't be taking more than 1 in any reasonable sized game and in smaller games they shouldn't exist at all. So that when you DO take one, it's a "wow, that's cool!" moment.
As soon as they become standard fare they lose their appeal to me, and now I walk in to a GW and see a game being played with lots of big things and it just looks like a handful of toddlers brawling in a playpen with a baby's crib mobile with toy planes because all the ranges are too short for such large monsters and flyers
Wargames always have compressed ranges, but when you start putting Imperial Knights and Baneblades and Wraithknights in to a 28mm game it becomes stupidly compressed.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.
Way to grab on to the most insignificant point that Loki made and run with it, good job
/sarcasm
40k is a game where 2 players build armies to play against each other and 1 player wins. It is a competitive game. It is not a cooperative game. AoS tried to sit on the fence between competitive and cooperative and even there they realised without a game master to guide, it still ends up being competitive and so people lose interest when they don't have things like points values to build their armies to roughly equivalent levels.
The early frustrations were the price rises that paced right along with my allowance increases. "Finally an allowance raise, crap GW raised their prices again! Or removed a mini from the blister for the same price!". That didn't make me hate GW, it annoyed me greatly! They continued that practice for 30 years...
What makes folks hate GW is an often extremely predatory business practice and going directions certain fans don't like. They've had great periods, I think we're in a great period again after some internal changes...
I don't really care for the haters of any product/company, they are usually just dayflies that got on, bought some models, rage a bit and quit...
Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.
I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.
News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.
I played for 20 years I'm certainly no dayfly, I've played multiple armies across multiple editions and still own every specialist game.
What made me leave was the utter disrespect they showered onto their customers treating us not as people but wallets to be emptied with increasingly shoddy products.
Rereleasing the knight codex after a year, 7th ed coming out with next to no changes and fixing zero problems, and then killing off wfb for aos not only broke the camels back but slaughtered it and used the bones for glue.
I didn't change GW did they brought this hate on themselves over years and now reap what they so happily sowed.
I seem to recall lots of WD articles about tournaments back in the day. They were called Grand Tournaments. Off of their success GW also had an organized series of more local competitions called 'ard boys or something.
Warhammer (40K and WHFB) has always been a competetive game (the rules specify a winner and a loser unlike say certain freeform roleplaying games).
It's just that the rules are producing a less and less satisfying base for running events in which players compete.
The whole "the game isn't meant to be played competitive" BS is just that. BS apologism. If the rules never mentioned winners and losers and simply gave suggestions on how to recreate battles etc, like certain historical rulesets, then sure. If not every single WD battlereport was framed in a narrative of player A competing against player B then the argument might have legs.
It's akin to if your local sports team has a bad season, getting trashed in the standings and it's manager would say: "Well, this team isn't supposed to be competitive this year. It's just about the spectacle around the game and people enjoying themselves in the stands."
It's a case of a game system failing utterly in providing the baseline framework it's players expect (and were treated to in the past). Then the childish "I didn't succeed so I claim I never wanted to succeed in the first place"-arguments come out of the woodwork with people claiming that it didn't even want to be a competitive ruleset anyway so it didn't really fail.
That's true, if we count Rouge trader as 40K, and I guess maybe we should. That one is more of a RPG setting and sort of a proto-40K, both in term of rules and setting.
I amend my "always" to "for the last 20-30 years or so"
Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.
I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.
News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.
It's a game where two people make armies and play against each other. Whether your playing in a friendly game or a tournament, there's a level of competition with your opponent. After all, you are trying to beat the other person. It's certainly not a cooperative wargame.
Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.
I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.
News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.
It's a game where two people make armies and play against each other. Whether your playing in a friendly game or a tournament, there's a level of competition with your opponent. After all, you are trying to beat the other person. It's certainly not a cooperative wargame.
Strange way of playing. We play to tell a story, not to bludgeon each other.
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
#1: Yes, 40k/Fantasy/AOS has never really been a "competitive" game. However, it has been touted as a wargame (which makes it competitive by virtue of having 2 people playing AGAINST each other, as opposed to a cooperative game like say Warhammer Quest is where you work together). Okay, I get they want a more story driven game. Where, then, are all the supplements and advice for doing it? They put out one absolute garbage book in 6th (Crusade of Fire) that was, like most of their publications then, just designed to show off their own stuff and not give any real advice for running a campaign, even deciding to make it require a Game Master to run instead of being something that you can pick up and run with easily. They pay lip service only to the idea of a "narrative" game because they don't actually do anything to support that type of play, they just say the game is meant for it and then leave everything up to the players without providing any sort of guidelines.
#2: The rules are a mess because they try to do everything. Like Loki, I remember playing in 2nd edition and getting ArmorCast resin stuff that were the Epic-sized things (and the original Falcon Grav-tank!). My brother had the Haruspex and Exocrine for his Tyranids, hell like my first ever game of 40k was against a Space Wolf TFG who fielded the freaking Armorcast Warhound Titan because he had it and it "was official". Those things never belonged in the game, and the problem of all the game's woes is that it tries to smush everything together. A large-scale wargame, 28mm or otherwise, requires abstract rules, not individual models moving and wound allocation. A skirmish game requires freedom of movement and a lot of customization options. A company level game requires something in between the two; enough customization to have specialist squads but not so much that things get bogged down.
40k does none of those things well and tries to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the game, and that's the biggest problem. Flyers and superheavies did not need to get thrown into regular games; they only did because they saw most people didn't want them, and that meant the few who bought them couldn't use them; oh no can't have that, so let's force everyone to accept them.
That's the issue here. The game IS competitive whether you like it or not, regardless of what GW states, because it's Player 1 vs. Player 2. If the game needs a Game Master to arbitrate things like the old RT days, they need to explicitly state that. Instead they are like "here's a bunch of stuff to let you use your cool awesome models, have fun!" and then not providing any real guidelines for using it in the way they are intended, all the while claiming that the game is suited for a specific style.
This is besides the fact that good, balanced, rules do not preclude 'fun' competitive. In fact, the GW rule set makes things less fun as your level of competitiveness has to match your opponent's or it's not a satisfying game for either of you.
If the game was better balanced and had tighter rules, there wouldn't be as much animosity among the player base where there is constant name calling, berating other players and trying to drive them out of the community for playing 'wrong'.
skyth wrote: This is besides the fact that good, balanced, rules do not preclude 'fun' competitive. In fact, the GW rule set makes things less fun as your level of competitiveness has to match your opponent's or it's not a satisfying game for either of you.
If the game was better balanced and had tighter rules, there wouldn't be as much animosity among the player base where there is constant name calling, berating other players and trying to drive them out of the community for playing 'wrong'.
Agreed to this. I do not mean competitive as in tournament; I have not played a tournament basically every other than one very small Warmachine tournament. I mean competitive as in both players trying to play their best and bring forces that reward tactical thought, not just bring the biggest, most OP thing and table your opponent by Turn 2. GW claims their rules are meant for "Narrative" gaming, but don't actually do anything to encourage or empower narrative gaming, and in fact actively work against it because of the gross power imbalance between armies. A fluffy and narrative Ork army is basically underpowered to the point of being useless, while a fluffy Saim-Hann Jetbike army can be overpowering to the extremes. What is narrative about that?
frozenwastes wrote: I seem to recall lots of WD articles about tournaments back in the day. They were called Grand Tournaments. Off of their success GW also had an organized series of more local competitions called 'ard boys or something.
We had one GT in Düsseldorf per year. Those tourneys were fantastic. There were three qualifying tourneys with max. 48 players each. The best 16 of each tourney reached the GT final. Those days are gone. Gone is also the GW headquarter in Germany, located at Düsseldorf. The GT was in the ground floor of the headquarter, with a touch of the HQ in Nottingham.
skyth wrote: This is besides the fact that good, balanced, rules do not preclude 'fun' competitive. In fact, the GW rule set makes things less fun as your level of competitiveness has to match your opponent's or it's not a satisfying game for either of you.
If the game was better balanced and had tighter rules, there wouldn't be as much animosity among the player base where there is constant name calling, berating other players and trying to drive them out of the community for playing 'wrong'.
Indeed. It's maddening that this discussion must be had time and again. No-one benefit from rules being unbalanced and unclear. Least of all someone playing 'for fun' or 'casually'
To paraphrase a familiar quote:
The greatest trick GW ever pulled was convincing it's fanboys that a game must be either balanced or fun.
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
Oh I see. I suppose anyone not playing like that all the time is playing the game in a "Strange way". (The fact that you personally play it like this doesn't change the game mechanics and presentation however.)
If the game "is what you make it. Not what you are told it is", what does it say if a staggeringly vast majority of all 40K games played do use points and do work out which side won. I.e the game de-facto is a competitive experience regardless of how you personally think it should be played?
Might I also ask what miniature games are competitive according to your definition of the term?
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
Oh I see. I suppose anyone not playing like that all the time is playing the game in a "Strange way". (The fact that you personally play it like this doesn't change the game mechanics and presentation however.)
Might I ask what miniature games are competitive according to your definition of the term?
Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.
Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.
I don't think I get what you mean by this?
Everyone is an opponent in the way that in chess, every black chess-piece (and the person controlling them) is an opponent when I'm playing white, and vice versa.
Unless we use the chess pieces to mutually recreate a scenario or something but not playing to win.
Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.
I don't think I get what you mean by this?
Everyone is an opponent in the way that in chess, every black chess-piece (and the person controlling them) is an opponent when I'm playing white, and vice versa
Everyone is an opponent? What a strangely aggro way to look at the game. game
Have you never done something for the pure pleasure of doing it? Or does it have to be a WIN every time? Never GM'd a game of WFB or something?
Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.
I don't think I get what you mean by this?
Everyone is an opponent in the way that in chess, every black chess-piece (and the person controlling them) is an opponent when I'm playing white, and vice versa
Everyone is an opponent? What a strangely aggro way to look at the game. game
??? It's kinda the definition of a game.
Your probably reading in a lot of stuff in the term that's not there. Two people being opponents in a game does not mean they are unpleasant to each other. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they care all that much about if they're winning or not. It means their roles are opposed to one another in that they both have conflicting objectives and they strive to fulfill them.
And if the game specifies that there is a way for one side to win over another, then it's a competitive game.
Hackysack is generally not a competitive game since it's just people trying to collectively get as many hacks as possible.
If you split up in two groups and say whichever group manages the most consecutive hacks wins, then you're suddenly playing a competitive game.
Are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?
AoS does seem slightly (ever so slightly!) more balanced at this point
But yes, anything where you "win" or "lose" is a competitive game. It doesn't preclude having fun. Monopoly, for example, is definitely a competitive game because the entire idea is that you bankrupt the other players to win the game. I would not deny that Monopoly cannot be fun. So why then does 40k, and 40k alone, seem to have this idea that "competitive" automatically means unfun, and worse that "balanced" means that you can't have variety, options or fun? I see way too many players of GW games argue until blue in the face how balancing the game is somehow bad because it would remove some options; sounds like they are just repeating something they heard without giving it any thought; this is why you often see the term "sheep" or "sheeple" thrown around in regards to GW's playerbase, because they argue what is basically nonsense without any legitimate answer why balancing the game would somehow make it less fun to play.
