Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: Home games are great for an existing group. They're terrible for getting new players into the game because you won't even know the home game exists until you're already part of the community.
This is the issue people keep failing to understand.
We're not. I think for many people is mostly a cultural difference. Local stores have NEVER been the focal social points for hobby communities that seem to be in the USA. So here, for many people, what you are trying to assert does not apply. People play at home, or at clubs, and could give a rat's ass that some store has a table. And even so, "the community" thrives.
Be interesting to know if Oz and NZ have the European culture, or if the more spread out cities mean the US shop centric approach is default?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which given I got into wargaming in a friends shed, I have always been surprised by given the larger houses and more space many have in the US (though I assume not so much in cities).
deano2099 wrote: Okay, I'll play. If GW sold products direct to me at wholesale prices would I buy from discount retailers? No. I'd just buy direct.
So we are in agreement that the online discount seller is offering nothing of value whatsoever beyond allowing you to use their store account to order from GW? They provide no service to you other than forwarding your order to GW and having it sent to your house?
Correct.
Just like a supermarket provides no value other than sourcing all the products and letting me purchase them. Just like any shop. That's all they do. They buy from distributors and sell them to me, because I'm not allowed to buy direct from distributors, because the world doesn't work that way.
If your argument is that the entire retail sector is parasitical then that's a big stretch but I sort of respect the position comrade.
Have you ever thought about the fact GW clearly sees value in online retailers, given they keep fully supporting them, and they probably know more about running Games Workshop than you do.
privateer4hire wrote: Provide a central location for play, finding products, linking with other players (about quarter of our players refuse to use social media, for example).
Are people less social with strangers/lack venues for clubs in the US? Just wondering why we seem to have a bunch of clubs in most areas in the UK but that isn't the case over the pond?
deano2099 wrote: If your argument is that the entire retail sector is parasitical then that's a big stretch but I sort of respect the position comrade.
A lot of it is. A store that adds value by letting you buy in person and get a thing immediately, supports a community, etc, is not a parasite. A dropshipper is nothing more than a parasite, and 40k discount sellers are far closer to dropshippers than to real stores.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The_Real_Chris wrote: Are people less social with strangers/lack venues for clubs in the US? Just wondering why we seem to have a bunch of clubs in most areas in the UK but that isn't the case over the pond?
I suspect it's simply that US retail space is cheaper per square foot and more stores have gaming space. Why deal with the hassle of arranging space for a club when the local store has free gaming space with zero effort?
tneva82 wrote: But you are the one claiming cheaper price isn't relevant! After all if you can afford to pay for MSRP you can afford scalper price.
I never said that price isn't relevant. I said that affordability is not determined by price differences on this scale. I can absolutely afford to pay $500 for a basic marine squad instead of $50 but I sure as hell don't want to and would probably refuse to buy at that point.
This was great, thanks. The lack of self awareness in this message was the cherry on the cake of these hilarious exchanges.
If a scalper had a 50% off coupon for any tickets he included in his cart, then bought all the tickets, and sold them for 80% the original value, would he be a parasite? It seems he's providing the service of tickets being cheaper, and he's making money off of it.
TauEmissary wrote: Have you ever thought about the fact GW clearly sees value in online retailers, given they keep fully supporting them, and they probably know more about running Games Workshop than you do.
OTOHGW has taken significant actions to mitigate online discount sellers: restricting the maximum discount they can sell at and banning them from selling outside their region and undercutting the local stores. So I'd say GW shares my concerns about them and knows they need to protect the real stores.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If a scalper had a 50% off coupon for any tickets he included in his cart, then bought all the tickets, and sold them for 80% the original value, would he be a parasite? It seems he's providing the service of tickets being cheaper, and he's making money off of it.
A service which is far more than offset by the scalper putting all non-scalpers out of business, leading to a drop in customers and artists no longer bothering with live music anymore. The parasite makes short-term money at the expense of the thing they're exploiting.
kodos wrote: the problem is not that online-only stores can operate cheaper but that GW makes operating B&M stores more difficult
But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
yeah, so GW is trying to push B&M stores out of the wargaming market in hope to increase their own profit
simply because if everyone is close to MSRP, everyone will by directly from GW and the retailer stores are done
because there is no reason to go to a shop who needs to order on demand or cannot order certain items at all, if GW has them in stock and both are the same price
and with a recession incoming, B&M stores will need every cent to survive but with this measures GW makes sure their stores are the ones that are left in the end
TauEmissary wrote: Have you ever thought about the fact GW clearly sees value in online retailers, given they keep fully supporting them, and they probably know more about running Games Workshop than you do.
OTOHGW has taken significant actions to mitigate online discount sellers: restricting the maximum discount they can sell at and banning them from selling outside their region and undercutting the local stores. So I'd say GW shares my concerns about them and knows they need to protect the real stores.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If a scalper had a 50% off coupon for any tickets he included in his cart, then bought all the tickets, and sold them for 80% the original value, would he be a parasite? It seems he's providing the service of tickets being cheaper, and he's making money off of it.
A service which is far more than offset by the scalper putting all non-scalpers out of business, leading to a drop in customers and artists no longer bothering with live music anymore. The parasite makes short-term money at the expense of the thing they're exploiting.
Has that exact scenario you've described countless times now, without ever bringing up a real life example of said process, ever actually happened, or is it just your imaginaion?
deano2099 wrote: If your argument is that the entire retail sector is parasitical then that's a big stretch but I sort of respect the position comrade.
A lot of it is. A store that adds value by letting you buy in person and get a thing immediately, supports a community, etc, is not a parasite. A dropshipper is nothing more than a parasite, and 40k discount sellers are far closer to dropshippers than to real stores.
But again, that depends on what you value? I honestly see greater value in having something delivered to my door than I do in buying in person. Buying in person is an inconvenience for me unless it's clothes that I'd want to try on, or art or other subjective stuff.
For any mass-produced boxed product, delivery is far more useful. And 99% of things I need, I don't need "right away" and can wait a couple of days.
This is the crux of it really. For 40K a physical store does provide benefits for some people. And I'd agree if you want those benefits (community, play space) it's worth paying 20% extra for. What I'd put to you is that, as someone that doesn't want those benefits, I'd rather take that 20% back in cash. I'm not interested in paying for your play space and community. Sorry.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: Home games are great for an existing group. They're terrible for getting new players into the game because you won't even know the home game exists until you're already part of the community.
This is the issue people keep failing to understand.
We're not. I think for many people is mostly a cultural difference. Local stores have NEVER been the focal social points for hobby communities that seem to be in the USA. So here, for many people, what you are trying to assert does not apply. People play at home, or at clubs, and could give a rat's ass that some store has a table. And even so, "the community" thrives.
Be interesting to know if Oz and NZ have the European culture, or if the more spread out cities mean the US shop centric approach is default?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which given I got into wargaming in a friends shed, I have always been surprised by given the larger houses and more space many have in the US (though I assume not so much in cities).
NZer here. We have gaming stores in our larger cities, but not in the small towns. In the city I live in the LGS has some space for demo games. But most games are either at a club that rents a hall or at peoples homes. NZ is about the size of Colorado (NZ 268,021km² vs Colorado 269,837km²) but NZ is stretched out to 1600km (1000 miles) long.
Myself I got introduced to Warhammer through friends. Bought stuff through local store back then, internet now. We played at each others house. Played on dining tables and in garages. My local wargaming club last time I checked (I did not join) mainly plays 40k and is relatively small. I suspect that most of the wargamers are still garagehammers.
More active gamers in NZ might give a different answer, but this is my experience.
I wish I could find one of those mythical online discounters. Everything is so expensive here. And no our "higher" wages does not make up for it.
What if someone doesn't have to choose? What about physical stores like larger Hobbytown USA's that have both gaming space AND a 20% discount on GW product(and more often than not discounts ONLY on GW product)? Are they parasitical because they offer a discount or are they not because they offer the "value" of gaming space?
Hypothetically, of course, because I don't play in stores.
After Brexit any items I have purchased from GW were ordered through independent stores online, which in most cases have 10 to 20% discounts on some items, but also have physical stores.
Obviously I don't go to the stores in person because they are in different countries, but I guess that must be the privilege of living in a country where there are almost no miniature stores and the few that exist are mostly located on the capital of the country and sell GW stuff even more expensive than GW (besides having almost nothing in stock at a given time).
I have also seen some online stores with physical stores sell things marked as discounted which were more expensive than the original despite stating that they were discounted. I know for sure which of the 2 situations is preying more on consumers and it isn't the offer of a regular discount.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: This illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of how hypothetical scenarios work. "What if this happened" is not the same as "this is something you should do".
Who gives a damn about hypothetical scenarios? No one has to answer any thing you posit when it comes from a grounding of fantasy and weird outrage at normal business-related practices.
I mean... there's a reason why "let's assume a spherical cow" is the start of a joke.
deano2099 wrote: And if you speak to scalpers, they'll use the same argument you are. They're providing a "service" - they're making sure that people who can't be online to get a ticket when they go on sale, or who try and miss out, can still get a ticket.
They provide a service for those for whom money is no object to skip the queue.
It's a nonsense, of course, and they are indeed parasites.
.
False analogy.
Scalpers and touts are different, they buy up a product or service and then sell it at inflated prices once availability has drained.
That is just pure greed and is parasitical. Artificial shortages are not fair use of the free market.
Discounters are a polar opposite to that, they buy stock to sell low during normal market competition, rather than buy stock to force the market to close then sell high independently.
See the difference in both direction and ethos.
Effective scalpers/touts also aim these days to buy up a majority of the stock. It's so bad that some sports events you almost can't get a release ticket and they are sold within milliseconds of going live. So for most people you have to get them from the scalpers.
Which caused a lot of uproar because the ticket selling firm also runs the secondhand ticket selling service.
It's why GW adopted the print on demand for some of their limited box deals. Because scalpers are darn hard to fight against and will use a myriad of tricks to get stock.
