SKR.HH wrote: True. But therefore I'm quite astounded about the possibilities that are currently provided (not only by GW but others as well) in terms of splitting up a mini on a frame and thus allowing for undercuts on the minis itself and avoiding mould lines in that process.
Thinking back to some of the first minis I had they were split halfways through the body (either horizontally or vertically) and they truly had limitations in their design (and resulted in very bad mould lines as well).
If I remember correctly the more advanced splitting of products/miniatures is a product of better CAD software that automates that to some degree. We get these strange pieces that don't look like they should fit together but result in needing fewer pieces as well as being able to have more instances of what looks like undercuts when assembled. But they still can't solve that problem at the knees (would need more pieces) and GW like to put all the other bits on the frame. I would love to be able to get Marines where you have multiple sub-assemblies that make the whole miniature. Not as extreme as this but just more pieces so details don't get lost. I think the parts for figurine in the video are snap fit and it offers, I think, full articulation and it's also much bigger than a Space Marine (one arm alone has more parts than a Space Marine, the hand is a whole little sub-assembly).
Considering the other things you pointed out I'm not sure whether this is eventually a consequence (or limitation) of the product or a deliberate design decision. For example looking at my GSC I clearly see that the bottom of the robes are not modelled in detail... because you usually can't see them. Fro the layout on the sprues I assume that would have been possible to do some modelling there.
If I remember correctly all the bodies are one piece, arms/weapons/heads are sometimes addition bits and the exorcist's cross (in front of the torso) is also separate.
I assume that GW features are often exaggerated by design (like in your example with the knee pads)... which helps average painters like me. And then we are back to aesthetics...
I don't know how a blobby kneepad helps average painter. The benefit miniatures have is that you get a sort of paint by numbers guide build into the sculpt (edge here, new piece there, and so on) and smearing of details leaves you with less guidelines. If it had crisply defined lines one would see much easier where to highlight and could do the brush side slide along the sharp edge type of highlight (and washes could be used easier on these areas too). I kinda feel lost when there's this tiny chunk of matter that doesn't belong there but it's just there to fills space.
kodos wrote: Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too
So do those models do ALL the stuff I listed, and better than GW? You just listed some names but no reason why they're better. And you cherry-picked two specific GW kits that also happen to be a couple of years old...
Dreamforge leviathan is an awesome kit to put together I got the full size one for £50 it's a good size bigger for less money, it's got far more possibility and really looks like a major threat.
Once painted with a few transfers it looks great towering over dreadnoughts and infantry.
kodos wrote: Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too
So do those models do ALL the stuff I listed, and better than GW? You just listed some names but no reason why they're better. And you cherry-picked two specific GW kits that also happen to be a couple of years old...
Dreamforge leviathan is an awesome kit to put together I got the full size one for £50 it's a good size bigger for less money, it's got far more possibility and really looks like a major threat.
Once painted with a few transfers it looks great towering over dreadnoughts and infantry.
Aesthetics aside the quality of Dreamforge are just as good as stuff made by GW, made by a mostly one man operation, outsourcing production and in smaller numbers than GW at a lower price than GW.
GW has crippling overhead costs, but by lowering the prices they would sell more, getting more revenue.
kodos wrote: Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too
So do those models do ALL the stuff I listed, and better than GW? You just listed some names but no reason why they're better. And you cherry-picked two specific GW kits that also happen to be a couple of years old...
Dreamforge leviathan is an awesome kit to put together I got the full size one for £50 it's a good size bigger for less money, it's got far more possibility and really looks like a major threat.
Once painted with a few transfers it looks great towering over dreadnoughts and infantry.
Aesthetics aside the quality of Dreamforge are just as good as stuff made by GW, made by a mostly one man operation, outsourcing production and in smaller numbers than GW at a lower price than GW.
GW has crippling overhead costs, but by lowering the prices they would sell more, getting more revenue.
Except that is what we're arguing, production quality. They are still transferred to mold by WGF and they do the cuts and placement in the molds and they produce the sprues. And back to an earlier comment regrading warping, that is a production issue that can be fixed by letting the sprue cool for a few seconds more before removing. The reason they don't is production time, they want to get that production order done as fast as possible so they go to the next customer. Making figs for other companies means they cut corners to speed up production time.
That is where I feel WGF produced stuff is inferior to GW. The Kingdom Death figures were stated as being a flagship product for WGF and comparing it's production quality it isn't on par.
kodos wrote: Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too
So do those models do ALL the stuff I listed, and better than GW? You just listed some names but no reason why they're better. And you cherry-picked two specific GW kits that also happen to be a couple of years old...
Dreamforge leviathan is an awesome kit to put together I got the full size one for £50 it's a good size bigger for less money, it's got far more possibility and really looks like a major threat.
Once painted with a few transfers it looks great towering over dreadnoughts and infantry.
Aesthetics aside the quality of Dreamforge are just as good as stuff made by GW, made by a mostly one man operation, outsourcing production and in smaller numbers than GW at a lower price than GW.
GW has crippling overhead costs, but by lowering the prices they would sell more, getting more revenue.
Except that is what we're arguing, production quality. They are still transferred to mold by WGF and they do the cuts and placement in the molds and they produce the sprues. And back to an earlier comment regrading warping, that is a production issue that can be fixed by letting the sprue cool for a few seconds more before removing. The reason they don't is production time, they want to get that production order done as fast as possible so they go to the next customer. Making figs for other companies means they cut corners to speed up production time.
That is where I feel WGF produced stuff is inferior to GW. The Kingdom Death figures were stated as being a flagship product for WGF and comparing it's production quality it isn't on par.
So you are blaming Dreamforge for the lack of quality control at Wargames factory? Those issues where resolved in later runs, if you go that route then what does finecast say about GW's quality? Or the many Miscasts from forgeworld?
kodos wrote: Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too
So do those models do ALL the stuff I listed, and better than GW? You just listed some names but no reason why they're better. And you cherry-picked two specific GW kits that also happen to be a couple of years old...
Dreamforge leviathan is an awesome kit to put together I got the full size one for £50 it's a good size bigger for less money, it's got far more possibility and really looks like a major threat.
Once painted with a few transfers it looks great towering over dreadnoughts and infantry.
Aesthetics aside the quality of Dreamforge are just as good as stuff made by GW, made by a mostly one man operation, outsourcing production and in smaller numbers than GW at a lower price than GW.
GW has crippling overhead costs, but by lowering the prices they would sell more, getting more revenue.
Except that is what we're arguing, production quality. They are still transferred to mold by WGF and they do the cuts and placement in the molds and they produce the sprues. And back to an earlier comment regrading warping, that is a production issue that can be fixed by letting the sprue cool for a few seconds more before removing. The reason they don't is production time, they want to get that production order done as fast as possible so they go to the next customer. Making figs for other companies means they cut corners to speed up production time.
That is where I feel WGF produced stuff is inferior to GW. The Kingdom Death figures were stated as being a flagship product for WGF and comparing it's production quality it isn't on par.
So you are blaming Dreamforge for the lack of quality control at Wargames factory? Those issues where resolved in later runs, if you go that route then what does finecast say about GW's quality? Or the many Miscasts from forgeworld?
Apparently they weren't because the warping I saw was on recent Kingdom Death pieces. You can have the best designs in the world, but if the manufacturer is cutting corners, it brings you down.
Yes, we can go down the quality the quality route. Remember we're talking about how GW has gotten better in the last year. They don't have crap finecast anymore. I recently go a couple resin pieces and blemish free. So another mark in favor of GW improving over the last couple years. For forgeworld, the regulars in my area who get it say their casting quality has also improved tremendously. The irony of the Chinese recasters doing better casts forced them to up their game.
kodos wrote: Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too
I wouldn't call the Valkir superior to space marines, at least not the most modern space marine kits, but they are definitely close. The valkir feel more aesthetically limited, probably because their creator isn't the right kind of daft to mount one on a giant wolf or give one a winged codpiece. Also, blunt-tipped swords have always been stupid.
Agreed about the Leviathan. I just wish there were more head options.
That won't extinguish the flames of hate they have fed for years within some of the community members, but it's quite transparent.
40K 7th edition finally starts to bridge 40K and ForgeWorld and also contains the cleanest rule set so far, with the few interesting rules question bothering only tournament players if anyone at all.
40KFAQ answering many of the community's questions... that is nearly unbelievable but it's on the way.
All new codexes being reasonably playable: Nothing as bad as Chaos Space Marines or Dark Eldar has come out of GW since... Dark Eldar (well that might be their one big mistake there lol)
Cheaper starter bundles: I couldn't care less but there are some really sweet deals out there compared to what we've had for a long time.
White Dwarf is back to the old White Dwarf, or at least getting closer to it.
GW has finally acknowledged the death of Warhammer Battle and is trying out new things to resurrect it in a better way. AoS is just a beta for the next genwhfb which hopefully will be more welcoming to new players, with less needlessly convoluted rules (smack someone with the 8th edition bible and ask them if it's not the heaviest ruleset of all...).
Social Media presence...
It would take some seriously profound hatred to blind someone from the obvious turn for the better GW has taken lately.
Dreamforge leviathan is an awesome kit to put together I got the full size one for £50 it's a good size bigger for less money, it's got far more possibility and really looks like a major threat.
Once painted with a few transfers it looks great towering over dreadnoughts and infantry.
To me, it looks like a regular toy with a lot less detail than a miniature and I'm not sure the manufacturing process could produce the kind of detail we've come to expect from GW plastics.
I'm sure some people don't care, like some people are fine with cardboard titans, improperly prepped miniatures or lower-end tabletop painting, but I personally wouldn't buy an eldar equivalent of the Leviathan if it were available.
All in all, I think both the Imperial Knight and the Leviathan are at a fair price point, you do get what you pay for.
They have improved, but their business model is unclear to me.
Supplementary books, formations in 40k, no new codices, slow release of AoS factions, board games, and whatnot.
GW released some good boxed games, SC, the Kill Team box and made2order are a good start at least, but stuff is still ridiculously priced direcr from GW (see: Khârn) and rules for the main games messy and bloated (40k) or too light (AoS). If they want to become good again the still have a long way to go. We still don't know if the boardgames are a testbed for new mechanics or if they neglect this huge opportunity.
Being older, the big boxes, stuff like AdMech and the tanking pound made me spend more on GW than basically the decade before, though (which is not that hard, though, since I didn't buy anything for a couple of years and only starter sets in the rest, cause my armies where/are left in a sorry state and stuff in Germany simply stupid expensive for new products). That ans bits shops, oh ny poor wallet.
So I'd say they're on a better track, but that track still doesn't lead to candy land.
Besides. 7th edition 40K is just about as far opposite of a "clean" rules set as it's possible to get, so I have no idea what the hell morgoth is smoking in order to come to that conclusion.
Zywus wrote: Besides. 7th edition 40K is just about as far opposite of a "clean" rules set as it's possible to get, so I have no idea what the hell morgoth is smoking in order to come to that conclusion.
I haven't been playing too long, only since 6th dropped, but the rule set is the weakest aspect of 40k, IMO.
High prices are a foregone conclusion at this point (always have been, since I was a kid collecting them) and we do what we can to mitigate that. Buy less, buy from discount retailers, buy from recasters, whatever. Just use what one has already - the cheapest option.
But for rules, you aren't gonna escape those. The game is still fun, definitely playable, but the rules are a freakin mess. This aspect of the game has not improved at all since Roundtree(?) took over, IMO.
Zywus wrote: Besides. 7th edition 40K is just about as far opposite of a "clean" rules set as it's possible to get, so I have no idea what the hell morgoth is smoking in order to come to that conclusion.
Prior editions of the game had a lot of unanswered questions and interactions, and in many ways, 7th edition is less "buggy" than prior editions. It is, however, a very bloated rule set, with a ton of complexity that does not add much to game play.
I recently read Sid Meier's quote that "A game is a series of interesting choices." In that regard, 7th edition isn't a failure, but a lot of the rules fail to really add value. The random nature of a lot of tables in theory adds a narrative element to the game, but really strips players of choice, instead make them roll dice.
Zywus wrote: Besides. 7th edition 40K is just about as far opposite of a "clean" rules set as it's possible to get, so I have no idea what the hell morgoth is smoking in order to come to that conclusion.
My entire play group has switched to X-Wing for game play and Bandai kits for when we feel like building something (though we also still game with those using whatever rules we feel like).
So while I think GW has improved over the last year, they haven't improved enough to get anyone's money again.
We are also Blood Bowl fanatics and no one seems interested in the new set. We played for the years GW left the BB community to support the games itself and we simply don't need GW's involvement. In our local social media group it was like "who's pre ordering the new BB set?" and it was like crickets. Impact or Black Scorpion release something and it's a dogpile into a group order to save on shipping.
frozenwastes wrote: My entire play group has switched to X-Wing for game play and Bandai kits for when we feel like building something (though we also still game with those using whatever rules we feel like).
So while I think GW has improved over the last year, they haven't improved enough to get anyone's money again.
We are also Blood Bowl fanatics and no one seems interested in the new set. We played for the years GW left the BB community to support the games itself and we simply don't need GW's involvement. In our local social media group it was like "who's pre ordering the new BB set?" and it was like crickets. Impact or Black Scorpion release something and it's a dogpile into a group order to save on shipping.
Black Scorpions BB models are great, affordable and well worth supporting.
Zywus wrote: Besides. 7th edition 40K is just about as far opposite of a "clean" rules set as it's possible to get, so I have no idea what the hell morgoth is smoking in order to come to that conclusion.
All things being relative, I'm just comparing it to previous editions that I have read, i.e. from 4th to 7th.
To me, this ruleset is cleaner, better and with less gaping holes left and right.
Oh and I'm on resin crack these days, more than plastic.
Zywus wrote: Besides. 7th edition 40K is just about as far opposite of a "clean" rules set as it's possible to get, so I have no idea what the hell morgoth is smoking in order to come to that conclusion.
Prior editions of the game had a lot of unanswered questions and interactions, and in many ways, 7th edition is less "buggy" than prior editions. It is, however, a very bloated rule set, with a ton of complexity that does not add much to game play.
So now gw is making a community website and putting models painted by the community in thier product pages. I said before that gw's improvements are a work on progress. It is good to see that work continuing.
The community will only work if they realize that they WILL see unproductive chaff comments like "lower prices" or "get rid of Age of Suckmar and bring back WHFB". They have to sift through those comments and find actual useful ideas and suggestions. If they just stifle any criticism and only encourage praise, it'll be worse than useless because it will just be an echo chamber that benefits nobody.
Just Tony wrote: Who's to say they can't keep both? Or you could play a dead system, like everyone who stuck with WFB.
Is it really dead when GW is still selling 8th edition Fantasy? At least on iPad they still are. So it can't really be that dead. Yes I know not being sold in stores, I just find it weird it's still on the iPad store (or whatever it's called).
Just Tony wrote: Who's to say they can't keep both? Or you could play a dead system, like everyone who stuck with WFB.
I would say that from the perspective of someone that likes "age of suckmar" that that is not a useful suggestion.
i am loving the new models as much as i did the old ones, and they all look so much better on round bases i will be painting a lot more Fantasy minis now that i don't have to worry about building them to rank up, or put them on tiny square bases...
between that, and how awesome all of the new 40K minis are, especially the plastic character models, it is a great time to be a GW fan
Just Tony wrote: Who's to say they can't keep both? Or you could play a dead system, like everyone who stuck with WFB.
I would say that from the perspective of someone that likes "age of suckmar" that that is not a useful suggestion.
Ah. I get it now. You're fixated on the term "Age of Suckmar" from the post I first quoted, and that's all the further you've gotten. I never said "Age of Suckmar", so you are barking up the wrong tree there and missed the intent of my message. Also, I've been playing 6th Ed. WFB for almost a year now, and I'm doing quite okay. If it will salve whatever you have going on there, I will rescind that half of the good ideas post I made. Now here's an internet hug.
Unless of course you were a GW fan that liked square bases and ranked combat, in which case feth them, eh?
God forbid you were a GW fan that liked Bretonnians or Tomb Kings.
why would i slag off people who liked squares and ranks???
no need to put words in my mouth...
i only speak for myself...
i have all of the Bretonnian and Tomb King models i could ever want...
buying minis when they were new releases 10 or 15 years ago takes care of that...
if people drag their feet, they run the risk of models going out of production...
simple as...
i'm sure there are plenty of disgruntled people selling off their armies cheap on eBay...
You can speak for yourself, but you literally said "it is a great time to be a GW fan", but that's predicated on you liking what GW have done, not an absolute statement and ignores fans who liked the stuff that was canned.
If you were a GW fan because of the square bases and ranked combat rather than in spite of them, it's a terrible time to be a GW fan.
You can speak for yourself, but you literally said "it is a great time to be a GW fan", but that's predicated on you liking what GW have done, not an absolute statement and ignores fans who liked the stuff that was canned.
If you were a GW fan because of the square bases and ranked combat rather than in spite of them, it's a terrible time to be a GW fan.
that is a much more civil way to put it...
no need to put it like i'm saying screw them, aside from the fact that you have beef with all of my opinions...
again, i'm not ignoring anyone, just speaking for myself...
if you don't like what GW are doing, don't take it out on me for being happy...
Round bases definitely look better - most of my 28mm stuff is on round bases with movement trays - so I'll give you that. I don't bother individually basing in 15mm because I'm not a sadist.
I'm still to be convinced that the aesthetic or game are any better though.
It's also a tautology to say that if you like what GW is doing now then it is a great time to be a fan. That is true of every point in GW's history. If you like what a company produces in a given moment, then it's a great time to like what a company produces in a given moment.
Says nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, round bases are awesome. All my chaos stuff is on round bases and I use it with various skirmish rules off the internet.
For those who like ranked up games I find that the currently available laser cut sabot bases for round bases are all excellent. The only real problem is that if a figure used to fit on 20mm across, but now has a 25mm base, you're going to have to accept some sort of hack to make everything work like it would with rules where the number of figures in the front rank matters.
You can speak for yourself, but you literally said "it is a great time to be a GW fan", but that's predicated on you liking what GW have done, not an absolute statement and ignores fans who liked the stuff that was canned.
If you were a GW fan because of the square bases and ranked combat rather than in spite of them, it's a terrible time to be a GW fan.
that is a much more civil way to put it... no need to put it like i'm saying screw them, aside from the fact that you have beef with all of my opinions... again, i'm not ignoring anyone, just speaking for myself... if you don't like what GW are doing, don't take it out on me for being happy...
cheers jah
For once I think it's time for you to take a chill pill there, jah. Notice how there was a question mark at the end of my sentence? That's because I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was leaving it open for you to respond to my observation that your statement was incomplete because your statement, intentionally or not, was ignoring anyone who was a GW fan but didn't like what GW was doing.
Here, let me reword your sentence in a way that would not have drawn a response from me...
"between that, and how awesome I think all of the new 40K minis are, especially the plastic character models, it is a great time for me to be a GW fan "
It's fine if you only speak for yourself.... however your grammar did not imply you were only speaking for yourself, it was implying a broad sweeping statement.
If that's wasn't what you meant, fine, but don't blame me for your misuse of the English language
take what i said in the context of the topic, and it makes more sense...
the topic: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
like Joyboozer said, "The OP seems to have spelled argue incorrectly." hahahahaha
here is what i actually said, before it was taken out of context:
"i am loving the new models as much as i did the old ones, and they all look so much better on round bases i will be painting a lot more Fantasy minis now that i don't have to worry about building them to rank up, or put them on tiny square bases... between that, and how awesome all of the new 40K minis are, especially the plastic character models, it is a great time to be a GW fan "
Skink is right, i should have ended that post with, "in my opinion", so nobody would feel that i was ignoring, or marginalizing their preference...
@Herzlos: i have never been a gamer, so i couldn't comment on whether or not the game is any better... i can say that i preferred the intimacy of the WFB setting in the fiction... luckily, i have nearly every WFB novel and sourcebook GW has published since Wolfriders and Ignorant Armies, the first anthologies from 1989, so i can happily re-read decades of fiction 'til the cows come home...
as for the aesthetic, i liked the old minis, too... what i can say is that the new minis have me more inspired to paint than any of the old Fantasy models ever did... for example, i bought Grimgore Ironhide and Gorbad Ironclaw, both stunning models in my opinion, but never painted either of them, because i was not a fan of square bases... i bought the new Ork Megaboss, painted him immediately, and really enjoyed building his big round base...
@frozenwastes: again, context... i said it was the new minis that make me feel that it is a good time to be a GW fan... that also applies to other changes, as well, like the new White Dwarf format, and the switch to making new release characters in plastic rather than Finecast (which i refused to buy)...
i did not subscribe to White Dwarf Weekly, but instead collected the digital version of Warhammer Visions... splitting the mag meant that i missed out on a lot of stuff, but i didn't like the format of the digital Weekly... now that my local shop is selling Weekly back-issues for 95 cents, i have been buying them, and enjoying them quite a bit, but the new format makes me even happier
having to pass on 5 years of cool models, because they were cast in a crap material, was a bummer... in the last year i have purchased nearly every character GW has released, because i am very impressed with the way that the new plastics are designed and cut... every big box released in the last 12 months has been brimming with plastics that separated me from my money every 40K clampack has done the same...
i never bought the metal Eldrad, because i was not a big enough fan of the Eldar to feel the need for that model... the new plastic version in Death Masque changed that... throw in an amazing version of Artemis, five awesome new Deathwatch Marines, and the wicked plastic Death Jester, and i didn't hesitate on buying the box... same goes for Overkill (though i did collect all the metal Genestealer Cult, back in the day, and the metal Deathwatch conversion kit), Betrayal at Calth (plastic MkIV and Cataphractii are so nice), Silver Tower (the progress in plastics have made the poses way more dynamic that the original Quest minis), and Burning of Prospero (love the new Arhiman and The Fell-Hand, plastic Tartaros Termies, Custodes, and Sisters of Silence)...
i never bought the old Kharn, because i was not a fan of the flat pose (even though i was a huge fan of his art and fiction), but the new dynamic Kharn was a must have, and is sitting on my desk right now...
plastic Ad. Mech are a dream come true, and the Tech-Priest Dominus is my favorite GW release of 2015, and was a joy to paint... the Genestealer Cult release is full of gorgeous minis... the list could go on...
so yeah, given the context of the topic, it is a great time to be a GW fan (in my opinion)... i am happier with their output and direction than i have been in 5 years... does that still say nothing???
@Herzlos: i have never been a gamer, so i couldn't comment on whether or not the game is any better...
i can say that i preferred the intimacy of the WFB setting in the fiction...
luckily, i have nearly every WFB novel and sourcebook GW has published since Wolfriders and Ignorant Armies, the first anthologies from 1989, so i can happily re-read decades of fiction 'til the cows come home...
I too loved the old fiction, which I think is why I find the new mini's too Jarring. I just can't see Herr Jaeger and Gotrex having any adventures in the new world, and nothing else seems to fit. I like my fantasy to be fairly low, with things that seem largely credible and relatable. I want see huge armies made up of normal dwarves, defending their hold against a horde of goblins, rather than a handful of burning slayers fighting a bunch of super-orcs.
auticus wrote: But what about those people that don't want WHFB and like Age of "suckmar".
They'll grow out of it.
The two games are different enough in focus, setting, and scale that there is no reason why GW/Forge World could not support both.
Killing off WHFB and crapping out AoS was a mistake - had they introduced AoS as a new and separate but related game, it might not have fractured the community so badly.
It is the fact that they replacedWHFB with Age of Suckmore that made people loathe it. And the 'humor' made it very much a kick in the teeth for those that liked the older game.
As a free, downloadable, introductory game? I think fans would have been a lot happier - they may not have liked or played the game, but they would not hate it nearly as much.
Me, I would be happy if Forge World took over WHFB and GW continued with the Sigmarines Game - there is room for both.
The Auld Grump - I have seen more AoS boxes picked up for 40K than for AoS....
auticus wrote: But what about those people that don't want WHFB and like Age of "suckmar".
They'll grow out of it.
The two games are different enough in focus, setting, and scale that there is no reason why GW/Forge World could not support both.
Killing off WHFB and crapping out AoS was a mistake - had they introduced AoS as a new and separate but related game, it might not have fractured the community so badly.
It is the fact that they replacedWHFB with Age of Suckmore that made people loathe it. And the 'humor' made it very much a kick in the teeth for those that liked the older game.