I honestly do not understand, and I'd really like to. How exactly would a game where you don't get fethed over for bringing an underpowered but fluffy army as opposed to a min/maxed unfluffy one, or worse one that can be both fluffy and powerful be less fun than "Oh sorry you play Orks? feth you" or "I want big ass robots so I'll take a ton of Riptides and Wraithknights... why is everyone saying I'm TFG? I just like big robots!"
notprop wrote: So you want competition but not a challenge?
I'm sorry, was this directed at me? Because my point is that 40k provides neither. Any game with a Player 1 and Player 2 on opposing sides is, by its nature, competitive. The issue is that 40k provides neither the proper balance for a truly competitive game, and provides very little in the way of an actual challenge since it's so easy to completely dominate someone just by fielding something you think is cool, if the units that you think is cool are, for whatever reason, better in game than what someone else thinks is cool. Compare someone who thinks Terminators are cool with someone who thinks that Jetbikes are cool. Why is one so crushingly overpowered compared to the other? Why should Bob be punished because he likes Terminators, which are not the right kind of cool whilst Jim is rewarded for liking Jetbikes, which just so happen to be amazingly good.
notprop wrote: Why does the competition have to be equal?
Of course there are other elements in each force and terrain, disposition and iniative to consider as well.
Would it not be a challenge for Bob to take on Jim's Jetbikes all things considered.
Of course if each took only those things to the exclusion of all others, they really wouldn't have a reason to complain.
I don't follow, why wouldn't a competition be as equal as possible? Are you actually arguing that it's a bad thing to have an even playing field (relatively speaking)?
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.
Just because you play it that way doesn't mean 40k is not a competitive game, it means you don't play it in a competitive way.
40k is a game with points, victory conditions a winner and a loser. It is a competitive game.
Points are optional, but it says right there in the rules that points are the typical way choose armies and the rulebook refers several times how you determine a winner.
It is a competitive game which you are choosing not to play competitively. It'd be like saying basketball isn't a competitive game because you and your mates just go down to the court and shoot some hoops without keeping track. Of course basketball is a competitive game, you're just not playing it in a competitive way.
I don't demonize GW, but I have gotten out of the game, more or less. I still have a bunch of older models I will eventually finish up, but there is no urgency to it. I like their paints, tho I am slowly adding Vallejo into the mix.
Why? To be blunt, they priced me out. I saw the direction the game had gone after not playing much for a few years, and decided I could not afford to stay within the same orbit as the meta. Price vs. value (to me) ration was way too low. And it wasn't the game I wanted to play. I wanted troops and few vehicles, not giant robots and superheavies.
So I just stopped buying. I spend probably as much (if not a bit more) on models and gaming, but its spread over five or six different scales, genres and rulesets. For me, thats better. I can play of variety of games that are all fun, rather than just one that had become increasingly more frustrating than fun.
But, lots of people do still enjoy it, and thats fine. And I don't force my opinion on them. If they ask, I'll give them my thoughts, but they are free to spend and play how they like.
But GW gets very little of my hobby money now, and I doubt they can bring me back without a complete overhaul of how 40K plays and the scale its played at.
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.
I got a game for you then:
"In the Balance
On a slight tangent, it`s worth mentioning at this stage that your games don`t have to be balanced - i.e. you don`t have to have to have the same number of points on both sides. This is quite unsual, but allows you yo tweak your games to enact a last stand by a hopelessly outnumbered defender, a suicadal charge of `Light Brigade` proportoins, or simply impose a handicap on a more experienced player."
notprop wrote: Why does the competition have to be equal?
Of course there are other elements in each force and terrain, disposition and iniative to consider as well.
Would it not be a challenge for Bob to take on Jim's Jetbikes all things considered.
Of course if each took only those things to the exclusion of all others, they really wouldn't have a reason to complain.
Perfect balance isn't something you need but having each player have a nearly equal chance to win is important, why would you play a game where you're always at a disadvantage and likely to lose?
If Bob likes orks and Pete likes tau how long before Bob quits because he's always losing to the superior army, who's Pete gonna play when Bob moves to x-wing?
Poor balance kills games by driving away the players.
I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.
How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?
Zywus wrote: If the baseline is balance. How does that hinder people from playing unbalanced battles?
If the baseline is balance, it's incredibly easy to create a scenario where one side is unmatched.
Not so, the other way around.
I'm amazed this has to be said again and again and again....
You and me both. Look back at some of the scenarios in WFB. Just looking at the 6th Ed. rulebook you have scenarios that have matched rules, historical refight suggestions including force compositions which would handicap most forces, and something as severe as The Seven Knights. Balance being a base line makes ALL those scenarios possible. IF you subtract balance, then Pitched Battle will never be a game that gives both armies an equal chance of winning.
No different for things like the missions from the 3rd BRB. The 5 standard FOC missions are based on balanced forces, the rest are around specific force comp. Having no balance makes the first five useless.
So yeah, I can definitely demonize GW for that. That, and the habit of rather than fixing the army books that create the imbalance, they redo the edition with ridiculous rules bloat that creates MORE imbalances.
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.
For someone who says I play a strange way to then go and post this?
I applaud you and your group for making the game what you want it to be, but it's pretty safe to assume if you approached anyone outside your regular group and said 'lets play a game this way' the majority of people would at least look at you cock eyed.
There are arguments that work, but trying to claim that GW prices are reasonable, or that GW rules don't have problems actually end up serving the opposite to the intended purpose.
Yeah, their prices are anything but reasonable. I've recently decided to come back to warhammer. I haven't had any models or played since the early 2000's, maybe 2003-2004. Anyway, they won't be getting any money out of me, their prices are just so ridiculous. I've been buying all my models second hand off Ebay at what I think are prices they should be sold for brand new. I torrented all the codex's and the rule books, I'm not about to pay 40-60 bucks a book. They're out of their minds, and I can't believe how much their paints are now a days either. The cheapest I've found them is 4 dollars for a 12ml bottle.
There are arguments that work, but trying to claim that GW prices are reasonable, or that GW rules don't have problems actually end up serving the opposite to the intended purpose.
Yeah, their prices are anything but reasonable. I've recently decided to come back to warhammer. I haven't had any models or played since the early 2000's, maybe 2003-2004. Anyway, they won't be getting any money out of me, their prices are just so ridiculous. I've been buying all my models second hand off Ebay at what I think are prices they should be sold for brand new. I torrented all the codex's and the rule books, I'm not about to pay 40-60 bucks a book. They're out of their minds, and I can't believe how much their paints are now a days either. The cheapest I've found them is 4 dollars for a 12ml bottle.
This is the only thing I have a grudge with GW. It's really the only place where I have to be mindful on what I spend, it's one of those "Do I really need this or can I look elsewhere for a cheaper price or an alternative?" moments. Even though... I do love the smell of a brand new GW codex or rulebook...
Zywus wrote: Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?
Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.
Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.
We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.
For someone who says I play a strange way to then go and post this?
I applaud you and your group for making the game what you want it to be, but it's pretty safe to assume if you approached anyone outside your regular group and said 'lets play a game this way' the majority of people would at least look at you cock eyed.
We're always getting new people join. Its like a whole new world of gaming and fun is opened up to them.
I think we should change the subject, Fenrir's group has their way of playing and that's fine, but 40k is obviously a competitive game. It can be played non-competitively but it is more definitely meant to be a competitive game. If it's not then the rulebook is deceptively written to suggest it's meant to be.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think we should change the subject, Fenrir's group has their way of playing and that's fine, but 40k is obviously a competitive game. It can be played non-competitively but it is more definitely meant to be a competitive game. If it's not then the rulebook is deceptively written to suggest it's meant to be.
Zywus wrote: So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?
I quite like playing Inquisitor.
I quite like potato.
Spuds are great - you can do anything you want with them and don't have to eat or prepare them the same way every time. Lots of variety from a single object.
Zywus wrote: So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?
I quite like playing Inquisitor.
Ah, i see. You're just trolling.
I kinda suspected it, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh dear, so you don't agree nor like a different view so its "trolling" is it? Fair enough, no bother to me.
I quite like playing Heroes of might and magic III. In some ways its predecessor 'Heroes of might and magic II' has more charm, but the improvement in interface and the increased number of creatures available means I have to give the nod to the third game in the series.
I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.
How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?
If you want a challenge give the other guy more points, equal pointed battles should give both sides an equal chance to win.
I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.
How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?
If you want a challenge give the other guy more points, equal pointed battles should give both sides an equal chance to win.
Precisely the issue with 40k. Two armies of the same points level rarely have equal chances to win.
I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.
How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?
And if the armies were balanced, and Pete wanted a challenge, Bob and Pete could agree to a game where Bob has more points than Pete, giving Pete a handicap - and they would have a good idea of just how mismatched the armies are.
When the armies, and the choices within the armies, aren't balanced - even at a point where they should be - then the game suffers.
And if Bob doesn't know that the Orks are just plain inferior to the Tau, how much fun is he going to have when Pete stomps him into green, minty jelly, over and over again?
I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.
How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?
And if the armies were balanced, and Pete wanted a challenge, Bob and Pete could agree to a game where Bob has more points than Pete, giving Pete a handicap - and they would have a good idea of just how mismatched the armies are.
When the armies, and the choices within the armies, aren't balanced - even at a point where they should be - then the game suffers.
And if Bob doesn't know that the Orks are just plain inferior to the Tau, how much fun is he going to have when Pete stomps him into green, minty jelly, over and over again?
The Auld Grump
Same thing with Brets and Tomb Kings, the astetic of thoses ranges are quite good ( even when TK had spures that where old as 10 years, when they first realesed them ), but both armies where weak and old. No wonder why people didnt purchase them.
At the Round Table of Bretonnia and Warseer we have discussed it that Brets have been left behind due lack of support, not because people didnt wanted to buy those models.
This is one of GWs main problem: they only push they current releases and maybe time to time they tinker with their older stuff.
Zywus wrote: So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?
I quite like playing Inquisitor.
Ah, i see. You're just trolling.
I kinda suspected it, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh dear, so you don't agree nor like a different view so its "trolling" is it? Fair enough, no bother to me.
No, it's trolling when you're quite clearly just stirring the pot to see what sort of reaction you get. If you're not interested in actual discussion, feel free to move on.
I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.
How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?
And if the armies were balanced, and Pete wanted a challenge, Bob and Pete could agree to a game where Bob has more points than Pete, giving Pete a handicap - and they would have a good idea of just how mismatched the armies are.
When the armies, and the choices within the armies, aren't balanced - even at a point where they should be - then the game suffers.
And if Bob doesn't know that the Orks are just plain inferior to the Tau, how much fun is he going to have when Pete stomps him into green, minty jelly, over and over again?
The Auld Grump
Same thing with Brets and Tomb Kings, the aesthetic of thoses ranges are quite good ( even when TK had spures that where old as 10 years, when they first realesed them ), but both armies where weak and old. No wonder why people didnt purchase them.
At the Round Table of Bretonnia and Warseer we have discussed it that Brets have been left behind due lack of support, not because people didnt wanted to buy those models.
This is one of GWs main problem: they only push they current releases and maybe time to time they tinker with their older stuff.
One of the ironies with Kings of War - the Empire of Dust/Not-Tomb Kings army is great! Well rounded, flexible, and fast!
Not unbeatable, by any means, but very, very good.
The Brotherhood/Not-Brettonians are also really good. (One of my players had a Brettonian army that was built around the long ago Lizardman/Brettonian starter box - his army was quite literally fuzzy with dust! They are being played for the first time in over a decade, and now he is glad that he didn't sell them off.