Scalpers and Online Sellers are a false equivalency, because Scalpers take away products away from the paying consumers, by buying them from the company itself like a regular consumer would (except through the use of bots), and then re-selling them at a higher price against the company's wishes, while Online Sellers literally just resell the stock that Games Workshop directly assigned to them through a trade agreement both parties agreed on with the explict goal of the Online Seller selling the product.
But again, that depends on what you value? I honestly see greater value in having something delivered to my door than I do in buying in person. Buying in person is an inconvenience for me unless it's clothes that I'd want to try on, or art or other subjective stuff.
For any mass-produced boxed product, delivery is far more useful. And 99% of things I need, I don't need "right away" and can wait a couple of days.
This is the crux of it really. For 40K a physical store does provide benefits for some people. And I'd agree if you want those benefits (community, play space) it's worth paying 20% extra for. What I'd put to you is that, as someone that doesn't want those benefits, I'd rather take that 20% back in cash. I'm not interested in paying for your play space and community. Sorry.
Exactly. Oh, and don't forget the cost of gas to drive to the store (or bus or train if you use mass transit), in the US at least, anywhere from a 6-8% sales tax, and time spent (for me, 90 minutes round trip), oh, and paying $5-10 every time I want to play in the store? Yeah. No. That all adds up to way more than the 15-20% I save shopping online. So I'm actually paying more at the store, and not needing or using any of the supposed "benefits".
I mean, I can't find any store that keeps a decent stock of any paints, so that removes the "I need it now" excuse for even going to the store.
I was introduced to the game by a friend, who was introduced by a friend. I've met other gamers through friends, and don't play in stores. We all play at someone's home. So again, being able to order what I want or need, have it delivered, and pay a little less overall? Yeah, I'm all for it as a consumer.
kodos wrote: the problem is not that online-only stores can operate cheaper but that GW makes operating B&M stores more difficult
But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
yeah, so GW is trying to push B&M stores out of the wargaming market in hope to increase their own profit
simply because if everyone is close to MSRP, everyone will by directly from GW and the retailer stores are done
because there is no reason to go to a shop who needs to order on demand or cannot order certain items at all, if GW has them in stock and both are the same price
and with a recession incoming, B&M stores will need every cent to survive but with this measures GW makes sure their stores are the ones that are left in the end
Let us assume here that indie storefronts are essential to product survival. Let us assume that stores provide a 'service' whether or not the are morally obliged to provide that service if selling product.
1. GW price hikes the FLGS out of its profit margin.
2. FLGS decides to stock Battletech instead as its focal product.
3. 6x4 is replaced with hexmaps and demo forces of mech lances.
4. 40Kers complain, shop points out they have no margin from Citadel but can get one from Catalyst.
5. Players grumble but understand, some leave, some stay and try new product.
6. Shop survives.
If the storefronts are that pivotal starving them out will cause large shifts in product retention. GW is fully aware they have a reputation, they are aware they can, lose market share from pricing policy and yet persist with it anyway. While it is rational to accuse GW of short term thinking and that milder prices would lead to long term profitability a lot of companies senior management do think no further than the next quarter. GW is not really eligible to be singled out for that as any extreme case.
GW doesn't believe in storefront presence for market retention and has a retail arm for that purpose. But evidently does not believe that third party storefronts are a significant factor or believe it will come to the scenario described above.
Here is what will actually happen.
1. GW rises the retailers price by 5.8%.
2. Other providers also likely raise prices and due to being smaller are more market volatile.
3. Each FLGS will be effected differently dependant on location and other games available.
4. Those harder hit by the price hike will diversify more and potentially shift a proportion of their stockline into other products.
5. Some may reduce stock to token amounts at unfavourable prices, they still have 40K but its more like shelf decor, customers are still drawn in but channelled into areas where a profit can be made, that might be another game system, it might be coffee.
6. Most will accept lower sales and order GW stock anyway for lines that sell.
I sawt this news when her video dropped.
This does hurt local game shops. Most of the big ones I know about make and or have made a lot of money selling GW. (Ya, they sell everything else too. )
I don't frequent shops much at all any more so I don't know if things have changed as far s sales now but I recall a time when GW dictated what shops had to stock and I recall my favorite shop abandoning GW all together. I'd like to see more of that. Opening the doors of other miniatures games at possible better prices would be a win, imop. I find the current GW crowd fairly toxic at my local and that's one reason I stopped going. (9th edition being another.) I guess the question is can small shops do enough business to get past this extra cost they must now deal with. Or will they pass it onto the customers in some form, if not price raises. In a small way I do hope this comes back to bite GW in the rear but if that does happen I hope it motivates them to produce products that people like myself would actually want, ie revised rules for older editions bringing the new models in, as in backwards compatible while not worrying about oop models. All it would take is a few knowledgeable rules writers and some print runs. Or not, what ever. GW's gunna GW.
TauEmissary wrote: Scalpers and Online Sellers are a false equivalency, because Scalpers take away products away from the paying consumers, by buying them from the company itself like a regular consumer would (except through the use of bots), and then re-selling them at a higher price against the company's wishes, while Online Sellers literally just resell the stock that Games Workshop directly assigned to them through a trade agreement both parties agreed on with the explict goal of the Online Seller selling the product.
Assuming Scalpers sell their products (which, given a reasonable cost burden seems likely), the products end up with paying consumers in the end.
Scalpers ultimately just exploit the issue of products having one price - when people value them differently. Which we've seen in this thread.
What price will you pay for the new GW hotness? 75% RRP? 80% RRP? 100% RRP? 150% RRP? 200% RRP if it comes in its own special cardboard box?
If they can buy a load of product to get to the people willing to pay over the odds then they make a bunch of money. If they can't, they don't. Whether this is fairer than a "refresh lottery", where you either get the good/ticket etc or not can be debated. But I don't really have an issue with people trading goods, so I'm not really clear why I would think these special goods should be separate.
The problem I guess - which is all discussions about GW's pricing - is that there's a lot of rich people out there. And GW know it. So they charge a lot. If you can't afford that last box of Space Marines then that's sad - but there's no point GW having to sell their product 10% cheaper to everyone in that country (or whatever) to keep you on the books. As long as the grey plastic is moving out as fast as they can make it, they should be a successful business.
Scalpers aren't exploiting the issue of products having only one RRP, they exploit any product of limited quantity; or any manufactured product that they can buy faster than suppliers can restock. Hence during the lockdowns graphics cards were scalped because the production and distribution was slowed and the bitcoin market was buying them up. So scalpers were able to buy-out the stock as it came out, even though the cards were not limited production items.
Scalpers are purely in it for profit and nothing else. The money they make is purely for their own gain.
Sure GW make profit; as do 3rd party stores and online stores. However most of those avenues are feeding money back into the hobby in some form. Supporting local interests, supporting clubs, making new models etc.....
The scalper money is purely for their pocket.
Furthermore all they are doing is inflating cost. They aren't providing stock at discount; or providing it locally or providing it to new markets or outreach. All they are doing is getting between the customer and the store/manufacturer and taking the product and then demanding that you pay them more money to release the product to you, the customer.
But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
Or just not at all? The closer the cost get to msrp, the less I'm inclined to purchase(esp since MSRP just keeps going up)So by your logic I should just not buy at all? I'm ok with that, my wife would be overjoyed, something tells me GW wouldn't be. Cuz if that's repeated enuff, GWcan say "buh bye" to their market share(with is all they really care about).
But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
This is completely incorrect thinking.
Online Retailers rely on massive number of sales and the FLGS relies on ANY sales. It's the same way Wal-Mart destroyed other competitors like K-Mart, Alco, and ShopKo to name a few. Wal-Mart doesn't care that their margin is pennies per sale when they outsell their competition 100 to 1.
The FLGS doesn't have the space to stock, or hold on to that stock for longer periods of time, where an Online Store with Free Shipping has the space, and time, to move stock. They often also have more employees and are better at projecting how many units to order because they know they will sell. They also get priority, as we've seen, with larger orders from Distributors.
It won't matter if GW drives the margin to ZERO, most people will go online to get what they want, faster, over driving to a FLGS, order, wait until the weekly/monthly order gets put in, driving back, and picking it up.
The amount of "wrong think" you have is astounding, but applaud you for dying on this pointless hill.
GW gets what GW wants, just like every other profit driven company (I.E. all of them) so you either take what they give, or don't, and move on.
And don't tell me people will move on.
We're in a worldwide recession and Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales were at all time highs.
TauEmissary wrote: Scalpers and Online Sellers are a false equivalency, because Scalpers take away products away from the paying consumers, by buying them from the company itself like a regular consumer would (except through the use of bots), and then re-selling them at a higher price against the company's wishes, while Online Sellers literally just resell the stock that Games Workshop directly assigned to them through a trade agreement both parties agreed on with the explict goal of the Online Seller selling the product.
More to the point, scalpers generally aren't cheaper than just going through normal channels. Where scalpers make their money is a situation where a concert or sporting event has sold out, so tickets are far above "gate price."
That's not the situation at all here. If you want to pay MSRP, GW is ready and waiting for you.
For the analogy to work, the online guys would have to walk into every GW store/slam the GW online ordering system and buy out the entire inventory and then sell it for a hefty markup.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
Sooo, your argument is gamers don't know mathematics?
If someone buys online to get a 20% discount vs a 15% discount in store, they're still going to buy online to get a 5% discount vs a 0% discount in store.... or maybe they just stop buying altogether, because the price has gotten too high.
If someone buys online to get a 20% discount vs a 15% discount in store, they're still going to buy online to get a 5% discount vs a 0% discount in store.... or maybe they just stop buying altogether, because the price has gotten too high.