As a free, downloadable, introductory game? I think fans would have been a lot happier - they may not have liked or played the game, but they would not hate it nearly as much.
Me, I would be happy if Forge World took over WHFB and GW continued with the Sigmarines Game - there is room for both.
The Auld Grump - I have seen more AoS boxes picked up for 40K than for AoS....
I remember when AoS launched there were many such negative posts about AoS by fans of Kings of War/Mantic. They didn't work in convincing people to play "their" wargame game back then, and I don't see why they would now.
If "Age of Suckmore" is such a bad, loathed game then it's funny to see how much more popular it is than Kings of War.
I guess people are prepared to ignore these sort of posts (and forum trolls in general) and reach their own conclusions about what they like.
In hindsight killing off WHFB (the game, not necessarily the setting) might have been the wisest choice, seeing as anecdotal accounts of AoS (the only measure we have of its success) have gone from overwhelming anger, apathy and rage-quitting to positive stories about new players and communities, tournaments, and a general sense of optimism about the models, rules and the way GW is handling everything. In fact I see much more negativity about 40k than AoS these days (which saddens me, but 40k is a mess). The Generals Handbook has been one of the biggest factors in the online zeitgeist 180 turn, and GWs biggest mistake by far was not introducing it upon launch. On the other hand, they were forced to eat a huge slice of humble pie and have now embraced the community in a way they might not have had it not been for the initial outrage.
auticus wrote: But what about those people that don't want WHFB and like Age of "suckmar".
They'll grow out of it.
The two games are different enough in focus, setting, and scale that there is no reason why GW/Forge World could not support both.
Killing off WHFB and crapping out AoS was a mistake - had they introduced AoS as a new and separate but related game, it might not have fractured the community so badly.
It is the fact that they replacedWHFB with Age of Suckmore that made people loathe it. And the 'humor' made it very much a kick in the teeth for those that liked the older game.
As a free, downloadable, introductory game? I think fans would have been a lot happier - they may not have liked or played the game, but they would not hate it nearly as much.
Me, I would be happy if Forge World took over WHFB and GW continued with the Sigmarines Game - there is room for both.
The Auld Grump - I have seen more AoS boxes picked up for 40K than for AoS....
I remember when AoS launched there were many such negative posts about AoS by fans of Kings of War/Mantic. They didn't work in convincing people to play "their" wargame game back then, and I don't see why they would now.
If "Age of Suckmore" is such a bad, loathed game then it's funny to see how much more popular it is than Kings of War.
I guess people are prepared to ignore these sort of posts (and forum trolls in general) and reach their own conclusions about what they like.
Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?
Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.
I don't think icv2 is going to tell you whether KoW is more popular than AoS. KoW armies are cheap, so even if it's popular it's not going to have a huge dollar value spent on it, if any at all because a lot of people are just playing with old WHFB figures or miniatures from other companies.
The only way to tell would be a detailed survey that tries to track down what individual groups are playing, which is never going to happen.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't think icv2 is going to tell you whether KoW is more popular than AoS. KoW armies are cheap, so even if it's popular it's not going to have a huge dollar value spent on it, if any at all because a lot of people are just playing with old WHFB figures or miniatures from other companies.
The only way to tell would be a detailed survey that tries to track down what individual groups are playing, which is never going to happen.
Why wouldn't it tell you? icv2 would tell you if KoW is more popular than Aos or not. It's telling you that nobody or most people are not buying the KoW minis but only using it for rules. So KoW is not really popular because the minis are not being sold. That is like saying people are playing Warmahordes, but with GW minis instead of Privateer Press minis. Since that is not the case we can say PP and Warmahordes is popular.
I would say KoW is not really that popular because the minis are not being sold but it's mostly for the rules. If KoW was really all that, people would want to INVEST into KoW but since it seams people are only playing KoW for the rules and not the minis, I would say no, KoW is not really that popular. I could be wrong, and KoW minis are really selling but what I get from Dakka people are still only using their GW minis and just buying paper products for KoW. So is KoW really successful if this is the case?
Also, how many people switched to KOW with legacy armies from WFB in the first place? If Mantic has any sort of business sense, they'd advertise the piss out of their games and try to cater to the market at large. I wonder how much it'd cost to have the folks on Big Bang Theory play one of the games, or at least namedrop it?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't think icv2 is going to tell you whether KoW is more popular than AoS. KoW armies are cheap, so even if it's popular it's not going to have a huge dollar value spent on it, if any at all because a lot of people are just playing with old WHFB figures or miniatures from other companies.
The only way to tell would be a detailed survey that tries to track down what individual groups are playing, which is never going to happen.
Why wouldn't it tell you? icv2 would tell you if KoW is more popular than Aos or not. It's telling you that nobody or most people are not buying the KoW minis but only using it for rules. So KoW is not really popular because the minis are not being sold. That is like saying people are playing Warmahordes, but with GW minis instead of Privateer Press minis. Since that is not the case we can say PP and Warmahordes is popular.
I would say KoW is not really that popular because the minis are not being sold but it's mostly for the rules. If KoW was really all that, people would want to INVEST into KoW but since it seams people are only playing KoW for the rules and not the minis, I would say no, KoW is not really that popular. I could be wrong, and KoW minis are really selling but what I get from Dakka people are still only using their GW minis and just buying paper products for KoW. So is KoW really successful if this is the case?
I'd say that if a lot of people are playing KoW, then the game is popular. Regardless of where people buy the models they use to play the game. It's two different things.
Of course Mantic would prefer to sell more models and all that, but that's a different subject all together.* You're conflating the popularity of a game, with the popularity of a company's models.
* I do believe the speculation that almost no-one use Mantic models when playing KoW, is overblown, Mantic's own models are certainly well represented in KoW tournies, but presumably less so in casual play. Something to take into consideration is that the majority of players has initially migrated a army from WHFB into KoW. There's always a lag when looking at what's being bought and what's being played. What people are playing with now is what they bought a year or years ago. Whatever they buy now won't be played with until a fair bit of time into the future.
Rayvon wrote: I was really starting to think they had turned a corner, until this Blood bowl release.
The only way you can get two complete teams is to buy two copies of the game......
what a fething joke.
Just touching on this one for a moment - having looked at the rulebook from my LGS' preview copy yesterday, I do have to ask how you'd fill the two teams out to 16. My immediate reaction was 4 Linemen (or equivalent), but both teams have skill positions (and a Big Guy) which would be empty in that case. Equally, I didn't get chance to see the figures on the sprue, as they'd already been assembled, so I don't know if it would just be a case of adding an extra sprue to the box for each side.
My suspicion is that we'll see some form of set released down the line to allow you to expand the Orcs & Humans, but that it won't be announced immediately. Quite what said sets would include, though, I don't know. I could see a Human one with the missing skill positions (might be 2 Catchers & 2 Blitzers - I'm not sure), an Ogre (in kit which vaguely matches the Human model), and maybe some more Linemen - but then you're going to get people complaining about being forced to buy models they won't use.
I would say KoW is not really that popular because the minis are not being sold but it's mostly for the rules. If KoW was really all that, people would want to INVEST into KoW but since it seams people are only playing KoW for the rules and not the minis, I would say no, KoW is not really that popular. I could be wrong, and KoW minis are really selling but what I get from Dakka people are still only using their GW minis and just buying paper products for KoW. So is KoW really successful if this is the case?
Of all the people I read comments from on Dakka, you're one of the ones that often reflects my sentiments. But the above quote is a load of bullgak.
If people are playing KoW, then KoW is popular regardless of what figures are being used.
You're associating minis with the game like a GW fanboy that knows no better would.
One of my fave games is a WW2 game called Iron Cross. I use either 28mm figures (mainly by Warlord), or 15mm figures by Battlefront and Zvezda. Does that mean Iron Cross isn't the popular game played in my area? Iron Cross don't make minis, so even if every wargamer in the world played it, it couldn't be popular by your argument.
With regards to GW dropping WHFB, whilst it was a move I hated, it was one that made sense and, to be fair, the completely reformed way of playing has attracted new players and engaged people in a way that WHFB never would have done - and, as mentioned, the Matched Play introduced in the General's Handbook has settled a lot of the misgivings people had about the game.
That said, I'm annoyed that GW killed off the game altogether, especially after a mad drive for sales in a game soon to be obsolete with the End Times. GW could have all but removed it, changing the webstore to "AoS", changing all the branding accordingly, only supporting Sigmar in their stores, but left the old WHFB rules and army books up as free pdfs up on the website. Or perhaps FW could have picked up the game in the same way they've done with The Hobbit (and to be honest, I'm still hoping that it will return, in some form, through FW). At least then it will have been supported, allowing me to play WHFB in GW stores as well as stemming the very steep decline to virtually no popularity in my area whatsoever. Whilst you could argue that GW might have sold less copies of General's Handbook or something as a result, I very much doubt such a move would have had a significant negative impact on them, whilst still keeping many in the community happy. Hell, if the army books were available for free for all the WHFB armies and the game was still supported, I might have even been tempted to start a new army.
I do love the "blocks of troops" style of fantasy though, which is one thing that I really don't like about AoS. It's not that it's a bad game, I just find it silly a lot of the time and really don't like the aesthetics, gameplay or style of it. KoW has been a good alternative for me, however, and I'm enjoying playing it. Sadly though, there's very few people who play it in my area and, as someone mentioned, it's very difficult to convince people to pick it up or even just give it a go. It doesn't help that AoS is extremely popular in my area either.
Just Tony wrote: Also, how many people switched to KOW with legacy armies from WFB in the first place? If Mantic has any sort of business sense, they'd advertise the piss out of their games and try to cater to the market at large. I wonder how much it'd cost to have the folks on Big Bang Theory play one of the games, or at least namedrop it?
I'd wager there are many more people who used cheap KOW filler for their WHFB armies than people who used their expensive GW miniatures to play KOW.
There are many alternatives, like 8th edition forever, 9th age, ... - I don't see why anyone would even consider KOW rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: In hindsight killing off WHFB (the game, not necessarily the setting) might have been the wisest choice, seeing as anecdotal accounts of AoS (the only measure we have of its success) have gone from overwhelming anger, apathy and rage-quitting to positive stories about new players and communities, tournaments, and a general sense of optimism about the models, rules and the way GW is handling everything. In fact I see much more negativity about 40k than AoS these days (which saddens me, but 40k is a mess). The Generals Handbook has been one of the biggest factors in the online zeitgeist 180 turn, and GWs biggest mistake by far was not introducing it upon launch. On the other hand, they were forced to eat a huge slice of humble pie and have now embraced the community in a way they might not have had it not been for the initial outrage.
Exactly this.
AoS is already a major success, because unlike WHFB 8th, it's bringing in NEW blood, i.e. what WHFB has been missing for years and which led to a slow death.
The very fact that AoS is growing where WHFB was shrinking is already progress.
Honestly, I don't see how they could make anything worse than WHFB 8th in terms of market share, that game almost compared with non-GW games for market share.
Just Tony wrote: Also, how many people switched to KOW with legacy armies from WFB in the first place? If Mantic has any sort of business sense, they'd advertise the piss out of their games and try to cater to the market at large. I wonder how much it'd cost to have the folks on Big Bang Theory play one of the games, or at least namedrop it?
I'd wager there are many more people who used cheap KOW filler for their WHFB armies than people who used their expensive GW miniatures to play KOW.
There are many alternatives, like 8th edition forever, 9th age, ... - I don't see why anyone would even consider KOW rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: In hindsight killing off WHFB (the game, not necessarily the setting) might have been the wisest choice, seeing as anecdotal accounts of AoS (the only measure we have of its success) have gone from overwhelming anger, apathy and rage-quitting to positive stories about new players and communities, tournaments, and a general sense of optimism about the models, rules and the way GW is handling everything. In fact I see much more negativity about 40k than AoS these days (which saddens me, but 40k is a mess). The Generals Handbook has been one of the biggest factors in the online zeitgeist 180 turn, and GWs biggest mistake by far was not introducing it upon launch. On the other hand, they were forced to eat a huge slice of humble pie and have now embraced the community in a way they might not have had it not been for the initial outrage.
Exactly this.
AoS is already a major success, because unlike WHFB 8th, it's bringing in NEW blood, i.e. what WHFB has been missing for years and which led to a slow death.
The very fact that AoS is growing where WHFB was shrinking is already progress.
Honestly, I don't see how they could make anything worse than WHFB 8th in terms of market share, that game almost compared with non-GW games for market share.
You can't know AoS brought in enough people to replace all those that left because they blew up the old world.
We don't even know it's new blood it sounds more like existing players swapping from 40k to AoS from accounts I've read.
It's just baseless claims without numbers to support it.
Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?
Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.
Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't think icv2 is going to tell you whether KoW is more popular than AoS. KoW armies are cheap, so even if it's popular it's not going to have a huge dollar value spent on it, if any at all because a lot of people are just playing with old WHFB figures or miniatures from other companies.
The only way to tell would be a detailed survey that tries to track down what individual groups are playing, which is never going to happen.
Why wouldn't it tell you? icv2 would tell you if KoW is more popular than Aos or not. It's telling you that nobody or most people are not buying the KoW minis but only using it for rules. So KoW is not really popular because the minis are not being sold. That is like saying people are playing Warmahordes, but with GW minis instead of Privateer Press minis. Since that is not the case we can say PP and Warmahordes is popular.
I would say KoW is not really that popular because the minis are not being sold but it's mostly for the rules. If KoW was really all that, people would want to INVEST into KoW but since it seams people are only playing KoW for the rules and not the minis, I would say no, KoW is not really that popular. I could be wrong, and KoW minis are really selling but what I get from Dakka people are still only using their GW minis and just buying paper products for KoW. So is KoW really successful if this is the case?
2 things...
1. If people are playing KoW, it means KoW is popular. You could have a ruleset with no models whatsoever, but if people play it, it's popular. Mantic and GW aren't the ONLY sources of models for playing KoW, KoW is open enough that you can use basically any miniatures from anywhere.
2. KoW models are cheap. Even if people are buying them. £50 buys you a small army and £100 buys you a large army. So the popularity of KoW models is going to be under represented on icv2 as well.
AoS is already a major success, because unlike WHFB 8th, it's bringing in NEW blood, i.e. what WHFB has been missing for years and which led to a slow death.
The very fact that AoS is growing where WHFB was shrinking is already progress.
Honestly, I don't see how they could make anything worse than WHFB 8th in terms of market share, that game almost compared with non-GW games for market share.
You can't know AoS brought in enough people to replace all those that left because they blew up the old world.
We don't even know it's new blood it sounds more like existing players swapping from 40k to AoS from accounts I've read.
It's just baseless claims without numbers to support it.
Let me rephrase:
AoS is a new game. it starts from zero. If it sells *anything*, that's growing.
WHFB was an old game, and its sales were shrinking.
Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?
Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.
Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
morgoth wrote: AoS is a new game. it starts from zero. If it sells *anything*, that's growing.
That's not really true since AoS is heavily built on the foundation of WHFB. The vast majority of the model line is not created for AoS but already existed before.
Likewise, the game didn't start from scratch but initially had the entire WHFB fanbase to retain rather than recruit people from scratch.
Had anyone else published AoS, it would have never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Considering how little AoS releases we've seen in the last months, I almost start to suspect GW has given up on AoS already; releasing the stuff they still got in the pipeline but letting it peter out silently.
It's not enough that AoS sell more than nothing. To have been worth the destruction of WHFB (and by extention worth keeping arounf). AoS must sell enough stuff and bring in enough new blood to offset the loss of the large part of the old fanbase (which is admittedly mitigated by people still buying GW fantasy products even if not using them for AoS) and make a bigger profit than WHFB did. That's a pretty tall order when you've ran off a large part of the audience of a already failing product line.
Rayvon wrote: I was really starting to think they had turned a corner, until this Blood bowl release.
The only way you can get two complete teams is to buy two copies of the game......
what a fething joke.
Just touching on this one for a moment - having looked at the rulebook from my LGS' preview copy yesterday, I do have to ask how you'd fill the two teams out to 16. My immediate reaction was 4 Linemen (or equivalent), but both teams have skill positions (and a Big Guy) which would be empty in that case. Equally, I didn't get chance to see the figures on the sprue, as they'd already been assembled, so I don't know if it would just be a case of adding an extra sprue to the box for each side.
My suspicion is that we'll see some form of set released down the line to allow you to expand the Orcs & Humans, but that it won't be announced immediately. Quite what said sets would include, though, I don't know. I could see a Human one with the missing skill positions (might be 2 Catchers & 2 Blitzers - I'm not sure), an Ogre (in kit which vaguely matches the Human model), and maybe some more Linemen - but then you're going to get people complaining about being forced to buy models they won't use.
Four blitzers is pretty standard in any Human or Orc team, so is four Black orcs and I would never have more that one thrower on the field at the start either, having two more players that start with the Block skill, and two extra STR 4 players makes a lot of difference, the Orc team you get here in the box is a particularly weak one imo.
I was in a pretty bad mood yesterday, I should really have expected it to end up with me needing to spend more than just what the starter box cost, in order to get a full team, it is GW afterall.
morgoth wrote: AoS is a new game. it starts from zero. If it sells *anything*, that's growing.
That's not really true since AoS is heavily built on the foundation of WHFB. The vast majority of the model line is not created for AoS but already existed before.
Likewise, the game didn't start from scratch but initially had the entire WHFB fanbase to retain.
Considering how little AoS releases we've seen in the last months, I almost start to suspect GW has given up on AoS already; releasing the stuff they still got in the pipeline but letting it peter out silently.
It's not enough that AoS sell more than nothing. To have been worth the destruction of WHFB (and by extention worth keeping arounf). AoS must sell enough stuff and bring in enough new blood to offset the loss of the large part of the old fanbase (which is admittedly mitigated by people still buying GW fantasy products even if not using them for AoS) and make a bigger profit than WHFB did. That's a pretty tall order when you've ran off a large part of the audience of a already failing product line.
The AoS is built on WHFB is your point of view, same goes for the idea that the WHFB fan base was to be retained (hint: not worth the effort, not anywhere close to the first goal of AoS).
The reality is that WHFB was going straight into a brick wall and GW decided to can it - it was more than time and the line was losing money.
As they did that, they knew they were going to create an opening in the Fantasy Tabletop Miniature Game market and decided to offer something of their own to fill the gap.
That *new game* was AoS, where they tried to compensate the overweight rulebooks of WHFB v8 with something lighter and more experimental.
While so many WHFB fans saw this as "the replacement" of WHFB, that analogy was only there to try and get them started on the new game.
The old fan base was:
a) tiny and shrinking
b) stale
c) disgruntled
d) not interested in buying much stuff
So doing better than that with a new game wasn't as hard as it sounds.
The big goal of AoS is to succeed as a new fantasy game, by GW, taking advantage of GW's name, Warhammer's name and the existing miniature range because why not.
The goal is to create a game which will have a fan base which is:
a) large and growing
b) renewable
c) happy
d) buys stuff
The very fact that AoS has gathered *any* momentum at all means that it's growing, likely to be renewable, currently makes people happy and has them buying stuff.
If you ever try to start a business, you'll see what I mean when I say AoS is a success already.
morgoth wrote: The very fact that AoS has gathered *any* momentum at all means that it's growing, likely to be renewable, currently makes people happy and has them buying stuff.
If you ever try to start a business, you'll see what I mean when I say AoS is a success already.
Of course people weren't buying much for WHFB. The rules had been a mess for years, making the startup costs daunting and very little stuff being released. If even half the effort given to promote AoS (starting bundles, coopertaion with tournaments, live streaming events etc.) had been afforded WHFB, we can only speculate how the interest and enthusiasm would have been rekindled.
AoS had little momentum until the Generals Handbook. GW's own AoS events in Warhammer world drew in the region of 30 people, where WHFB events had drawn in the hundreds.
The reason AoS has gathered momentum recently is because such a huge part of the old 'stale' 'disgruntled' fanbase that you so arrogantly dismiss was driven away, leaving us with a very low baseline to grow from and they seem to now be returning somewhat.
There are many alternatives, like 8th edition forever, 9th age, ... - I don't see why anyone would even consider KOW rules.
Because KoW is a really good ruleset? It works really well and it's the most balanced fantasy wargame I've ever seen.
I think the biggest thing in my gaming group is not wanting to learn online community rulesets vs officially supported rulesets from a company. Especially not for gigantic games like WHFB where it can take a long time to actually learn the rules.
It's not enough that AoS sell more than nothing. To have been worth the destruction of WHFB (and by extention worth keeping arounf). AoS must sell enough stuff and bring in enough new blood to offset the loss of the large part of the old fanbase (which is admittedly mitigated by people still buying GW fantasy products even if not using them for AoS) and make a bigger profit than WHFB did. That's a pretty tall order when you've ran off a large part of the audience of a already failing product line.
AoS has already done that: GW have said in their last financial report that they are selling more than WHFB did, at least for the past few years.
motski wrote: AoS has already done that: GW have said in their last financial report that they are selling more than WHFB did, at least for the past few years.
Which is yet another meaningless statement because we know WHFB was doing poorly and they gave no measure of how much better it was doing or their method of calculation.
Nobody denies WHFB was doing terrible, but the argument is there was a large fanbase willing to spend money on it. They just weren't because GW weren't supporting it and 8th edition was largely disliked.
There are many alternatives, like 8th edition forever, 9th age, ... - I don't see why anyone would even consider KOW rules.
Because KoW is a really good ruleset? It works really well and it's the most balanced fantasy wargame I've ever seen.
I think the biggest thing in my gaming group is not wanting to learn online community rulesets vs officially supported rulesets from a company. Especially not for gigantic games like WHFB where it can take a long time to actually learn the rules.
KoW are official rules from a company and the rules don't take long to learn.
morgoth wrote: AoS is a new game. it starts from zero. If it sells *anything*, that's growing.
That's not really true since AoS is heavily built on the foundation of WHFB. The vast majority of the model line is not created for AoS but already existed before.
Likewise, the game didn't start from scratch but initially had the entire WHFB fanbase to retain rather than recruit people from scratch.
Had anyone else published AoS, it would have never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Considering how little AoS releases we've seen in the last months, I almost start to suspect GW has given up on AoS already; releasing the stuff they still got in the pipeline but letting it peter out silently.
It's not enough that AoS sell more than nothing. To have been worth the destruction of WHFB (and by extention worth keeping arounf). AoS must sell enough stuff and bring in enough new blood to offset the loss of the large part of the old fanbase (which is admittedly mitigated by people still buying GW fantasy products even if not using them for AoS) and make a bigger profit than WHFB did. That's a pretty tall order when you've ran off a large part of the audience of a already failing product line.
If you really believe that you have not been following AoS at all. They recently streamed a huge AoS tournament as their first foray into live streaming, shortly after they announced an AoS Grand Tournament running through 2017 with tons of events, they have promised yearly updates to the Generals Handbook points. Furthermore, they have always alternated between game systems when it comes to pace of releases, they have released an INSANE amount of AoS in the last year, and we have known since like 6 months that 2016 would be the year of AoS, which they would logically follow up with a year or at least half a year more focused on 40k which saw very few releases when AoS was getting stuff every week. On top of all these things, they have invested an enormous amount of money into AoS and letting it "peter out" would be Kirby-levels of stupid. If anything, going by the facts I've laid out above, it's clear to me that GW are going all-in on AoS. I get that you hate AoS and would love for GW to let it die, but IMO you will be very disappointed.
It's not enough that AoS sell more than nothing. To have been worth the destruction of WHFB (and by extention worth keeping arounf). AoS must sell enough stuff and bring in enough new blood to offset the loss of the large part of the old fanbase (which is admittedly mitigated by people still buying GW fantasy products even if not using them for AoS) and make a bigger profit than WHFB did. That's a pretty tall order when you've ran off a large part of the audience of a already failing product line.
AoS has already done that: GW have said in their last financial report that they are selling more than WHFB did, at least for the past few years.
That's not really what they said in that statement, it's not clear what they were comparing to. Is it selling more than WHFB did during the End times when there were lot's of releases, or better than WHFB the year before, when there was basely anything released for fantasy?
Plus, if they sell just barely better but use more than double the mount of resources to get those sales than they did for WHFB, then it's not a gain. For a while, AoS had more releases dedicated to it than 40K. Did the increases in sales offset the opportunity costs of not dedicating those releases to 40K products? If not, following the same reasoning that led to cancelling WHFB leads to cancelling (or rather stop producing for) AoS.
morgoth wrote: The very fact that AoS has gathered *any* momentum at all means that it's growing, likely to be renewable, currently makes people happy and has them buying stuff.