Me I'm thinking of resurrecting my vampire counts army for 9th age (c wat I did thar) £50 let's me get an elite army from mantic which will let me get to 2k combined with my old stuff.
hobojebus wrote: Me I'm thinking of resurrecting my vampire counts army for 9th age (c wat I did thar) £50 let's me get an elite army from mantic which will let me get to 2k combined with my old stuff.
Aye, and the mantic stuff looks just as good (okay, maybe one or two bits are not quite as good) as the GW stuff.
hobojebus wrote: Me I'm thinking of resurrecting my vampire counts army for 9th age (c wat I did thar) £50 let's me get an elite army from mantic which will let me get to 2k combined with my old stuff.
Aye, and the mantic stuff looks just as good (okay, maybe one or two bits are not quite as good) as the GW stuff.
I'd like to say I agree.... but I don't. There aren't many models in the KoW range I'd choose over GW's options for any reason other than price.
Many people make some very good well presented points.
I enjoy the hobby, modelling and painting.
I convert and change models to my liking using third party materials and enjoy doing so.
I don't play the game they produce very often but I do play games with the models produced by third parties such as heralds of ruin and thier version of kill team.
I do play apocalypse as at that points count it doesn't really matter about balance, it's a story.
Zywus wrote: I assume master of ordinance was referring to the undead range rather than Mantic's range overall.
Depends which undead range I think. Tomb Kings had old crappy models anyway so I prefer Mantic, though the Mantic characters and special stuff I don't think stand up to close examination like the newer GW stuff. Vampire Counts overall I still prefer GW. Skeletons I think GW make some really nice models though they cost a fortune. Zombies, I don't really like either to be honest, I don't know what look Mantic were shooting for but to me they look like they're break dancing, GW Zombies I prefer the aesthetic but the proportions are bit whacky.
Zywus wrote: I assume master of ordinance was referring to the undead range rather than Mantic's range overall.
Depends which undead range I think. Tomb Kings had old crappy models anyway so I prefer Mantic, though the Mantic characters and special stuff I don't think stand up to close examination like the newer GW stuff. Vampire Counts overall I still prefer GW. Skeletons I think GW make some really nice models though they cost a fortune. Zombies, I don't really like either to be honest, I don't know what look Mantic were shooting for but to me they look like they're break dancing, GW Zombies I prefer the aesthetic but the proportions are bit whacky.
Yea, it's all subjective of course, although I think you're in a quite small minority to prefer the GW zombies. I truly think Mantic's zombies are among the best kit's they've ever done (and the opposite goes for GW's). The contorted bodies gives them a shambling, twitchy feel.
Disregarding price, I'd give GW the edge in every range outside the Undead where I'd say their quality is similar enough that it's mainly personal preference that tips the scales. If we take price into consideration the result can be different of course. I probably don't give the big GW kit's much points as they don't really matter to me. They're of great technical quality and I kinda like the look of them, but I don't really see a use for them. They're just too big and busy and would be nearly impossible to take with me anywhere.
That's the major problem with their big models you can't take them anywhere without breaking something, and if you can't transport them then they are just shelf ornaments.
And honestly I can get better shelf ornaments for a lot less money if I want to decorate.
But they give GW massive profit margins which is why they push them.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah I wasn't really thinking of GW's big kits, more their characters and special choices seem to stand up better to close scrutiny than Mantic's.
Well for character models you have raging heroes and avatars of war who do great models.
I generally use Reaper miniatures for my character models in Kings of War - the GW characters have become too over the top for my tastes, and habe been since before AoS.
Plus, I now have some rather nice looking dwarf character models coming out pretty soon from their latest Bones Kickstarter -
Not bad for a $10 add on, and the King is also available standing on his feet, rather than sitting on his... throne.
Even at market price, these are going to be a lot less expensive than a similar kit form GW would be - and without the over the top poses.
The Auld Grump - for the record, I generally like Reaper minis ore than either GW or Mantic.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah I wasn't really thinking of GW's big kits, more their characters and special choices seem to stand up better to close scrutiny than Mantic's.
True, I give GW a big edge in characters. (if we disregard the price). At least characters made before the EndTimes/AoS aestetic infected GW.
Special choices I'd say Mantic holds up decently with their Zombie Trolls and Wights who looks really nice although the latter especially is rather limited in the number of poses they have. Werewolves doesn't set the world on fire exactly though. I'd like to see them redone in a non-restic material with some better proportions.
Heroes like the latest Krell and the Wight Lord are truly exquisite. But as pointed out, there are just soo many places to get cool characters these days, and for a comparative pittance.
Where GW should/could have the edge is in good quality infantry/cavalry kits (the kind of stuff people generally want to buy more than ne box of) but they have squandered away much of that potential these last years, making huge centerpiece models, while leaving many basic kits ancient and outdated
The prices for the new genestealer cults are a good example, each box is 40bucks, no matter if it is a 5man or 10mand box.
The "special" with effectively a 5 and 10 man box is 80buck, no discount/savings at all. Few years back they had deals that actually had savings as high as a 45dollar shave off. Now they get you for full price of all the minies, had they done the 15man special for say oh 60-70 that might have shown some savvy on their part.
Zywus wrote: But as pointed out, there are just soo many places to get cool characters these days, and for a comparative pittance.
I mostly agree, though I struggle with getting models from different sources because I struggle to maintain a consistent aesthetic. Sometimes it works out fine, other times not so much. It's usually fine for humans, though even then getting consistent scaling can sometimes be problematic.
shasolenzabi wrote: The prices for the new genestealer cults are a good example, each box is 40bucks, no matter if it is a 5man or 10mand box.
The "special" with effectively a 5 and 10 man box is 80buck, no discount/savings at all. Few years back they had deals that actually had savings as high as a 45dollar shave off. Now they get you for full price of all the minies, had they done the 15man special for say oh 60-70 that might have shown some savvy on their part.
Remember, a sale devalues the quality of the product. It is rather disheartening that they still keep those ridiculous web bundles as a thing
shasolenzabi wrote: The prices for the new genestealer cults are a good example, each box is 40bucks, no matter if it is a 5man or 10mand box.
The "special" with effectively a 5 and 10 man box is 80buck, no discount/savings at all. Few years back they had deals that actually had savings as high as a 45dollar shave off. Now they get you for full price of all the minies, had they done the 15man special for say oh 60-70 that might have shown some savvy on their part.
Remember, a sale devalues the quality of the product. It is rather disheartening that they still keep those ridiculous web bundles as a thing
Ah but the artificially inflated value is also a misnomer. A box of 10soldiers for 40dollars is 4dollars a figure, same price for just 5figures makes it 8bucks a mini. whereas if they held to 4bucks a plastic soldier, the 5man squad would be around 20bucks but they do love milking their artificial importance of the minis/models for the army. Just lowered costs would allow for higher volume sales of the items they sell, and thus make them a lot more money as more people can afford their stuff.
shasolenzabi wrote: The prices for the new genestealer cults are a good example, each box is 40bucks, no matter if it is a 5man or 10mand box.
The "special" with effectively a 5 and 10 man box is 80buck, no discount/savings at all. Few years back they had deals that actually had savings as high as a 45dollar shave off. Now they get you for full price of all the minies, had they done the 15man special for say oh 60-70 that might have shown some savvy on their part.
Remember, a sale devalues the quality of the product. It is rather disheartening that they still keep those ridiculous web bundles as a thing
Except they've been doing it with things like the Getting Started bundles and those little 'games' with two flyers or knights.
They're all over the place with how they do bundles.
years ago...and truthfully not that long ago...GW had an actual adversarial relationship with it's own community.
it thought that local game stores were a threat and that players were less important than painters.
Miniwargaming had an excellent video explaining this and how hard it was to be a store that supported GW...because GW would actually try to to stop them from being successful.
a tangential example of this is the 40KCCG that was out in the early 2000's. It was doing really well and GW feared it was taking away from it's games...so they forced the creators to cancel it and come out with a dumbed down set based on Horus Heresy.
after years of losses they removed a large portion of the leadership that was behind this philosophy and are now on course to be a competitive company again.
this is nothing you've seen before if your main experience is with MTG...they have always supported the community and stores.
I would be curious to see the true numbers of the debacle of Age of Sigmar.. How much Game Workshop lost when
they killed off Warhammer for a half baked idea.. A year after and a few top guys gone later... it seems they want
to fix the wagon they broke.. But looking at the armies, a number of them have been stream lined or completely
gotten rid of. And new armies like Simariates are pushed heavily in hopes to increase sales, instead of when all
armies had their time in the spot light.
Industry reports there is more comic / game shops open right now than there ever has been in the past.. even
more than in the 90's before the comic book crash.. But any shop you walk into will have Magic and comics..
and maybe Games workshop, they could be every shop if they would stop flipping from a company that wants
and needs local stores, to a company that is board line liking of high end purse retailer that only wants "their" shops
to sale "their" product. They either need to close their stores and try to sale in every FLGS like magic the gathering..
or only sale through their retail and hope for the best.. Both ways is not working..
Well, the price for the Goliath Truck is very off-putting. it is no bigger than a Taurox or Chimera, yet they want 115USD for it, that's right, a simple vehicle for One-Hundred-Fifteen dollars!
That and the 40 bucks a squad regardless of 10 or 5 men, is not making me warm up to the line as much as the idea is cool.
I am one who does not have that kind of disposable income for a army so expensive. If I did, I may have bought DKoK stuff.
shasolenzabi wrote: Well, the price for the Goliath Truck is very off-putting. it is no bigger than a Taurox or Chimera, yet they want 115USD for it, that's right, a simple vehicle for One-Hundred-Fifteen dollars!
That and the 40 bucks a squad regardless of 10 or 5 men, is not making me warm up to the line as much as the idea is cool.
I am one who does not have that kind of disposable income for a army so expensive. If I did, I may have bought DKoK stuff.
That Goliath price your using is the one for New Zealand. The US price will be half of that.
shasolenzabi wrote: Well, the price for the Goliath Truck is very off-putting. it is no bigger than a Taurox or Chimera, yet they want 115USD for it, that's right, a simple vehicle for One-Hundred-Fifteen dollars!
That and the 40 bucks a squad regardless of 10 or 5 men, is not making me warm up to the line as much as the idea is cool.
I am one who does not have that kind of disposable income for a army so expensive. If I did, I may have bought DKoK stuff.
That Goliath price your using is the one for New Zealand. The US price will be half of that.
Yeah, I just noticed the flag change, so my bad, still, that 40bucks for either 10men, or 5 does not sit well either for me.
Just goes to show new boss is same as the old boss, there's been some token social media presence and a few army boxes with a minor discount but GW hasn't changed its spots.
hobojebus wrote: Just goes to show new boss is same as the old boss, there's been some token social media presence and a few army boxes with a minor discount but GW hasn't changed its spots.
Its this kind of reaction that really bothers me.
There is no question that Gw had a very rough few years. Killing off games day ( my personal biggest complaint), changing white dwarf, getting rid of battleforces, price increases etc etc culminating in the incedibly botched launch of Aos.
But the sea change in the company is undeniable. Bringing back specialist games, commiting to support of lotr, bringing back (a much improved White dwarf), reingaging with the community, daily Duncan, 7 board games in one year plus a bunch of mini games, open days outside the UK, bowing to community pressure by bringing points to Aos, more than 40 discount bundles so far this year and attempting to reach new audiences with battle for vedros.