Contrary to the beliefs of economists and libertarians people aren't perfectly rational data points in a mathematical model. Psychology matters, and 20% is a much bigger number than 5%. "Save 20%" gets way more people to change their behavior than "save 5%". At a mere 5% discount many, if not most, people won't bother chasing it and will just buy locally at MSRP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TauEmissary wrote: Scalpers and Online Sellers are a false equivalency, because Scalpers take away products away from the paying consumers, by buying them from the company itself like a regular consumer would (except through the use of bots), and then re-selling them at a higher price against the company's wishes, while Online Sellers literally just resell the stock that Games Workshop directly assigned to them through a trade agreement both parties agreed on with the explict goal of the Online Seller selling the product.
It's not a false equivalency because I never said they were equal. The point is to establish the existence of a parasite that is still almost universally acknowledged to be a parasite even though they are acting as a rational profit seeker and within the scope of the law. Once we agree that such a thing is possible we can move on to establishing that online discount sellers have much more in common with scalpers and drop shippers than with real stores.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
Sooo, your argument is gamers don't know mathematics?
If someone buys online to get a 20% discount vs a 15% discount in store, they're still going to buy online to get a 5% discount vs a 0% discount in store.... or maybe they just stop buying altogether, because the price has gotten too high.
There's also people who will simply buy online to guarantee they get a specific product instead of waste time driving to a physical store and risk said product not being in stock. I see it all the time in the Transformers collecting community. Collectors will pay slightly more in shipping to make sure they get what they want and not waste time or gas going to a local store just for possible immediate gratification and possible disappointment.
TauEmissary wrote: Has that exact scenario you've described countless times now, without ever bringing up a real life example of said process, ever actually happened, or is it just your imaginaion?
Obviously the exact scenario hasn't happened because the exact conditions haven't happened. There's only one GW and no other miniatures company has been in their position before, so we have to predict based on the best assumptions we can make. But what exactly about this scenario do you dispute? Do you dispute that a failure spiral is possible? Do you dispute that GW will likely raise prices to improve their financial reports if sales volume drops? Do you have any specific fact to dispute or just "YOU CANT PROVE THAT"?
Psychology Matters…which is why customers will quit buying product at all if they feel ripped off, and even a slight loss of discount that doesn’t add up to much actual money can have an outsize impact, because many customers are fed up.
It's not a false equivalency because I never said they were equal. The point is to establish the existence of a parasite that is still almost universally acknowledged to be a parasite
Hey there, still waiting for your data on how people are introduced into the hobby.
It's not a false equivalency because I never said they were equal. The point is to establish the existence of a parasite that is still almost universally acknowledged to be a parasite
Hey there, still waiting for your data on how people are introduced into the hobby.
If someone buys online to get a 20% discount vs a 15% discount in store, they're still going to buy online to get a 5% discount vs a 0% discount in store.... or maybe they just stop buying altogether, because the price has gotten too high.
Contrary to the beliefs of economists and libertarians people aren't perfectly rational data points in a mathematical model. Psychology matters, and 20% is a much bigger number than 5%. "Save 20%" gets way more people to change their behavior than "save 5%". At a mere 5% discount many, if not most, people won't bother chasing it and will just buy locally at MSRP.
I'm getting tired of you only answering only half of someones replies to you.
What about the
.... or maybe they just stop buying altogether, because the price has gotten too high.
Did you forget that most people buy GW from discounters because the price is too high otherwise?
I'm getting tired of you only answering only half of someones replies to you.
Almost like they only have answers for questions that the answers to wouldn't challenge their convictions. It's why they avoid anything to do with people that don't need or don't have physical stores to play at.
I'm getting tired of you only answering only half of someones replies to you.
Almost like they only have answers for questions that the answers to wouldn't challenge their convictions. It's why they avoid anything to do with people that don't need or don't have physical stores to play at.
That too.
Ah well. I'm going to ignore him unless he actually answers.
GW is going to hit a point where the market can't bear thier continuous price increases with or without discount resellers.
At that point, they either reduce prices, up quantity for price, or suffer loss of customer base.
TauEmissary wrote: Scalpers and Online Sellers are a false equivalency, because Scalpers take away products away from the paying consumers, by buying them from the company itself like a regular consumer would (except through the use of bots), and then re-selling them at a higher price against the company's wishes, while Online Sellers literally just resell the stock that Games Workshop directly assigned to them through a trade agreement both parties agreed on with the explict goal of the Online Seller selling the product.
Assuming Scalpers sell their products (which, given a reasonable cost burden seems likely), the products end up with paying consumers in the end.
Scalpers ultimately just exploit the issue of products having one price - when people value them differently. Which we've seen in this thread.
What price will you pay for the new GW hotness? 75% RRP? 80% RRP? 100% RRP? 150% RRP? 200% RRP if it comes in its own special cardboard box?
Uuuh...flat no. One price isn't what scalpers exploit(different stores have different prices so one price isn't even true).
Scalpers exploit _limited availability to force higher prices_,
They aim to have remaining supply so that as per supply and demand they can up the price.
In a world of infinent supply scalping couldn't exist because their business plan depends on limited supply.
I hope nobody here tried to equal online discount stores to scalping? Because that's just flat out wrong. For one obvious difference by nature discount store sells under rrp while scalper above. Onlin stores also aren't aiming to monopolize supply. You don't have wayland getting every box of be'lakor/flamer/morathi/whatever gw produces do you?
what we have now:
scalpers are those selling above MSRP and are therefore bad because they are too expensive and make profit on people not knowing better or cannot get items otherwise
those selling below MSRP are parasites, making profit because of high volume of sales and are bad because they force other stores who cannot afford going low out of the market
and last there are those selling at MSRP, which are mostly GW stores, those are the good guys because they keep the (GW) hobby alive and people need to support them
this is one of the best (4d underwater chess) white knighting I have seen so far
My stated position is I don't know how important GW stores are. I'm eager to find out.
I mean, in a lot of the world GW stores aren't particularly accessible, so certainly aren't doing much to grow the hobby. When I bought my first 40K starter set (through independent mail order, before internet shopping was a thing), the nearest GW store was over 2000kms away.
Over the past several decades, GW have opened a number of stores in capital cities here in Oz, but they're still not particularly relevant to most gamers. And independent sellers here, historically, have mostly been newsagents and toy stores with no gaming space. Without the discounter posting me the product, I likely would never have progressed past Herequest (also bought at a discount, from a toy store that had no other GW related product in their range).
There's certainly a case to be made for physical stores being important for their local communities where they provide a useful service to those communities. But the further away a customer is from that community (whether geographically or simply because they don't participate in that community) the less relevant that is to them.
Some FLGS are also big online sellers, my local one is element games that does a brilliant bricks and mortar experience with a gaming club and bar and all sorts. But is a big online player in the uk. They can be both.
And it isn’t so much that buying from GW is too expensive, it’s about why would you pay full price when you can pay 20% as easily??
Andykp wrote: Some FLGS are also big online sellers, my local one is element games that does a brilliant bricks and mortar experience with a gaming club and bar and all sorts. But is a big online player in the uk. They can be both.
And it isn’t so much that buying from GW is too expensive, it’s about why would you pay full price when you can pay 20% as easily??
According to one person in this thread, you would be supporting the growth of the hobby by giving sales to your local store, over a faceless online shop that does (allegedly) little for the hobby.
meanwhile I offered prize support to a tourney in a different state last month. If I'm not supporting the growth of the hobby, I'd like to know how I could do so more effectively other than shutter my doors.
kodos wrote: what we have now:
scalpers are those selling above MSRP and are therefore bad because they are too expensive and make profit on people not knowing better or cannot get items otherwise
those selling below MSRP are parasites, making profit because of high volume of sales and are bad because they force other stores who cannot afford going low out of the market
and last there are those selling at MSRP, which are mostly GW stores, those are the good guys because they keep the (GW) hobby alive and people need to support them
this is one of the best (4d underwater chess) white knighting I have seen so far
Do you know how funny wrong that is?
I buy mostly online because not much time to go out of my way to a store.
But the times I managed to pop in into an official GW store and ready to spend cash I found that errrr there was no stock instore for what I was after and they suggested me to order online I cant paint a mini I dont have so yeah the Hobby experience was ruined and I just wasted time. Thats my main problem with physical stores (even official ones), the time to get there and the limited space they have to hold stock.
Honestly I think what they are overlooking is that wargames are a niche market. Heck card games are a niche market (though they have spurts of being THE game for school playgrounds every so often).
You don't really get the likes of Tescos buying out a bunch of Warhammer stock to then put on the shelf at below warehouse prices as a loss leader to get people in the store. Heck you don't even get warhammer being sold in supermarkets.
Wargames are not a huge market, so you don't get "predatory" discount stores. Also Warhammer products by and large retain value over the years so there isn't old-outdated stock to sell at steep discounts just to clear warehouses for the next wave of new shinies for the new edition/season/whatever. So again no steep discount stores buying up old stock to sell on.
Instead most of the stores you see getting into Wargaming, and indeed most geek markets, are those who have an interest in the hobby on some level. And with an interest in it they also tend to have a desire to grow it. So money gets re-invested.
This might be in the form of a local shop that provides gaming space; or a big online retailer using a corner of the warehouse for games. It might be an online store that opens a game manufacturer end - eg Troll Trader grew by trading second hand on ebay and now operates a game production firm. Wayland Games also opened their own game firm too.
So you don't get the same predatory marketing movers because there just isn't the vast market and product cycling and other elements that many other product lines have.
As for the impact GW stores have I'd say that varies the world over. In the UK I'd say they have a big impact in drawing people into the wargaming hobby. Heck I'd argue that GW are the biggest firm in drawing totally fresh, totally new people into the hobby in many markets. Many others rely heavily upon drawing warhammer players out of warhammer and into their game system. GW has bigger resources and uses them to help draw a lot of new people into wargaming all the time. Which is a huge and very important resource that would be a huge blow to the market to lose .Sure you'd not feel it initially - heck if GW folded the other firms would have a massive boom in sales (possibly outstripping some on their ability to supply enough product). The real damage would be if long term, no one rose to replace GW's recruitment and that wouldn't be felt for a decade or more really.