If you ever try to start a business, you'll see what I mean when I say AoS is a success already.
Of course people weren't buying much for WHFB. The rules had been a mess for years, making the startup costs daunting and very little stuff being released. If even half the effort given to promote AoS (starting bundles, coopertaion with tournaments, live streaming events etc.) had been afforded WHFB, we can only speculate how the interest and enthusiasm would have been rekindled
How many times do you think GW has "tried" to make WHFB work again ?
I think you vastly underestimate the weight of WHFB's past and why it made business sense to just drop it and start from scratch when it had become such a small source of revenue.
How many times do you think GW has "tried" to make WHFB work again ?.
Zero times.
It worked for decades but they let it slowly degrade by not taking the rules or their setting seriously. Then once something needed to be done they couldn't be bothered doing actual work on their existing beloved setting, so they threw it away like trash.
AoS was pretty dead until the handbook (something people can strangely admit now after the release, but before, all the anecdotal evidence for that was ignored). Stuff were obviously in the pipeline for a long time before the WHFB world ended so regardles of how much AoS flopped they'd have released what they had already made. Generals handbook managed to turn the community around around a bit, but is it back to the numbers before AoS?
They did go all-in on AoS. A year ago. (and that year was planned years before that). When AoS didn't turn out to be the success they were hoping for though...
How much AoS stuff has been released since Silver Tower?
How many times do you think GW has "tried" to make WHFB work again ?.
Since 8th edition? Zero times.
I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
GW tried to make WHFB work again for years, before and during 8th.
WHFB didn't suddenly become "bad" with 8th either, it's been going downhill for a very long time from what I recall.
morgoth wrote: I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along? They just forgot to tell anyone.
morgoth wrote: I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along?
That was indeed my interpretation from day one, that GW intentionally dropped an incomplete game on the market to see the reactions, community suggestions and then take their time to come up with a great, community inspired and more complete set of rules.
RoninXiC wrote: Even with the GHAOS still is a mediocre at best game. AT BEST.
I don't know and I don't care, I won't be playing AOS ever, the models are just ugly to me.
But I would expect a lot more stuff like the GH down the line, they seem to be managing this game more like a startup: launch fast, iterate quickly.
There are many alternatives, like 8th edition forever, 9th age, ... - I don't see why anyone would even consider KOW rules.
Because KoW is a really good ruleset? It works really well and it's the most balanced fantasy wargame I've ever seen.
I think the biggest thing in my gaming group is not wanting to learn online community rulesets vs officially supported rulesets from a company. Especially not for gigantic games like WHFB where it can take a long time to actually learn the rules.
KoW are official rules from a company and the rules don't take long to learn.
Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. My group is uninterested in community rulesets for WHFB like 9th age but are happier to use rulesets published by an actual company.
Zywus, nothing you said supports your viewpoint. Regardless if they had releases in the pipeline for years or not , there is still nothing strange at all about the lack of AoS releases of late. Unless you believe that 40k was "petering out" when AoS completely took over the release schedule. All my other point still speak heavily in my favor. We're both speculating but i outlined several pieces of evidence that supports my view point while the ONLY argument you have is "they haven't released anything for AoS lately", which a) is false (they have had several AoS releases since ST) and b) follows an expected schedule that, like I said, we already knew about from rumors long ago. There's is simply nothing that indicates GW would stop supporting AoS anytime soon while there is plenty of indication that they are going full steam ahead and betting everything on it, still.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
A blank game that constantly refers back to WHFB before it...
morgoth wrote: I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along?
That was indeed my interpretation from day one, that GW intentionally dropped an incomplete game on the market to see the reactions, community suggestions and then take their time to come up with a great, community inspired and more complete set of rules.
If that was the case, don't you think they would have mentioned that they were looking for peoples input and suggestions from the community?
There was nothing said from GW's side that suggested there was anything else. And I'd say it's extremely clear there never were anything like the GH planned.
GW saw that people ran headlong from AoS and a tiny minority were interested in playing the game without any structure, so they scrambled to get the GH out and stem the losses. Which seem to have worked somewhat.
Mymearan wrote: Zywus, nothing you said supports your viewpoint. Regardless if they had releases in the pipeline for years or not , there is still nothing strange at all about the lack of AoS releases of late. Unless you believe that 40k was "petering out" when AoS completely took over the release schedule. All my other point still speak heavily in my favor. We're both speculating but i outlined several pieces of evidence that supports my view point while the ONLY argument you have is "they haven't released anything for AoS lately", which a) is false (they have had several AoS releases since ST) and b) follows an expected schedule that, like I said, we already knew about from rumors long ago. There's is simply nothing that indicates GW would stop supporting AoS anytime soon while there is plenty of indication that they are going full steam ahead and betting everything on it, still.
I'm not saying that GWhas necessarily already dropped the game behind the scenes. But the way they act now is how I would do it if I had decided to drop it.
Release anything in the pipeline that's already far along. Keep the fanbase as enthusiastic as possible for as long as possible, as cheaply as possible. Streaming tournaments etc, cost almost nothing.
Several AoS releases since ST you say. Not saying that's wrong, as I don't keep a close watch on AoS but what have they released exactly? Some reboxings of characters to use in ST and a sigmarine here and there that barely the most fanboyest of AoS fanboys gets enthused about? I guess you could count that Khorne arena game with reboxed blood-dudes?
motski wrote: Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
As we can see, the AoS community is large and growing and the KoW community is small and stagnant.
This could also be the result of KoW having official forums (http://vb.manticforum.com/) which AoS does not have. Maybe reddit was just the simplest way for people to create a AoS discussion while Mantic actually provides a forum for people to use?
motski wrote: Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
As we can see, the AoS community is large and growing and the KoW community is small and stagnant.
This could also be the result of KoW having official forums (http://vb.manticforum.com/) which AoS does not have. Maybe reddit was just the simplest way for people to create a AoS discussion while Mantic actually provides a forum for people to use?
very unlikely seeing as the Grand Alliance forum for AoS is the de facto home for AoS discussion online (along with Facebook), and it's way more active than the KoW forum from a quick look in general discussion.
Herzlos wrote: It could also be that there are essentially no rules questions about kow, so very little to talk about online.
Rules questions have their own forums on both TGA and KoW, so no. Most discussions are about other things just like here on dakka or any other wargaming forum. Also AoS has WAY less ambiguous and/or contradictory rules than 40k, it's probably comparable to KoW on that front.
morgoth wrote: I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along?
That was indeed my interpretation from day one, that GW intentionally dropped an incomplete game on the market to see the reactions, community suggestions and then take their time to come up with a great, community inspired and more complete set of rules.
I think that's a bit of a leap. AoS was released at the height of Kirby telling everyone that GW made minis for collectors, and AoS was something that allowed you to put your collection on a table top. Multiple sources flat out denied that AoS would ever get points.
The Generals handbook and GW subsequently courting the tournament scene only happened after AoS flopped and Kevin Rountree was appointed
morgoth wrote: I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.
The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.
Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along?
That was indeed my interpretation from day one, that GW intentionally dropped an incomplete game on the market to see the reactions, community suggestions and then take their time to come up with a great, community inspired and more complete set of rules.
I think that's a bit of a leap. AoS was released at the height of Kirby telling everyone that GW made minis for collectors, and AoS was something that allowed you to put your collection on a table top. Multiple sources flat out denied that AoS would ever get points.
The Generals handbook and GW subsequently courting the tournament scene only happened after AoS flopped and Kevin Rountree was appointed
Omoshiro.
I would've never suspected such sheer stupidity tbh, I guess I'm still way too naive.
Still, were those multiple sources reliable ?
Because Kirby was also responsible for v7 and a bunch of 40k codexes which weren't garbage, correct ?
Because Kirby was also responsible for v7 and a bunch of 40k codexes which weren't garbage, correct ?
Which codices were they? The first few which may have been balanced against each other but also ripped the character out like Orks and Dark Eldar? Or are we talking Scatbike Eldar, Hunter Contingent Tau, Gladius Marines etc. which massively increased the power level to make those other codices basically auto-lose against these ones?
Herzlos wrote: It could also be that there are essentially no rules questions about kow, so very little to talk about online.
Rules questions have their own forums on both TGA and KoW, so no. Most discussions are about other things just like here on dakka or any other wargaming forum. Also AoS has WAY less ambiguous and/or contradictory rules than 40k, it's probably comparable to KoW on that front.
In AoS it's quite simple as there are essentially no rules and so less ambiguous or contrary rules.
Because Kirby was also responsible for v7 and a bunch of 40k codexes which weren't garbage, correct ?
Which codices were they? The first few which may have been balanced against each other but also ripped the character out like Orks and Dark Eldar? Or are we talking Scatbike Eldar, Hunter Contingent Tau, Gladius Marines etc. which massively increased the power level to make those other codices basically auto-lose against these ones?
I was thinking more along the lines of Space Wolf etc.
The Dark Eldar got royally shafted, the Orks improved slightly.
The Eldar basically stayed where they were, so did the Tau and Necrons.
I guess it's mostly the Marines that went up.
Anyway, apart from the failed codexes, the balance doesn't seem worse than it was at any prior stage, and internal balance seems to have somewhat improved.
Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?
Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.
Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
As we can see, the AoS community is large and growing and the KoW community is small and stagnant.
Yes, because Reddit is such an accurate measure... (Not.)
As pointed out on the other thread - a large quantity of salt is being taken about Reddit....
Anecdotally - the local AoS scene is quite dead.
With the worms crawling in, the worms crawling out, the worms playing pinochle in its snout....
While the local KoW scene is doing reasonably well, it is not doing as well as 5th or 6th edition Warhammer - just better than Aos - and much of that is from folks using the rules to continue playing with the armies that they created under the older editions of WHFB.
That said, if you like AoS then go ahead and play it
Mario wrote: This could also be the result of KoW having official forums (http://vb.manticforum.com/) which AoS does not have. Maybe reddit was just the simplest way for people to create a AoS discussion while Mantic actually provides a forum for people to use?
There's plenty of forums for AoS and that didn't stop people going to reddit. Funny that you mention the Mantic forums because they're a ghost town just like the KoW subsection on dakka. If anything they just prove my point that the KoW community is tiny, and not going anywhere.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Yes, because Reddit is such an accurate measure... (Not.)
As pointed out on the other thread - a large quantity of salt is being taken about Reddit....
As I said, I think the link I posted is a better reflector of actual numbers and interest than the rumors, heresay and anecodotal reports found in threads like this.
I can understand your skepticism though, as what I posted doesn't bode well for the wargame you are obviously trying so hard to promote.
Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?
Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.
Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.
Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.
lord_blackfang wrote: There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.
Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.
Perhaps the fanbase is quietly getting on with the business of hobby and playing.....whereas GW does tend to attract the vocal, outspoken and spleen ridden of fanbase.
lord_blackfang wrote: There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.
Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.
Perhaps the fanbase is quietly getting on with the business of hobby and playing.....whereas GW does tend to attract the vocal, outspoken and spleen ridden of fanbase.
Or just, you know, if a game just works, you just sit down and play. If a game is a clunky mess, people will
- ask for lists to crush and humiliate their potential friends
- ask to counter such lists
- whine online about the above
- discuss the above in disbelief
- discuss the above in light of the dubious design of some of the units in disbelief
- discuss all of the above, look at the price, and reiterate the disbelief
Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?
Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.
Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:
lord_blackfang wrote: There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.
Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.
Perhaps the fanbase is quietly getting on with the business of hobby and playing.....whereas GW does tend to attract the vocal, outspoken and spleen ridden of fanbase.
Or just, you know, if a game just works, you just sit down and play. If a game is a clunky mess, people will
- ask for lists to crush and humiliate their potential friends
- ask to counter such lists
- whine online about the above
- discuss the above in disbelief
- discuss the above in light of the dubious design of some of the units in disbelief
- discuss all of the above, look at the price, and reiterate the disbelief
and so on.
You've said something I agree with!
Warhammer is good at being popular though, big flashy models do appear to be a very (if not the most) effective way to draw people in.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.
Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.
Hope you have a ladder, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself climbing off that high horse!
One of the reasons I love the AoS community is that you don't see attitudes like this ("why do people like what I don't?"). People are positive and forward-looking and don't waste time insulting other games or gamers.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.
Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.
Hope you have a ladder, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself climbing off that high horse!
One of the reasons I love the AoS community is that you don't see attitudes like this ("why do like what I don't?"). People are positive and forward-looking and don't waste time insulting other games or gamers.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.
Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.
Hope you have a ladder, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself climbing off that high horse!
One of the reasons I love the AoS community is that you don't see attitudes like this ("why do like what I don't?"). People are positive and forward-looking and don't waste time insulting other games or gamers.
I love AoS. Don't play 40K, not for many years.
Well then, I guess you proved me wrong then since you would be a part of the AoS community! I agree that 40k is a mess but people like different things in games. Some people don't care much about rules but mainly models, painting, building, and fluff.
For me, the GW ship sailed a long time ago, and even if they did get better, why would I go back to GW when there is so much better and cheaper, stuff out there?
Example, where I live, it's impossible to get outdoor spraying done in winter because of the rain/cold/snow, so I'm looking to buy primer you can put on with a brush.
GW imperial primer is £3
Vallejo equivalent is cheaper, bigger, and comes in other bottle sizes that offer stonking value for money, plus a ton of different colours, and it's pretty darn good.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, the GW ship sailed a long time ago, and even if they did get better, why would I go back to GW when there is so much better and cheaper, stuff out there?
Example, where I live, it's impossible to get outdoor spraying done in winter because of the rain/cold/snow, so I'm looking to buy primer you can put on with a brush.
GW imperial primer is £3
Vallejo equivalent is cheaper, bigger, and comes in other bottle sizes that offer stonking value for money, plus a ton of different colours, and it's pretty darn good.
No brainer really.
I think this kind of sums it up. I don't really see GW getting that much better. A lot of the things they did were simple damage control for several years of terrible decisions. Things like new box sets people are talking abut are just fething battleforces which used to exist, but were removed in favor of dumb ass web bundles. Yes it is nice they are back, but it is not a big enough change. Last I saw they were talking to their customers which is pretty nice so I will admit that.
Their rules are still pretty crappy and balance is still in the toilet. Everything is still overly expensive. I haven't heard that they are becoming more accomidating to LGS. They are releasing specialist games, but they fething changed the scale of epic and the style so it wouldn't be compatible with your old gak.
The biggest thing though is like DINLT just said, there are really a lot of other companies now that are doing what GW does only better. A significant GW advantage was that there would always be a GW game being played in a store. Now that isn't always the case because a lot of companies have come around to replace them. Lot of companies have games with better rules, prices, and community support. I might one day pull my 40k army out. Maybe even play a classic game of epic, BFG, or WFB. However, it is doubtful I will ever commit to buying an army for one of their games again.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, the GW ship sailed a long time ago, and even if they did get better, why would I go back to GW when there is so much better and cheaper, stuff out there?
Example, where I live, it's impossible to get outdoor spraying done in winter because of the rain/cold/snow, so I'm looking to buy primer you can put on with a brush.
GW imperial primer is £3
Vallejo equivalent is cheaper, bigger, and comes in other bottle sizes that offer stonking value for money, plus a ton of different colours, and it's pretty darn good.
No brainer really.
I think this kind of sums it up. I don't really see GW getting that much better. A lot of the things they did were simple damage control for several years of terrible decisions. Things like new box sets people are talking abut are just fething battleforces which used to exist, but were removed in favor of dumb ass web bundles. Yes it is nice they are back, but it is not a big enough change. Last I saw they were talking to their customers which is pretty nice so I will admit that.
Their rules are still pretty crappy and balance is still in the toilet. Everything is still overly expensive. I haven't heard that they are becoming more accomidating to LGS. They are releasing specialist games, but they fething changed the scale of epic and the style so it wouldn't be compatible with your old gak.
The biggest thing though is like DINLT just said, there are really a lot of other companies now that are doing what GW does only better. A significant GW advantage was that there would always be a GW game being played in a store. Now that isn't always the case because a lot of companies have come around to replace them. Lot of companies have games with better rules, prices, and community support. I might one day pull my 40k army out. Maybe even play a classic game of epic, BFG, or WFB. However, it is doubtful I will ever commit to buying an army for one of their games again.
Exactly. Have an exalt.
The bottom line is this: it's not the 1990s anymore.
Small start up companies, with kickstarter, are doing so many good things. Dakka's very own Maelstrom's Edge is a good example of this. Great to play, cheap to buy, and very professionally done.
Even if I wanted to return to GW, there is so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
Has GW changed? I would say No they haven't changed. Why? New FAQs today. So it's same old GW with how they deal with FAQs.
So it's all smoke and mirrors in appearance, but the inside workings are still the same. GW can fix 40K right now if they wanted, but they are still doing the same old same old regarding 40K. How hard is it to say, "please bear with us, we are making a new edition and we promise we will fix 40K." but of course, since GW HASN'T changed because that "could affect sales" they will not say it.
So I guess we can say, no GW hasn't changed and it is "the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I wouldn't start a new 40k Space Marine army right now with the prices - but I can easily add on to my own collection when a new edition drops. AOS was incredibly cheap to get into on the other hand with the new boxed sets.
SKR.HH wrote: Oh gosh... There must be more metaphors than just "Smoke and Mirrors"...
They started uploading the errata (which are significantly smaller than the FAQ)... so what? That makes them bad?
Nope not at all. They are doing great, except for their prices.
It was a long time ago that there where so many boxes that I wanted to buy but could not afford. It sort of brings back childhood memories ; )
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.
i can't stand Vallejo, for the most part...
i have had horrible luck with their paints (both with paints arriving in the mail dried or horribly separated, and droppers cracking), and i'm no fan of dropper bottles since i like to paint straight from the pot...
i am firmly in the P3 paint and W&N brush camp...
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
Meh. Both are terrible brushes compared to series 7 or 8404, and way too expensive in comparison.
I got mine for pretty cheap, dirt cheap in fact. Perhaps the seller was having a fire sale, but I thought they were excellent value for money, and I've never had a problem with them.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.
i can't stand Vallejo, for the most part...
i have had horrible luck with their paints (both with paints arriving in the mail dried or horribly separated, and droppers cracking), and i'm no fan of dropper bottles since i like to paint straight from the pot...
i am firmly in the P3 paint and W&N brush camp...
Citadel minis are still my favorites, though
cheers
jah
Don't get me wrong, citadel paints are of an excellent quality, I've still got goblin green from the 1990s
But there is a whole range of excellent alternatives out there. I've never had a problem yet with Vallejo, and thank God for that, but I suppose at the end of the day, everybody's experience is different.
I'm probably the only person on dakka that bought original finecast and never had a problem with it. Got lucky I guess
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: Slowly but surely they are emulating the old:
New/old white dwarf,
Got a new "community" (gasp!) website.
What is the world coming to?
Yes, there is a marked improvement, but it's the same old price structure
I'm a cheapskate who never buys sand (I get it for free from the beach) but even if I were to buy sand, GW would be the last place I'd look. Same with PVA glue and other model supplies.
£8 for a modelling spatula
I buy a pack of 100 ice lolly sticks for pennies in comparison and they do the same thing.
You can have a great business culture, excellent products, but if cheaper alternatives, of equal quality are available elsewhere, I go elsewhere.
You vote with your wallet and GW has yet to learn that, acting as though it were still the 1990s.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
Meh. Both are terrible brushes compared to series 7 or 8404, and way too expensive in comparison.
I got mine for pretty cheap, dirt cheap in fact. Perhaps the seller was having a fire sale, but I thought they were excellent value for money, and I've never had a problem with them.
I second Morgoth... Invested in a few series 7 and haven't regretted this since then
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.
i can't stand Vallejo, for the most part...
i have had horrible luck with their paints (both with paints arriving in the mail dried or horribly separated, and droppers cracking), and i'm no fan of dropper bottles since i like to paint straight from the pot...
i am firmly in the P3 paint and W&N brush camp...
Citadel minis are still my favorites, though
cheers
jah
Don't get me wrong, citadel paints are of an excellent quality, I've still got goblin green from the 1990s
But there is a whole range of excellent alternatives out there. I've never had a problem yet with Vallejo, and thank God for that, but I suppose at the end of the day, everybody's experience is different.
I'm probably the only person on dakka that bought original finecast and never had a problem with it. Got lucky I guess
Nah... Only had problems with Vallejo... Always dried up patchy no matter what I do (--> Thin with water or medium)... But there mediums are excellent.
Talizvar wrote: Slowly but surely they are emulating the old:
New/old white dwarf,
Got a new "community" (gasp!) website.
What is the world coming to?
Yes, there is a marked improvement, but it's the same old price structure
I'm a cheapskate who never buys sand (I get it for free from the beach) but even if I were to buy sand, GW would be the last place I'd look. Same with PVA glue and other model supplies.
£8 for a modelling spatula
I buy a pack of 100 ice lolly sticks for pennies in comparison and they do the same thing.
You can have a great business culture, excellent products, but if cheaper alternatives, of equal quality are available elsewhere, I go elsewhere.
You vote with your wallet and GW has yet to learn that, acting as though it were still the 1990s.
Indeed... Hobby supplies are way overpriced... But I think that is just a bonus for GW...
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
Meh. Both are terrible brushes compared to series 7 or 8404, and way too expensive in comparison.
I got mine for pretty cheap, dirt cheap in fact. Perhaps the seller was having a fire sale, but I thought they were excellent value for money, and I've never had a problem with them.
What I mean is that when you can have the best brush in the world for about 7-10 bucks, anything else is a rip off to me.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
Meh. Both are terrible brushes compared to series 7 or 8404, and way too expensive in comparison.
The AP Brushes are great for "I'm base coating and layering xyz terrain/army/boring large surfaces" - I've used their 00 / fine details ones and they're terrible. Overall - the brushes are great for the prices.
I own a few 8404 - so around $100 for four brushes but I've cranked out nearly 1000 models with them. GWs brushes carried me through my first thousand models painted though - they aren't terrible - but for their price not worth it
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
Meh. Both are terrible brushes compared to series 7 or 8404, and way too expensive in comparison.
The AP Brushes are great for "I'm base coating and layering xyz terrain/army/boring large surfaces" - I've used their 00 / fine details ones and they're terrible. Overall - the brushes are great for the prices.
I do that with an airbrush, that must be why I find them pointless.
I am very curious about the next financial report. With gsc, Deathwatch, bloodbowl, thousand sons, a supposedly resurgent aos, burning of prospero, heavily discounted bundles of popular models, the reintroduction of very popular classic models, and the rumour of sisters to come, you have to feel that Gw has had a very good few months.
Chikout wrote: I am very curious about the next financial report. With gsc, Deathwatch, bloodbowl, thousand sons, a supposedly resurgent aos, burning of prospero, heavily discounted bundles of popular models, the reintroduction of very popular classic models, and the rumour of sisters to come, you have to feel that Gw has had a very good few months.
Maybe but they didn't mention any of that recently only that exchange rates will see a slightly higher than expected first year result.
Even if they start to take a beating in sales, they will still see people willing to drop the same cash a brand new 360 costs on a single model and keep that going. If anything, they will be motivated instead to increase model price to the point that people WON'T buy them and scale it back .5% from there.
Chikout wrote:I am very curious about the next financial report. With gsc, Deathwatch, bloodbowl, thousand sons, a supposedly resurgent aos, burning of prospero, heavily discounted bundles of popular models, the reintroduction of very popular classic models, and the rumour of sisters to come, you have to feel that Gw has had a very good few months.
You forgot to mention Traitor Legions. Do you think this would increase sales?
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.
Apple Barrel, 236 ml = £2.02 ($2.50 American)
That's my preferred paint, having had used both Citadel and P3 paints to compare against.
Chikout wrote:I am very curious about the next financial report. With gsc, Deathwatch, bloodbowl, thousand sons, a supposedly resurgent aos, burning of prospero, heavily discounted bundles of popular models, the reintroduction of very popular classic models, and the rumour of sisters to come, you have to feel that Gw has had a very good few months.
You forgot to mention Traitor Legions. Do you think this would increase sales?
The base codex is still CSM though.
You can't polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.
Apple Barrel, 236 ml = £2.02 ($2.50 American)
That's my preferred paint, having had used both Citadel and P3 paints to compare against.
Bargains to be had everywhere. Keep up the good work.