I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
Price unfortunately is the biggest hurdle to face and the one that share holders will push back against the most. If people really want pricing to change then avoid the expensive new shinys and buy a bunch of start collecting stuff. If the top 30 bestselling items this year are all start collecting boxes gw will do more like it.
Chikout wrote: I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
It's easy: GW has "improved", but only in very superficial ways. Yeah, adding a social media presence is something, but it's a small thing and just doing the basic stuff that every successful company does in 2016. Meanwhile the hard things are still being ignored. The rules are still garbage, prices are still ridiculously high (and the newest kits are getting worse, not better!), etc. A lot of us want to see GW doing the hard work of making things better and demonstrating that "new GW" is more than some pretty decoration on the same old GW before we start congratulating them and feeling confident that our hobby is in good hands.
Chikout wrote: I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
It's easy: GW has "improved", but only in very superficial ways. Yeah, adding a social media presence is something, but it's a small thing and just doing the basic stuff that every successful company does in 2016. Meanwhile the hard things are still being ignored. The rules are still garbage, prices are still ridiculously high (and the newest kits are getting worse, not better!), etc. A lot of us want to see GW doing the hard work of making things better and demonstrating that "new GW" is more than some pretty decoration on the same old GW before we start congratulating them and feeling confident that our hobby is in good hands.
I understand this attitude, but writing the new regime off after a year is also premature. The generals handbook was almost universally well recieved by those who actually play the game. Silver Tower has been very well reviewed by rockpapershotgun and shutupandsitdown.
James Hewitt has dropped hints on twitter that he has been playtesting something for several months. There is a long way to go, especially with 40k but there is cause for optimism.
Chikout wrote: I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
It's easy: GW has "improved", but only in very superficial ways. Yeah, adding a social media presence is something, but it's a small thing and just doing the basic stuff that every successful company does in 2016. Meanwhile the hard things are still being ignored. The rules are still garbage, prices are still ridiculously high (and the newest kits are getting worse, not better!), etc. A lot of us want to see GW doing the hard work of making things better and demonstrating that "new GW" is more than some pretty decoration on the same old GW before we start congratulating them and feeling confident that our hobby is in good hands.
I think the disconnect might be between people that play exclusively GW games and people that play a mix of games.
Those that are heavily involved with other gaming companies will see GW's 'renaissance' as little more than moving slightly in line with industry standards while still being miles away from most other war gaming companies in terms of communication, price and game rule quality.
Pure GW fans on the other hand - who have been completely ignored by GW for years - will view a simple Facebook page as the best thing since sliced bread.
Chikout wrote: I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
It's easy: GW has "improved", but only in very superficial ways. Yeah, adding a social media presence is something, but it's a small thing and just doing the basic stuff that every successful company does in 2016. Meanwhile the hard things are still being ignored. The rules are still garbage, prices are still ridiculously high (and the newest kits are getting worse, not better!), etc. A lot of us want to see GW doing the hard work of making things better and demonstrating that "new GW" is more than some pretty decoration on the same old GW before we start congratulating them and feeling confident that our hobby is in good hands.
I think the disconnect might be between people that play exclusively GW games and people that play a mix of games.
Those that are heavily involved with other gaming companies will see GW's 'renaissance' as little more than moving slightly in line with industry standards while still being miles away from most other war gaming companies in terms of communication, price and game rule quality.
Pure GW fans on the other hand - who have been completely ignored by GW for years - will view a simple Facebook page as the best thing since sliced bread.
Hit the nail on the head there, people who've never left the walled garden are overjoyed at the tiniest improvement but those of us who left see how insignificant the changes have been.
Well, that and GW have given us consistent reason to lower our expectations of them- and it isn't just about the prices.
Bringing back those old games that were awesome means a lot to folks like me.
I don't yet trust them not to completely screw up the aftermath of the 13th Black Crusade (Slaanesh is probably going to get squatted again, and that sucks).
Chikout wrote: I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
It's easy: GW has "improved", but only in very superficial ways. Yeah, adding a social media presence is something, but it's a small thing and just doing the basic stuff that every successful company does in 2016. Meanwhile the hard things are still being ignored. The rules are still garbage, prices are still ridiculously high (and the newest kits are getting worse, not better!), etc. A lot of us want to see GW doing the hard work of making things better and demonstrating that "new GW" is more than some pretty decoration on the same old GW before we start congratulating them and feeling confident that our hobby is in good hands.
I think the disconnect might be between people that play exclusively GW games and people that play a mix of games.
Those that are heavily involved with other gaming companies will see GW's 'renaissance' as little more than moving slightly in line with industry standards while still being miles away from most other war gaming companies in terms of communication, price and game rule quality.
Pure GW fans on the other hand - who have been completely ignored by GW for years - will view a simple Facebook page as the best thing since sliced bread.
This.
This.
This.
The disconnect mentioned here is so important, I wish the forum could be set to repeat this post at the head of every page in this and similar threads. Outside the GW bubble, the moves "in the right direction" may well be in the right direction, but they aren't enough to make the company and its games appear in the rear view mirror of other wargaming yet. Wargaming has come a long, long way in the last ten or so years, and GW has not. They have so much catching up to do that returning to social media and putting together a few pre-selected discount bundles (that are *still* outrageously overprices by the standards of the rest of the hobby) are admirable baby steps but still fairly laughable compared to the task at hand.
hobojebus wrote: Just goes to show new boss is same as the old boss, there's been some token social media presence and a few army boxes with a minor discount but GW hasn't changed its spots.
Its this kind of reaction that really bothers me.
There is no question that Gw had a very rough few years. Killing off games day ( my personal biggest complaint), changing white dwarf, getting rid of battleforces, price increases etc etc culminating in the incedibly botched launch of Aos.
But the sea change in the company is undeniable. Bringing back specialist games, commiting to support of lotr, bringing back (a much improved White dwarf), reingaging with the community, daily Duncan, 7 board games in one year plus a bunch of mini games, open days outside the UK, bowing to community pressure by bringing points to Aos, more than 40 discount bundles so far this year and attempting to reach new audiences with battle for vedros.
I can't believe that people can look at this and think that the company is not improving.
Price unfortunately is the biggest hurdle to face and the one that share holders will push back against the most. If people really want pricing to change then avoid the expensive new shinys and buy a bunch of start collecting stuff. If the top 30 bestselling items this year are all start collecting boxes gw will do more like it.
Smoke and mirrors my friend, smoke and mirrors. GW gives the illusion of change but in the end, nothing has changed. So they communicate a bit more. Big deal, they are not really communicating, it's just advertising they are doing and people are eating it up. Where is the real communication? How is this making the game better? 40K is still a mess.
While the change is, that it's CHEAPER to get INTO 40K and start, it's still EXPENSIVE as EVER to KEEP PLAYING and CONTINUING with 40K. The rules are still bloated. I still need to read page 41, then go to page 184 and then back to page 75 to see how a rule works. Prices are still increasing. GW still refuses to reduce prices so they are still same old GW.
Oh another change GW has done is not make us feel like we are idiots or talk down to us. They have kept all the talking down about their customers in house now. Mr Roundtree is able to contain those "leeks" and not let out how GW really feels about their customers.
In other words, GW still have a long way of redemption. Yes it's nice to see the illusion of GW changing, but prices are still high outside of get started boxes, rules are still a mess that 40K is and we are still about 10-11 months away from a new edition to see if GW has really changed at all or not.
So while GW might "feel" nicer and different they are still the same GW. That said it is enough to get me back into buying GW products which I haven't really done in the last few years. So here is hoping that when 40K 8th edition does come around it will be a completely different GW and might actually have "worth" in paying those high prices. Right now, there still is not much "worth" in the high prices right now. Until that changes, GW will not have fully turned around.
GW have changed in a practical sense in that they are releasing board games again. My last GW purchase was the 2014 release of Space Hulk, though Space Hulk is basically a 25 year old game. The newer board games might be good but the way GW prices their products in Australia I'm not taking a gamble on what are typically around $200-300AUD board games Those are insane prices for board games, especially when I think back to the 1996 release of Space Hulk which was one of my first purchases, I can't remember the price but it wasn't nearly as bad, I could afford it as an 11 year old kid.
But as far as their core games are concerned, 40k is still a mess and WHFB is still a rotting carcass lying in the gutter... so... yeah.
Yeah I played 7th ed a few times, it's... so-so, I am not a huge fan.
AoS is just weird and I don't even know what to do with it.
I've not seen any specialist games come out, so until then I will occupy myself with wild west games.
At this point I am in it more for painting, especially with my (very slow growing) sisters army.
Something else I don't like in the new Genestealer Cult codex the requirements for a base army is outrageous.. They REQUIRE 3-4 unit types and multiples of each those units for just the base army before you can select other units for your army.
That is a total of 8 non choices or 8 box sets a new player would have to buy just to start an army before adding the models he really does want.
I don't remember how long this goes back, but remember the Harlequin codex required 3 core units, a heavy and 2 fast attacks before making any other choices... That is 6 non choices box sets in a very small army;
So to build an army from the new codex we need you to buy multiples of all the new plastic models we just released because that is how the rules are wrote..
Marines use to be a Command choice with having a large number to choose from and two troop types again with a number of units to pick from ..(a total of 3 Box sets)
Now codexs list major unit requirements forcing you to buy a ton of new models before picking anything else or trying to use older models
Half the stuff you may not want to field or purchase in the first place...
Genoside07 wrote: Marines use to be a Command choice with having a large number to choose from and two troop types again with a number of units to pick from ..(a total of 3 Box sets)
Guard used to require 5-7. 5 when they had platoon boxes of 20, and 7 before and after that when you bought them squad by squad.
Genoside07 wrote: Something else I don't like in the new Genestealer Cult codex the requirements for a base army is outrageous.. They REQUIRE 3-4 unit types and multiples of each those units for just the base army before you can select other units for your army.
That is a total of 8 non choices or 8 box sets a new player would have to buy just to start an army before adding the models he really does want.
Well that's not true.
You can take a Combined Arms Detachment like almost every other faction in the game, and then you only need 11 mandatory models.
GW really is haunted by their past practices as stark contrast to their present behavior.
They had their own forums where all things GW were there, organized with articles.
Now in this day and age of social networking, they still have an internet presence that is a shadow of what it once was.
They literally were ahead of the curve in engagement with their customer base that other industry would have killed for.
This is where they come across as "nothing is free", there were many awesome articles that are gone (maybe look in "time machine").
Back when Apocalypse was released, those formations were sold with an actual deal.
They literally were good enough I HAD to buy them because I knew I wanted that many anyway and it would be more expensive otherwise.
These "one-click" purchases are... strange, bordering on insulting... no deal (in some cases more expensive!) like somehow bundling them together is a huge service because clicking on all those models is such a chore... please.
We joked that White Dwarf was one big advertisement, but many years back it had actual customer/hobbyist letters, articles and armies in it that gave a feeling of being part of a culture and engaged. Visions and weekly WD was the first time in a decade I did not buy any WDs, it literally seemed to have nothing of note in them. Maybe I am overly critical, but I collected some 12 years (every single month) of WD until this change. Bought the first two months (just to be sure) deemed it a waste of money and moved on. I am happy to see it come back to something that gives a little more to the hobbyist: it does not have to be the same to me, change is ok.