The thing is every GW store recruits only ofr wargaming; whilst your average hobby store recruits for all things they stock and likely has more of a marketing focus on their higher profit items such as cardgames. IT doesn't mean they discourage wargames, just that they might not have as many game nights, tables, events, stock display etc... That staff might not push the wargames as heavily unless they really love them too.
hence 4D underwater chess
the level of copium to get that argument going to defend GW and blaming someone else is a new high
I can kind of follow how that one is going, but it is wrong on so many levels I am just missing the claim that people are playing 40k because those are the best wargaming rules out there and not because of the models or setting
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: But this price increase applies to both sellers and the closer everyone gets to MSRP the better. If the online seller is offering a 20% discount and the real store can only afford a 15% discount a 5% increase moves the new discounts to 15% and 10%. And the closer you get to "it's not worth buying online, I'll just buy it at full price locally" the more online discounters and their lack of value are pushed out of the market.
Sooo, your argument is gamers don't know mathematics?
If someone buys online to get a 20% discount vs a 15% discount in store, they're still going to buy online to get a 5% discount vs a 0% discount in store.... or maybe they just stop buying altogether, because the price has gotten too high.
There's also people who will simply buy online to guarantee they get a specific product instead of waste time driving to a physical store and risk said product not being in stock. I see it all the time in the Transformers collecting community. Collectors will pay slightly more in shipping to make sure they get what they want and not waste time or gas going to a local store just for possible immediate gratification and possible disappointment.
Yeah, I almost never order stuff in stores any more. Why would I drive 15 minutes to a store, wasting a couple of bucks of petrol, order something, only to have to go back to the store later to pick it up. And half the time when they get it in I'm not actually free to go pick it up anyway so it ends up sitting at the store for a week.
I only really buy from stores if they have what I want in stock, if I have to order it then I might as well order it online and have it shipped to my door. One benefit of covid has been that delivery services that used to force you to be home now just leave packages So it's even more convenient.
I do buy plenty of stuff from physical stores, but it's not models, certainly not GW models, it's when I see an interesting item and want it now, or other hobby products like paints, glues, etc. I've had several store owners tell me they make sweet feck all from GW kits anyway, and now they're either going to raise their prices by 5% or be in a position where it's even harder for them to make money off it, yeah nah, that's not going to encourage me to buy more from physical stores.
You don't really get the likes of Tescos buying out a bunch of Warhammer stock to then put on the shelf at below warehouse prices as a loss leader to get people in the store. Heck you don't even get warhammer being sold in supermarkets.
As an aside. GW would have to provide 'marketing support' to Tesco in order for the supermarket to stock their lines. In effect paying for the Supermarket to discount their product.
It is likely that a major has at some-point had a conversation with Lenton.
I never really know if those things flop or if GW uses them as short term market advertisements. Ergo something that they put out in a large quantity to scattershot at different retailers iwth the hope that some of them will translate into new long term customers. However without the intention of keeping in them in stock in the market long term.
Which might well simply reflect that trying to mass sell to supermarkets starts to put pressure on GW's production capacity when they already have healthy sales to their established market to maintain.
It's not a false equivalency because I never said they were equal. The point is to establish the existence of a parasite that is still almost universally acknowledged to be a parasite even though they are acting as a rational profit seeker and within the scope of the law. Once we agree that such a thing is possible we can move on to establishing that online discount sellers have much more in common with scalpers and drop shippers than with real stores.
To be honest if scalpers sold all their tickets at 20% discount I'd buy from them and so would most people.
(Indeed, I have in the past when they've wrongly estimated demand for an event and ended up selling tickets at a loss the day before)
You only have to look at the success of sites like Quidco and TopCashback to see that people will happily do whatever for just a few percentages in savings.
I'm curious to know if the Hachette partworks make them a parasite as they're selling far cheaper than the discount stores.
It's not a false equivalency because I never said they were equal. The point is to establish the existence of a parasite that is still almost universally acknowledged to be a parasite even though they are acting as a rational profit seeker and within the scope of the law. Once we agree that such a thing is possible we can move on to establishing that online discount sellers have much more in common with scalpers and drop shippers than with real stores.
To be honest if scalpers sold all their tickets at 20% discount I'd buy from them and so would most people.
(Indeed, I have in the past when they've wrongly estimated demand for an event and ended up selling tickets at a loss the day before)
You only have to look at the success of sites like Quidco and TopCashback to see that people will happily do whatever for just a few percentages in savings.
Don't forget scalpers don't buy from the manufacturer at wholesale prices*. They buy from the retail market at retail prices. As a result the retail price is the scalpers wholesale price. So their prices are always going to be higher than the retail market for something. The only time that will change is if the item they are selling has a limited window of sales and when it gets close to the end of that window, they might well drop prices to retail value (so the scalper makes 0 profit on the sale) to just get rid of whatever stock they've got so that they money can be released to be spent on something else to generate profit.
Heck since scalpers are operating on pure greed, if they've scalped enough of the market that they are holding a significant percentage they use that control to raise the prices they charge and hit a higher market band than the retailers. Relying on desperation and lack of stock to drive the price people are willing to pay higher.
* although I'm sure there are professional scalpers who do attempt to do this by posing as legitimate stores to secure deals, secure stock and then drive the prices higher. In the end it means more potential profit for them
Overread wrote: Don't forget scalpers don't buy from the manufacturer at wholesale prices*. They buy from the retail market at retail prices. As a result the retail price is the scalpers wholesale price. So their prices are always going to be higher than the retail market for something. The only time that will change is if the item they are selling has a limited window of sales and when it gets close to the end of that window, they might well drop prices to retail value (so the scalper makes 0 profit on the sale) to just get rid of whatever stock they've got so that they money can be released to be spent on something else to generate profit.
Heck since scalpers are operating on pure greed, if they've scalped enough of the market that they are holding a significant percentage they use that control to raise the prices they charge and hit a higher market band than the retailers. Relying on desperation and lack of stock to drive the price people are willing to pay higher.
But if they don't sell then then Scalper ends up holding the bag. There's not an obvious point ending up with 100 tickets to a music festival or sports event that will become worthless after its happened.
And while, theoretically, you could hope to hold on to GW minis for years to make money, that's quite a different business plan. You would want to sell stock in order to get cash to buy more stock. Like a shop.
Ultimately Scalping is exploiting the law of one price. Within reason GW or FLGS have to sell to everyone at one price. But as we see in this thread, the value people assign to such things is all over the place. There will be some people who really want certain things. So if you can buy that stock and find those people, you can make the profit on the difference. But if those people can get the product at the regular price, they will do that and not buy from you.
So yes, there's scope for some manipulation - i.e. you buy 10, 100, whatever kits (I think many stores will no longer let you do this) and then hope to release them over ebay over 6 months or whatever. But there's a real risk you end up with 10,100 etc kits sitting in your house, and no one's interested. Or at least not interested in paying more than 80%~ RRP with free shipping, because that's what they can get from Dark Sphere, Wayland, Elemental, the list in the UK goes on and on. It only really works if demand far exceeds supply - which means there's probably someone out there who would pay 200%, 500% RRP etc but can't get the product.
Beyond that you see a lot of stock breaking. I.E. buy a big kit at £100. Split it into components and sell them on individually for say £120. That has its risks as well - especially with the bits no one wants. But is meeting a demand from people who want bits of a big box but not the whole thing. (Looks at Necron half of Indomitus that's mostly still on the sprews he got for about £40~) - even if it's an irrational demand.
Andykp wrote: Some FLGS are also big online sellers, my local one is element games that does a brilliant bricks and mortar experience with a gaming club and bar and all sorts. But is a big online player in the uk. They can be both.
And it isn’t so much that buying from GW is too expensive, it’s about why would you pay full price when you can pay 20% as easily??
This reasoning is also flawed in GW’s favor. Instead of thinking of it as paying 20% less, we should think of the discount as what we want to pay, and GW’s price being 25% higher. (100 is 125% of 80.). That puts the pricing difference into a customer-friendly perspective.
Instead of saying, “I bought it for 20% off”, we should say, “I refused to buy it at 25% over.”
Scalping isn't risk-free and yes if they are tickets for an event the scalpers price will lower nearer to the time until the start time. Even then they will likely sell whilst the event is live if people can still get inside the venue (or even just because they are scalpers and don't care if someone ends up holding a worthless ticket).
Thing is the scalper only has to backpaddle to the RRP to break even on the deal. If they go under that then yes they've taken a loss.
So there is risk attached to it.
However the rewards are great and those pro scalpers will monitor what is and isn't popular and will go for the popular stuff.
It's 100% a system that predates on a popular product line with limited supply. That's why GW's "made to order" was a move against scalpers because the supply was suddenly infinite and the scalpers couldn't rely on limited supply driving up demand and driving up the prices people would be willing to pay.
And yes you are right people will pay more for things than RRP. Some just have more money than others and can justify the cost; some might require something for work and have to pay (eg graphics cards and graphic jobs, you had to soak that big price increase from a scalper if your pc went down or if you needed that equipment to continue to work). Others might have no sense of the market and think that the scalper price is the rrp etc....
The point is that the scalper is purely inflating the product price as much as they can to get away with it. There's no reinvestment in the market; no increased local support. The venue/manufacturer/whatever isn't getting more profits and more chance to invest into the firm for better things in the future (yes more profit means more for their pocket, but it also means more for re-investment).
Overread wrote: I never really know if those things flop or if GW uses them as short term market advertisements. Ergo something that they put out in a large quantity to scattershot at different retailers iwth the hope that some of them will translate into new long term customers. However without the intention of keeping in them in stock in the market long term.
Which might well simply reflect that trying to mass sell to supermarkets starts to put pressure on GW's production capacity when they already have healthy sales to their established market to maintain.