I live near the coast, so plenty of free sand for me
And there's good quality slate nearby, so I pick some up, break it up, and instant basing material for free.
I started 40k roughly 2 years ago. Back then the company had nothing to do with what is now. It was zero user friendly, I had nowhere to start with: no starters, no cool bundles, damn I am not sure if we even had Warhammer TV around. I had literally no Idea how to begin with, there was only youtubers that could help me. They didn't even want to sell stuff in my country, they denied our chance of having store and all you could buy was either Ebay or their site. Now we have at least 3 shops selling GW now. I can grab the bus and go the center and buy some paints and minis.
Now it is different. It seems that GW actually are reading what is happening in forums and etc.
There are still some drawbacks thou, like you never have enough of special weapons or proper "hands" in the sprue and etc. SM maybe flexible as army, but they still suck as Kits.
DalinCriid wrote: I started 40k roughly 2 years ago. Back then the company had nothing to do with what is now. It was zero user friendly, I had nowhere to start with: no starters, no cool bundles, damn I am not sure if we even had Warhammer TV around. I had literally no Idea how to begin with, there was only youtubers that could help me. They didn't even want to sell stuff in my country, they denied our chance of having store and all you could buy was either Ebay or their site. Now we have at least 3 shops selling GW now. I can grab the bus and go the center and buy some paints and minis.
Now it is different. It seems that GW actually are reading what is happening in forums and etc.
There are still some drawbacks thou, like you never have enough of special weapons or proper "hands" in the sprue and etc. SM maybe flexible as army, but they still suck as Kits.
That's kinda the problem you never knew GW in its heyday, sure it's better since Kirby left the CEO seat but it's still gak compared to the early 00's whose deals made a mockery of today's.
Return of old metals in HIGH demand (diaznettes), return of SoB, return of GSC, lowered price getting started boxes, being more open online and talking about upcoming projects, fixing white dwarf...they are getting better. Granted, they were in a bad spot and could only go up. But they are seriously improving. The people who deny they are improving are honestly just trying to be miserable people.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: "so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "
Very true, this.
Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO
Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)
Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96
Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05
Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.
As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.
Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.
It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.
i can't stand Vallejo, for the most part...
i have had horrible luck with their paints (both with paints arriving in the mail dried or horribly separated, and droppers cracking), and i'm no fan of dropper bottles since i like to paint straight from the pot...
i am firmly in the P3 paint and W&N brush camp...
Citadel minis are still my favorites, though
cheers
jah
I think it is time to form the anti-vallejo movement. I have some really nice colors from their points, but overall I absolutely loathe Vallejo.
Thousand Sons Rubric Marines in the UK: £30 Thousand Sons Rubric Marines in Oz (converted to £): £49.50.
And the Thousand Sons Terminators are AUD$20 more expensive than the Dark Angel or Blood Angel Terminators. They're more expensive than the 5 Termies + Termy Captain bundle. The only Terminators more expensive are the absurdly and insultingly overpriced Cataphractii Terminators.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Thousand Sons Rubric Marines in the UK: £30
Thousand Sons Rubric Marines in Oz (converted to £): £49.50.
And the Thousand Sons Terminators are AUD$20 more expensive than the Dark Angel or Blood Angel Terminators. They're more expensive than the 5 Termies + Termy Captain bundle. The only Terminators more expensive are the absurdly and insultingly overpriced Cataphractii Terminators.
They.
Are.
Not.
Getting.
Better.
They must be getting better if you changed your Avatar.
Thing is, this is not just a GW thing that is happening in NZ and Australia, a lot of companies do that sadly. Do you guys have great hourly wages there or what? How do you guys afford to live there?
I'm sure you can already find plenty of people who'll buy and ship the sprues to Oz for less than the £19.50 difference (IIRC last thing I sent to Oz was about £6 in shipping)
I think some people are going to complain about GW just on principle. Personally I think the company has made great strides to address the gak they've been peddling the last couple of years, yes mistakes have been made but far fewer in the last year. Every model company has come out with some utter crap ( Privateer Press soft plastic comes to mind ), but this new GW has listened to the community and looked at it's sales and done a full 180 on some of it bad decisions ( White Dwarf, Specialist Games etc ). Age of Sigmar wasn't every-bodies favourite release ( and boy did the haters go on and on and on... ), but the new releases for 40k ( Deathwatch, GSC, Admech ) have exceeded expectations and show a bright future for further hinted releases.
Yes the prices are high and people expecting full armies for certain prices are just kidding themselves, other model companies charge the same or more per model yet don't receive the same backlash because they've always charged that amount and people don't remember the good old days when this model was this price etc for that company.
morgoth wrote: Here's a little tip for our friends in NZ/AU.
I live in Belgium, a tiny tiny country that has tiny tiny importers and ridiculously gakky prices compared to neighbouring countries.
Anything you want to buy you can get at least 10% cheaper in France, another 10% cheaper in Germany, and easily another 10% cheaper in the US.
So what do we do ? We buy most of our stuff from Germany, and some from the US.
So stop whining, get organized, import your plastic crack and who cares about the idiotic importers who think they can sell the same gak at +20%.
Yes, we often forget how easy it is for Australians to get in their cars and drive across the border to Germany or the Netherlands or even Luxembourg and France.
I joke of course
Over the years, I've sold a lot of GW stuff to Australian customers (Maybe even some dakka members, who knows) so you think I'd be happy with the status quo and an opportunity to keep making money, but I think it's a shoddy way to treat a loyal fanbase...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: I think some people are going to complain about GW just on principle. Personally I think the company has made great strides to address the gak they've been peddling the last couple of years, yes mistakes have been made but far fewer in the last year. Every model company has come out with some utter crap ( Privateer Press soft plastic comes to mind ), but this new GW has listened to the community and looked at it's sales and done a full 180 on some of it bad decisions ( White Dwarf, Specialist Games etc ). Age of Sigmar wasn't every-bodies favourite release ( and boy did the haters go on and on and on... ), but the new releases for 40k ( Deathwatch, GSC, Admech ) have exceeded expectations and show a bright future for further hinted releases.
Yes the prices are high and people expecting full armies for certain prices are just kidding themselves, other model companies charge the same or more per model yet don't receive the same backlash because they've always charged that amount and people don't remember the good old days when this model was this price etc for that company.
You forget that a lot of the AOS hate was self-inflicted by GW, especially their treatment of older models with the silly rules, which they didn't include for newer models.
I maintain to this day that it was a massive middle finger to loyal customers.
Yeah, even with the 20% discount, that's still pretty harsh pricing...
As always, do what I did and vote with your feet - plenty of other good stuff out there made by other companies.
Free market and all that....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Thousand Sons Rubric Marines in the UK: £30
Thousand Sons Rubric Marines in Oz (converted to £): £49.50.
And the Thousand Sons Terminators are AUD$20 more expensive than the Dark Angel or Blood Angel Terminators. They're more expensive than the 5 Termies + Termy Captain bundle. The only Terminators more expensive are the absurdly and insultingly overpriced Cataphractii Terminators.
morgoth wrote: Here's a little tip for our friends in NZ/AU.
I live in Belgium, a tiny tiny country that has tiny tiny importers and ridiculously gakky prices compared to neighbouring countries.
Anything you want to buy you can get at least 10% cheaper in France, another 10% cheaper in Germany, and easily another 10% cheaper in the US.
So what do we do ? We buy most of our stuff from Germany, and some from the US.
So stop whining, get organized, import your plastic crack and who cares about the idiotic importers who think they can sell the same gak at +20%.
Yes, we often forget how easy it is for Australians to get in their cars and drive across the border to Germany or the Netherlands or even Luxembourg and France.
I joke of course
Yes, because in 2016, you need to *drive* somewhere to buy from there.
Incidentally, Australia has it pretty easy due to the proximity with Asia, there's only the odd product, like GW, which will be less of a bargain because it comes from the western world unlike most everything.
I'm pretty sure shipping from HK doesn't take 3 weeks when you live in Australia.
Yes the prices are high and people expecting full armies for certain prices are just kidding themselves, other model companies charge the same or more per model yet don't receive the same backlash because they've always charged that amount and people don't remember the good old days when this model was this price etc for that company.
Which other company charges as much for a plastic infantry model as GW?
The point I was making is that you are fortunate to be in Belgium because of your proximity to the UK, and of course, other big countries such as France and Germany.
As you rightly point out, Australia has other advantages for buying and selling to Asia, but as GW is a British company, they have to rely on shipping.
Aerosol cans have to come by ship, so there's always a premium on those.
Australians generally seem to have high wages due to their successful economy, but that's no excuse for charging high prices.
Oh great, this discussion again, here, let's just get it out of the way quickly...
"GW has absurd Australian prices!" "But you have a higher minimum wage!" "Yeah except cost of living is so high that you aren't left with much discretionary income" "Well other companies overcharge too" "Yeah and those companies suck, good companies have more fair pricing and GW prices are high to begin with" "But you have to pay more to employ people in Australia" "But GW's wholesale price in Oz is higher than the bloody retail price in other countries!" "It's expensive to ship to Australia" "I can import stuff myself for a fraction of the cost" "Well just import it" "But GW's trade conditions won't let independent retailers sell internationally" "Oh well, sucks to be you" "Well at least we have awesome beaches and fething kangaroos" "Feth you" "Feth you too"
*New Zealander speaks up* "Well it's even worse here!" "No one cares, go back to the Shire you filthy hobbit"
I wonder if anyone asked GW why the australian prices are so far off, and if they answered.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some good reasons in there.
After all, that might explain why many other companies do it as well.
Also, I don't think GW applying (partly justified) worse pricing to 2% of their customers is enough to compensate for all the good things they've done.
If you don't like the prices, import the stuff and let the local GW die, then maybe theyll react.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Oh great, this discussion again, here, let's just get it out of the way quickly...
Please enlighten me where this argument
"You have to pay more to employ people in Australia"
has been invalidated...
GW seems to believe that they will only flourish if they have their own stores (which is admittedly debatable)... Following this approach they must/should compensate the higher costs.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Oh great, this discussion again, here, let's just get it out of the way quickly...
Please enlighten me where this argument
"You have to pay more to employ people in Australia"
has been invalidated...
GW seems to believe that they will only flourish if they have their own stores (which is admittedly debatable)... Following this approach they must/should compensate the higher costs.
I don't think that's applicable.
The price of GW product is the same in Germany as in Belgium, while labor costs are definitely higher in Belgium.
There are other places in Europe with varying labor costs and all sell GW produce at the exact same € price.
I would think it's more related to the vast overhead of maintaining an additional remote warehouse, OR a problem with the rate of currency exchange updates, OR a problem with import taxes.
SKR.HH wrote: "You have to pay more to employ people in Australia"
It's true you have to pay people more in Australia BUT the wholesale price is significantly higher in Australia so local retailers don't even have the opportunity to be competitive with international pricing.
If GW sold the models wholesale at a similar price as they do elsewhere in the world, the difference between Australian pricing and international pricing would drop to sweet feth all.
Morgoth wrote:
I would think it's more related to the vast overhead of maintaining an additional remote warehouse, OR a problem with the rate of currency exchange updates, OR a problem with import taxes.
OR They're charging a premium because they think they can?
Seriously, you only have to look at their inter-regional sales ban to come to the conclusion that there may be some less than altruistic intention behind the idea.
Or does it seem perfectly plausible to you that an individual could purchase a product, made from the same stuff, in the same country, by the same people, from halfway around the world, paying only domestic shipping with no extraordinary discounts and still be better off than if they walked down their own high street and picked it up?
A small premium for logistical and duty reasons would be understandable, but the disparity goes way beyond anything that's easily explained by that.
If it isn't possible for GW to sell in country without a massive price hike and artificially limited competition, then they should just pull out and leave it to other smalller businesses that can. It would be less damaging to them than these arbitrary price premiums.
morgoth wrote: I would think it's more related to the vast overhead of maintaining an additional remote warehouse,
If that is the reason it's GW's fault for doing a poor job of managing themselves.
OR a problem with the rate of currency exchange updates,
Well the GBP has dropped because of brexit, so I don't expect them to match the current exchange rate, but they should be closer to the average over the past couple of years.
OR a problem with import taxes.
Actually, taxes in Australia are LESS than the UK, so it should actually offset the shipping/warehouse costs somewhat.
It wasn't that many years ago I could order product direct from the UKGW online store and have it delivered to my door for less than I could buy it in a shop by a decent amount, probably not far off what the local retailers were paying wholesale.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the high prices here are partly because GW are idiots who opened tons of stores here and we know their own stores aren't great money makers. Australia has one of the highest (if not the highest?) GW stores per capita besides the UK itself. Which is silly because you have to pay people even more in Australia than elsewhere, if there's anywhere in the world you should avoid opening loss-leading stores, it's Australia.
But instead of fixing their problem, they raise the price they sell to independents to try and compensate. If they just gave up their poor business model they'd probably be able to both lower prices and increase profits out here.
morgoth wrote: I wonder if anyone asked GW why the australian prices are so far off, and if they answered.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some good reasons in there.
After all, that might explain why many other companies do it as well.
I already know the answer: Because they think they can get away with it.
Every company (not just GW) would love to charge AUS/NZ prizes in Belgium as well, but they wouldn't benefit from it since you can easily parallel-import the stuff into Belgium from another EU nation. Some companies (GW included) perceive that they can charge vastly higher prices in AUS/NZ and make up for lower number of sales with higher profit margins.
Rolsheen wrote: I think some people are going to complain about GW just on principle. Personally I think the company has made great strides to address the gak they've been peddling the last couple of years, yes mistakes have been made but far fewer in the last year. Every model company has come out with some utter crap ( Privateer Press soft plastic comes to mind ), but this new GW has listened to the community and looked at it's sales and done a full 180 on some of it bad decisions ( White Dwarf, Specialist Games etc ). Age of Sigmar wasn't every-bodies favourite release ( and boy did the haters go on and on and on... ), but the new releases for 40k ( Deathwatch, GSC, Admech ) have exceeded expectations and show a bright future for further hinted releases.
Yes the prices are high and people expecting full armies for certain prices are just kidding themselves, other model companies charge the same or more per model yet don't receive the same backlash because they've always charged that amount and people don't remember the good old days when this model was this price etc for that company.
You forget that a lot of the AOS hate was self-inflicted by GW, especially their treatment of older models with the silly rules, which they didn't include for newer models.
I maintain to this day that it was a massive middle finger to loyal customers.
WHFB sales had been in the toilet for awhile. They tried something new to make more money. It happens.
Rolsheen wrote: I think some people are going to complain about GW just on principle. Personally I think the company has made great strides to address the gak they've been peddling the last couple of years, yes mistakes have been made but far fewer in the last year. Every model company has come out with some utter crap ( Privateer Press soft plastic comes to mind ), but this new GW has listened to the community and looked at it's sales and done a full 180 on some of it bad decisions ( White Dwarf, Specialist Games etc ). Age of Sigmar wasn't every-bodies favourite release ( and boy did the haters go on and on and on... ), but the new releases for 40k ( Deathwatch, GSC, Admech ) have exceeded expectations and show a bright future for further hinted releases.
Yes the prices are high and people expecting full armies for certain prices are just kidding themselves, other model companies charge the same or more per model yet don't receive the same backlash because they've always charged that amount and people don't remember the good old days when this model was this price etc for that company.
You forget that a lot of the AOS hate was self-inflicted by GW, especially their treatment of older models with the silly rules, which they didn't include for newer models.
I maintain to this day that it was a massive middle finger to loyal customers.
WHFB sales had been in the toilet for awhile. They tried something new to make more money. It happens.
I never had any problem with them changing the game and I freely admit that WHFB was going down the drain, but it was the way they handled it that annoyed me and a lot o folder customers.
It was the 'ha ha you're an idiot for buying our stuff for years,' approach that got my goat.
But these are old arguments...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: It's a fething amazing time to play 40k and 30k with all the gak that's coming out.
However, they're still fething up royally the prices down under. Not sure why they hate them so much.
This is my theory.
Ignore the British flag, as GW are predominantly an English company and there is a huge sporting rivalry between England and Australia at sports such as Rugby Union and Cricket.
Personally, I don't think the Australians have ever forgiven England for Ian Botham* and I suspect the English know this and reacted accordingly, hence the high GW prices for Australia
* Ian Botham was the bad boy of English cricket: drinking, smoking, falling out of nightclubs, fighting the police. You name it, he did it.
He was also one hell of a cricket player, and he smashed the hell out of the Aussies back in the 1980s
Rolsheen wrote: I think some people are going to complain about GW just on principle. Personally I think the company has made great strides to address the gak they've been peddling the last couple of years, yes mistakes have been made but far fewer in the last year. Every model company has come out with some utter crap ( Privateer Press soft plastic comes to mind ), but this new GW has listened to the community and looked at it's sales and done a full 180 on some of it bad decisions ( White Dwarf, Specialist Games etc ). Age of Sigmar wasn't every-bodies favourite release ( and boy did the haters go on and on and on... ), but the new releases for 40k ( Deathwatch, GSC, Admech ) have exceeded expectations and show a bright future for further hinted releases.
Yes the prices are high and people expecting full armies for certain prices are just kidding themselves, other model companies charge the same or more per model yet don't receive the same backlash because they've always charged that amount and people don't remember the good old days when this model was this price etc for that company.
You forget that a lot of the AOS hate was self-inflicted by GW, especially their treatment of older models with the silly rules, which they didn't include for newer models.
I maintain to this day that it was a massive middle finger to loyal customers.
WHFB sales had been in the toilet for awhile. They tried something new to make more money. It happens.
I never had any problem with them changing the game and I freely admit that WHFB was going down the drain, but it was the way they handled it that annoyed me and a lot o folder customers.
It was the 'ha ha you're an idiot for buying our stuff for years,' approach that got my goat.
But these are old arguments...
For the silly rules? Sure it's stupid, but the fact that you could take all of your models and put them on the table was huge to me. They could have done like they did with 40k and just not given rules to older models like Marbo.
Australians generally seem to have high wages due to their successful economy, but that's no excuse for charging high prices.
Ever heard of the Big Mac Index...?
Wonderful, I'm guessing you'll be quoting economics for dummies next?
If that's what's needed to get you to understand that prices in a foreign country are not just "price in a different country x current conversion rate"...
Azreal13 wrote: Aside from the fact that the Big Mac Index was never intended to be serious, I'll concede that it has become relevant.
However, the BMI for Sterling, adjusted for GDP or not, has Australia at less than 5% deviated.
So if it was an attempt to justify GW's prices, one wonders where you were going with it?
As pointed out in the (admittedly abit snarky) post prices in different countries do not simply follow the prices in other countries. There are evidently lots of other factors playing in like different transport costs, wages, leases and so on.
You were trying to argue that Australian GW is more expensive because of in-country cost factors.
Using the method you cited, I showed that, in fact, they're broadly similar.
That GW cannot (hint: they actually can) get product into Australia without commanding an enormous premium is a flaw with their model, not down to any inherent macroeconomic factors for doing business in Australia.
Or, they're charging a premium because they can, and are prepared to artificially limit competition in order to safeguard that.
You were trying to argue that Australian GW is more expensive because of in-country cost factors.
Using the method you cited, I showed that, in fact, they're broadly similar.
That GW cannot (hint: they actually can) get product into Australia without commanding an enormous premium is a flaw with their model, not down to any inherent macroeconomic factors for doing business in Australia.
Or, they're charging a premium because they can, and are prepared to artificially limit competition in order to safeguard that.
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
You were trying to argue that Australian GW is more expensive because of in-country cost factors.
Using the method you cited, I showed that, in fact, they're broadly similar.
That GW cannot (hint: they actually can) get product into Australia without commanding an enormous premium is a flaw with their model, not down to any inherent macroeconomic factors for doing business in Australia.
Or, they're charging a premium because they can, and are prepared to artificially limit competition in order to safeguard that.
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
It might simply be that they're a bigger market, and that GW considers them "together", at least from a logistics / market size perspective.
I'm really curious to get GW's answer on this though, there might be decent reasons, such as a fixed exchange rate for the duration of the supply contract and whatnot.
SKR.HH wrote: Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
Several reasons...
1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.
2. GW insists on having a lot of stores in Australia which makes Australia unprofitable in spite of having a reasonably high revenue and sales volume. Australia has 46 stores with a population of 23 million, North America only has 100 stores with a population of 320 million in the USA and 35 million in Canada.
Stores are more expensive in Australia, there's no doubting that, rent is high and you have to pay your employees more.... GW fails at running stores in Australia so they compensate by overcharging independent retailers. If they charged a more a globally competitive wholesale rate to independent retailers, the price discrepancy in Australia would be negligible because independents would actually be able to compete. But if they did that, their own stores would be losing even more money.
3. GW games are actually more popular in Australia than the USA. Our population is smaller, but per head of population Australians buy a lot of wargaming products. I think GW might have actually started expanding in to Australia BEFORE they expanded in to the USA. So GW probably thinks they can capitalise on Australians being more enthusiastic about wargames, but on the flip side they've actually driven a lot of Australians away with their pricing.
You can see GW push the limit of how far they can push Australian enthusiasm, sometimes you get stuff selling out here in spite of stupid prices, other times you get something like Space Hulk which was priced so high that in spite of being a much loved game, it sat on shelves for many months.
This is why I tried to cut the discussion short with my post....
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Oh great, this discussion again, here, let's just get it out of the way quickly...
"GW has absurd Australian prices!" "But you have a higher minimum wage!" "Yeah except cost of living is so high that you aren't left with much discretionary income" "Well other companies overcharge too" "Yeah and those companies suck, good companies have more fair pricing and GW prices are high to begin with" "But you have to pay more to employ people in Australia" "But GW's wholesale price in Oz is higher than the bloody retail price in other countries!" "It's expensive to ship to Australia" "I can import stuff myself for a fraction of the cost" "Well just import it" "But GW's trade conditions won't let independent retailers sell internationally" "Oh well, sucks to be you" "Well at least we have awesome beaches and fething kangaroos" "Feth you" "Feth you too"
*New Zealander speaks up* "Well it's even worse here!" "No one cares, go back to the Shire you filthy hobbit"
...because yes, international trade has lots of reasons why you might get discrepancies but any critical analysis of those reasons in this specific circumstance lead to the conclusion GW charge more because feth you.
GW used to actually allow shipping to Australia direct from their UK webstore. I assume they abolished it because when the exchange rate started improving it made the UK online store significantly cheaper than local prices, instead of adjusting pricing to be more fair, they just fethed us over.
I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.
We often overlook the fact that Britain and Australia share a common language, so there's no translation costs to factor in, plus I imagine that UK standards for things like safety in aerosols and superglue will be almost identical to Australian standards for these kind of things.
Yeah, I get that the strength of the Australian economy should see a slightly higher price, but not this high...
GW used to actually allow shipping to Australia direct from their UK webstore. I assume they abolished it because when the exchange rate started improving it made the UK online store significantly cheaper than local prices, instead of adjusting pricing to be more fair, they just fethed us over.
I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.
fethed us over, instead of fething over their business partners, seems fair.
The problem of the exchange rate is not simple.
If overnight GW changes their AU prices to match UK, with the current weaker pound, tomorrow, all of the stock purchased by any AU store will have to be sold at a loss.
That isn't something you sweep under the rug.
I talked about this in more detail in another thread, but the solution is nowhere close to "just change AU prices to match current UK prices" because that's counter-productive.
GW used to actually allow shipping to Australia direct from their UK webstore. I assume they abolished it because when the exchange rate started improving it made the UK online store significantly cheaper than local prices, instead of adjusting pricing to be more fair, they just fethed us over.
I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.
fethed us over, instead of fething over their business partners, seems fair.
The problem of the exchange rate is not simple. If overnight GW changes their AU prices to match UK, with the current weaker pound, tomorrow, all of the stock purchased by any AU store will have to be sold at a loss.
That isn't something you sweep under the rug.
I talked about this in more detail in another thread, but the solution is nowhere close to "just change AU prices to match current UK prices" because that's counter-productive.
Did you stop at "fethed us over" and miss my 2nd paragraph?
I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.
You can't use exchange rate as an excuse when it hasn't been those levels in over 11 years. There's kids playing 40k now that weren't alive when the exchange rate was last at those levels.
You just said you talked about it in another thread? I'm sorry I'm not psychic, I have no idea what you've said on the topic in other threads.
But I'm not advocating GW just suddenly change their prices nor try and follow every fluctuation.