Sponsored competitions forced us to improve our game and required the "fully" painted miniatures. I remember feeling grateful to get to play great games on great boards with each of us complimenting the other's hard work in making it all look awesome. I hope they get back to this. Pulling out on this still seems is like not taking ownership of the game. They are able to ignore the hard questions on how to make the game competitive (which it cannot easily be at this time).
Demonize GW? They are like a girlfriend that wont even give you a kiss but loves you taking them out for a dinner and a movie.
GW prices have never bothered me, not when I was 15 and not now that I'm well into my thirties. If it's worth it, I'll buy it, simple as that. I'd rather have a game with 1 army that I absolutely love than a game with 3 that doesn't really do it for me.
For myself, it's because their actual games suck real hard right now. Really, really hard. It's not worth buying their minis and books for their games, because I no,longer have any desire to play them.
As much as I enjoy the painting and modeling side of things, it's not the only reason I'm into this hobby, and certainly not worth GW prices just for that.
I didn't realize how crap their games are until I branched out when WFB died. Now I'm playing x wing, battlelore, armada, descent, Kings of war, all kinds of cool board games, really looking forward to some new products coming soon.... Reminded me why I love the hobby and gaming again, after burning out on GW after so many years.
TLDR: their games have a long, long way to go to be excellent and worth my time in the future.
I've always seen the prices as a tangential problem. In and of itself it's not a problem until you take in to account the other stuff.
Though sometimes price can be the core problem as well, like Mek Gunz that cost more dollars than they are worth points. But there's always been stuff like that, when I started around 20 years ago I started with Lizardmen and Temple Guard felt insanely expensive. However it's probably more common now.
I think the general problem with the pricing is that army size has grown so it seems like you're spending more compared to what you used to at least it feels that way to me. For example in other games the prices are relatively similar but what you buy tends to take up a large chunk of your force so it doesn't feel like you're just buying two or three or more boxes of the same thing because it's so cheap in points. If the game scale was smaller like it used to be many years ago I don't think they would be that many complaints about the prices
It's not that I can't afford the prices it's that I don't feel like I'm getting enough for that price.
£500 for an army I use a couple of times a month or the same price for a console or pc I'll use every day, Its a no brainer.
They could match mantic easily for prices they are set up for mass production, in fact they could have lower prices and still make a healthy profit buy selling in bulk.
GW does not make artwork they make miniatures for a game they need to get over themselves they are no longer the only game in town, no longer the most respected, certainly no longer the best.
GW prices have never bothered me, not when I was 15 and not now that I'm well into my thirties. If it's worth it, I'll buy it, simple as that. I'd rather have a game with 1 army that I absolutely love than a game with 3 that doesn't really do it for me.
For myself, it's because their actual games suck real hard right now. Really, really hard. It's not worth buying their minis and books for their games, because I no,longer have any desire to play them.
As much as I enjoy the painting and modeling side of things, it's not the only reason I'm into this hobby, and certainly not worth GW prices just for that.
I didn't realize how crap their games are until I branched out when WFB died. Now I'm playing x wing, battlelore, armada, descent, Kings of war, all kinds of cool board games, really looking forward to some new products coming soon.... Reminded me why I love the hobby and gaming again, after burning out on GW after so many years.
TLDR: their games have a long, long way to go to be excellent and worth my time in the future.
That's the scenario for me too.
I have never really had a problem with GW's prices in themselves. If somethings' too expensive I'd manage without or find a alternative. As far as I'm concerned they can charge a million per model if they want. In a luxury goods market like this, especially where the entry barrier isn't particularly difficult to overcome, demanding too high prices takes care of itself eventually since GW can only charge whatever people are willing to pay.
Every seller of items wants to sell their stuff for a infinitely high price and every customer wants it for free. A compromise is reached.
What pisses me off about GW is when they've done things that benefit no-one. Disrespecting their own legacy and customers, making things worse for no benefit to themselves. If they charge a high price for their models, that at least benefits themselves (assuming people still buy). Doing stupid gak like constantly churning out unbalanced crap rules benefits no-one. Not them and not their customers. I can respect trying to make the most money possible. I cannot however respect stupidity and arrogance, causing the company to make less money and giving their customers less value for their money.
For me, it's that I could afford it, but it's like just bloat. You typically need at least 2-3 of the same exact box (and the assumption is more to get all the special weapons you want since they almost never come with all the available options) and it gets very exponential.
I don't even think they could make prices lower, what I think they should do is scale back the game, so you don't need to buy like 6 boxes of guys, plus a few tanks, plus a few clampack characters.
Like, a good comparison for me is how Warmachine is priced, the prices are roughly the same (give or take in some regards) but one box of troops is like 1/3 of your force, you're rarely buying 2+ of the same box outside of certain skew lists, and the most individual models you tend to see is about 30ish (so roughly 3 squads). 40k needs to go back to approximately that size. Let a normal battle be like 3 or so squads, maybe a tank or two and some extras. They also need to package things better; it's stupid to sell 5 guys for $40 for army A when Army B gets 10 guys for $45 and Army C gets 10 guys for $50 but really wants 20 guys in a squad. You should never have to buy TWO boxes to make ONE squad of guys; non-Terminator sized things should always be in boxes of 10.
Their prices need to be consistent instead of seemingly at random with increases every time something new comes out. They also need to stop screwing people on special/heavy weapons by not including all the options in the box, in the amount needed. It is beyond stupid to expect people to buy like two tactical boxes just so you can get two of a specific special weapon, because each box only comes with one.
The sprues cost pennies to produce the cardboard packaging is more expensive, they could easily drop prices.
Thing is that impacts profits which impacts share price so they won't.
Price increases are to compensate for an ever shrinking consumer base.
But they'll never grow the way things are, so it's self defeating to constantly raise prices.
Dropping prices would get customers back which in turn would increase sales volume meaning your profits would then recover after a year or two of short term pain.
But whoever instigated such a strategy is likely to get it in the neck even if it works.
There's only one way to save GW and it's far from painless or guaranteed.
The sprues cost pennies to produce the cardboard packaging is more expensive, they could easily drop prices.
No, they couldn't.
The physical cost of the kits is in the pennies, correct. But the development cost isn't.
Their cost of sales is ~25%, but their net profit is around 8% (excluding royalties.) So there's a huge, non product related, expense they're obligated to meet, that amounts to around 2/3 of their income as well.
Most of this is the cost of running retail, plus the salaries of non-creative and production staff (lawyers, accountants, personnel managers, probably WD writers etc, etc.)
So no, they couldn't "easily" drop prices. If they dropped prices it would either be a gamble that the lower price generated sufficient extra volume of sales to offset the reduction, or they'd have to cut overhead, which would likely mean job losses and store closures.
Personally, I think the retail chain is a liability, but the reality of the situation is that a price drop would be anything but easy. Arguably necessary, but not easy.
For me, pricing is the biggest issue. The game adds no value to me. The fluff adds value, but then they went and ruined it. The number of bits and accessories ameliorates the issue somewhat--5 terminators with three DW sprues for $50 is a much more tempting deal than five terminators alone--but at the end of the day, GW is asking for an awful lot of money per pair of space marine legs and torso back. Without some fantastic game rules and fluff, there is no buffer between the price on the box and the number of minis in it, and that is a ratio that hurts to think about.
dosiere wrote:I might be in the minority here, but...
GW prices have never bothered me,
In a lot of cases I don't think it's the high cost people are complaining about, but worth. When prices were lower, it was worth it, but with higher prices and lower quality, it's not worth it anymore. It's like saying buying a case of pop. Say 12 cans for 5 bucks. A bit pricy but still worth it because buying each separately would be 12 bucks. But now GW increase the price to 10 bucks or even 12 bucks a case. Not so worth it anymore.
Azreal13 wrote:
The sprues cost pennies to produce the cardboard packaging is more expensive, they could easily drop prices.
No, they couldn't.
The physical cost of the kits is in the pennies, correct. But the development cost isn't.
I call BS on that. If development costs are a factor how come GW made a lot of limited quantities of minis for about a 1000? GW can't use the excuse of "the cost of mods" and "development" because GW just made so much limited production runs it's not a factor. Also it's called "the cost of doing business".
Sorry you are just wrong here. If GW made a car and then added in "development costs" then what GM/Ford/Toyota/Chrysler would sell for $18 000 GW would sell the same are for $40 000 (no pun intended at all). It's the cost of doing business to do these "development costs" and then you should be passing down the cost to the customer when stuff can be done cheaper and faster, but GW just keep upping the cost no matter what.
Again, just to repeat myself, for "development costs" GW does a lot of limited runs in the last few years. I guess molds don't cost as much as GW was crying about in the past.
The molds, design, production tools, office space, contracting, etc did not; they cost a very large amount of money. In order for a product to be profitable, it has to pay for all the costs associated with its production, not just the final piece.
Development costs are a thing, and do up the sprue cost - but GW has shown with its "Start Collecting" boxes that they could cut the costs of existing kits by at least 10-15%, before retailers add their own discount.
I call BS on that. If development costs are a factor how come GW made a lot of limited quantities of minis for about a 1000? GW can't use the excuse of "the cost of mods" and "development" because GW just made so much limited production runs it's not a factor. Also it's called "the cost of doing business".
Yes, they can use that excuse. It's the profits on their high-volume kits that allow those limited releases to even exist. This is how business works.
Stormonu wrote: Development costs are a thing, and do up the sprue cost - but GW has shown with its "Start Collecting" boxes that they could cut the costs of existing kits by at least 10-15%, before retailers add their own discount.
^^THIS^^
Considering Waylands sells the start collecting boxes for 40 pounds, and both GW and Wayland are making money out of it, they could easily lower prices even more.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: GW have stated their production costs relative to sale price before, I can't look it up right now but I think it was in the realm of one fifth?
When you get a source for that, you let us know. Otherwise, what you said is meaningless.
Stormonu wrote: Development costs are a thing, and do up the sprue cost - but GW has shown with its "Start Collecting" boxes that they could cut the costs of existing kits by at least 10-15%, before retailers add their own discount.
The Start Collecting boxes are an interesting thing. In the majority, perhaps even the entirety, of cases, the constituent parts have been on sale for a while, and taking each kit in isolation, has probably recouped its initial set up and design costs.
This is where the mean average of 25% on cost of sales isn't a great barometer, because something like a Rhino has probably covered its initial costs many times over. As a consequence, the return to GW selling a Rhino today is much, much higher than, say, that new Deathwatch flyer.
The SC fulfil two criteria, they represent an element of product extension strategy (something manufacturers do to revive sales of lines that are past the first flush of sales) and a "loss leader." While I'm sure they aren't sold at a loss, they certainly serve the same purpose.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: GW have stated their production costs relative to sale price before, I can't look it up right now but I think it was in the realm of one fifth?
When you get a source for that, you let us know. Otherwise, what you said is meaningless.
See the question mark at the end? It was a question, I was asking if it was about one fifth, I can't look it up right now, either look it up yourself or wait until tomorrow when I can.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: GW have stated their production costs relative to sale price before, I can't look it up right now but I think it was in the realm of one fifth?
When you get a source for that, you let us know. Otherwise, what you said is meaningless.
How about the annual sales report, and every sales report they've printed in years?