I never saw any of that stuff in the wild. The closest I got was someone saw some Vedros boxes at a store an hour away from me. I’ve been closer to Bigfoot.
The only place I have seen GW product at an otherwise non-game related store was Yodobashi Camera in Kyoto. They had a relatively decent if random selection of currently available stuff, but actually a better selection than the local GW supplier (Game Shop Bricks).
McDougall Designs wrote: GW is going to hit a point where the market can't bear thier continuous price increases with or without discount resellers.
At that point, they either reduce prices, up quantity for price, or suffer loss of customer base.
I can't help but get the impression GW believes themselves to be there already, at least temporarily.
We got our annual price increase at the end of February, then there was at least the summer Warcry box that was already more expensive than the standard set by the price increase, and now they're increasing wholesale price over MSRP in the same year that already saw increases to MSRP more than once.
To me that suggests they want to squeeze as much money out of the current market as they can before economic pressure sees an increasingly large portion of their customer base leave, so as to weather the economic downturn with as much of a cash buffer as they can get. No matter how much scorched earth that leaves behind. I think GW is confident in their ability to rebuild as long as they are still around afterwards, even if a lot of stores drop Warhammer stuff or go out of business because of it.
There's not a lot of sense in risking a whole sales channel over disgruntling a few more customers when their customer base is historically quite stoic about price increases unless they actually think they can't get away with putting any more pressure on their customers.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Psychology Matters…which is why customers will quit buying product at all if they feel ripped off, and even a slight loss of discount that doesn’t add up to much actual money can have an outsize impact, because many customers are fed up.
Our local market's are looking exactly like this.
The local FLGS I usually go to is starting to fatten up their second hand piles, as people who've gotten word on the 10th edition upcoming are pretty mad about it, considering that 8th- 9th wasn't well appreciated. The fix is in, so to speak.
Second shop to mention has pretty much just kept GW on hand for specifics sales, and he doesn't go out of his way to get you anythung, unless you put about half down, first.
Third shops has drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid, and this ass-clown's pricings are ranking up there with the National Debt.- $55.00- $60 for special characters, 60 to 90.00 for boxed sets... (needless to say, his stock is full...)
We saw the same thing happen in a fishbowl to Privateer Press, BTW. They pulled that crap they pulled on the tail end of Second Edition, and the market bottomed out, and everyone dropped WarmaHordes to the wayside like a bad date.
Wyrd, they pulled it as well, and never recovered the trust, because they pulled theirs too quickly, and that guy in charge was a nutter, when people warned him in the beginning.
I'm not saying the Sky Is Falling, but it is a cloudy day, right about now, and the sky's don't look good if GW continues past the breaking point in outright treating the customer base like shills.
My own gaming purchases have me going between game systems, and looking at trimming my fat, for both cleaning up the room of shame, and just moving on to other systems. Infinity has finally got to the painting table, after a two year lul, where I've had it in boxes, but finally had a slot to start on a small base squad of some Adriana.
It is hard because we will never see the margin between what they get and what they COULD have gotten. The effect will be similar to giving up on compounding interest; exponentially greater as time goes in.
For example I don't think it is a stretch to say the company could easily be double the size it is now if Kirby had quit in 2010*.
*Which is the real kick in the nads for him, heh. Imagine working for the better part of a decade only to realize you would have made -more- money staying home and doing nothing!
I predict they will have made as much profit or more as the last report. People growl (at most) but that wallet still keeps getting pulled out. Nothing is going to change
I can think of two acquaitances that grumble non-stop about GW prices, yet every time something new for SM arrives at the shop they always go "give me two boxes!"
privateer4hire wrote: I predict they will have made as much profit or more as the last report. People growl (at most) but that wallet still keeps getting pulled out. Nothing is going to change
The reason this move from GW feels particularly evil is because they're raising the price for businesses, not the end consumer.
Instead of raising the price to customers by 2.5%, they're trying to pull the same revenue by raising sales to independents by 5% (because independents make up about 50% of their sales). For stores that already offer a discount, they'll have to offer less of a discount and probably lose sales volume. For stores that already charge RRP, they'll lose revenue per sale, maybe they'll pick up more sales if people move away from discounters, but enough to make up for the drop in margin? Doubt it.
But because it's affecting stores instead of customers, it's probably not going to have an effect unless stores start saying "feck this, the margins are so slim it's not worth carrying GW kits any more". Maybe that'll happen, probably not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Miguelsan wrote: I can think of two acquaitances that grumble non-stop about GW prices, yet every time something new for SM arrives at the shop they always go "give me two boxes!"
M.
One of the weird things about plastic models, you can think they're far too expensive, but unless you're really poor you can still buy them because overall it's overall still a pretty cheap hobby.
So I'm sure there's many people that genuinely think it's too expensive, but it's not so expensive they are going to give up something they enjoy.
Of course there's also quite likely a lot of people who complain about the prices, briefly, then leave, then you don't hear them constantly complaining about the prices because they're now absent. They're not hanging around stores or on internet forums complaining about the hobby because they are no longer actively participating.
It's effectively "survivorship bias", you're only analysing the people who are still around and complaining because the ones that actually quit aren't present to analyse
And their money in flow seems to improve after every price increase. So the folks who left seem to be getting coverage from those new folks and those who remain.
privateer4hire wrote: I predict they will have made as much profit or more as the last report. People growl (at most) but that wallet still keeps getting pulled out. Nothing is going to change
The 2010s made it abundantly clear this is not how it works. But I think we all know that really, hyperbole is just such a lure though
Sure. It’s just hyperbole. Different situation back then with some real competition for them at the time. Competition like privateer press that’s essentially negligible nowadays. And x-wing first edition was doing really well. But not so much with the new edition.
And GW makes self aware jokes now. Has social media engagement to at least a minimal level. And they gave people plastic sisters. And squats are back! Along with blood bowl, necrominda and the old world is waiting in the wings.
One of the weird things about plastic models, you can think they're far too expensive, but unless you're really poor you can still buy them because overall it's overall still a pretty cheap hobby.
So I'm sure there's many people that genuinely think it's too expensive, but it's not so expensive they are going to give up something they enjoy.
Of course there's also quite likely a lot of people who complain about the prices, briefly, then leave, then you don't hear them constantly complaining about the prices because they're now absent. They're not hanging around stores or on internet forums complaining about the hobby because they are no longer actively participating.
Not necessarily applicable here.
When people stop buying GW they often mean from GW and not from ebay.
In the Kirby years I effectively soft boycotted GW, but collected the armies and was active here on Dakka.
Pricing customers out of the purchase market doesn't necessary price them out of the hobby, miniatures do have a sell by date and when GW does retire model lines or equipment combos in favour of current stock that only makes ex-customers to adapt.
I reckon there are a lot of Guard players, who do not identify as Astra Militarum players, who are adapting their squads to the new equipment restrictions deliberately without going through a storefront to do so.
40K is a big hobby and there are many long term players who have large collections and are no longer active spenders at GW. Many, many, of them are on Dakka.
It's effectively "survivorship bias", you're only analysing the people who are still around and complaining because the ones that actually quit aren't present to analyse
Its arguable that the UK (and perhaps other places) having an economy in recession will have more of an impact than a price change of this nature, and thats why sales will drop next year along with everything else.
Friends of mine who, once they have paid rent and energy bills have absolutely no spare money for luxury goods. It doesn't matter how addicted you are to plastic marines that equation won't change.
One of the weird things about plastic models, you can think they're far too expensive, but unless you're really poor you can still buy them because overall it's overall still a pretty cheap hobby.
So I'm sure there's many people that genuinely think it's too expensive, but it's not so expensive they are going to give up something they enjoy.
Of course there's also quite likely a lot of people who complain about the prices, briefly, then leave, then you don't hear them constantly complaining about the prices because they're now absent. They're not hanging around stores or on internet forums complaining about the hobby because they are no longer actively participating.
Not necessarily applicable here.
When people stop buying GW they often mean from GW and not from ebay.
In the Kirby years I effectively soft boycotted GW, but collected the armies and was active here on Dakka.
Pricing customers out of the purchase market doesn't necessary price them out of the hobby, miniatures do have a sell by date and when GW does retire model lines or equipment combos in favour of current stock that only makes ex-customers to adapt.
I reckon there are a lot of Guard players, who do not identify as Astra Militarum players, who are adapting their squads to the new equipment restrictions deliberately without going through a storefront to do so.
40K is a big hobby and there are many long term players who have large collections and are no longer active spenders at GW. Many, many, of them are on Dakka.
It's effectively "survivorship bias", you're only analysing the people who are still around and complaining because the ones that actually quit aren't present to analyse
Darwinism in design.
There's no one simplification that covers all people.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and keep buying.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and stopped buying from GW but kept buying from discounters.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and stopped buying new but kept buying used.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and moved to different games or even completely different hobbies.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and left entirely.
There's also newer people who haven't been around long enough to experience the Kirby years and the LotR bubble and whatever.
You might fall into one of those categories, but survivorship bias just means there's a segment of the people that you're missing since they're no longer present to count.
Personally, I didn't buy anything from GW for years, and was maybe only slightly active in the online community and not at all in the local community... but GW coaxed me back somewhat with specialist games where the prices and massive amount of building and painting armies is somewhat mitigated versus WHFB/AOS/40k.
Everyone has their own story that might be unique or shared, trying to figure out how that feeds into revenue, it's always going to be a massive oversimplification unless you could somehow gather a lot of data, including data on people who are no longer active in the community.
Pacific wrote: Its arguable that the UK (and perhaps other places) having an economy in recession will have more of an impact than a price change of this nature, and thats why sales will drop next year along with everything else.
Friends of mine who, once they have paid rent and energy bills have absolutely no spare money for luxury goods. It doesn't matter how addicted you are to plastic marines that equation won't change.
So your “friends” aren’t likely to apply for as many credit cards as they can find, max the credit limit every month on each, pay back the absolute minimum, then when the deals start popping up again, shuffle them all around between different “zero interest on transfers” deals like swapping cars mid-ride on a dodgems rink?