Every year or two they should evaluate their trade prices based on the last several years of exchange rate data. That way they wouldn't have to suddenly change their prices by 50% because they never would have let them get so bad.
EDIT: GW used to frequently have "price adjustments", they did away with them (preferring to raise the price on new kits) likely because the "adjustment" was always upwards where as they should have just frozen the prices in Australia when the exchange rate was improving year after year after year.
@Skink: i love history, and would be interested if anyone knows how long GW have had shops in Oz...
does anyone know when the first GW store opened Down Under??? I'm not sure about the East Coast here in the US, but on the West Coast, we got our first GW store in 1990... it made trips to Santa Monica a must on weekends, because they had dedicated painting space and visits from HQ guys like John Blanche... compared to Independents like The Last Grenadier and Paul Freiler's Historical Models (where i bought my first Citadel minis in 1985), where there were no dedicated painting tables, it made that first GW store in California like Mecca for us in high school...
Ral Partha began distributing Citadel into the US in 1979, while Citadel imported Ral Partha into the UK... it would be interesting to know if both brands ended up in OZ around the same time...
jah-joshua wrote: @Skink: i love history, and would be interested if anyone knows how long GW have had shops in Oz...
does anyone know when the first GW store opened Down Under???
I'm not sure about the East Coast here in the US, but on the West Coast, we got our first GW store in 1990...
it made trips to Santa Monica a must on weekends, because they had dedicated painting space and visits from HQ guys like John Blanche...
compared to Independents like The Last Grenadier and Paul Freiler's Historical Models (where i bought my first Citadel minis in 1985), where there were no dedicated painting tables, it made that first GW store in California like Mecca for us in high school...
Ral Partha began distributing Citadel into the US in 1979, while Citadel imported Ral Partha into the UK...
it would be interesting to know if both brands ended up in OZ around the same time...
cheers
jah
I'm not sure about the origins, I was more thinking when GW were expanding by opening stores in the 90's. But I could be wrong about that too, I just thought there was a time GW were opening stores more in Australia than they were the US.
SKR.HH wrote: Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
Several reasons...
1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.
That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)
2. GW insists on having a lot of stores in Australia which makes Australia unprofitable in spite of having a reasonably high revenue and sales volume. Australia has 46 stores with a population of 23 million, North America only has 100 stores with a population of 320 million in the USA and 35 million in Canada.
Stores are more expensive in Australia, there's no doubting that, rent is high and you have to pay your employees more.... GW fails at running stores in Australia so they compensate by overcharging independent retailers. If they charged a more a globally competitive wholesale rate to independent retailers, the price discrepancy in Australia would be negligible because independents would actually be able to compete. But if they did that, their own stores would be losing even more money.
Entirely possible. But as GW seems to see their shops essential for their strategy I can't see anythign wrong about them to try to keep them profitable.
3. GW games are actually more popular in Australia than the USA. Our population is smaller, but per head of population Australians buy a lot of wargaming products. I think GW might have actually started expanding in to Australia BEFORE they expanded in to the USA. So GW probably thinks they can capitalise on Australians being more enthusiastic about wargames, but on the flip side they've actually driven a lot of Australians away with their pricing.
You can see GW push the limit of how far they can push Australian enthusiasm, sometimes you get stuff selling out here in spite of stupid prices, other times you get something like Space Hulk which was priced so high that in spite of being a much loved game, it sat on shelves for many months.
Then it is the usual behaviour of supply and demand... Nothing "fething" about it.
SKR.HH wrote: Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
Several reasons...
1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.
That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)
My explanation would be that since the new terminator kit didn't exist before, it wasn't already locked at a specific price.
Is the new kit cheaper or more expensive than the old one ?
SKR.HH wrote: Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
Several reasons...
1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.
That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)
I don't know when Deathwing Terminators came out, it might be explained by what I said earlier where GW are happy to follow exchange rate fluctuations that result in customers paying more, but don't adjust to the ones that would result in customers paying less.
Deathwing maybe came out close to a period with downward fluctuation in exchange rate?
Entirely possible. But as GW seems to see their shops essential for their strategy I can't see anythign wrong about them to try to keep them profitable.
The thing that's "wrong" is GW have pushed their failing business model on to independents.
GW stores don't make money anywhere, but they're going to be even worse off in Australia. GW wouldn't be able to compete with independents in Australia if they charged a similar wholesale price as they do elsewhere.
So instead, they've forced local stores to compete with recasters from Asia and grey market importers.
Then it is the usual behaviour of supply and demand... Nothing "fething" about it.
No, it's not, because you're comparing two different markets. You have to look at supply and demand in Australia and supply and demand in the USA. Just because you can raise the price in Australia and still have SOME people buy it doesn't mean you couldn't lower it and have MORE people buy it.
So with the new FAQ out, I see a few Tyranid players complaining about poor or nerfing rules. So has GW changed for the better RULES WISE or are they the same in that regard?
When if finally comes down to it if GW has changed or not, it comes to rules first. Because if rules are solid, and written clearly and concisely price will be subjective because there will be more worth to it.
So has GW changed? From the looks of it from rules wise, no they haven't changed, they still get a lot of people's knickers tied in a knot. That is not promising going into 8th edition. Traitor's hate wasn't well received. Will see how 1K Sons goes rules wise for the next litmus test.
SKR.HH wrote: Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?
I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.
GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?
Several reasons...
1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.
That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)
I don't know when Deathwing Terminators came out, it might be explained by what I said earlier where GW are happy to follow exchange rate fluctuations that result in customers paying more, but don't adjust to the ones that would result in customers paying less.
Deathwing maybe came out close to a period with downward fluctuation in exchange rate?
Oh, that was just a kit I found on a quick glance (and they are comparable)... I can search for a different (newer) kit if necessary but I don't expect any particular new insights...
Entirely possible. But as GW seems to see their shops essential for their strategy I can't see anythign wrong about them to try to keep them profitable.
The thing that's "wrong" is GW have pushed their failing business model on to independents.
GW stores don't make money anywhere, but they're going to be even worse off in Australia. GW wouldn't be able to compete with independents in Australia if they charged a similar wholesale price as they do elsewhere.
So instead, they've forced local stores to compete with recasters from Asia and grey market importers.
Why? (Local) Independents have to face the same prices... And no matter how low the prices are there always will be recasters...
Then it is the usual behaviour of supply and demand... Nothing "fething" about it.
No, it's not, because you're comparing two different markets. You have to look at supply and demand in Australia and supply and demand in the USA. Just because you can raise the price in Australia and still have SOME people buy it doesn't mean you couldn't lower it and have MORE people buy it.
Sure... But to serve this additional people I need to provide more supply (which usually ties up more ressources)... Catering more People is not necessarily optimal.
@Davor, if you check the FAQ, it's an immense improvement overall, with a few letdowns.
But, like 7th ed is a lot more accurate than 6th ed, 7.5 is a lot more accurate than 7th ed.
I feel people complain a lot about the rules problems GW has with 40K, although these are also present in board games with extremely good ratings... maybe wargamers have just devolved into rules lawyers (and I'm good at that) and that's something you can only combat with a team of lawyers to write the rules....
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.
Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.
Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.
Well, checking the post history of some users makes it rather easy to see that they are rather negative towards whatever GW does...
SKR.HH wrote: Why? (Local) Independents have to face the same prices... And no matter how low the prices are there always will be recasters...
I don't know what you mean by "face the same prices"?
A customer can have a product shipped to their door from an international grey market seller at a price which is often cheaper than the independent store owner themselves can buy it.
And sure recasters always exist, but there's plenty of people who wouldn't have turned to recasters if they weren't feeling completely and utterly ripped off. It's not a toggle switch, it's a gradual decline as customers see your product as worth less and less than you're asking they start to seek alternatives, even questionable ones like recasters.
For all the potential excuses for high Australian prices, it just comes down to either "we can so we do" or "we don't know how to run our business so you have to pay for it".
Sure... But to serve this additional people I need to provide more supply (which usually ties up more ressources)...
Well to supply more plastic toy soldiers isn't a huge resource sink. To supply the FIRST plastic toy soldier is a huge resource sink, the 10,000 that come after him? Not so much
Catering more People is not necessarily optimal.
Of course, but I think GW well overshot the mark of "optimal" in Australia. You hear potential customers complaining they want to buy it but it's too expensive AND you have Australian stores outright condemning GW's shoddy practices. Some stores have gone down the road of shifting GW's product off the front shelves to the back shelves, saying outright they are sick of working with GW but continue to stock it in a limited capacity for their existing customers.
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.
Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.
Please.... if simple normal board games have rules issues that woud spark 3000 pages worth of threads in YMDC, why must you insist that some games, suspiciously the only ones I haven't read the rules for, are perfect and in no way require rules lawyering to guarantee a uniform interpretation ?
Besides, I read so many GW detractors mentioning the rules which they themselves haven't used or tried to understand.
That's not stopping you is it ?
Or is there out there one GW hater who is a 7th ed rules expert and who also loathes GW and doesn't play the game at all ?
I'm the local rules expert, I participated in many YMDC discussions, read and re-read the rules, even came up with several new interpretations which both changed the game AND were more accurate than previous interpretations - demonstrably so.
I can tell you, it's impossible to write rules that are not subject to rules lawyering if you don't have actual lawyers reviewing the rules and actively play testing them.
It happens in board games that have only 5 pages of rules.
The reason is that it's easy to write something, but extremely hard to uncover all the possible interpretations of what has been written, and then modify the text to eliminate every wrong interpretation one by one, then rinse and repeat until there can be no other "reasonable" interpretations.
And even that is still not absolute.
Personally, what I hate about 7th ed is that vehicles don't get overwatch for a bs reason, that they always get hit on rear despite moving at blazing speeds, that there now is officially a restriction on spells and grenades per unit and that planes get to fire more guns than FMC, that FMC get hit by blasts but planes don't ....
And those things aren't subject to interpretation unfortunately.
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.
Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.
Well, checking the post history of some users makes it rather easy to see that they are rather negative towards whatever GW does...
No, it doesn't. Until recently GW have pretty consistently found a new way to piss people off on a monthly basis, with some fairly substantial long term issues (price, balance and communication being the big ones.) Someone who appeared relentlessly negative may simply have not existed online prior to GW turning into a giant douche.
It's equally unsurprising that some people remain cynical in the face of some superficially positive moves when there are still pretty fundamental issues which haven't yet been addressed, or fully addressed.
There's always going to be naysayers, as with much in life, but at this point in history it is impossible to separate them from people who are justifiably pissed off.
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.
Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.
Please.... if simple normal board games have rules issues that woud spark 3000 pages worth of threads in YMDC, why must you insist that some games, suspiciously the only ones I haven't read the rules for, are perfect and in no way require rules lawyering to guarantee a uniform interpretation ?
Look at the evidence. Compare the YMDC section of WMH. There are far fewer threads and far fewer replies, that's because most discussions consists of "How does X work?" then a response of "like this" with the occasional "but what about when Y is happening?" or "don't forget about Z" follow up. Heck, X Wing has a YMDCthread where most questions are asked and answered in the span of two or three posts, and if there's a legitimate problem, you can bet there'll be an FAQ within a few weeks of it appearing. Or Guild Ball, where there's a dedicated lawyers guild of senior users and staff who give definitive rulings if there's a legitimate issue, and lock a thread once an issue is resolved, either by ruling or citation. There's currently one thread in that sub forum unresolved. It is 19 minutes old at time of writing.
Then take a look at the bloated cess pool that is 40KYMDC, the generator of more yellow triangles of friendship than any other sub section, bar maybe OT I'd speculate.
Besides, I read so many GW detractors mentioning the rules which they themselves haven't used or tried to understand.
That's not stopping you is it ?
Or is there out there one GW hater who is a 7th ed rules expert and who also loathes GW and doesn't play the game at all ?
Firstly, try and use the word critic, hater is inflammatory and frequently inaccurate. Secondly, I'm a veteran of 2nd (RT if you count rulesets owned rather than played) and I've played all the way up into 7th, 40K has been a part of my life for almost 30 years. At what point do I reach your arbitrary standards of "expert" so that I can declare I'm not enjoying the game? Or have an issue with pricing? Or the balance issues that an educationally challenged donkey can spot?
I'm the local rules expert,
I participated in many YMDC discussions, read and re-read the rules, even came up with several new interpretations which both changed the game AND were more accurate than previous interpretations - demonstrably so.
I can tell you, it's impossible to write rules that are not subject to rules lawyering if you don't have actual lawyers reviewing the rules and actively play testing them.
It happens in board games that have only 5 pages of rules.
I'm sorry, I had no idea I was conversing with some kind of rules savant. Here's the thing, it is possible to write a tight ruleset, and it is possible to actively maintain a ruleset when unforeseen issues arise. GW, as creators of the largest, one of the oldest, and undoubtedly best resourced games in existence, have spectacularly failed to do so. That's without getting into issues where units are objectively measurably better than comparable units in other factions, where player agency has been eroded Edition by Edition to the point where in game decision making is almost redundant, or that some factions just outright overpower others, potentially even by accident.
The reason is that it's easy to write something, but extremely hard to uncover all the possible interpretations of what has been written, and then modify the text to eliminate every wrong interpretation one by one, then rinse and repeat until there can be no other "reasonable" interpretations.
And even that is still not absolute.
That's what FAQs and Errata are for, and the absence of which has been one of the reasons GW have rightly been criticised for years.
Personally, what I hate about 7th ed is that vehicles don't get overwatch for a bs reason, that they always get hit on rear despite moving at blazing speeds, that there now is officially a restriction on spells and grenades per unit and that planes get to fire more guns than FMC, that FMC get hit by blasts but planes don't ....
And those things aren't subject to interpretation unfortunately.
Wait until you play a good system, your "issues with 40K list" is likely to get a lot longer overnight.
Davor wrote:...they still get a lot of people's knickers tied in a knot. That is not promising going into 8th edition.
There will be someone with their knickers in a knot regardless to how good or bad rules are.
morgoth wrote:@Davor, if you check the FAQ, it's an immense improvement overall, with a few letdowns.
That sums it up nicely
morgoth wrote:...maybe wargamers have just devolved into rules lawyers (and I'm good at that) and that's something you can only combat with a team of lawyers to write the rules....
When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...
There are always people who will be inclined to rules lawyer, regardless of the rule and possibly for the sake of it. That kind of thing is greatly reduced when the rules are written in a way that makes it difficult to find loopholes and interpretation isn't needed.
Simple and clear rules with clearly defined terms really help. The more convoluted or complicated the worse it gets.
A bit over a decades ago Field of Glory was produced for historical wargaming, it became more popular than the then popular DBM mostly because the rules were simpler and clearer (also NOT written like a legal document), there was a marked decrease in rules lawyering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote:Wait until you play a good system, your "issues with 40K list" is likely to get a lot longer overnight.
Pretty colours, tassels, bells and whistles do not change the fact that the engine is running on some hooch stolen from the local liquor store, and that the 'check engine' light's been on for the past 6 years.
I always thought the tank commissar drive me closer meme was GWs business model. Now the commissar seems to have fallen out and things are nicer, but the tank is still facing our general direction and not slowing enough.
Azreal13 wrote: You'll get little argument that they've made steps forward.
The division is between whether they're meaningful steps, or whether they're changing the flat while the engine is still alight.
Well, reading through this thread I have a very different Impression (especially when the main claim is: no matter what GW does is an improvement as long as prices don't go down).
In response to your allegory: I never thought that the motor was alight... Maybe stuttering. But now we are on back on a smooth ride.
There seem to be two main currents here...
1) I hate GW so much
2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.
So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.
morgoth wrote: There seem to be two main currents here...
1) I hate GW so much
2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.
So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.
This is a deliberately antogonistic post and against forum rules.
Why do some people have to be so binary about GW - I think for a lot of people, it doesn't boil down to loving or hating them, it's much more a case of ambivalence. I don't mind GW, I still play GW games but I very rarely buy GW product any more and that is simply due to prices. All this talk of community websites and previews and Twitter feed is all well and good but for me, GW constantly ignore the elephant in the room that is prices.
The Prices are still adequate for what they offer... I highly enjoy the daily hobby dose that GW is offering me... This offers me way more than if the prices are 10% down.
morgoth wrote: There seem to be two main currents here...
1) I hate GW so much
2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.
So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.
This is a deliberately antogonistic post and against forum rules.
What?
I wholeheartedly agree with the post. I don't see anything antagonist at....
Oh... I see what you did there.
filbert wrote: Why do some people have to be so binary about GW - I think for a lot of people, it doesn't boil down to loving or hating them, it's much more a case of ambivalence. I don't mind GW, I still play GW games but I very rarely buy GW product any more and that is simply due to prices. All this talk of community websites and previews and Twitter feed is all well and good but for me, GW constantly ignore the elephant in the room that is prices.
Yeah! If only they would put out board games with incredible value like BoC and BoP. Or boxes that make start collecting an army any easier. Or battleforces that save you a 100$ per box compared to standard retail.
Why do they keep ignoring prices?!
The box sets only appear good value because the prices are so jacked in the first place - it's a false economy and a false saving. If you are happy with that, then more power to you. Several years of falling sales at GW would suggest that a large tranche of people are not, however.
GW have always been expensive for what they are but then again, they used to have the market position and dominance to charge those prices; nowadays, I would argue they do not. I remember when they used to do buy one, get one free offers and the like. That used to be real savings and offers - not bundling some kits together that were already wildly overpriced and then knocking an arbitrary amount off to make it seem like you are getting a huge discount and a great deal - that's just the consumer equivalent of the shell game.
filbert wrote: Why do some people have to be so binary about GW - I think for a lot of people, it doesn't boil down to loving or hating them, it's much more a case of ambivalence. I don't mind GW, I still play GW games but I very rarely buy GW product any more and that is simply due to prices. All this talk of community websites and previews and Twitter feed is all well and good but for me, GW constantly ignore the elephant in the room that is prices.
+1
All the stuff that people are raving about is fine and dandy, but if people are out of the game due to prices and staying away, then being told how great the hobby website is now isn't going to address that.
For those of you who are adults with jobs: do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle? For me personally, I have so much stuff that I couldn't paint it in a lifetime, and anything I buy from GW is basically just an indulgence that I probably won't touch for a long time. The price doesn't really come in to it (and I don't have a huge discretionary income either). Do you guys generally have a lot of time, meaning you can purchase new stuff at such a pace that it becomes an economic problem to buy as much as you want? Or do you simply have very limited funds so even buying, say, one box in a month is too much? I can understand how students, unemployed or children would have a problem with the prices, but I would think most working adults would be able to purchase more than enough to keep busy unless they have other expensive hobbies, ESPECIALLY with these crazy box sets with 40-50% off (I would consider those prices to be very cheap for what you get).
footnote: I haven't factored in AU/NZ people... you guys are just screwed by GW.
do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle?
Dosent impact me at all.
My main issue with GW is sloppy rules writing/power creep/sub optimal units and no direction generally with where they want 40k to sit as a wargame.
I spend what I want when I want on them (albeit usually through discount stores etc).
Speaking as one of these, I personally couldn't give a damn about prices. I'm primarily a painter/collector, so I get what tickles my paintbrush. I usually have a monthly budget of about £50 give or take and I find that more than enough to build up an army or collection over time. I'll never understand people who need to buy a whole army in one go and especially not direct. Who would ever buy from GW direct unless you absolutely had too? There are so many resellers that do 15-20% off. A good example is the new Rubric Marines. £30 direct, but I guarantee you'll be able to find them for about £24 from other sellers on Saturday. Which in my opinion, is a fair price for them.
Mymearan wrote: For those of you who are adults with jobs: do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle? For me personally, I have so much stuff that I couldn't paint it in a lifetime, and anything I buy from GW is basically just an indulgence that I probably won't touch for a long time. The price doesn't really come in to it (and I don't have a huge discretionary income either). Do you guys generally have a lot of time, meaning you can purchase new stuff at such a pace that it becomes an economic problem to buy as much as you want? Or do you simply have very limited funds so even buying, say, one box in a month is too much? I can understand how students, unemployed or children would have a problem with the prices, but I would think most working adults would be able to purchase more than enough to keep busy unless they have other expensive hobbies, ESPECIALLY with these crazy box sets with 40-50% off (I would consider those prices to be very cheap for what you get).
footnote: I haven't factored in AU/NZ people... you guys are just screwed by GW.
I have not problem, in principle, with the pricing - if you are a student, just play low point games or KT with your friends. Is what we used to do. Most models are good, many are gorgeous, some is ugly, or to better say is finely sculpted but the concept is idiotic. My biggest problem is that the models are models for a wargame and GW do not put a good enough effort in making these models valuable as a gaming pieces, at least in a coherent way. Plus, there are models that risk to become obsolete with a change of edition, and even being completely removed/retconned out.
I can afford GW stuff but I don't consider five toy soldiers for £35 to be good value for my money so I won't buy it.
Their prices are not reasonable by any standard I certainly wouldn't let my kid start any GW games I'd point them to a cheaper game every time.
People forget we don't hate GW just for the sake of it, they earnt our bile through years of abuse, a few minor improvements don't make up for years of crappy treatment.
hobojebus wrote: I can afford GW stuff but I don't consider five toy soldiers for £35 to be good value for my money so I won't buy it.
Pretty much this. I have a wife and 2 small kids so I am time poor but I have a decent enough job that would allow me to buy what I want, when I want. Having the money to buy stuff isn't the issue for me; I just don't consider it of value. GW's prices have gone above and beyond what I consider reasonable for a few plastic soldiers. It also helps that my dad worked in the dip and injection moulding industry for 30+ years so I am painfully aware of exactly what it costs GW to produce this stuff so I probably baulk more than most at GW prices.
Anecdotally, GW have always been expensive - I remember working at a summer job in 1994 to save up some money, some of which I spent on my Epic Ork army and I distinctly remember thinking that £10 or whatever it was at the time was hugely expensive for an Ork gargant model - and that was a fully metal model to boot.
filbert wrote: The box sets only appear good value because the prices are so jacked in the first place - it's a false economy and a false saving. If you are happy with that, then more power to you. Several years of falling sales at GW would suggest that a large tranche of people are not, however.
GW have always been expensive for what they are but then again, they used to have the market position and dominance to charge those prices; nowadays, I would argue they do not. I remember when they used to do buy one, get one free offers and the like. That used to be real savings and offers - not bundling some kits together that were already wildly overpriced and then knocking an arbitrary amount off to make it seem like you are getting a huge discount and a great deal - that's just the consumer equivalent of the shell game.
Admittedly I lack the knowledge to compare them to other major manufactures like that Warmahordesthing.
And while I can agree on ridiculous prices for single character models... Does it really matter THAT much to you if that single character costs 27€ instead of 20€?
Looking at the AdMech Battleforce, you get 4 large miniatures, 11 human sized miniatures and 3 medium miniatures. for 130€, that is about 7,20€ per miniature.
Looking up the price on a Warjack, which hovers around 30€ and is the size of a dreadnought...
While abox of infantry is about 45€ compared to GW'S start collecting which gives you the squad, a dread and an HQ...
Sorry, you cannot claim that GW with these sets is more expensive than Warmahordes per model. These boxes offer great value even when compared to competition.
Unless I misjudge the prices and sizes I see on the Warjacks and corresponding models.
GW have almost equal prices compared to most of the model kit companies out there. A quick run on their site and amazon results into this:
Tacom Mark IV tank 1/35 is from ~43 - 60~ USD depending on the store.
GW Land Raider which is aprox ~1/35 is ~45.
Bandai (1/100 Scale), Astray Red Frame is about ~60 USD and
GW Imperial Knight beats it with some 95~ (don't know the scale here)
Yeah, you can say that they are ripping us off with large price for box of 10 marines, but still those marines are better quality than any Tamiya or w/e miniatures are selling out there. So yeah for the same price you may get 20 frostgrave soldiers, but I'd pick any Sigmar models to play Frostragve to their original models.
filbert wrote: Why do some people have to be so binary about GW - I think for a lot of people, it doesn't boil down to loving or hating them, it's much more a case of ambivalence. I don't mind GW, I still play GW games but I very rarely buy GW product any more and that is simply due to prices. All this talk of community websites and previews and Twitter feed is all well and good but for me, GW constantly ignore the elephant in the room that is prices.
Exactly. I have my own reasons for being anti-GW, which I won't go into, but taking a neutral perspective, I've always seen the prices as GW's major problem.