The only distinction is around 2012/13 they started including design costs, whereas before that point they were reported separately. ASS is right though, they've been around 20-25% of revenue for most of the time I've been paying attention.
Stormonu wrote: Development costs are a thing, and do up the sprue cost - but GW has shown with its "Start Collecting" boxes that they could cut the costs of existing kits by at least 10-15%, before retailers add their own discount.
The Start Collecting boxes are an interesting thing. In the majority, perhaps even the entirety, of cases, the constituent parts have been on sale for a while, and taking each kit in isolation, has probably recouped its initial set up and design costs.
This is where the mean average of 25% on cost of sales isn't a great barometer, because something like a Rhino has probably covered its initial costs many times over. As a consequence, the return to GW selling a Rhino today is much, much higher than, say, that new Deathwatch flyer.
The SC fulfil two criteria, they represent an element of product extension strategy (something manufacturers do to revive sales of lines that are past the first flush of sales) and a "loss leader." While I'm sure they aren't sold at a loss, they certainly serve the same purpose.
The significance of the plastic costing pennies means that it's more important for them to sell a large amount of money's worth rather than trying to get a high rate on each sprue.
In other words, they're likely better off selling an army of 200 miniatures for $600 to a customer than selling an army of 50 miniatures for $200, the former may mean they're selling for 25% less per model, but the extra models don't actually cost them much to produce so they'd rather sell larger batches.
Selling bigger lots does come with increased storage and shipping costs, but I'm going to take a guess and say that's small compared to what they pay employees.
Of course GW's tactic seems to be still sell 200 models, just sell them for $1000 instead. But the result of that is more people leave the game completely and they end up making nothing off some people they could be making money off and they become ever more reliant on selling to whales.
Also I think the cost of GW making a sprue has gone down a lot compared to old estimates now they have all their tooling in house and probably a more refined development process, otherwise I don't think they would have dropped metal and resin for low-volume models.
Most of their core product's molds have many times over recouped any R&D costs. The economy of scale should mean that these products cost less to produce due to amortization.
There is no reason at all why we can't see GW products next to Revell, Testors, and Lindburgh in large chain hobby stores (Michaels, A.C. Moore, Hobby Lobby, Pat Catan's, etc.)
Oh wait isn't that what Battle for Vedros was supposed to be, and there are what like three places actually selling it and they're all in Tennessee!
GW used a third party for distribution on those, someone dropped the ball. GW needs to go back to what works and get on the blower and start tootin'.
hobojebus wrote: Yes dev costs apply to new kits but for a lot of kits that's long since paid off.
I'm talking about kits that have been around years now.
The sw kits from 2009 for example have had their dev costs paid off but they are still £25.
Video games cost millions to develop but they decrease in price over time, there's no reason the same couldn't happen with miniatures.
This, and mold making isn't as expensive as it used to be and adding 3D printing for prototyping also cuts down the costs, overhead for profits and infrastructure is where the GW's costs are.
That a bigger company like Bandai can make Fully articulate kits for less than 20 dollars is proof to that GW artificially jacks up the prices (and that other companies who make similar
miniatures who outsource their production are still able to undercut GW's prices).
I actually don't think GW jacks up the prices (in the UK and US at least.)
Their net profit/revenue/cost of sales relationship illustrates exactly how much they're spending on stuff outside of making and designing new product.
They charge what they charge because they've been poorly managed and their business model is overly reliant on a high overhead retail chain which barely breaks even.
They charge what they charge because it is easier to keep on keeping on with the same pricing structure than risk the company on something more radical. Even if they could close the stores tomorrow and even if not a single sale a GW store generated transferred to a third party channel, it would be essentially a zero sum game.
Bandai do what they do best, which is design and make kits, they don't try and run a chain of shops to sell their stuff in and consequently don't have that overhead to meet. As well as selling vastly more volume and having a much lower margin per unit requirement to make money.
As the customer, that's not my problem. Their prices are my problem. I've cut back my GW spending dramatically since way back when they started the yearly price hikes, and if GW wants my custom they can sell me items at reasonable prices again.
xraytango wrote:Most of their core product's molds have many times over recouped any R&D costs. The economy of scale should mean that these products cost less to produce due to amortization. There is no reason at all why we can't see GW products next to Revell, Testors, and Lindburgh in large chain hobby stores (Michaels, A.C. Moore, Hobby Lobby, Pat Catan's, etc.)
Oh wait isn't that what Battle for Vedros was supposed to be, and there are what like three places actually selling it and they're all in Tennessee!
GW used a third party for distribution on those, someone dropped the ball. GW needs to go back to what works and get on the blower and start tootin'.
They actually used third party sales people, but maintained tight control of the distribution. With the same silly rules banning online sales and discounting/clearance sales. The problem with using independent toy sales people like they did is that Vedros was just one product among many a given sales person is trying to get into a region's department, hobby and hardware stores and the like. And given the relatively low ticket of a vedros retail display, I imagine the commissions for these sales people just were not worth the effort compared to just concentrating on selling water guns and balls in the summer. When you're doing business to business sales, you don't go after $50 in commission for convincing them to order a Vedros retail end cap stand, you go for the $500 you'll make stocking an entire shelf with seasonal items. I bet most sales people took a pamphlet or something with them to their already established contacts and said "I can also get this warhammer vedros thing for you if you want." And that's as far as the effort went. It's just not worth it in terms of commission.
If they wanted Vedros to actually succeed, they needed to let other distribution channels really do the work for them. Store owners for things like hobby and hardware stores don't want to increase their vendors, they often try to streamline and cut vendors and go for those who can support multiple product lines and give a volume discount. if in a given month I send 10 $1000 orders to ten different vendors, I have no bargaining clout. But if I send two orders of $6000 and $4000, I can make something happen.
The next thing they needed to do was mass marketing. Youtube ads. Perhaps one of those DeAgonstini magazine runs. Maybe ads in comic books or something. I'm not sure where you best target ads for 10-17 year old boys, but that's where you go with your marketing. Then the customers go and ask the local stores if they have it and then stores find out their distributors already carry it and no problem, a sale is made and stock starts being put on the shelf.
Exactly how GW built their US and Canada based business back in the 90s.
Azreal13 wrote: I actually don't think GW jacks up the prices (in the UK and US at least.)
Their net profit/revenue/cost of sales relationship illustrates exactly how much they're spending on stuff outside of making and designing new product.
They charge what they charge because they've been poorly managed and their business model is overly reliant on a high overhead retail chain which barely breaks even.
They charge what they charge because it is easier to keep on keeping on with the same pricing structure than risk the company on something more radical. Even if they could close the stores tomorrow and even if not a single sale a GW store generated transferred to a third party channel, it would be essentially a zero sum game.
Bandai do what they do best, which is design and make kits, they don't try and run a chain of shops to sell their stuff in and consequently don't have that overhead to meet. As well as selling vastly more volume and having a much lower margin per unit requirement to make money.
That's the issue though every price hike drives more away and those customers are not being replaced, continuing this course sees them dead as a company.
They are bleeding out and a band aid isn't going to cut it.
Can you describe how you see GW bleeding out? Their latest press release indicates anything but.
You also note one thing that I definitely do not agree with; GW not generating new customers? There is no metric for this and the continued existence (expansion?) of GW stores would indicate that they continue to do what they do best and that is generate more GW customers. It's their primary function after all.
notprop wrote: Can you describe how you see GW bleeding out? Their latest press release indicates anything but.
You also note one thing that I definitely do not agree with; GW not generating new customers? There is no metric for this and the continued existence (expansion?) of GW stores would indicate that they continue to do what they do best and that is generate more GW customers. It's their primary function after all.
Having the same revenue with increasing prices usually means you move less stuff.
notprop wrote: Can you describe how you see GW bleeding out? Their latest press release indicates anything but.
You also note one thing that I definitely do not agree with; GW not generating new customers? There is no metric for this and the continued existence (expansion?) of GW stores would indicate that they continue to do what they do best and that is generate more GW customers. It's their primary function after all.
Have you been reading the annual stock holder reports for the last few years? I am not being snide or sarcastic. Please go and read them it will open up your eyes once you read between the lines and ignore all the 'stockholder language.' Usually Weeble and Reinholdt have some very good insights and comments on them.
Indeed I have. And there is nothing those reports that would indicate a failing company. Their capital held and ability to generate more makes GW demonstrably buoyant.
Can you tell me between which two lines I should be reading?
@notprop.
If GW had actually continued to open 'recruitment' stores' in high foot fall areas, with multiple staff and actual ability to run multiple game systems, tournaments, campaigns and painting events like they used to do.Then I would say the argument they are opening new stores to recruit new customers might be valid
But to just replace 'recruitment center stores' with 'poky one man stores in out of the way low rent areas'.Is doing very little to recruit new customer in real terms.
Compared to the effect sensible pricing and quality rules has on every other company in the same market.
Having to raise prices to cover stagnant or falling sales volumes , is the first part of a cycle of corrective action.
After the L.oT.R. bubble burst, Tom Kirby actually admitted that the GW corporate management had become '..fat and lazy on the back of easy success...'
So a couple of years increasing retail prices and cutting costs while the company Chairman/C.E.O did what was necessary to engage with their customer base in a more effective way, would be expected.
Serious market research to determine who actually makes up GWs actual customer base, and potential customer base for example.
But as Tom Kirby believes GW's core customers are '..socially inept , immature and easily manipulated into buying any GW product..'
After admitting the GW coprorate management was 'fat and lazy,' he just raised prices and cut costs,(to the detriment of promoting sales,) for another EIGHT YEARS.
Because the 'GW apologists' drowned out any genuine critic of GW business practices.Often any critique of GW backed up by logic and facts would be attacked GW apologists by slinging insults to lock the thread.
This simply lead to people just walking away from GW product and GW centric forums.
Thankfully , it seems even the most senior managers at GW realized that Kirby direction for GW was completely for his own personal gain, at the detriment to the long term future of GW.
Just a comparison..
If GW had kept the sales volumes it had at the height of the LoTR boom, adjusting for inflation, they would have a turn over in excess of £280M.
If GW had kept the sales volumes they had before the start of the LoTR boom, adjusting for inflation, they would have a turn over in excess of £160M.
If you add in the price rises over the rate of inflation for those periods, the figures grow to £350M and £230M.
So how do you equate a 50% to 70% drop in sales volumes, with new B&M stores recruiting enough players?
notprop wrote: Indeed I have. And there is nothing those reports that would indicate a failing company. Their capital held and ability to generate more makes GW demonstrably buoyant.
Can you tell me between which two lines I should be reading?
Sales are dropping every year, profits are down, they've cut staff to a minimum and frozen their pay what does that tell you?
Even dropping their former grip on their IP and licencing it to anyone that could pay still saw year on year performance drop even with the most intense release schedule they've ever had.
All the stops have been pulled and they continue to shrink in a sector experiencing a boom.
The warning sign on the GW model is when the retail chain starts to shrink markedly.
Profits have remained stable and unit sales have dropped over previous years this is true. Indications are that NuGW (go on use it you know you want to) may be reversing this trend. Certainly their effort would deserve to be reflected in the figures by now.
But none of this is "bleeding out". An old wound stymied or healed might be better.
Re the IP licence, these are more tricky to comment on as it is entirely within GWs power on how this is reported. There could be a few dozen licences paying in and they could hold all that revenue back for later years in the licence or used to pay accruals in previous years taken against expected revenues. GW have indicated at least two ways of reporting these revenues in the past 5-6 years so this is definitely something that can not be anything but guessed at.