Tyel wrote: Ultimately Scalping is exploiting the law of one price. Within reason GW or FLGS have to sell to everyone at one price. But as we see in this thread, the value people assign to such things is all over the place. There will be some people who really want certain things. So if you can buy that stock and find those people, you can make the profit on the difference. But if those people can get the product at the regular price, they will do that and not buy from you.
.
Nope. One price isn't culprit. Hell it's been shown in this thread MULTIPLE times there ISN'T one price for GW models(the discounters are leech yes? There's no discount if it's one price...IF you have same kit for 85e, 90e, 95e or 100e how is it one price?).
Scalping exploits SUPPLY AND DEMAND!
If there's limited supply scalping works.
If there's unlimited supply scalping fails big time.
One price isn't relevant. There isn't one price for GW products as is. What there is however is limited supply for certain items and THOSE scalpers scalp. Scalpers aren't buying and selling repulsor tanks. Those GW keeps producing more. They are in for the launch box etc. Because demand exceeds supply. So scalper getting those will mean there will be people who want the box but can't get outside scalper. Unlike repulsor which he can order from GW/FLGS at discount. Why would anybody buy kit from scalper for over RPP when there's multiple shops selling below RRP? As there isn't one price...
Pacific wrote: Its arguable that the UK (and perhaps other places) having an economy in recession will have more of an impact than a price change of this nature, and thats why sales will drop next year along with everything else.
Friends of mine who, once they have paid rent and energy bills have absolutely no spare money for luxury goods. It doesn't matter how addicted you are to plastic marines that equation won't change.
So your “friends” aren’t likely to apply for as many credit cards as they can find, max the credit limit every month on each, pay back the absolute minimum, then when the deals start popping up again, shuffle them all around between different “zero interest on transfers” deals like swapping cars mid-ride on a dodgems rink?
Not quite sure what point you're making here but I suspect you've made the classic internet blunder of making up a guy in your head and then getting mad about him.
tneva82 wrote: One price isn't relevant. There isn't one price for GW products as is. What there is however is limited supply for certain items and THOSE scalpers scalp. Scalpers aren't buying and selling repulsor tanks. Those GW keeps producing more. They are in for the launch box etc. Because demand exceeds supply. So scalper getting those will mean there will be people who want the box but can't get outside scalper. Unlike repulsor which he can order from GW/FLGS at discount. Why would anybody buy kit from scalper for over RPP when there's multiple shops selling below RRP? As there isn't one price...
Well yes - but I think you are just stating my point from the other direction. Demand tends to be a function of price - certainly for something like Warhammer.
Let's say GW has 1000 starter boxes.
What you'd expect to find is that some people would pay £200, some £180, some £150, some £100, some £80, some £50, some wouldn't buy it at any price etc.
If GW set the price at £200, and there are exactly 1000 people are willing to buy at that price, then they are fine. A Scalper however is not. They could buy at £200, hoping to find someone willing to pay even more - but they are likely to struggle because as we've seen, only 1000 are willing to pay £200 (or more). So they have likely got hold of their boxes - or aren't interested at paying a higher price.
Now lets say GW set the price at £100. Instead of 1000 people willing to buy, there are now 5000 willing customers. But there are still only 1000 boxes. And we know 1000 of them "would have" been happy to pay £200. So if the Scalpers can get hold of the product at £100, they can try to find people from that 1000 who missed out and are now happy to pay £200 to buy it from the Scalper - as they would have done from GW.
If GW could have some sort of auction system they'd be able to identify the price where supply and demand match - i.e. when the product reaches "one price" (which is basically what the Scalpers/ebay etc are doing). But they can't do that, hence why the mismatch occurs.
Pacific wrote: Its arguable that the UK (and perhaps other places) having an economy in recession will have more of an impact than a price change of this nature, and thats why sales will drop next year along with everything else.
Friends of mine who, once they have paid rent and energy bills have absolutely no spare money for luxury goods. It doesn't matter how addicted you are to plastic marines that equation won't change.
So your “friends” aren’t likely to apply for as many credit cards as they can find, max the credit limit every month on each, pay back the absolute minimum, then when the deals start popping up again, shuffle them all around between different “zero interest on transfers” deals like swapping cars mid-ride on a dodgems rink?
It's indeed a question of fighting for the battles that actually matter, not the little meaningless skirmishes like this topic.
GW modifying the rules for independant stores is just a consequence of the whole world economy being bad - not even talking about the ugly situation in UK. Yes, their margins will be lower and that will have an effect on the prices the'll sell to their own customers.
Mantic Games would love to do that too, but since they are dependant of independant stores to broadcast their products because they don't own their own dedidacted stores like GW, they can't. Still they had to rise their prices too. So it's not a scam...it's a general theme, inflation everywhere and production costs aren't making it better. All companies try to find tricks anywhere they can to reduce their own losses, and it's always at the cost of another party. Capitalist snake keeps eating its own tail till the end.
About GW products, yes they're expensive and yes they're not made for the poor people who can't afford a budget for plastic miniature drugs. Some people litterally put themselves in debt for their passion, sure, but that's not the general rule. In majority, the reason why people keep buying is simple : they have more money than others. Bluntly put : we were never equals amongst hobbyists because we don't have the same revenues. That's the key problem in the whole world here. Fight for that instead, it's much more constructive AND it really solves a lot of problems when achieved in reality.
Here, keeping beating the old "GW is evil" horse ? In best situation, GW dies but another company takes its place and does exactly the same things...because you didn't beat capitalism first and since it will be still around, it will still produce the same problems, again and again.
As for me, I must say I basically stopped buying GW products except for special cases because now that I have a 3D printer, I can't help but always think "I can buy a whole bottle of resin for that price that'll give me five times the value in miniatures". But that doesn't mean I stopped collecting more miniatures that I'll ever need in my life, or even five of them...
If I was thinking more about the reality of building, painting and taking time to play games with my miniatures...the pace of releases every week is way too much and too fast for my own free time to be able to handle all of that. That also counts a lot, in the end.
In the end, maybe because I'm becoming older, I do tend to be more selective on what I buy. In fact, lower quality products with cheap prices do tend to get in the way of not buying impulsively, because you can justify "hey look it's cheap so I must absolutely not miss that ! (even if I don't need that at all and will never have the time to build, paint and play a fifth army of 200 miniatures).
I think that GW increasing the trade sales pricing but keeping retail pricing the same shows that they're aware they've pushed retail prices as far they can (for now). Under the current economic climate if GW were to push retail prices any higher, I think they know they'll see some serious consequences.
Adding to the issue is an edition that has pandered so hard to the competitive cupcake, it has driven away a huge swath of customers.
The pandemic saw a wave of sales as hobbyists were locked in their homes, flush with cash, but now that we can return to our LGS's to play; us narrative players are returning to a game that's too competitive, an influence that's too competitive and a player base that's too competitive. A competitive cupcake that is driving new, prospective and narrative players (and their money) away.
GW can survive perfectly fine without competitive players; they've done just fine without them for 25+ years. GW does not make money on tournaments or quantity of games played. GW will wither and die without the narrative players and new recruits. Privateer Press is a cautionary tale that should be heeded.
Pricing increases are something we've all weathered many times before. The competitive cupcake is the more threatening issue. It has become lethal, and needs cut out.
oni wrote: Adding to the issue is an edition that has pandered so hard to the competitive cupcake, it has driven away a huge swath of customers.
The pandemic saw a wave of sales as hobbyists were locked in their homes, flush with cash, but now that we can return to our LGS's to play; us narrative players are returning to a game that's too competitive, an influence that's too competitive and a player base that's too competitive. A competitive cupcake that is driving new, prospective and narrative players (and their money) away.
I see this banded about a lot and I wonder if anyone has any data to support the claim. I'm not disagreeing that the game is certainly becoming a pain to follow with all the extra stuff to remember and I gave up due to the truly abysmal balance between Codexes but any time I go past my local GW on game nights or get chatting with the staff, it's always full and their signup sheets are as well. The shop doesn't do regular's nights and it's all about getting people into Warhammer and then letting them loose to the many gaming shops the city has, so it has to be new players/hobbyists. Anecdotal, I know, but I just wondered if this is just the normal grouching (very justified IMO) or if some groups had done surveys and stuff.
Adding to the issue is an edition that has pandered so hard to the competitive cupcake, it has driven away a huge swath of customers.
Seems a swath of competitive players have replaced the swath of narrative players I am afraid to report. So in the end GW really doesn't care as long as they are not losing money directly.
I see this banded about a lot and I wonder if anyone has any data to support the claim. I'm not disagreeing that the game is certainly becoming a pain to follow with all the extra stuff to remember and I gave up due to the truly abysmal balance between Codexes but any time I go past my local GW on game nights or get chatting with the staff, it's always full and their signup sheets are as well. The shop doesn't do regular's nights and it's all about getting people into Warhammer and then letting them loose to the many gaming shops the city has, so it has to be new players/hobbyists. Anecdotal, I know, but I just wondered if this is just the normal grouching (very justified IMO) or if some groups had done surveys and stuff.
What I think a lot of people don't understand is that the Matched Play system created a united language for players regardless of how good/bad people consider it. It is so unified that you can immediately have a pick up game without discussing the finer details of the game. I think a lot of people underestimate how strong this is when it comes to getting people into this system. You learn the basics once and you're off into the 41st millenium. It is, I think, one of the core reasons the game has been growing for the past years. So I'd argue that the game has grown rather than contracted. Matched players also truck along rather nicely with GW's plan as they tend to be more flexible as long as everyone adheres to the core system.