Their product quality is very good, no question of that, but when other companies are producing paints and brushes of equal quality, then you vote with your wallet.
Also, their pricing structure makes no sense. £80 for silver tower is stonking value for me, because it would take me months to paint all that stuff and it's a self-contained game. £80 spread over 6 months is loose change and very good value...
But then, you see 5 stern guard for £35 and then compare to an IG command squad for £35 and I'm left scratching my head, because both of those sets are almost identical in packaging and weight, and the amount of plastic you get...
hobojebus wrote: I can afford GW stuff but I don't consider five toy soldiers for £35 to be good value for my money so I won't buy it.
Their prices are not reasonable by any standard I certainly wouldn't let my kid start any GW games I'd point them to a cheaper game every time.
People forget we don't hate GW just for the sake of it, they earnt our bile through years of abuse, a few minor improvements don't make up for years of crappy treatment.
Mymearan wrote: For those of you who are adults with jobs: do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle?
For me it's down to value; now that I have a kid I have almost no hobby time (and need to internally justify money). Compared to my other hobby projects (primarily Frostgrave/Malifaux/painting for the sake of it) GW just doesn't provide the value for me. I can fill my hobby time a dozen times over with stuff that's cheaper than GW's stuff, and since I don't have time to play the games either it's lost more appeal. Occasionally I'll spot something that's good value, and then usually the store is shut for lunch and I move on.
DalinCriid wrote: GW have almost equal prices compared to most of the model kit companies out there. A quick run on their site and amazon results into this:
Tacom Mark IV tank 1/35 is from ~43 - 60~ USD depending on the store. GW Land Raider which is aprox ~1/35 is ~45.
Bandai (1/100 Scale), Astray Red Frame is about ~60 USD and GW Imperial Knight beats it with some 95~ (don't know the scale here)
Yeah, you can say that they are ripping us off with large price for box of 10 marines, but still those marines are better quality than any Tamiya or w/e miniatures are selling out there. So yeah for the same price you may get 20 frostgrave soldiers, but I'd pick any Sigmar models to play Frostragve to their original models.
That Tacom Mk IV tank is bigger than a landraider, it should be 23cm long and 12cm wide. Land raider is 17cm long and 10cm wide.
It also comes with with photoetch parts, polycaps (I assume for movable or removable parts), a length of chain (as in, actual scale chain, not just plastic), metal gun barrels and a 1000 piece track system that from what I understand lets you make movable tracks.
It's not really a comparable kit, the Takom has a lot of value added bits that you pay extra for. If GW included photoetch, chain and metal gun barrels they'd probably double the price of the kit for you
I don't know about the Bandai kit. But just googling it also doesn't look comparable, it goes to the extreme of having chrome plating on some parts and multicoloured sprues so if you want all you have to do is assemble it then weather it. It's also heavily articulated where as the IK is mostly static. Even if you don't care about those things (some people do, some people don't) they're things that add expense to a kit beyond GW's typical cheaply mass produced kits.
I consider the price of the models + the quality of the games rules. GW games fail the test for me, I do recognize that GW improved WD and has answered FAQ questions after 3 years. I will agree that GW slowed down on digging that hole but it's one heck of a deep hole.
morgoth wrote:There seem to be two main currents here... 1) I hate GW so much 2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.
So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.
You forgot 3) You love GW so much they can do no wrong. As for measurable improvements, I would disagree. So since I have a differing opinion than you I am hater now?
Ratius wrote:I see Reecius got an article up on the community site. It even mentions ITC rules and the LVO. How much did you bribe em Reece?
I am curious, how is he getting away selling GW products at 25% off and still be on a GW site. I thought GW was against such large discounts being offered on their products.
morgoth wrote:There seem to be two main currents here...
1) I hate GW so much
2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.
So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.
You forgot 3) You love GW so much they can do no wrong. As for measurable improvements, I would disagree. So since I have a differing opinion than you I am hater now?
You're at least a cynic... Seeing change but screaming "Smoke and Mirrors" all along.
Anecdotally, GW have always been expensive - I remember working at a summer job in 1994 to save up some money, some of which I spent on my Epic Ork army and I distinctly remember thinking that £10 or whatever it was at the time was hugely expensive for an Ork gargant model - and that was a fully metal model to boot.
Try having no shops in Ireland and having to pay P&P back then plus the price of sterling VS the Punt at the time.
Boy did we scrimp and save like demons back then.....
I am curious, how is he getting away selling GW products at 25% off and still be on a GW site. I thought GW was against such large discounts being offered on their products.
I have no idea. Typical lack of GW proof reading again?
SKR.HH wrote: You're at least a cynic... Seeing change but screaming "Smoke and Mirrors" all along.
Oh I agree GW is changing, thing is, once the dice start rolling what has changed in the end? I keep saying Smoke and Mirrors as a reminder that this can end at any second and it can still be the same GW in the end. For now I am enjoying the ride but being a cynic/realist so I don't end up getting disappointed in the end.
morgoth wrote:There seem to be two main currents here...
1) I hate GW so much
2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.
So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.
You forgot 3) You love GW so much they can do no wrong. As for measurable improvements, I would disagree. So since I have a differing opinion than you I am hater now?
Ratius wrote:I see Reecius got an article up on the community site.
It even mentions ITC rules and the LVO.
How much did you bribe em Reece?
I am curious, how is he getting away selling GW products at 25% off and still be on a GW site. I thought GW was against such large discounts being offered on their products.
The comment about no measurable improvements is objectively wrong.
Lets compare now to 2 years ago.
2 years ago- no actively supported specialist games.
Now bloodbowl is out. adeptus titanicus and more are on the way.
2 years ago 1 boardgame in print.
Now 9 boargames in print.
2 years ago just the warhammer world Facebook page.
Now many Facebook pages, community site, twitch streams etc.
2 years ago a handful of discount bundles at about 20% off each.
Now over 30 discount bundles at 30 to 40% off each.
2 years ago white dwarf weekly with little more than new prouduct info and painting guides.
Now white dwarf monthly. More pages per month for a lower prices with a wider range of articles.
2 years ago a very strict one week preview window.
Now a much more free approach to previews
2 years ago. No official acknowledgement of independent events.
Now attending independent events and streaming from them.
The negatives.
Prices of newly released products are very expensive.
International prices are often high compared to UK prices.
7th edition rules are bloated and messy.
The list of changes I mentioned is simple fact.
If we compare modern Gw to 1998 gw then it is a whole different conversation, but it is literally undeniable that Gw has made a lot of positive changes in the last 18 months unless you think any of those changes are for the worse. Do you?
Mymearan wrote: For those of you who are adults with jobs: do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle?
...
footnote: I haven't factored in AU/NZ people... you guys are just screwed by GW.
Even as an AU people, I can afford the models GW sells.
The problem is collecting Games Workshop miniatures isn't my only hobby.
The fact their games are also a mess doesn't help matters.
When I look at a new Games Workshop kit, I might think "That looks alright, I wouldn't mind having that". Then I see the price and am more like "erm, nah, it's not that good". Even though I could buy it if I really wanted it, Games Workshop miniatures competing with other miniature manufacturers like Perry or Battlefront for my money, they're competing with historical kit makers like Tamiya, Airfix, etc, they're even competing with with the car market and car-part manufacturers because my other hobby is classic cars.
Maybe if their games didn't suck quite so much, but I have barely played a game with my Tyranids in the past 6 or so years, most of them are hiding away in boxes. So when I see a new Tyranid beastie, I might think for 2 seconds "oh that would be a nice addition to my Tyranid army" followed by the thought "Wait, most of my Tyranid army hasn't seen the light of day in recent history".
That means the value of that kit is purely as a display piece. And frankly I don't think GW models hold up well when compared to other potential display pieces. I often was tempted by getting an Imperial Knight as a display piece, I never ended getting it though. Compare it to another display piece for a similar price that I DID buy, Tamiya's 1/32 Spitfire IXc. The Spitfire comes with photoetch parts, vinyl parts, steel pins, magnets, metal screws and mounting blocks for interchangable parts, canopy masking sheet, self adhesive name plates for display, an A5 coloured booklet with reference photos of real Spitfires, a fully modelled engine, movable rudders, elevators and a landing gear that can interchanged between up and down.
So yeah, I'm looking at the Imperial Knight model thinking "sure, I could buy one, I have enough money.... but why?"
The thing applies to damned near every kit in GW's line up these days. If I valued GW's kits more than the kits from half a dozen other companies I might be willing to pay more for them, but I simply don't. Tamiya is a company I am definitely willing to pay more for their kits because they do such a tremendous job on them.
For me personally, I have so much stuff that I couldn't paint it in a lifetime, and anything I buy from GW is basically just an indulgence that I probably won't touch for a long time.
I guess you're proving Tom Kirby right...
Tom Kirby wrote:What will not change is the eternal desire for some always to want yet more of the small, jewel-like objects of magic and wonder that we call Citadel miniatures.
For many of us, though, Citadel miniatures aren't more jewel-like than any other mass produced injected moulded plastic kits.
In total honesty having given it a lot more thought I do not think it can never be said that GW has improved until they show they are willing to fix the game. Age of Sigmar with the generals handbook was an improvement but the car still has messy and unclear rules such as being able to always shoot or having terrain not really matter. 40K is a complete cluster and games take about twice as long as they should because of it. As someone who now has a good amount of disposable income and still find myself buying things but ultimately end up realizing the game itself is absolute trash and don't end up playing.
If they fix the game to actually be a measure of skill and not list building and actually encourage tactical decisions rather than I'm going to take this big bad thing and shoot you off the board comma then it might be worth playing but until then everything that they do no matter how much of an improvement it might be compared to what they did before is ultimately useless because they need to realize they make a game more than just figures.
As long as the rules are intentionally vague and require FAQs which are also intentionally vague or completely ignore what is being asked or allow for stupid questions should be obvious and as long as games take 4 to 5 hours to play because the rules are not streamlined, nothing will actually improve.
Mymearan wrote: For those of you who are adults with jobs: do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle?
...
footnote: I haven't factored in AU/NZ people... you guys are just screwed by GW.
Even as an AU people, I can afford the models GW sells.
The problem is collecting Games Workshop miniatures isn't my only hobby.
The fact their games are also a mess doesn't help matters.
When I look at a new Games Workshop kit, I might think "That looks alright, I wouldn't mind having that". Then I see the price and am more like "erm, nah, it's not that good". Even though I could buy it if I really wanted it, Games Workshop miniatures competing with other miniature manufacturers like Perry or Battlefront for my money, they're competing with historical kit makers like Tamiya, Airfix, etc, they're even competing with with the car market and car-part manufacturers because my other hobby is classic cars.
Maybe if their games didn't suck quite so much, but I have barely played a game with my Tyranids in the past 6 or so years, most of them are hiding away in boxes. So when I see a new Tyranid beastie, I might think for 2 seconds "oh that would be a nice addition to my Tyranid army" followed by the thought "Wait, most of my Tyranid army hasn't seen the light of day in recent history".
That means the value of that kit is purely as a display piece. And frankly I don't think GW models hold up well when compared to other potential display pieces. I often was tempted by getting an Imperial Knight as a display piece, I never ended getting it though. Compare it to another display piece for a similar price that I DID buy, Tamiya's 1/32 Spitfire IXc. The Spitfire comes with photoetch parts, vinyl parts, steel pins, magnets, metal screws and mounting blocks for interchangable parts, canopy masking sheet, self adhesive name plates for display, an A5 coloured booklet with reference photos of real Spitfires, a fully modelled engine, movable rudders, elevators and a landing gear that can interchanged between up and down.
So yeah, I'm looking at the Imperial Knight model thinking "sure, I could buy one, I have enough money.... but why?"
The thing applies to damned near every kit in GW's line up these days. If I valued GW's kits more than the kits from half a dozen other companies I might be willing to pay more for them, but I simply don't. Tamiya is a company I am definitely willing to pay more for their kits because they do such a tremendous job on them.
For me personally, I have so much stuff that I couldn't paint it in a lifetime, and anything I buy from GW is basically just an indulgence that I probably won't touch for a long time.
I guess you're proving Tom Kirby right...
Tom Kirby wrote:What will not change is the eternal desire for some always to want yet more of the small, jewel-like objects of magic and wonder that we call Citadel miniatures.
For many of us, though, Citadel miniatures aren't more jewel-like than any other mass produced injected moulded plastic kits.
GW kits aren't "jewel-like" to me. I buy them because I love the fluff, the designs and because I play the games. I buy a lot of models from other manufacturers but I do not buy anything I don't play to use in a game. Were I painting display models I would get 70mm stuff from Nutsplanet or Nocturnal and make dioramas, but I I'm not so I don't. Still, price is probably my last consideration, since as I wrote above, even with GW prices I have more stuff than I could ever paint. Even buying one of the new Battleforce boxes would keep me busy for a year, which would be a paltry sum per month of hobbying. That's why I asked the questions I did in my post. I wanted to know if people who have some amount of disposable income and not very much time to hobby still prioritise price over things like visual or fluff appeal even if they don't have time to paint everything they get. Personally I would not consider two different models to be interchangeable. If I want a model I want it because I want that particular model, not because it's cheaper than something else.
Mymearan wrote: ....but I do not buy anything I don't play to use in a game....
....I have more stuff than I could ever paint...
....and anything I buy from GW is basically just an indulgence that I probably won't touch for a long time....
Bit of conflicting going on So you just play with them unpainted?
If I'm misinterpreting you it's because you said you have more than you could paint and anything you buy you won't touch for a long time, so to me that just says you're impulse buying stuff you aren't going to use.
If I want a model I want it because I want that particular model, not because it's cheaper than something else.
For me and I think most people, the price isn't a big issue, it is just one of many smaller issues.
I do not value the time I spend on GW miniatures any higher than the time I spend on any other quality models. I would like to build and paint an Imperial Knight, sure, but in a world where I have a finite amount of time to spend on models I am not going to have more fun building an Imperial Knight than I am building any one of a couple of dozen other models, so why would I pay more for an Imperial Knight?
I don't see models as interchangeable, an Imperial Knight is an Imperial Knight and a Spitfire is a Spitfire, but they both compete for my time, my display shelf space and my wallet.
As a gaming piece, I don't value 40k higher than other games and so in turn I do not value 40k models higher than those I can get for other games.
They're doing great if you only care about ways to burn your cash on new models/books. However, I think the game is MUCH worse off because of all the releases.
At the end of the day, if the game sucks then the models get shoveled onto ebay by a lot of people.
Mymearan wrote:For those of you who are adults with jobs: do you guys personally have a problem with the prices or is it more on principle? For me personally, I have so much stuff that I couldn't paint it in a lifetime, and anything I buy from GW is basically just an indulgence that I probably won't touch for a long time. The price doesn't really come in to it (and I don't have a huge discretionary income either). Do you guys generally have a lot of time, meaning you can purchase new stuff at such a pace that it becomes an economic problem to buy as much as you want? Or do you simply have very limited funds so even buying, say, one box in a month is too much? I can understand how students, unemployed or children would have a problem with the prices, but I would think most working adults would be able to purchase more than enough to keep busy unless they have other expensive hobbies, ESPECIALLY with these crazy box sets with 40-50% off (I would consider those prices to be very cheap for what you get).
footnote: I haven't factored in AU/NZ people... you guys are just screwed by GW.
So I make pretty good money. So what? Just because I'm not hurting financially doesn't automatically mean I want to piss it away. I want value for my dollar, not necessarily the cheapest thing out there. I eat at this joint in my town called 9 Irish Brothers, getting a dish called Bangers and Mash for around $12 US, not counting drink. Some people wouldn't pay that much for the food. I think it's the right match of quality for price. If it were cheaper, I wouldn't be upset, but if that plate of food jumped to double the price I don't think I'd hit that joint at all. Same goes with everything I'm in to. I've only seen a couple Xbox games within the last 3 years or so that were worth paying the full $60 US at retail for, so I waited on them. When the Transformers I colllect sell out before I can get to the store and ebay stores located from my area are selling them at 2-3X retail, I wait patiently for them to show up again at retail, even if it takes months. If I see a rules set I like, I judge whether it's worth the price to start in/continue with it. Right now, I don't fell that GW models are at that spot for me. Near $60 for a Vindicator tank seems insanity, and don't get me started on the squad/regiment sets. Battleforces/battalions back in the day were well worth it. I have yet to see one now that I say "Yep, that's worth it" when I see it on the shelf. A local store has a ton of 8th Ed. boxed sets that will probably go on clearance, and that'd be the only way I'd fork out for it, and even then it'd be for the models, not the lackluster rules.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah the £30 rubric come weeks after they said first half of the year will be better than expected thanks to the economy.
And we are out of the window when you can blame Kirby.
It's not getting better where it counts.
unless you think that quality models are worth a few Squids a piece doesn't seem like a problem to me...
i would rather have them at that price, than not have them at all...
would you rather we just didn't get any new models???
that would be a bummer...
don't get me wrong, i would love to see lower prices, but if it isn't going to happen, i would at least like to have awesome new minis, which this Tzeentch release has a bunch of...
Chikout wrote: If we compare modern Gw to 1998 gw then it is a whole different conversation, but it is literally undeniable that Gw has made a lot of positive changes in the last 18 months unless you think any of those changes are for the worse. Do you?
GW figuratively not spitting in our face, I will agree, they have gotten better, but game play wise? Like you said it's been over 18 months and the rules for 40K are still a mess. GWhas done nothing here to fix the game. All GW done was fixed or gotten better in "image" but game play wise, and price wise, GW is still same old. Look at the joke GW released on the GW website for FAQs then a week later they finally released the "final FAQ for 7th edition, what ever that is suppose to mean. The first shows GW is still same old same old, but the latter shows GW has changed. So maybe it's a draw. They do new things but then act like they did last 2 years ago.
That is why I say Smoke and Mirrors. GW gives the illusion they have changed by not "spitting in our faces no more" but they are still the same when it comes to pricing individual minis and when it comes to rules, they are still not clear, concise, and still a lot of flipping here and there multiple times to see how a rule works. They still have their trade agreements in how gaming stores have to go through to buy from GW. I believe that hasn't changed as well.
Only the out side appearances of GW has changed but for now, the inner core of GW is still the same.
That said, I am enjoying the Smoke and Mirrors. Is it being a cynic or a realist? Non the less, I am enjoying the ride and have spent a lot of money on GW.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah the £30 rubric come weeks after they said first half of the year will be better than expected thanks to the economy.
And we are out of the window when you can blame Kirby.
It's not getting better where it counts.
unless you think that quality models are worth a few Squids a piece doesn't seem like a problem to me...
i would rather have them at that price, than not have them at all...
would you rather we just didn't get any new models???
that would be a bummer...
don't get me wrong, i would love to see lower prices, but if it isn't going to happen, i would at least like to have awesome new minis, which this Tzeentch release has a bunch of...
cheers
jah
I don't think the models quality is what's important they are game pieces, if I want a model just to make and paint I can go plenty of other places and find a better quality for less.
Price increases like this are not okay they don't increase with inflation or as a result of material and labour costs they jump up because of poor management, why should a tzeench player pay £5 more than any other marine player?
Prices go up on all products but they don't jump up 20% they go up a few pence .
Rubric marines are no more special than any other marines they should not be so much more expensive.
Prices simply can't keep going up like this it's the number one thing killing their player base, they Arnt the Apple of wargaming they can't survive on a tiny consumer group.
I'm not saying that there aren't any improvements at all. I'm saying ref 40K - as a game - that GW hasn't made what IMO are significant improvements - and the little improvements can also be occurring around areas where things get worse.
IMO if GW want me to see them as really getting better as a game and model company they need to make serious improvements to 40K. As a tyranid player most of the dex is garbage and some add on units are poor as well. Nids do not have a 7th ed dex having to use the poor 6th ed dex that was basicaly a copy paste of the lousy 5th ed nid dex. How hard would it be to TRY to fix the myriad of problems facing nids for years through errata? Not hard at all. So for over 6 years I have to play with an army that has had poor rules and numerous problems - when someone that knows the game (and hopefully the 40k designers know their game but that is questionable) could fix so many of the tyranid issues in an afternoon or at least seriously TRY to do so. But no. 6 years of nid dexes being garbage isn't somehow a priority to correct. And other armies suffer similar problems where a simple ATTEMPT to correct some of the issues could easily be attempted.
Not even talking about 7th ed as the mess it is - as far as 40K is concerned IMO I haven't seen much in improvements or that GW is doing things differently. That is what I need to see to say GW has gotten better (I would add that if prices were dropped to reasonable levels I would also consider that a real improvement)
hobojebus wrote: Yeah the £30 rubric come weeks after they said first half of the year will be better than expected thanks to the economy.
And we are out of the window when you can blame Kirby.
It's not getting better where it counts.
unless you think that quality models are worth a few Squids a piece doesn't seem like a problem to me... i would rather have them at that price, than not have them at all... would you rather we just didn't get any new models??? that would be a bummer... don't get me wrong, i would love to see lower prices, but if it isn't going to happen, i would at least like to have awesome new minis, which this Tzeentch release has a bunch of...
cheers jah
I don't think the models quality is what's important they are game pieces, if I want a model just to make and paint I can go plenty of other places and find a better quality for less.
Price increases like this are not okay they don't increase with inflation or as a result of material and labour costs they jump up because of poor management, why should a tzeench player pay £5 more than any other marine player?
Prices go up on all products but they don't jump up 20% they go up a few pence .
Rubric marines are no more special than any other marines they should not be so much more expensive.
Prices simply can't keep going up like this it's the number one thing killing their player base, they Arnt the Apple of wargaming they can't survive on a tiny consumer group.
GW doesn't price based on model count. They generally price based on how many they expect to sell. Hence Sternguard costing more for 5 then 10 Regular Space Marines. The alternative is $40usd for CSM Squads of 10 or $50 for a specialist unit of 10 models. Seems inline if not cheaper than current pricing on similar kits. Terminators are priced inline with other current Terminator kits from various ranges. The sole exception for kits that aren't 5+ years old which is just a sprue added to the current SM unit (which is a super old sprue). The infantry kit isn't even a price bump when compared with other similar units especially when you count actual models in the box.
If pricing is your ONLY metric for improvement you're always going to be disappointed and think nothing is getting better. Though that is if you're willfully ignorant of the cost you can actually build full tournament armies for in one of their games but even without that. pricing has mostly stabilized with some outliers (up and down). Also I'd personally disagree with quality for cost personally. But my preferred medium for hobbying is plastic so my personal choices are pretty darn limited in the SF arena. If your willing to be honest with yourself (which you don't seem to be) then GW has gotten better. It might be babysteps but it feels like its getting better day by day. Still takes time to change an entire corporate mentality. And let me tell you from working for them in the early 2000's that mentality was bad turning to terrible pretty quickly. So I can only imagine how much worse and deeper it went over the course of another decade. All that said prices aren't going to drop. But I do think they are stabalizing in an attempt to let the market catch up (which on a model for model basis has already happened for major wargaming model companies).
Granted if 8th is a cluster (I don't think it will be but it might be) then I'll be in the camp of the ship not turning fast enough to save it all. But the steps they are taking now and from whispers I've heard the company is getting better and making changes. Price just isn't going to be one of them outside of deals.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah the £30 rubric come weeks after they said first half of the year will be better than expected thanks to the economy.
And we are out of the window when you can blame Kirby.
It's not getting better where it counts.
unless you think that quality models are worth a few Squids a piece doesn't seem like a problem to me...
i would rather have them at that price, than not have them at all...
would you rather we just didn't get any new models???
that would be a bummer...
don't get me wrong, i would love to see lower prices, but if it isn't going to happen, i would at least like to have awesome new minis, which this Tzeentch release has a bunch of...
cheers
jah
I don't think the models quality is what's important they are game pieces, if I want a model just to make and paint I can go plenty of other places and find a better quality for less.
Price increases like this are not okay they don't increase with inflation or as a result of material and labour costs they jump up because of poor management, why should a tzeench player pay £5 more than any other marine player?
Prices go up on all products but they don't jump up 20% they go up a few pence .
Rubric marines are no more special than any other marines they should not be so much more expensive.
Prices simply can't keep going up like this it's the number one thing killing their player base, they Arnt the Apple of wargaming they can't survive on a tiny consumer group.
the question was, would you rather not have Rubrics at all, if they are going to cost 5 Squids more???
if you think that the models are just gaming pieces, then we are not even having the same conversation with each other...
to me, they are much more than gaming pieces...
they are physical representations of cool art and fiction, that we get to paint...