The warning sign on the GW model is when the retail chain starts to shrink markedly.
It has, in terms of resources at least, shrunk markedly.
By that I mean, there are still roughly the same number of physical stores, but they've gone from an average of about 3 staff, to 1. They've moved from high-rent-high-footfall areas to low-rent-low-footfall destination stores. They've generally had a significant reduction in floor space too.
They've been cutting costs to the bone, and increasing prices, and revenue isn't going up. So they can only be selling less, which in a social game that relies on a critical mass* is a bad thing.
They aren't going anywhere soon, things like WHQ and Blood Bowl will take care of that, but they are definitely not improving.
They are in a managed decline. They are still bleeding out, it's just they've managed to stem it to a trickle. They've got a few years left.
*Lots of people start, and stick with, GW systems because they were ubiquitous; you could take 40K/WHFB into any game store with open gaming and get a game. Everyone had at least 1 army, because everyone else had at least 1 army. Now in a lot of places it's easier to get a game of something else, so there's no incentive to even start with GW.
Re. WHQ and BB - they are massive sellers to the nostalgia market, and will bring in a lot of money from ex gamers. But there's only so often you can re-release old repackaged games and have them still sell (like the Space Hulk re-re-run). Their new games don't seem to do well at all except as a method of selling figures a bit cheaper.
So whilst the specialist games are currently keeping GW afloat, that stream is going to run out eventually, and things won't be so rosy.
Re. the bleed out - I reckon they'll comfortably trundle along getting gradually worse for another 5-10 years and then sales will just fall off a cliff as they lose critical mass (or more importantly, someone else gains that critical mass. My money is on Warlord, at this stage). They'll never disappear, but they'll probably shed their retail chain and consolidate down to a single site in Nottingham and go back to the distributor model everyone else uses. They'll presumably remain big enough to keep Warhammer World, but they'll potentially lose the other design building(s) around it.
"Few" generally gives the impression of 3 or 4 rather than 5-10. I think that's probably what he was reacting to. I even think 5-10 is unlikely.
With pretty much no debt and a reasonable amount of cash on hands, there is simply no way they're gone in a few years. They can likely operate at a loss for nearly a decade while they try to correct the core issues. Even then, there's no sign of them making a loss in this reporting period and likely not the next either.
Their main costs are also in GBP so they now get extra revenue coming in thanks to the reduced pound. At the same time, they've been focusing their new store openings in the US, so they're positioned well to take advantage of the currency fluctuations.
Their operating costs are very high. A steady decline they can handle, but a sudden, sharp, dip a la a few years ago could pose them real issues. (Which is why I firmly believe 8th 40K will be the most crucial release in their history.)
They'd be in a position to borrow in the short-medium term, but it would really set the clock ticking on reversing the trend.
That said, unless 8th really sucks, I don't think it'll happen. Rountree hasn't done anything revolutionary, just implemented many of the long list of normal business practices that they inexplicably failed to adopt under Kirby, but it's probably enough to steady the ship. If 8th is actually any good, I'd expect a fairly strong return to growth, at least for a year or two.
There's no way to call that unless you are in a position to extract the demands of the accountants to sustain releases from what the studio may have done had they been given license.
I'd point to the fairly competent shepherding of the 30K element to suggest that there's at least a handful of decent designers still in the building.
Azreal13 wrote: There's no way to call that unless you are in a position to extract the demands of the accountants to sustain releases from what the studio may have done had they been given license.
I'd point to the fairly competent shepherding of the 30K element to suggest that there's at least a handful of decent designers still in the building.
At forge world sure but they are a separate entity if forge world devs were doing 8th I'd have more confidence, but it's not they'll be working on specialist games while GWdevs do 8th.
Same company but different teams, it's why forge world stuff wasn't allowed in regular games for so long.
They've taken on a lot of extra designers to cover specialist games alongside the FW team.
Besides, they're in the same building, if you think they're somehow in a bunker isolated from everyone else, you're misguided.
It's a different mindset, more "it's ready when it's ready" and it is that, more than any significant difference in talent, that allows FW to do what it does.
I'm not touching the whole "FW in regular games" thing, otherwise the whole topic will spiral off at a tangent.
Azreal13 wrote: They've taken on a lot of extra designers to cover specialist games alongside the FW team.
Besides, they're in the same building, if you think they're somehow in a bunker isolated from everyone else, you're misguided.
It's a different mindset, more "it's ready when it's ready" and it is that, more than any significant difference in talent, that allows FW to do what it does.
I'm not touching the whole "FW in regular games" thing, otherwise the whole topic will spiral off at a tangent.
I sit in the same building as many different departments, but don't touch their projects.
GW design studio has none of the decent talent left. They all left and started putting out competing games.
IMO, it all went very wrong when the self perpetuating hubris of Tom Kirby became the business directive of GW plc.
Tom Kirby could not be bothered to explain/or understand , the importance of game development in the GW business to the share holders.
And so the '..we sell toy soldier to children..' replaced the '..games by gamer for gamers..' ethos at GW towers.
The very low opinion Tom Kirby has of GW customers,and GW staff (as detailed in the 'little red book' handed out to senior managers.)
Has lead to GW plc treating customers and staff with ignorance at best, and down right contempt at worst.
There is still game development talent at GW towers, its just the sales department has far too much influence in the release schedule, and the quality of the released products.
Hopefully if the lunacy of Tom Kirby has been dealt with once and for all.GW plc might be able to start changing direction to fully engage with customers and staff in more positive and productive ways again.
frozenwastes wrote: "Few" generally gives the impression of 3 or 4 rather than 5-10. I think that's probably what he was reacting to. I even think 5-10 is unlikely.
Yeah, I guess, I just meant "more than a couple". That said, I'm sure they'll still be a thing, just not the behemoth they are today.
With pretty much no debt and a reasonable amount of cash on hands, there is simply no way they're gone in a few years. They can likely operate at a loss for nearly a decade while they try to correct the core issues. Even then, there's no sign of them making a loss in this reporting period and likely not the next either.
The gap between black and red in GW's financials isn't huge in percentage terms, so if they continue shrinking at this rate without cutting their costs as fast, they'll start to encounter issues in a couple of years.
Their main costs are also in GBP so they now get extra revenue coming in thanks to the reduced pound.
Yeah, their UK staff wages and development stuff is all in GBP, but their raw materials (plastic, resin, pewter) and outsourced stuff (printing, bases, boxes) are all EU/China, so will go up.
At the same time, they've been focusing their new store openings in the US, so they're positioned well to take advantage of the currency fluctuations.
Last years burst of store openings lost them £100k, and as I said, the stores opening tend to all be 1-man stores* in the back of nowhere, bringing in minimal revenue.
*That reminds me; my biggest annoyance with them at the moment is their store opening times. I've gone past 2 of their stores about 4 times now for a browse and some paints, and every single time they've been closed. Either because they don't open until remarkably late (11am) or the single staffer has gone out to lunch (at 2pm on a Sunday - what I'd regard as absolute peak time).
Azreal13 wrote: They've taken on a lot of extra designers to cover specialist games alongside the FW team.
Besides, they're in the same building, if you think they're somehow in a bunker isolated from everyone else, you're misguided.
It's a different mindset, more "it's ready when it's ready" and it is that, more than any significant difference in talent, that allows FW to do what it does.
I'm not touching the whole "FW in regular games" thing, otherwise the whole topic will spiral off at a tangent.
I sit in the same building as many different departments, but don't touch their projects.
Congratulations?
GW design studio has none of the decent talent left. They all left and started putting out competing games.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Azreal13 wrote: They've taken on a lot of extra designers to cover specialist games alongside the FW team.
Besides, they're in the same building, if you think they're somehow in a bunker isolated from everyone else, you're misguided.
It's a different mindset, more "it's ready when it's ready" and it is that, more than any significant difference in talent, that allows FW to do what it does.
I'm not touching the whole "FW in regular games" thing, otherwise the whole topic will spiral off at a tangent.
I sit in the same building as many different departments, but don't touch their projects.
Congratulations?
GW design studio has none of the decent talent left. They all left and started putting out competing games.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
More that GW has been moving to a 'Faceless Minion' rules studio - dropping the names of the developers from their games. (Though, given the quality of some of their games... that may not be a bad thing for the designers....)
Not so much that Chambers et ali are the only designers of note - but that GW isn't noting the designers. Good old Cubicle #5 - he makes such great rules!
So, by that logic, if we don't know who they are, we can't make any sound judgement of their actual ability vs the pressures put on them by the corporate element of the business?
Which was my original point. I mean, I'm probably what would be considered a half decent painter, but if someone handed me a tank and said "here, have this ready by lunchtime" I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be turning in anything representative of my real ability.
End result is the same, a tank that's not as good as it could be and a game that's not as good as it could be. Lots has been figured out in terms of running design studios in many industries and one thing holds true: you need to equip people to produce their best work. I'm not sure GW does that.
TheAuldGrump wrote: More that GW has been moving to a 'Faceless Minion' rules studio - dropping the names of the developers from their games. (Though, given the quality of some of their games... that may not be a bad thing for the designers....)
As someone who has his name in quite a number of 40K books, let me assure you being subsumed into some annonymous 'design team' would not sit well with me. Hell, the one time my name was left out of something my editor fell over himself apologising to me.
Not having writing credit is not cool, and if they changed it to avoid another "Mat Ward" situation then that just strikes me as a knee jerk reaction that robs writers of their proper credits.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Who do they have now and what is their pedigree?
Priestley and Cavatore (and presumably Chambers, but I don't know what he's done) are still producing quality games for other companies, so it's not even a case of GW not having any of the big talent left - all of that big talent is competing against them. The market for rules is a lot more competitive than it was 30 years ago, and now we have some unnamed writers that seem to be producing what we currently see. Lets face it, none of the new rulesets have been stellar, have they?
I'm saying that the writers themselves aren't up to scratch, but they presumably don't have the presence to resist management dictats in the same way that the old writers did
There's a lot of stuff we'll probably never know about the design studio and 40K
Was the push for the merger of Apocalypse into 40K management lead in an attempt to push sales of models ? Or was it design team lead because that's how they like the game ?
Is the lack of balance and poor quality rules down to rushed timescales and no play-testing, or is it down to a lack of ability in the design team ?
Edit - Perhaps the closest insight we get into the design team is this post on B&C from Aaron Dembski-Bowden
Rule X for Faction Y is no good? Well, the clear, perfect solution to their complete lack of playtesting is definitely this homebrew rule; forgetting of course that almost every group will come up with their own opinion of how to fix it, if it even needs fixing at all. People pine for the informal days of the "golden era" Studio, ignoring the fact that there have always been rules people disagreed with and GW has always encouraged people to generate their own scenarios, rules, and so on. It's just as informal now in a lot of ways as it always was, but now - with mass-communication - rules people disagree with aren't seen as "I'll change this one for my group", they're seen as "This is underpowered/wrong/GW are incompetent/Andy Chambers would never have done this".
They expect you to house rule everything. Which is fine to an extent, but only works in small groups of like minded friends. The sign of GW turning a corner for me is when they acknowledge play outside of that.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Who do they have now and what is their pedigree?