Narrative play, however, is a convoluted mess. I've played my fair share of narrative over the years and the problem is that it is difficult to get it into place where everyone can enjoy themselves. It requires navigating different personalities, egos, and desires, and even after 1-2 games under a certain disagreement it can still dissolve as one or two players in the group are unhappy with how things are. Narrative play requires dedication and conviction, and those are not things GW can sell or enforce. They can, however, sell you a shared language pack that everyone can play according to. Narrative groups also die and lose interest so I'd argue that the churn can be quite high in casual narrative players.
To be honest I am mostly discussing the diaspora where I live. The players who play the most and keep on playing year after year are the Matched Play people. The Narrative people tend to just switch between whatever strikes their fancy.
Adding to the issue is an edition that has pandered so hard to the competitive cupcake, it has driven away a huge swath of customers.
Seems a swath of competitive players have replaced the swath of narrative players I am afraid to report. So in the end GW really doesn't care as long as they are not losing money directly.
Anecdotal again, but in my local area a lot of narrative-focused players have switched from 40k to HH & Titanicus. That started well before 9th though.
I would not call it competitive chancer, but if you made a break it is very difficult to get back into the game and catch up with all the releases and changes
not like you start playing narrative or crusade, don't play for a year and than just continue were you stopped
but this is more because of how GW handles changes and releases and less because of the competitive scene
@Eldarsif: Matched Play and competitive play are not mutually exclusive. Matched Play is not the problem. It is a self-aggrandizing player base that creates the illusion of superiority for meaningless affirmation.
I agree that it's great to have a standard mode of play that makes pickup games easier and Matched Play can definitely provide this. I also agree that the current Narrative Play mode is messy, has too much overhead and in general was a non-starter from day one, but when I refer to narrative play, I'm not specifically referring to the Narrative Play rules, but rather that meticulous balance is not needed for the game to be enjoyable.
@Gert: It's been my experience and the experience of a lot of people I know that Warhammer stores (official GW stores) foster a narrative / non-competitive community as their in-store policies tend to push things in this direction. Generally, by limiting game size, time duration and having a strong awareness of new and unexperienced players. Warhammer store events tend to be things like Mega-battles to promote community and escalation leagues to boost sales - both of which are rather non-competitive.
My point being, if the Warhammer stores are flooded with people, but the LGS's are empty, it's likely because players are flocking to and can expect to enjoy themselves more in the Warhammer stores non-competitive environment.
Pacific wrote: Its arguable that the UK (and perhaps other places) having an economy in recession will have more of an impact than a price change of this nature, and thats why sales will drop next year along with everything else.
Friends of mine who, once they have paid rent and energy bills have absolutely no spare money for luxury goods. It doesn't matter how addicted you are to plastic marines that equation won't change.
So your “friends” aren’t likely to apply for as many credit cards as they can find, max the credit limit every month on each, pay back the absolute minimum, then when the deals start popping up again, shuffle them all around between different “zero interest on transfers” deals like swapping cars mid-ride on a dodgems rink?
That's a really bad plan.
Wow i feel called out!
Economic times are hard, any most people expect them to get worse. Spending on hobbies will take a hit and i'm sure GW are aware of this (probably already seeing reduced sales) This move seems to be them trying to increase their margin without reducing sales, but as others have pointed out if third party retailers have to decrease the discount they offer sales will be hit.
Pacific wrote: Its arguable that the UK (and perhaps other places) having an economy in recession will have more of an impact than a price change of this nature, and thats why sales will drop next year along with everything else.
Friends of mine who, once they have paid rent and energy bills have absolutely no spare money for luxury goods. It doesn't matter how addicted you are to plastic marines that equation won't change.
So your “friends” aren’t likely to apply for as many credit cards as they can find, max the credit limit every month on each, pay back the absolute minimum, then when the deals start popping up again, shuffle them all around between different “zero interest on transfers” deals like swapping cars mid-ride on a dodgems rink?
Im not sure I get the use of the inverted commas sorry.
I have heard of people having to do this just to say afloat financially and for basics: food, rent, energy bills. Its an awful situation to be in and I think happens to more people than we realise. Hopefully they wouldn't be silly enough to blow it on wargames, although you have to say as well how sad it is when people don't have enough money for even some basic luxury items.
I'm surprised she hasn't mentioned the new way of how product range update works for retailers. Before this, retailers would get a full refund for all of the products that were being taken out. Right now, GW will provide refund for maybe 5-6 products. The rest you just pretty much buy from them and good luck selling it. And the new products that are coming in cost around 1k+ euros to add.
On the funny side, any bets that ForgeWorld will increase the msrp by 5% yet again?
So we just calculated (wee haven't received this message yet and we really hope we won't receive it, as this still could be regional). Right now, if we sell a start collecting that costs 120 euros with 20% discount, we earn 14 euros after tax. If this comes info effect, we will earn whopping +-6 euros This might not seem a lot at first glance, but let's say someone would sell stuff for 12'000 euros. That would mean a profit of 1400. After this - 600 euros
There's gamers who complain about the prices and keep buying.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and stopped buying from GW but kept buying from discounters.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and stopped buying new but kept buying used.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and moved to different games or even completely different hobbies.
There's gamers who complain about the prices and left entirely.
There's also newer people who haven't been around long enough to experience the Kirby years and the LotR bubble and whatever.
You might fall into one of those categories, but survivorship bias just means there's a segment of the people that you're missing since they're no longer present to count.
And your point of failure is in the conclusion. Survivorship bias is due to survivors normally having a similar story and non survivors not being around to say otherwise. So bomber crews that returned from mission could tell their superiors what saved them, and that can be statistically analysed for future design, however shot down bomber crews cannot testify what killed them.
You have skewing of testimony from survivor bias..
However GW customers who do not fall into the survivor category, which presumable is the one that still goes to GW store, are not dead or sitting out the duration in a Stalag. There is no survivor base for bias because there is no lobsided testimony.
Personally, I didn't buy anything from GW for years, and was maybe only slightly active in the online community and not at all in the local community... but GW coaxed me back somewhat with specialist games where the prices and massive amount of building and painting armies is somewhat mitigated versus WHFB/AOS/40k.
Everyone has their own story that might be unique or shared, trying to figure out how that feeds into revenue, it's always going to be a massive oversimplification unless you could somehow gather a lot of data, including data on people who are no longer active in the community.
Case in point. You do not fall into a narrow category divide of 'survivor' and your testimony and thus statistical data if compilable if GW chose to ask.
CragHack wrote: So we just calculated (wee haven't received this message yet and we really hope we won't receive it, as this still could be regional). Right now, if we sell a start collecting that costs 120 euros with 20% discount, we earn 14 euros after tax. If this comes info effect, we will earn whopping +-6 euros This might not seem a lot at first glance, but let's say someone would sell stuff for 12'000 euros. That would mean a profit of 1400. After this - 600 euros
This is it, exactly. economies of scale. individual box sales don't matter near as much as volume, and GW are stepping on retailers ability to make those volume sales.
someone being introduced to the hobby and buying a single start collecting and some paints, because GW stuff (for bigger or bundle items) are usually in the $100-200 range.
in base sales.
take, for example, a 45% margin (generally an industry standard. most manufacturers offer between 40-50% off for independents.)
for ease of example, 45% of $100 is $45.
take out shipping costs i ate to get that product to my store.
take out 15% MAP discount
take out time and effort for advertising to sell that product.
I'm now sub $30 on end profit from the sale.
unless sold in volume, miniatures do not pay the bills.
privateer4hire wrote: Sure. It’s just hyperbole. Different situation back then with some real competition for them at the time. Competition like privateer press that’s essentially negligible nowadays. And x-wing first edition was doing really well. But not so much with the new edition.
And GW makes self aware jokes now. Has social media engagement to at least a minimal level. And they gave people plastic sisters. And squats are back! Along with blood bowl, necrominda and the old world is waiting in the wings.
One might say they have changed a great deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CragHack wrote: So we just calculated (wee haven't received this message yet and we really hope we won't receive it, as this still could be regional). Right now, if we sell a start collecting that costs 120 euros with 20% discount, we earn 14 euros after tax. If this comes info effect, we will earn whopping +-6 euros This might not seem a lot at first glance, but let's say someone would sell stuff for 12'000 euros. That would mean a profit of 1400. After this - 600 euros
What takes reducing the discount off the table? Surely others would be in the same boat? (Not rhetorical, to be clear.)
CragHack wrote: So we just calculated (wee haven't received this message yet and we really hope we won't receive it, as this still could be regional). Right now, if we sell a start collecting that costs 120 euros with 20% discount, we earn 14 euros after tax. If this comes info effect, we will earn whopping +-6 euros This might not seem a lot at first glance, but let's say someone would sell stuff for 12'000 euros. That would mean a profit of 1400. After this - 600 euros
What takes reducing the discount off the table? Surely others would be in the same boat? (Not rhetorical, to be clear.)
Exactly, if the 20% discount becomes a 15% discount, your price to the customer goes up 6 Euros. That makes your profit 12 Euros instead of 6. A little less than when the product was cheaper and you made 14 Euros, but not the end of the world.
oni wrote: @Gert: It's been my experience and the experience of a lot of people I know that Warhammer stores (official GW stores) foster a narrative / non-competitive community as their in-store policies tend to push things in this direction. Generally, by limiting game size, time duration and having a strong awareness of new and unexperienced players. Warhammer store events tend to be things like Mega-battles to promote community and escalation leagues to boost sales - both of which are rather non-competitive.
My point being, if the Warhammer stores are flooded with people, but the LGS's are empty, it's likely because players are flocking to and can expect to enjoy themselves more in the Warhammer stores non-competitive environment.
Ok to counter you, the city I live in has a fair few gaming shops. Not all of them foster 40k and of the two I have frequented (pre-Covid) only one liked the idea of us doing 40k there consistently. The first has lots of gaming nights and a few people I still chat with note that it is full on 40k nights. As for the other, it's had some rough times both pre and post lockdowns and it seems that they only open their doors to prebooked sessions (which you can only do via Discord which I CBA with) or in-store events that heavily focus on Flames of War, Team Yankee, or X-Wing.