Rubrics are certainly more special than other Marines...
if you want Rubrics, Khorne Berzerkers will not do as a cheap alternative...
neither will a box of Tactical Marines...
Rubrics are exactly what they should be, cool power armor automatons with new weapon options, nice tabards, big headdresses, and very specific Tzeentch details...
of course, if that doesn't matter to you, then the couple bucks more may be a deal breaker...
if it is exactly what someone wants, then it's worth a few dollars more...
Then you would be the kind of person the Sideshow Collectibles statues were made for, or the Forgeworld Busts of old. The rest of us are immersed in the game. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around with nothing but collected art books and Black Library novels.
Personally, I'm really enjoying my 40k gaming right now.
I do have some gripes:
Orks feeling unfluffy and too underpowered to be fun (and how on earth can Flash Gitz not have 'eavy armour?)
Forgeworld not releasing rules updates for their IA books. Those things are beautiful but cost a lot, so I feel the least they could do is keep them up to date with Errata and FAQ releases. Especially IA8 (although don't take stuff out FW!)
Forgeworld discontinuing support for the Badab War, and most of all not at least offering limited runs of transfer sheets etc. I'd give a kidney for a Carcharodons transfer sheet.
Some armies being neglected. For me it's my Grey Knights and Orks, while my Eldar and Necrons can feel too powerful to be fun. The rules call for responsible gaming, and I'm lucky to play with a great group of lads, but even so the balance issues are real and problematic.
I wish GW and FW would understand that just because something has slow sales it doesn't mean they ought to get rid of it. If we look at the Carcharodon example again, I might buy 1 transfer sheet, but then spend several hundred pounds on models. Without that transfer sheet I just won't bother.
It's the same with the feeling the game creates inside my head, and I feel this is true for many others also. I liken it to a lottery ticket. That ticket allows you to spend the weekend dreaming about your new life, escaping from reality.
Well 40k absolutely does and should do that. But the universe must feel varied. They might sell only 1 Ork army to every 5 Space Marine armies, but that Ork army is crucial in allowing those Space Marine players to dream about coming up against different and varied foes, to play out scenarios in their head. I'd like them to do more to support the less popular elements - not to even try to make them popular, but to understand that they play a crucial role in the whole.
All that said, I feel GW have really improved, and I'm getting a good vibe from them. I'm actually ok with 7th. I think cover and close combat need reworks, but I am alright with the rules bloat really, it doesn't bother me too much.
So I'm supportive of the changes they've made and are making, and I feel like they're going in the right direction, but there is still certainly work to do.
Just Tony wrote: Then you would be the kind of person the Sideshow Collectibles statues were made for, or the Forgeworld Busts of old. The rest of us are immersed in the game. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around with nothing but collected art books and Black Library novels.
Nah, he seems like the kind of person who recognizes that a niche product might be worth a few more bucks to players who like that particular niche that would never have seen it if it wasn't going to be priced at that amount. And that the game (40k) actually plays fine honestly. Even at a competitive level it has it's annoyances but it plays fine. The problem isn't current players. It's trying to teach new players with the current rules bloat that's the issue. Rules bloat sucks but honestly it's not to different than 3rd edition that way. Though it'd be nice if GW bothered to draft up a compendium. I was keeping one up for 40k but I don't think I can anymore. No time and no inclination.
Just Tony wrote: Then you would be the kind of person the Sideshow Collectibles statues were made for, or the Forgeworld Busts of old. The rest of us are immersed in the game. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around with nothing but collected art books and Black Library novels.
Nah, he seems like the kind of person who recognizes that a niche product might be worth a few more bucks to players who like that particular niche that would never have seen it if it wasn't going to be priced at that amount. And that the game (40k) actually plays fine honestly. Even at a competitive level it has it's annoyances but it plays fine. The problem isn't current players. It's trying to teach new players with the current rules bloat that's the issue. Rules bloat sucks but honestly it's not to different than 3rd edition that way. Though it'd be nice if GW bothered to draft up a compendium. I was keeping one up for 40k but I don't think I can anymore. No time and no inclination.
...
Did you actually play 3rd edition? There wasn't a heavy rules bloat. You had less than 10 USRs, each army had 1 maybe 2 armywide special rules, and most elite units had 1 special rule on top of that. It wasn't until the modular troop system started by the Tyranids which was amped to the millionth degree by the CSM and SM codex that stuff blew past that window. With a bit of a foggy memory, I'm pretty sure that stuff did land on 3rd, but it also was before 4th hit, so could have been written with that in mind. I tried comparing the 3rd Ed. SM codex to just the 5th Ed. SM codex, and the differences in SRs was striking to say the least. 6th and 7th didn't make it any better, and most assuredly was nowhere near as streamlined as 3rd was. Say what you want about Rhino Rush and improperly used consolidation moves, 3rd Ed. was nowhere NEAR as bloated as the current edition.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah the £30 rubric come weeks after they said first half of the year will be better than expected thanks to the economy.
And we are out of the window when you can blame Kirby.
It's not getting better where it counts.
unless you think that quality models are worth a few Squids a piece doesn't seem like a problem to me...
i would rather have them at that price, than not have them at all...
would you rather we just didn't get any new models???
that would be a bummer...
don't get me wrong, i would love to see lower prices, but if it isn't going to happen, i would at least like to have awesome new minis, which this Tzeentch release has a bunch of...
cheers
jah
I don't think the models quality is what's important they are game pieces, if I want a model just to make and paint I can go plenty of other places and find a better quality for less.
Price increases like this are not okay they don't increase with inflation or as a result of material and labour costs they jump up because of poor management, why should a tzeench player pay £5 more than any other marine player?
Prices go up on all products but they don't jump up 20% they go up a few pence .
Rubric marines are no more special than any other marines they should not be so much more expensive.
Prices simply can't keep going up like this it's the number one thing killing their player base, they Arnt the Apple of wargaming they can't survive on a tiny consumer group.
the question was, would you rather not have Rubrics at all, if they are going to cost 5 Squids more???
if you think that the models are just gaming pieces, then we are not even having the same conversation with each other...
to me, they are much more than gaming pieces...
they are physical representations of cool art and fiction, that we get to paint...
Rubrics are certainly more special than other Marines...
if you want Rubrics, Khorne Berzerkers will not do as a cheap alternative...
neither will a box of Tactical Marines...
Rubrics are exactly what they should be, cool power armor automatons with new weapon options, nice tabards, big headdresses, and very specific Tzeentch details...
of course, if that doesn't matter to you, then the couple bucks more may be a deal breaker...
if it is exactly what someone wants, then it's worth a few dollars more...
cheers
jah
I'm not a collector I'm a gamer what matters to me is not what the game pieces look like but how fun the game is to play.
I'd much rather the game be good and popular than the models look nice but be so overpriced it's driving people away to other systems.
I can get thousands of nice models from hundreds of other companies if I want to paint something and it'll be cheaper.
Models are there to play a game with they are not high art they are toy soldiers really overpriced toy soldiers but nothing more.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah the £30 rubric come weeks after they said first half of the year will be better than expected thanks to the economy.
And we are out of the window when you can blame Kirby.
It's not getting better where it counts.
unless you think that quality models are worth a few Squids a piece doesn't seem like a problem to me...
i would rather have them at that price, than not have them at all...
would you rather we just didn't get any new models???
that would be a bummer...
don't get me wrong, i would love to see lower prices, but if it isn't going to happen, i would at least like to have awesome new minis, which this Tzeentch release has a bunch of...
cheers
jah
I don't think the models quality is what's important they are game pieces, if I want a model just to make and paint I can go plenty of other places and find a better quality for less.
Price increases like this are not okay they don't increase with inflation or as a result of material and labour costs they jump up because of poor management, why should a tzeench player pay £5 more than any other marine player?
Prices go up on all products but they don't jump up 20% they go up a few pence .
Rubric marines are no more special than any other marines they should not be so much more expensive.
Prices simply can't keep going up like this it's the number one thing killing their player base, they Arnt the Apple of wargaming they can't survive on a tiny consumer group.
the question was, would you rather not have Rubrics at all, if they are going to cost 5 Squids more???
if you think that the models are just gaming pieces, then we are not even having the same conversation with each other...
to me, they are much more than gaming pieces...
they are physical representations of cool art and fiction, that we get to paint...
Rubrics are certainly more special than other Marines...
if you want Rubrics, Khorne Berzerkers will not do as a cheap alternative...
neither will a box of Tactical Marines...
Rubrics are exactly what they should be, cool power armor automatons with new weapon options, nice tabards, big headdresses, and very specific Tzeentch details...
of course, if that doesn't matter to you, then the couple bucks more may be a deal breaker...
if it is exactly what someone wants, then it's worth a few dollars more...
cheers
jah
I'm not a collector I'm a gamer what matters to me is not what the game pieces look like but how fun the game is to play.
I'd much rather the game be good and popular than the models look nice but be so overpriced it's driving people away to other systems.
I can get thousands of nice models from hundreds of other companies if I want to paint something and it'll be cheaper.
Models are there to play a game with they are not high art they are toy soldiers really overpriced toy soldiers but nothing more.
You do realise you're arguing with Ned Flanders? That formatting thing is his diddly.
@hobojesus: painting knows no distinction between a gamer or collector...
cool 28mm scale models know no distinction between a gamer and a collector...
28mm models are toy soldiers, sure, but they can be high art if you approach them that way, or they can be seen as simple tokens...
the choice is yours...
my choice is to take those toy soldiers, and paint them to the best of my ability, so it is worth a few bucks extra to have the canvas i want to work on...
i can enjoy all the other companies' toy soldiers, too...
i don't have an axe to grind with anyone
jah-joshua wrote: @hobojesus: painting knows no distinction between a gamer or collector...
cool 28mm scale models know no distinction between a gamer and a collector...
28mm models are toy soldiers, sure, but they can be high art if you approach them that way, or they can be seen as simple tokens...
the choice is yours...
my choice is to take those toy soldiers, and paint them to the best of my ability, so it is worth a few bucks extra to have the canvas i want to work on...
i can enjoy all the other companies' toy soldiers, too...
i don't have an axe to grind with anyone
cheers
jah
We know Jah, you say it every time, but the point is that you are an exception to the rule, Most people buy these models to play with in the game, so if they need more than a few boxes those few quid that don't bother you, is another box that a gamer can't buy.
You know there is a middle-ground between putting a manufacturer on a pedestal or using coins as proxies right?
jah-joshua wrote: @hobojesus: painting knows no distinction between a gamer or collector...
cool 28mm scale models know no distinction between a gamer and a collector...
28mm models are toy soldiers, sure, but they can be high art if you approach them that way, or they can be seen as simple tokens...
the choice is yours...
my choice is to take those toy soldiers, and paint them to the best of my ability, so it is worth a few bucks extra to have the canvas i want to work on...
i can enjoy all the other companies' toy soldiers, too...
i don't have an axe to grind with anyone
cheers
jah
We know Jah, you say it every time, but the point is that you are an exception to the rule, Most people buy these models to play with in the game, so if they need more than a few boxes those few quid that don't bother you, is another box that a gamer can't buy.
You know there is a middle-ground between putting a manufacturer on a pedestal or using coins as proxies right?
I don't think jah is an exception, there are people that share a similar point of view in most hobbies, and given a large portion of this hobby is collecting and painting for display, can't say I'd be surprised to find it's not a minority.
I think GWs mistake is that for too long they focused on that one part of the audience and it's finally bit them on the arse. Pricing of the chaos releases though shows they haven't learned their lesson.
H.B.M.C. wrote: He's of the "don't care, got mine" hobbyist variety. If price doesn't matter to him, then why would it matter to anyone?
And to me, that's cool.
Problem is, at that price point (rubrics, ahriman) they could well not be there at all, since the cash I would need to fork out to get a fleshed out 1ksons sample is ridiculous. I'm not going to buy a kit, paint it up and be done with it, I'm going to put them into an army on the tabletop.
I don't think jah is an exception, there are people that share a similar point of view in most hobbies, and given a large portion of this hobby is collecting and painting for display, can't say I'd be surprised to find it's not a minority.
I think GWs mistake is that for too long they focused on that one part of the audience and it's finally bit them on the arse. Pricing of the chaos releases though shows they haven't learned their lesson.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's no interest in gaming itself and seems to have ample money for it.
I'm not convinced that there are many pure painters who are GW customers - most of them at least seem to work around the idea of a playable army even if it's never fielded.
Easy E wrote: To the OP- I don't know if they are getting better or not.
However, with the release of Blood Bowl GW has found a way to get my money for the first time since..... 6th edition 40k?
Not sure about Blood Bowl. After all, its only a specialist game.
There will be some initial buys but certainly not in a long run since you just need the starter box and then you're set.
Ideally, starter box + 2 orc blitzers + 2 black orcs + 2 human blitzers. The skaven box is missing 2 gutter runners to get to the required 4.
Though, from the rumours it seems that every other new kit will be forgeworld resin, and looking at the prices + shipping for the FWLotR dwarves as comparison, they will not get any more money from me. A shame, since wood elves would work out of the box (linemen, thrower/catcher/wardancer)
Easy E wrote: To the OP- I don't know if they are getting better or not.
However, with the release of Blood Bowl GW has found a way to get my money for the first time since..... 6th edition 40k?
Not sure about Blood Bowl. After all, its only a specialist game.
There will be some initial buys but certainly not in a long run since you just need the starter box and then you're set.
Ideally, starter box + 2 orc blitzers + 2 black orcs + 2 human blitzers. The skaven box is missing 2 gutter runners to get to the required 4.
Though, from the rumours it seems that every other new kit will be forgeworld resin, and looking at the prices + shipping for the FWLotR dwarves as comparison, they will not get any more money from me. A shame, since wood elves would work out of the box (linemen, thrower/catcher/wardancer)
Usual GW shenanigans
So let me see if I got it right: they relaunched it but they keep using their exploitative tactics, while like other 10 companies produce cheaper and compatible miniatures for fantasy football, and maybe less overdesigned.
Oh this is going to work so well for GW....
GW really changed! Complete new direction [insert here Roundtree meme]!
Orks feeling unfluffy and too underpowered to be fun (and how on earth can Flash Gitz not have 'eavy armour?)
Forgeworld not releasing rules updates for their IA books. Those things are beautiful but cost a lot, so I feel the least they could do is keep them up to date with Errata and FAQ releases. Especially IA8 (although don't take stuff out FW!)
Forgeworld discontinuing support for the Badab War, and most of all not at least offering limited runs of transfer sheets etc. I'd give a kidney for a Carcharodons transfer sheet.
Some armies being neglected. For me it's my Grey Knights and Orks, while my Eldar and Necrons can feel too powerful to be fun. The rules call for responsible gaming, and I'm lucky to play with a great group of lads, but even so the balance issues are real and problematic.
I wish GW and FW would understand that just because something has slow sales it doesn't mean they ought to get rid of it. If we look at the Carcharodon example again, I might buy 1 transfer sheet, but then spend several hundred pounds on models. Without that transfer sheet I just won't bother.
It's the same with the feeling the game creates inside my head, and I feel this is true for many others also. I liken it to a lottery ticket. That ticket allows you to spend the weekend dreaming about your new life, escaping from reality.
Well 40k absolutely does and should do that. But the universe must feel varied. They might sell only 1 Ork army to every 5 Space Marine armies, but that Ork army is crucial in allowing those Space Marine players to dream about coming up against different and varied foes, to play out scenarios in their head. I'd like them to do more to support the less popular elements - not to even try to make them popular, but to understand that they play a crucial role in the whole.
All that said, I feel GW have really improved, and I'm getting a good vibe from them. I'm actually ok with 7th. I think cover and close combat need reworks, but I am alright with the rules bloat really, it doesn't bother me too much.
So I'm supportive of the changes they've made and are making, and I feel like they're going in the right direction, but there is still certainly work to do.
Very well put and it is also how I feel about the hobby currently with the struggles to play the bottom tier armies like Orks and Grey Knights while also the frustration of having to hold back a lot with Tau purely because GW is notoriously bad at game balance. Very good point about faction diversity as the game (and fluff) would be extremely boring if it was just Spess Mahreens vs Different Spess Mahreens every game. Love the game and its fun but it could be so much better if more polish and concern was placed on catering to diverse play experiences and also managing imbalance better (with the internet and all their supplement releases, its disappointing that they don't attempt to patch game balance at all).
Easy E wrote: To the OP- I don't know if they are getting better or not.
However, with the release of Blood Bowl GW has found a way to get my money for the first time since..... 6th edition 40k?
Not sure about Blood Bowl. After all, its only a specialist game.
There will be some initial buys but certainly not in a long run since you just need the starter box and then you're set.
Ideally, starter box + 2 orc blitzers + 2 black orcs + 2 human blitzers. The skaven box is missing 2 gutter runners to get to the required 4.
Though, from the rumours it seems that every other new kit will be forgeworld resin, and looking at the prices + shipping for the FWLotR dwarves as comparison, they will not get any more money from me.
A shame, since wood elves would work out of the box (linemen, thrower/catcher/wardancer)
Usual GW shenanigans
So let me see if I got it right: they relaunched it but they keep using their exploitative tactics, while like other 10 companies produce cheaper and compatible miniatures for fantasy football, and maybe less overdesigned.
Oh this is going to work so well for GW....
GW really changed! Complete new direction [insert here Roundtree meme]!
Strange that GW will let FW produce upcoming teams. How about upgrades of the plastic teams they produce right now?
Its totally fine for me. I'll consider other companies producing similar football miniatures.
Lolf, guess what: I'm neither. I'm just tired of people who go around bashin NON-stop things and find your attitude in general most displeasing and TFG-tier when it comes to speaking to people you don't even know and don't agree with you (not me, just other cases I've seen) and comes across as a very self-entitled sense of superiority.
Could you clarify exactly how much complaining about GW's flaws is considered acceptable before it is "TFG-tier"? And is the quota measured by total complaints, complaints per day, or the ratio of complaints to non-complaint posts?
So let me see if I got it right: they relaunched it but they keep using their exploitative tactics, while like other 10 companies produce cheaper and compatible miniatures for fantasy football, and maybe less overdesigned.
Oh this is going to work so well for GW....
GW really changed! Complete new direction [insert here Roundtree meme]!
Actually, it works for me.
The price on the plastic BB minis is actually good and lower than the third party market(pound conversion + shipping vs local buying).
The starter box set got me nearly 2 full teams, a good BB playing set, dead-tree rules and dices.
Since it seems that extra positionals and other teams will be in FW resin, I'll go after third party for the positionals/teams I'm interested in.
So let me see if I got it right: they relaunched it but they keep using their exploitative tactics, while like other 10 companies produce cheaper and compatible miniatures for fantasy football, and maybe less overdesigned.
Oh this is going to work so well for GW....
GW really changed! Complete new direction [insert here Roundtree meme]!
Actually, it works for me.
The price on the plastic BB minis is actually good and lower than the third party market(pound conversion + shipping vs local buying).
The starter box set got me nearly 2 full teams, a good BB playing set, dead-tree rules and dices.
Since it seems that extra positionals and other teams will be in FW resin, I'll go after third party for the positionals/teams I'm interested in.
I win, kinda
Yeah, but Kaiyanwangs argument was that "Since it seems that extra positionals and other teams will be in FW resin, I'll go after third party for the positionals/teams I'm interested in." is a loss for GW. After all, that's money that's going towards other companies, not GW.
So let me see if I got it right: they relaunched it but they keep using their exploitative tactics, while like other 10 companies produce cheaper and compatible miniatures for fantasy football, and maybe less overdesigned.
Oh this is going to work so well for GW....
GW really changed! Complete new direction [insert here Roundtree meme]!
Actually, it works for me.
The price on the plastic BB minis is actually good and lower than the third party market(pound conversion + shipping vs local buying).
The starter box set got me nearly 2 full teams, a good BB playing set, dead-tree rules and dices.
Since it seems that extra positionals and other teams will be in FW resin, I'll go after third party for the positionals/teams I'm interested in.
I win, kinda
Yeah, but Kaiyanwangs argument was that "Since it seems that extra positionals and other teams will be in FW resin, I'll go after third party for the positionals/teams I'm interested in." is a loss for GW. After all, that's money that's going towards other companies, not GW.
Lord Kragan wrote: I'm sorry, but who's literally going through EVERY SINGLE CHANCE HE HAS to go and bash them even when it doesn't present itself: who goes and says almost non-stop (read: in a great deal of comments and to an almost alarming rate) hack-frauds, "sub-educated" (not on this thread but you've done it in others, and it sticks like a sore thumb) or some variation or thereof? Just who does?
You call me battered wife but the fact that you still follow the game, even though you've stated on MANY that you hate the rules and what they've become, hate the living guts of the dev-team and the company, is a bigger sign of a battered wife than: "heh, has its issue but can be enjoyable if you play with like-minded people. Don't fret over the small stuff."
" YOU have a dismissing attitude toward those who disagree with GW current policy or criticise the design choice, in a thread dedicate to analyse them. "
No, I'm dimissive of someone who's constantly complaining about them, be it on topic or even remotely out of the subject theme. Do I find appalling their choice for one-man stores? Yes. Do I find appalling their pricings? Yes, that's why I buy very sparcely and use count-as quite often.
But do I think it's gone better? Yes. It is perfect? hell no. Do I think it's worth complaining and pulling jabs at them at almost every time I get the chance of? no.
The one who should look at the mirror it's you, it's not just about this thread that makes you a jerk.
I see this very attitude in another thread. Every cosmetic change is considered an improvement. Now people are praising the goodness that will come for CSM from TS and legions.
I predict 1-2 broken gimmicky lists, and a lot of "nothing". My attitude could be overtly bitter, but you completely fail at understanding that the "changes" you point out are meaningless and superficial. If you want to convince yourself GW is changed, good. But a young person could read this forum and be misguided and heck, I am sure I will have this person warned.
Oh yeah the children... screw those little runts. Okay, Jokes. But regarding bloodbowl. It's not entirely without the bounds of reason that, if anything, there will be more people going to buy extra boxes rather than going to 3rd parties. The effect of brands is strong, specialy when in metas where only GWs are available.
Oh yeah the children... screw those little runts. Okay, Jokes. But regarding bloodbowl. It's not entirely without the bounds of reason that, if anything, there will be more people going to buy extra boxes rather than going to 3rd parties. The effect of brands is strong, specialy when in metas where only GWs are available.
Except extra boxes don't get you players which are not included in the box.
Oh yeah the children... screw those little runts. Okay, Jokes. But regarding bloodbowl. It's not entirely without the bounds of reason that, if anything, there will be more people going to buy extra boxes rather than going to 3rd parties. The effect of brands is strong, specialy when in metas where only GWs are available.
Except extra boxes don't get you players which are not included in the box.
My bad, thought it was that there weren't enough players. My bad, then yes that's a mistake or they have another plan for releases, god knows what they are going to do.
filbert wrote: The box sets only appear good value because the prices are so jacked in the first place - it's a false economy and a false saving. If you are happy with that, then more power to you. Several years of falling sales at GW would suggest that a large tranche of people are not, however.
GW have always been expensive for what they are but then again, they used to have the market position and dominance to charge those prices; nowadays, I would argue they do not. I remember when they used to do buy one, get one free offers and the like. That used to be real savings and offers - not bundling some kits together that were already wildly overpriced and then knocking an arbitrary amount off to make it seem like you are getting a huge discount and a great deal - that's just the consumer equivalent of the shell game.
Admittedly I lack the knowledge to compare them to other major manufactures like that Warmahordesthing.
And while I can agree on ridiculous prices for single character models... Does it really matter THAT much to you if that single character costs 27€ instead of 20€?
Looking at the AdMech Battleforce, you get 4 large miniatures, 11 human sized miniatures and 3 medium miniatures. for 130€, that is about 7,20€ per miniature.
Looking up the price on a Warjack, which hovers around 30€ and is the size of a dreadnought...
While abox of infantry is about 45€ compared to GW'S start collecting which gives you the squad, a dread and an HQ...
Sorry, you cannot claim that GW with these sets is more expensive than Warmahordes per model. These boxes offer great value even when compared to competition.
Unless I misjudge the prices and sizes I see on the Warjacks and corresponding models.