Priestley and Cavatore (and presumably Chambers, but I don't know what he's done) are still producing quality games for other companies, so it's not even a case of GW not having any of the big talent left - all of that big talent is competing against them. The market for rules is a lot more competitive than it was 30 years ago, and now we have some unnamed writers that seem to be producing what we currently see. Lets face it, none of the new rulesets have been stellar, have they?
I'm saying that the writers themselves aren't up to scratch, but they presumably don't have the presence to resist management dictats in the same way that the old writers did
Stellar they Arnt even competent all they know how to do is add more random rolls.
Got forced into playing lost patrol and it was a dire 10 minutes ill never get back, I really wish friends would stop wasting their money on this crap.
Azreal13 wrote: So, by that logic, if we don't know who they are, we can't make any sound judgement of their actual ability vs the pressures put on them by the corporate element of the business?
Which was my original point. I mean, I'm probably what would be considered a half decent painter, but if someone handed me a tank and said "here, have this ready by lunchtime" I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be turning in anything representative of my real ability.
More that they have a limited reason to give the customers their A-Game.
It used to be that working for GW had a certain cache - and was worth it in the market when you finally did leave GW.
Being Cubicle 5, Second Floor - The One With The Garfield Cartoons gives less reason to go a little beyond expectations.
So, instead we get Age of Sigmar. (I swear, the original version was written on tray liners during a lunchbreak....)
There is a reason why people remember Priestley, Cavatore, et ali - they were good game designers, and people knew what to expect when they saw a name attached to the book.
Yes, it leads to Matt Wards and Jervis Johnsons as well, where folks might avoid a book because of the writer, but even that comes down to the company not having someone balancing the rules. (I actually mostly like Jervis Johnson's work - but he tends to make underpowered armies and teams - because that is what he likes playing.)
Though it does sound as if we are basically arguing about something that we agree with each other on... the Faceless Minion Method is a symptom of the corporate oversight.
Bottle wrote: This is an old state of affairs. GW are already opening up again on who was involved in the rules for new projects, and even better - getting them to talk about their rules on Warhammer TV.
Bottle wrote: You can try and poke fun at it if you want, you're still poking fun at an old state of affairs as I mentioned. I like the Warhammer TV content and the designer's notes in the new White Dwarf are good too. YMMV, but it's a distinct change in how GW present the rules team again (which probably hit an all time low a few years ago at a 40K open day when it was revealed they are just handed fully painted models and told to make rules for them and set the points value at "what feels right" or something along those lines IIRC).
That will hold water if the new 40k rules release will show some fixing and streamlining of the rules instead of more band aids.
Azreal13 wrote: They've taken on a lot of extra designers to cover specialist games alongside the FW team.
Besides, they're in the same building, if you think they're somehow in a bunker isolated from everyone else, you're misguided.
It's a different mindset, more "it's ready when it's ready" and it is that, more than any significant difference in talent, that allows FW to do what it does.
I'm not touching the whole "FW in regular games" thing, otherwise the whole topic will spiral off at a tangent.
I sit in the same building as many different departments, but don't touch their projects.
Congratulations?
GW design studio has none of the decent talent left. They all left and started putting out competing games.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Joyboozer wrote: Is the lowest form of humour now classified as adding subtitles to either that or the hitler video?
Nah, that's not even close to doing a lazy re-hash of previously written material, changing a few things here and there following the "what feels right" doctrine, and then trying to sell the new China printed product for a luxury price. That gotta be the lowest form of humour possible.
Yet it seems many people find it hilarious, considering how willing they are to throw money at it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly since the conscious uncoupling of GW and FFG, all the things with my name in them have vanished from Drive Thru RPG.
Well, that's a damn shame. I know we have had our disagreements, but I want you to know that if you were working on the Dark Heresy team, writing the best 40k fluff texts around, your work is not only appreciated but admired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly since the conscious uncoupling of GW and FFG, all the things with my name in them have vanished from Drive Thru RPG.
Well, that's a damn shame. I know we have had our disagreements, but I want you to know that if you were working on the Dark Heresy team, writing the best 40k fluff texts around, your work is not only appreciated but admired.
Bottle wrote: Which releases in particular are you referring to? That's not the case for the big releases this year like Deathwatch, Genestealer Cult, the General's handbook or Sylvaneth.
Tau. Perhaps it was from late 2015? Can't remember now.
In any case, any of the zillion supplements released for 40k lately may qualify. Mostly sub-par material, with mediocre art and laughably bad fluff, designed mostly as a "fast food product" that will likely be forgotten as soon as a new edition lands.
Rereleasing the same codex with a few new units in was a scum bag move, telling people who objected to buy the £45 book instead if they didn't want to rebuy a book they already owned was so much worse.
You going to have to give more than one example, because there are countless examples from 2016 supporting the opposite. The supplements "may qualify"? It sounds like you've not read them and you argument is largely dated and baseless to be frank. The Tau doesn't even support your case because it came out before GW changed direction (it's from September 2015). GW have made so many positive moves this year.
I've read them, although I have not bought them, so my argument is nor dated nor baseless.
What you call "positive moves" have turned 40k into an even more bloated mess of an even more expensive game.
GW's biggest problems have been, for a long time, terrible rules and insane prices. None of those have been adressed, and they're getting worse and worse with each new release.
In regards to AoS, I still see it as a pretty poor game, something that band aids won't solve. The only way to consider it a "good" game is to have never played virtually any other skirmish game the market has to offer, which of course is standard practice for GW-centric gamers.
Also, I run a very small and personal tailoring business, and even I have a facebook page and an e-mail address, which I check daily (answering questions and orders on a personal basis). Wow I guess that must make me a revolutionary businessman, since GW having some social media impact (where they ask you to "stay positive") is usually hailed as such by their hardcore supporters.
notprop wrote: Indeed I have. And there is nothing those reports that would indicate a failing company. Their capital held and ability to generate more makes GW demonstrably buoyant.
Can you tell me between which two lines I should be reading?
Now look at the same report and subtract royalty revenue. When a company that sells products is only "buoyant" due to external revenue rather than sales of their goods, there are internal structural issues at play.
Management, if they're worth their salary, is aware that there are systemic issues that are resulting in decreased sales volume. I would put forward that the recent glut of box deals is likely are direct result of the current financial situation.
GW is currently in no danger of folding; I own stock, I'm not concerned and I'm not selling (again). Yet.
That said, I have a somewhat expert opinion on how they could generate further savings and increase the bottom line; I've shared my views with management but alas I don't own enough stock to make my point stick. The retail chain remains an unlucrative loadstone around the company's neck. By attempting a one-size-fits-all approach in the various regions served, they're creating unsustainable areas of service; in example, the North American market is just too geographically large to adequately place a GW-branded store in every major population center. This UK-centric approach to infrastructure does not work well and just creates a financial imbalance in the company. This combined with the harsh trade stance (i.e. no online carts simply because law allows such abuse) results in limited exposure to a broader market. Look, 20 years ago the game store was the central hub of all things tabletop; however, times have changed and the market has changed with it. People no longer restrict their shopping activities to the FLGS, they're more price conscious and sensitive to pricing pressures than in the past (mainly due to the ease of online shopping and social media); GW can change with the times or eventually go the way of the dodo. They've shown some positive changes in the past year or so and with a positive balance sheet, they have a bit of luxury in taking time to swerve their Titanic around the iceberg sitting in plain site.
I don't think the "start collecting" boxes count as addressing the issue because:
1. The price for everything else is still insane
2. The bundled boxes are only really cheap when compared to rest of the GW range; they are still relatively expensive, for what you get, compared to the rest of the hobby.
It's a step in the right direction, no doubt about that, but it's a stretch to claim that prices aren't still nuts.
Perry (ex GW sculptors) Miniatures do miniatures in the same scale, same material and produced using the same method from around 0.55 per model.
AFAIK they don't own their own machinery, so that price likely includes the cost of paying someone else to manufacture them.
GW might have brought some costs down, but there's plenty of room to manoeuvre when's it comes to cost per model. I dare say if they didn't have the massive overhead of a largely cost neutral retail chain, they could make Perry look expensive.
The bundled boxes are certainly a step into the right direction, the problem is, at the same time each new release gets more expensive (hello Kharn), so right there we have a step into the completely opposite direction.
Same thing with rules. The FAQs have answered some questions, but have also introduced new ones, plus some ludicruous decisions (the drop pods one comes to mind). All in all they look like a half-assed effort, more aimed towards pleasing the demanding crowd in the short term than to truly fix the game. And at the current rate, a new edition will hit the stands before they incorporate those FAQs and erratas into their main website. Many people refuses to use them on the grounds that they're an experimental draft at best, and it's hard to argue against that.
@ Az, at this stage I fear GW have simply driven themselves into a corner. They simply can't afford to cut prices in a meaningful way, because they've driven their business model to a point where it's kept afloat by whale-milking practices. To suddenly change this would be 1) a direct acknowledgement that they were doing things wrong for many years (which they'll never do so openly), and 2) extremely risky, it could save the company on the long run but at the same time it could be potentially disastrous in the short term.
So prices will keep going higher and higher, as it happened in the dying days of WHFB (remember the witch elves box for 45€?).
Barely any of GW's models are as low as 85p. Skinks maybe? The cheapest human sized models are 1.50. Imperial Guard are 1.80 and they're a horde army for feths sake
You can compare that with Perry's Afrikakorp or Desert Rats models that actually have more variety and include support weapons in the same box for 53p per model.
To assemble a group of Cadians that matched a £20 set of Afrikakorps or Desert Rats, you'd be paying £78.
Even if you buy Start Collecting sets of Cadians, you could buy 3 of them and get the same amount of infantry + 3 Leman Russes for £150, but you could buy the same £20 Afrikakorps and 3x Tigers which are about the same size as Leman Russes for £80 total anyway, it's not even a bundle or anything that's RRP buying them separately.
Where GW beats the competition is they offer a wide range from 1 source complete with rules and a decent sized existing community. Elsewhere in the world you can assemble a metal army for less than the price of a plastic Imperial Guard or Empire force.
Bottle wrote: Rather than having "resolved" the expensive pricing, what I meant by addressing is that they are making steps to offer cheaper sets to gamers..
The Start Collecting sets and other bundles of the sort are a sign that Roundtree knows there's an issue with prices and wants to fix it. Individual model releases outside of those bundles climb ever higher, a sign that he can't do one jot about prices outside of a few bundles. Years and years and years of Kirby telling investors that lowering prices would hurt the brand seem to have sunk in.
Bottle wrote: Rather than having "resolved" the expensive pricing, what I meant by addressing is that they are making steps to offer cheaper sets to gamers..
The Start Collecting sets and other bundles of the sort are a sign that Roundtree knows there's an issue with prices and wants to fix it. Individual model releases outside of those bundles climb ever higher, a sign that he can't do one jot about prices outside of a few bundles. Years and years and years of Kirby telling investors that lowering prices would hurt the brand seem to have sunk in.
Yeah... Exactly.For example the Deathwatch Watch master and the Genestealer Iconward are more expensive then the last chars they sold... For feths sake get over the stupid pricing of Kharn...
Other than the first post, the current page seemed to be reasonably on topic, it was the previous page that probably could have used some moderation 
Those are insane prices for board games, especially when I think back to the 1996 release of Space Hulk which was one of my first purchases, I can't remember the price but it wasn't nearly as bad, I could afford it as an 11 year old kid.