Why are you comparing to Warmahordes? If there's any brand out there that gives you less value for money than GW (except in the narrow niche of game advantage), it's Warmachine.
For me, most of GW's minis are just too expensive (or costly per model) to buy no matter how much I love the sculpts. The big box sets are a real value for me, though, because I love using all the extra bits for conversions and kitbashes. If GW lowered their prices, most of their minis would slide from being poor deals into must haves for me. It works the same way for Black Library, too. As mass market paperbacks, their books were almost always worth buying. Trade omnibuses were great value. Trade novellas, hardcovers, and limited editions? Not worth it, and killed my interest in the entire line of novels for years.
It's like GW just has to find the line at which their prices go from "I can afford this, although it's a lot" to "Now I'm insulted".
hobojebus wrote: Rubric marines are no more special than any other marines they should not be so much more expensive.
Rubric marines are chaos terminators that nobody is going to buy but hardcore SMC fans, i.e. at most 1/10th of a vanilla marine equivalent kit.
I consider that more special.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ventus wrote: I'm not saying that there aren't any improvements at all. I'm saying ref 40K - as a game - that GW hasn't made what IMO are significant improvements - and the little improvements can also be occurring around areas where things get worse.
Yes, because the FAQ is not the most complete GW has ever released, and because that FAQ doesn't solve a hundred rules points... if you don't think that's significant, then maybe your threshold is a little too high for an "improvement".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vankraken wrote: Very well put and it is also how I feel about the hobby currently with the struggles to play the bottom tier armies like Orks and Grey Knights
Bottom tier.. you ain't seen bottom tier my friend.
Go try Dark Eldar for a spin, your Orks and GK will look unbelievably strong then.
But yes, some improved balance would be nice, although I would like to see Dark Eldar fixed first, then probably CSM, then Orks and maybe lastly GK, who are a good deal better than the other three.
One army which really needs a boost is Codex:Flyrant, it's really sad as it is now.
Just Tony wrote: Then you would be the kind of person the Sideshow Collectibles statues were made for, or the Forgeworld Busts of old. The rest of us are immersed in the game. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around with nothing but collected art books and Black Library novels.
the Sideshow Collectible Marines didn't appeal to me, because they were pre-painted...
the Forge World busts, and their large scale models, did...
i enjoyed painting the Skaven Stormvermin bust, and the Space Wolve Termie bust, a lot...
the Beastmen Shaman bust, and the Commissar bust are on my to-do list...
i am immersed in the worlds that GW has created...
i buy each Codex, so that i know how to build and equip my minis, ensuring that my customers get useful painted minis when they buy my work...
i buy the collected art books and BL novels, because they inspire and inform those paint jobs...
i don't know why everyone thinks that i don't care about the game, simply because i'm not bothered by the prices...
the fact that the models are 3-D representations of the art and fiction, that people can take for a spin on the table top, is a huge part of the appeal of GW's miniatures, for me...
Battle Reports have always been one of my favorite parts of a White Dwarf issue, all the way back to the very first ones...
army building is a great past time, that is a lot of fun to do while i am busy painting other people's stuff...
i love the big display boards at Warhammer World, with armies clashing...
actually building and painting a badass custom army is the biggest daydream, that keeps me going when i am two years into a booked schedule, and unable to paint the new shiny that i've bought...
i would love to be able to stop taking commissions, and dedicate my time to building a Salamanders army centered around Vulkan He'stan, or a Tau Farsight army full of the awesome new Suits, or a Blood Axe Orc army all kitted out in looted Imperial gear...
without the minis, and imagining them in action on the table top, the books would not be half as fun...
H.B.M.C. wrote: He's of the "don't care, got mine" hobbyist variety. If price doesn't matter to him, then why would it matter to anyone?
that is not true at all, and i never said that...
i do care, very much, about the community, which is why i donate paints and models to people in the hobby that are on disability, and unable to afford the prices...
it is also why i donate painted models to charity auctions like the NOVA Open (raising money for Doctors Without Borders and the Wounded Warrior Project), and the Clash for a Cure (raising money for the American Cancer Society), every year...
i understand why price matters to others, i just don't share their anger about it...
i've said many times, i would love lower prices, but i am not going to boycott GW because a segment of the community are outraged by prices...
i am going to continue to buy the products that i think are worth the money, and pass on the ones i don't (i'm looking at you Finecast, ya bastard)...
i support the work of my friends, and i want to see them continue having creative jobs that they love, and provide for their families...
Herzlos wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's no interest in gaming itself and seems to have ample money for it.
I'm not convinced that there are many pure painters who are GW customers - most of them at least seem to work around the idea of a playable army even if it's never fielded.
see above for the bit about armies and gaming, but understand this:
every dollar that i spend on miniatures is earned through hard work painting minis on commission...
i am not some independently wealthy prat, sitting in my tower, laughing at the peons below...
i work hard, 6 hours a day, 7 days a week, to keep up with demand for my paint jobs...
call it retail therapy, or an addiction, or whatever, but minis (and their associated books) are the only thing that i collect, and they make me happy...
as for "pure painters", there are plenty of them who are inspired by GW minis and the worlds they represent...
i see them online every day, and just like me, they also paint other companies' models, too a love of painting miniatures is enough, but you seem to think that i am saying that the games don't matter, or that i think that "pure painters" float GW with their purchases alone, which i have never said...
My local model shop buys models from GW to sell on.
You buy models from GW to paint and sell on.
My local model shop has had to buy extras like a paint rack to sell on his GW products.
You buy books/codices from GW to aid your painting to help sell models on.
Your view above puts you more as a retailer than a basic customer. You should care about prices. The higher they go, the less customers you'll have in the long run.
My local model shop buys models from GW to sell on.
You buy models from GW to paint and sell on.
My local model shop has had to buy extras like a paint rack to sell on his GW products.
You buy books/codices from GW to aid your painting to help sell models on.
Your view above puts you more as a retailer than a basic customer. You should care about prices. The higher they go, the less customers you'll have in the long run.
I can see where you're coming from all except the last sentence.
For a high end commission painter the cost of the model isn't huge compared to the cost of the hours they spend on the model, so it's not a huge difference in the final price the customer pays.
It'd only be a big effect if you're trying to pump out models for a couple of dollars each (so you're only spending ~30 minutes on each one).
A mate at the local hobby shop was showing me a 1/24 aircraft he made and sold, from memory it was about $150 out of the box and he added another $50 worth of parts. But he put probably 100+ hours in to it and sold it for a couple of thousand dollars in the end. Adding on the cost of the kit doesn't make a huge difference at that point.
But yeah, I can see where you're coming from jah.... but I think in these discussions people end up arguing with you because you argue from a narrow viewpoint, and while I know there's others like you, I don't think it's represents GW's bread and butter.
I think GW's bread and butter is people who have been sold on the idea of playing a game. They might not ever get to the point of playing a game, but that's what they were sold on. In order to play that game they're not going to need 1 box of nice looking but expensive Nobz, they're going to need 10 boxes of Orks AND 2 boxes of Nobz AND 4 boxes of Warbikers AND 3 Mek Gunz and all of a sudden things don't look quite so cheap anymore.
I'd say a large chunk of the population also finds painting a chore rather than a joy. Personally I only find it a joy when painting 1 or 2 models, by the 5th dude I'm cursing the excessive detail of GW figures rather than praising it, especially since most of my favourite models are on the simple side rather than the excessive detail side.
My local model shop buys models from GW to sell on.
You buy models from GW to paint and sell on.
My local model shop has had to buy extras like a paint rack to sell on his GW products.
You buy books/codices from GW to aid your painting to help sell models on.
Your view above puts you more as a retailer than a basic customer. You should care about prices. The higher they go, the less customers you'll have in the long run.
sure i'm a customer...
although i do give my clients the model for free if i already own it, to put a balm on the high cost of hiring me to paint, 95% of the minis that i buy are for myself...
even if i don't get a chance to paint them anytime soon, at least i grabbed them before they went OOP...
with companies changing materials (like GW did with Finecast and PP did with PVC), or going out of business (like Rackham and Ilyad), or models being limited edition, it is smart to get 'em while they are hot...
yes, the books inform the work i do on commissions, and i do have a vested interest in the health of mini wargaming in general...
the problem is people keep jumping to conclusions, saying that i don't "care" about prices...
my exact words are very specific, that i personally "don't have a problem" with the prices, not "i don't care"...
as i've said many times, i would love lower prices, just like anyone else...
i've heard "the higher they go [prices], the less customers you will have in the long run.", but the market doesn't show that to be true...
it shows the opposite, in fact...
more people seem to be commissioning studios each year, and i have been booked solid for 12 years straight...
i have trouble keeping up with demand...
however, if GW ever does lose its hold on the lion's share of commissions booked, the market will shift, and i'll get to paint other manufacturer's minis, like Warmachine or Infinity...
that would not be a bad thing
@Skink: yeah, i get that...
i've never said that my money is GW's bread and butter, only that they are my favorite, and i love to collect their models...
i never said that the minis are cheap, either...
the minis are expensive, without a doubt, but that doesn't put me off, yet...
they may do, one day...
i just spent the last two years painting an Ultramarines army for a client...
i got him the best online discount on the models, and gave him a break on rates, but it still amounts to thousands of dollars spent on painting alone...
my latest commission is to do all of the Primarchs...
that is the whole of my time booked for next year, and my cost of living covered for 2017...
so, while my viewpoint may be narrow, it is not unreasonable or unfounded...
i've heard "the higher they go [prices], the less customers you will have in the long run.", but the market doesn't show that to be true...
it shows the opposite, in fact...
You sure about that? Inflating prices is the best way of keeping customers or so I've heard
GW prices are simple: they charge what they can. When people play armchair CEO and claim GW could make more by selling more units for a lower price, they are making giant assumptions, including that GW management is, essentially, incompetent. My only concern is attracting new gamers and barrier to entry, but I don't have the data or market research to really second guess GW.
The bitterest price complaints also come from long time hobbiests, who claim that they would buy more if the new stuff were cheaper. That may be true, but I also suspect that most long time gamers have boxes of unbuilt stuff along with painted armies. Gamers like that don't get a lot of value from yet another tank.
The prices suck, but they're obviously at where the market can bear.
Sorry but GW is set up for mass production doing smaller runs is less economical than large runs that's how manufacturing works.
By going for boutique sales they are failing to use all that equipment they invested in correctly.
GW could easily out produce mantic in terms of cheap mass infantry if they wanted.
GW's customer base is shrinking they've said as much themselves in the financial reports, high prices are the cause so going cheaper while painful in the short term could reverse things.
i've heard "the higher they go [prices], the less customers you will have in the long run.", but the market doesn't show that to be true... it shows the opposite, in fact...
You sure about that? Inflating prices is the best way of keeping customers or so I've heard
GW make roughly the same revenue as they ever had with higher prices. That means they are shifting less product.
Does that also mean they have a smaller base of customers? We really don't know. Personally I think GW's practices has pushed them to having a smaller pool of customers who are whales... people who spend large amounts of money. The problem with only catering to whales is you have a less diverse customer base which is riskier, it also means you start to lose critical mass (where you have so many players new hobbyists automatically start playing your game over other games simply because it's what most people are already playing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: GW prices are simple: they charge what they can. When people play armchair CEO and claim GW could make more by selling more units for a lower price, they are making giant assumptions, including that GW management is, essentially, incompetent. My only concern is attracting new gamers and barrier to entry, but I don't have the data or market research to really second guess GW.
It's complicated, and no I don't trust GW are doing the best thing. Whether I'd call them incompetent? Well, they've done stuff that certainly comes across as incompetent at times (like killing WHFB just before a Warhammer branded video game from a hugely popular video game series is released) and failing at cross-platform promotion. Their whole handling of the death of WHFB was terrible and when they did good things in that time it mostly seemed like reactionary, as if they didn't realise how people would respond to what they were doing.
I am impressed they're releasing the Space Hulk board game again to coincide with the video game Space Hulk that's coming out, but it's sad that I'm impressed by them doing something that's blatantly obvious. I also think they might be a bit disappointed because the Space Hulk video game doesn't look like it's going to be a AAA hit like Total War and I also think the number of people who would buy Space Hulk on impulse is reducing.
GW themselves have more information than us, but they still don't have the full picture and they are only human and susceptible to misinterpreting it and/or having confirmation bias.
The bitterest price complaints also come from long time hobbiests, who claim that they would buy more if the new stuff were cheaper.
Lets keep things in context, we're on a wargaming forum, the dakka community is dominated by long time hobbyists.
The people you should be concerned about making price complaints is little Jimmy buying the product with his pocket money; the parents of little Timmy who see it's cheaper to buy him another video game instead; the people walking in to an FLGS on a whim and seeing other games as better value; the people who put their army up on ebay after deciding it's too expensive to continue; the old vets who still like your products but have ceased buying them; and the people who bought a starter set then added up the cost of a full army and quit instead.
Most of those demographics don't post on forums so you aren't going to hear their complaints, you're just going to lose their money. Ever watch Kitchen Nightmares? Don't you find it hilarious when store owners think their food is awesome because they don't hear complaints? It's because customers tend not to complain, they just don't come back, and they tell their friends not to go there either.
The people who are old vets but still buy a bit here and there aren't where you're haemorrhaging revenue.
If the prices were what the market could bear, as some people suggest.
Why has GW sales volumes dropped every year for over a decade now?(Appx 1/3 of what they were in the early 2000s.)
And GW plc ONLY reaction to falling sales volumes has been increasing retail prices.(Which is fine for a short term solution while you correct you business model according to detailed and professional market research.)
TK himself pointed this out in GWs 2007 financial report.'...we have grown fat a lazy on the back of easy success..'And 9 years later they are still doing exactly the same thing as they were before this report came out...
@jah-joshua
I know you are a talented painter.And you put lots of hours in a week to earn your money.
But in the real world, 6 hours is just the morning shift.(Half a days work in many jobs.)
And painting minatures is not 'hard work' when compared to deep sea fishing, construction,mining, foundry, front line emergency services, or many other jobs.
The sort of jobs where just getting home in once piece at the end of a 12 hour shift is a good day.
The thing I would think that would be hard with commission painting is...
1) Staying focused on a project which is earning you barely any money per hour.
2) Time management.
3) Physical problems. I could deal with 8 hour painting sessions when I was a kid, these days my body won't let me paint for 8 hours a day for multiple days on end.
Lanrak wrote: If the prices were what the market could bear, as some people suggest.
Why has GW sales volumes dropped every year for over a decade now?(Appx 1/3 of what they were in the early 2000s.)
And GW plc ONLY reaction to falling sales volumes has been increasing retail prices.(Which is fine for a short term solution while you correct you business model according to detailed and professional market research.)
TK himself pointed this out in GWs 2007 financial report.'...we have grown fat a lazy on the back of easy success..'And 9 years later they are still doing exactly the same thing as they were before this report came out...
@jah-joshua
I know you are a talented painter.And you put lots of hours in a week to earn your money.
But in the real world, 6 hours is just the morning shift.(Half a days work in many jobs.)
And painting minatures is not 'hard work' when compared to deep sea fishing, construction,mining, foundry, front line emergency services, or many other jobs.
The sort of jobs where just getting home in once piece at the end of a 12 hour shift is a good day.
i'm not saying that i agree with the direction that GW have taken over the last decade...
i was sad to see the demise of the Battle Bunkers (where i could buy Forge World right in the shop), Specialist Games, and the Golden Demon...
luckily, two of those things are making a comeback...
in the context of the actual topic of this thread, that is a big plus, for me...
the question is, "So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?"...
going by the 20 pages of this thread, it looks like opinion on that is split...
for me, as a customer, the last year has been a boon...
Betrayal at Calth (MkIV in plastic), DW: Overkill (an amazing set of models), the Tech-priest Dominus ( a great Jes Goodwin sculpt), Silver Tower (some of the best AoS minis yet, in my opinion), the AoS Orc Megaboss (one of my favorite Orcs ever), the Tau Commander & Ethereal box (way better than Finecast), Death Masque (plastic Eldrad, the introduction of Brother Artemis in 28mm, and beautiful MkVIII Deathwatch Marines), Genestealer Cult plastics (Darren Latham's Neophytes will be the source of awesome Inq. 28 conversions for years to come), Watch Commander (love this stoic bastard), and now the Burning of Prospero (everything in this box is mind-blowing)...
those are all of the GW minis that i have bought this year, iirc...
then there is the return of the new White Dwarf, the great videos that Warhammer TV are doing, the return of competition in play and painting, engagement with the community on Facebook and Twitter, and an increase in previews...
these may not be improvements to some, all shot down by, "...but the prices!!!"...
fair enough, but they've earned my money with quality product...
c'mon, Lanrak, did i put a "woe is me" in there somewhere when mentioning that i put in a 42 hour work week at the painting table???
i'm just saying that i'm dedicated to my work, and that i don't get time to paint my own minis often...
i grew up working construction in California and Alaska, working on sport fishing boats here in Redondo Beach, and tried my hand at commercial fishing in Alaska, as well a gold mining with my father when he was still alive...
i spent 15 years travelling the globe, funding my way with street corner hustles and smuggling...
i know what it is like to come home with hands curled into claws, or daily risking death or prison, and i had enough of that noise...
the last three years have seen me only risking my life surfing big waves, but i am still addicted to staring Death in the face, and living to tell the tale i am thankful that i can sit back a while, and make a living with painting skills, rather than rolling the dice on the street, or coming home from work unable to paint...
i have a lot of respect for soldiers, firefighters, paramedics, and those out there doing risky jobs...
i'm not comparing mini painting work to any of those things, that would be ridiculous...
dedication is important to me, though...
when i saw my first White Dwarf in '85, and my first Golden Demon book in '90, i new that i wanted to be one of the best painters in the world...
i dedicate myself to that goal every day, even though i still have a long way to go...
i try to make every mini better than the last, in some way...
i give my best each day, and give thanks that i can make my money painting tiny plastic guns, rather than carrying a real one, these days...
hobojebus wrote:Sorry but GW is set up for mass production doing smaller runs is less economical than large runs that's how manufacturing works.
By going for boutique sales they are failing to use all that equipment they invested in correctly.
GW could easily out produce mantic in terms of cheap mass infantry if they wanted.
GW's customer base is shrinking they've said as much themselves in the financial reports, high prices are the cause so going cheaper while painful in the short term could reverse things
Well, you assume that high prices are the reason for shrinking customer base. It's also possible that serious competition for large scale hobby games and a frankly declining rules quality (particularly in relation to the competition) also could cause a loss in market share. High prices aren't helping, but we're just basing the idea that it's the culprit on common sense.
And yes, small runs are less economical than larger ones, but dropping prices only leads to increases sales if the good are elastic. As high end leisure goods, it's reasonable to think that GW products would be elastic, but just because you can sell more for cheaper doesn't mean that maximizes your profit.
Selling 100 widgets for $1, or 50 Widgets for $2, results in the same revenue, but it only results in the same profit if the $1 widgets cost a lot less to make! Say making 50 widgets has a unit cost of $1 a piece, so selling 50 for $2 a piece makes a $50 profit. to make the same profit at $1 each, you'd need to get the cost per unit down to $0.50 each.
This is pretty basic business/accounting here. When I say that I doubt GW is incompetent, I don't mean they don't make bad decisions. I mean they probably understand where the price point is best from a supply/demand standpoint, including the reduced unit cost for increased production.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:[It's complicated, and no I don't trust GW are doing the best thing. Whether I'd call them incompetent? Well, they've done stuff that certainly comes across as incompetent at times (like killing WHFB just before a Warhammer branded video game from a hugely popular video game series is released) and failing at cross-platform promotion. Their whole handling of the death of WHFB was terrible and when they did good things in that time it mostly seemed like reactionary, as if they didn't realise how people would respond to what they were doing.
I am impressed they're releasing the Space Hulk board game again to coincide with the video game Space Hulk that's coming out, but it's sad that I'm impressed by them doing something that's blatantly obvious. I also think they might be a bit disappointed because the Space Hulk video game doesn't look like it's going to be a AAA hit like Total War and I also think the number of people who would buy Space Hulk on impulse is reducing.
Yeah, I think GW has made poor strategic choices, but there's a big difference between incompetence and making a bad call. Buying a building in a neighborhood you thought was up and coming, that instead went to seed is a bad call. Buying a building without checking if there were easements that limit how you can use it is incompetent.
GW themselves have more information than us, but they still don't have the full picture and they are only human and susceptible to misinterpreting it and/or having confirmation bias.
And we have even less information. GW isn't just a company, it's publicly traded. Someone, somewhere, is actually making sure that the management isn't asleep at the switch (at least in US corporate law). I also think that GW could do more to grow the hobby, but the thought of a multi-national company not understanding something as simple as setting a price point is unlikely, although certainly possible. I also have to look at the fact that I'm always a bit skeptical of suggestions of how to better run a business that directly benefit the person giving the advice.
]Lets keep things in context, we're on a wargaming forum, the dakka community is dominated by long time hobbyists.
The people you should be concerned about making price complaints is little Jimmy buying the product with his pocket money; the parents of little Timmy who see it's cheaper to buy him another video game instead; the people walking in to an FLGS on a whim and seeing other games as better value; the people who put their army up on ebay after deciding it's too expensive to continue; the old vets who still like your products but have ceased buying them; and the people who bought a starter set then added up the cost of a full army and quit instead.
Most of those demographics don't post on forums so you aren't going to hear their complaints, you're just going to lose their money. Ever watch Kitchen Nightmares? Don't you find it hilarious when store owners think their food is awesome because they don't hear complaints? It's because customers tend not to complain, they just don't come back, and they tell their friends not to go there either.
The people who are old vets but still buy a bit here and there aren't where you're haemorrhaging revenue.
Yeah, and I noted that my biggest concern with the GW pricing model is that of barrier to entry for new gamers.
PP does pretty well recruiting new gamers, and the cost of full participation is roughly similar. I think you can successfully argue that PP does a good job of limiting barrier of entry to playing meaningful games, with $40 faction specific starters, but when you compare the cost of fielding a tournament PP army against a GW army, they aren't that far off.
I just don't think prices are the whole, or even main, reason for declining sales. I think the games just aren't great, and people are playing better games.
Korinov wrote: Who's worse, the whiner or the whiner about the whiner?
I'm not going to go into much deeper, since I don't really want to make that much rucus-I've made enough-, but considering I got called a shill and battered wife (twice the same day), my outburst wasn't directed at him whining. Just saying.
My local model shop buys models from GW to sell on. You buy models from GW to paint and sell on.
My local model shop has had to buy extras like a paint rack to sell on his GW products. You buy books/codices from GW to aid your painting to help sell models on.
Your view above puts you more as a retailer than a basic customer. You should care about prices. The higher they go, the less customers you'll have in the long run.
sure i'm a customer... although i do give my clients the model for free if i already own it, to put a balm on the high cost of hiring me to paint, 95% of the minis that i buy are for myself... even if i don't get a chance to paint them anytime soon, at least i grabbed them before they went OOP... with companies changing materials (like GW did with Finecast and PP did with PVC), or going out of business (like Rackham and Ilyad), or models being limited edition, it is smart to get 'em while they are hot...
yes, the books inform the work i do on commissions, and i do have a vested interest in the health of mini wargaming in general... the problem is people keep jumping to conclusions, saying that i don't "care" about prices... my exact words are very specific, that i personally "don't have a problem" with the prices, not "i don't care"... as i've said many times, i would love lower prices, just like anyone else...
The thing is though, you're a painter, not a gamer. At least from what you've said in the past. And for a painter, the models matter. And to be fair, GW's models have never really been lacking. Some people may not like their aesthetic direction, but the quality and what they manage to do with plastic has always been top notch. For a painter, getting better than what is already pretty great will always be seen as a massive improvment.
For a gamer, people are dealing with 40k that is the biggest mess it's been since, well, Rogue Trader. And not in a fun, nostalgic way. Balance that decides games when people decide what armies they want to play. And on top of that, prices that are utterly absurd for the amount of models you need for a game.
Buying one box of Gaunts, for a painter, gives you some fun models and options to paint. For a gamer, that one box represents a minimal investment into a squad, and minuscule investment into an army. An army which is very likely to lose 90% of the time simply due to being the red headed step child of the studio.
That's what pushes people away from Games Workshop. Models, they're pretty great, and always were. Sure, there's better out there if you start going into boutique metals and resins, but for assembly line mass produced HIPS they're pretty great. But that's not going to keep gamers playing their games.