So if both the GW store and larger LGS are full all the time and the other I used to go to never really built a 40k community (blaming the GW half a mile away which was weird), I fail to see how competitive play is killing the game.
My point was regarding if there was actual data to support the claim that a focus on competitive players was actually having an effect. Anecdotes are all well and good but the same group of people on Dakka saying the same stuff every single thread about GW isn't what I would call accurate data gathering.
So let me get this straight - not only are they banning games being played in their official stores....but they are trying to shut down all the other game stores where people can play 40k as well?
Brilliant.
So where do people play, especially new players? Is WH supposed to only be plàyed at homes, like it's a dirty little secret?
It makes no sense. It's like a Dungeons and Dragons store where you can't play Dungeons and Dragons or a library that bans reading actual books.
you are not supposed to play the game, the game is just an excuse to buy models
hence it does not matter how good the game itself is, or if there is a possibility to play it in public
people need a reason to buy an army and "it looks cool as display" is not enough for most people (and if you want something to display a larger scale or actual dioramas are the better option)
so not being able to actual play is not a big problem for GW as long as the illusion that you may play the game once in future exists (and for those that really want to play, events/tournaments exist hence why 40k is so popular as tournament game, for a lot of people it is the only option to actually play the game)
CragHack wrote: So we just calculated (wee haven't received this message yet and we really hope we won't receive it, as this still could be regional). Right now, if we sell a start collecting that costs 120 euros with 20% discount, we earn 14 euros after tax. If this comes info effect, we will earn whopping +-6 euros This might not seem a lot at first glance, but let's say someone would sell stuff for 12'000 euros. That would mean a profit of 1400. After this - 600 euros
What takes reducing the discount off the table? Surely others would be in the same boat? (Not rhetorical, to be clear.)
Exactly, if the 20% discount becomes a 15% discount, your price to the customer goes up 6 Euros. That makes your profit 12 Euros instead of 6. A little less than when the product was cheaper and you made 14 Euros, but not the end of the world.
one point is that stuff might get too expensive for people to buy
there is a breaking point when something is too much, and for a lot of GW products, the 20% are already "does not look that bad any more" rather than "really good deal", so 15% off instead of 20% might already result in less sales which makes it worse
another point is, the 12€ are income not net-profit, you still have to cover your own costs and make a living, so 2€ short of a box combined with less overall sales because of the higher price could already break your buisness
CragHack wrote: So we just calculated (wee haven't received this message yet and we really hope we won't receive it, as this still could be regional). Right now, if we sell a start collecting that costs 120 euros with 20% discount, we earn 14 euros after tax. If this comes info effect, we will earn whopping +-6 euros This might not seem a lot at first glance, but let's say someone would sell stuff for 12'000 euros. That would mean a profit of 1400. After this - 600 euros
What takes reducing the discount off the table? Surely others would be in the same boat? (Not rhetorical, to be clear.)
Exactly, if the 20% discount becomes a 15% discount, your price to the customer goes up 6 Euros. That makes your profit 12 Euros instead of 6. A little less than when the product was cheaper and you made 14 Euros, but not the end of the world.
one point is that stuff might get too expensive for people to buy
there is a breaking point when something is too much, and for a lot of GW products, the 20% are already "does not look that bad any more" rather than "really good deal", so 15% off instead of 20% might already result in less sales which makes it worse
another point is, the 12€ are income not net-profit, you still have to cover your own costs and make a living, so 2€ short of a box combined with less overall sales because of the higher price could already break your buisness
i really think this will effect Europe more so then the USA. In USA we pay inflated GW tax and GW only lets online discounters advertise at 15%. Europe pays about 30 some percent less and can take an additional 20-25% off from online vendors. I honestly don't think it will change much for the US.
kodos wrote: you are not supposed to play the game, the game is just an excuse to buy models
hence it does not matter how good the game itself is, or if there is a possibility to play it in public
people need a reason to buy an army and "it looks cool as display" is not enough for most people (and if you want something to display a larger scale or actual dioramas are the better option)
so not being able to actual play is not a big problem for GW as long as the illusion that you may play the game once in future exists (and for those that really want to play, events/tournaments exist hence why 40k is so popular as tournament game, for a lot of people it is the only option to actually play the game)
I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.
And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule. The best memories I have from around the gaming table tend to have more to do with the people I met or stupid jokes we shared than they do with the actual who-won and who-lost of it. Or, and here's an interesting thing: they're about other people's games. When you don't have to engage with the preparations and accompanying faff of the whole exercise, it's easier to get swept away with the, for lack of a better word, pageantry of it. This is why demos and convention games are so insidious and why you should never decide to pick up a game because of them: They're offering you a taste of the end result while hiding the steps you will need to take if you wish to repeat that experience.
People play it though and thats why GW has been so willingly churning in rules updates on top of updates etc Votann had what, 2 updates already?
Tournaments datas etc I think GW is more on top of this than I ever remember. I would rather prefer if they let things stay quiet for longer than a few weeks People will not have the patience to keep it up for a long time before they give up on this insane updates train.
Will the squeeze affect stores and gaming tables? Probably some more than others, if margins not that great they need to diversify to stay alive. Food, painting workshops and comps, killteams and other smaller games, skirmish armies rental and so on and on, still 40k orientated but just not the typical 2000pts
I like demo games because sometimes a small taste is all you want.
Orlanth wrote: However GW customers who do not fall into the survivor category, which presumable is the one that still goes to GW store, are not dead or sitting out the duration in a Stalag. There is no survivor base for bias because there is no lobsided testimony.
The lobsided conclusion is "people complain about GW prices, but they keep buying".
Some people do, and some people don't, and don't to the point that they're no longer involved in the community, it's the people who don't that don't get counted.
Hence, it biases the the assertion that people complain about GW prices but continue to buy. Not that those people don't exist, but the significance of those people versus the people that complained and are as such no longer part of the community is unknown.
Case in point. You do not fall into a narrow category divide of 'survivor' and your testimony and thus statistical data if compilable if GW chose to ask.
I do fall into the category of survivor, so does everyone on this forum. The non-survivors are the ones not on this forum, and not at a GW store, and who GW can't ask because they have no way of tracking them down and forcing them to answer questions.
The game isn't the most important thing in the world in terms of buying minis. I have far too much 40k stuff that has never seen a table. (And can't really, unless we go full sandbox).
But because I play 40k, I have the illusion that maybe, one day, those random squads will be joined by others to make a "proper army". I could shelve my long in the tooth DE and play Orks, GSC, Tau or half a dozen other factions at a standard 2k points tournament. I'm planning out a new 1k points army for Christmas (still undecided though!) to play a friend who has been "collecting SoB" since their update 3 years ago but never played a game with them.
The idea that I "could" use those minis is important.
Whereas, if 40k was effectively dead as a game system, but you could buy the models - my motivation would disappear in an instant. I know this, because it's what happened with Warmahordes. When we had an active scene I had Cryx and Elves and Everblight and so on. I'd buy a new caster or something every few months even though a bunch of them never made it out of the clampack. And then it was over. And I don't think I've played, thought about, or bought a Warmahordes model since 2016 or something. It just died with 3rd edition (and 8th edition 40k was the final nail). I wasn't going to buy a load of crocodile men or whatever to just to sit in a box even if I thought the minis were cool.
So this is why I think GW does have to keep the game ticking over - and why the "outlook from the competitive scene" is important, even if it doesn't reflect was a huge percentage of their customers are doing.
The idea that I "could" use those minis is important.
Age of Sigmar's launch also proved that this is the case for a significant portion of the buying market.
Plus, of course, we have to factor in that even without the "could" market, the actual playing market is hard to survey because not everyone games in groups/clubs/stores and that there's lots of home games which happen between perhaps only family members or even just two friends.
Exactly. Our club generates money for rent from paid membership. Membership grants 20%. Quite a few people have membership just because it’s a deal for them to get the 20%. 15% might just make them look elsewhere and cancel their memberships all together. I mean, if this all increased trade price will apply to us. It just all boils down to how loyal/thinking people are. And people are people, gak happens. But overall, it’s still a fact that this is basically a dick move from GW.
The game isn't the most important thing in the world in terms of buying minis. I have far too much 40k stuff that has never seen a table. (And can't really, unless we go full sandbox).
But because I play 40k, I have the illusion that maybe, one day, those random squads will be joined by others to make a "proper army". I could shelve my long in the tooth DE and play Orks, GSC, Tau or half a dozen other factions at a standard 2k points tournament. I'm planning out a new 1k points army for Christmas (still undecided though!) to play a friend who has been "collecting SoB" since their update 3 years ago but never played a game with them.
The idea that I "could" use those minis is important.
Whereas, if 40k was effectively dead as a game system, but you could buy the models - my motivation would disappear in an instant. I know this, because it's what happened with Warmahordes. When we had an active scene I had Cryx and Elves and Everblight and so on. I'd buy a new caster or something every few months even though a bunch of them never made it out of the clampack. And then it was over. And I don't think I've played, thought about, or bought a Warmahordes model since 2016 or something. It just died with 3rd edition (and 8th edition 40k was the final nail). I wasn't going to buy a load of crocodile men or whatever to just to sit in a box even if I thought the minis were cool.
I just don't understand this mentality, either paragraph of it.
1) So as long as you're playing a game you'll buy stuff you know you'll never actually use? But you won't won't buy the crocodile men (or whatever) that you like for a game you aren't playing....
???
2) So you had a community who enjoyed playing Warmachine/Hordes 2e. Ok, so PP put out 3e & you all didn't like it. So what? Why'd you stop playing the edition you did like?? That you aren't playing WM/H 2e is all on you & your group, not PP. They can't make you play an edition you don't like. I doubt all your 2e books spontaneously combusted or were magically recalled off your shelves. So why'd it end?
people want to have a hobby and because they like building and painting they get into models
but because scale models are a one thing and done model, at the same time selling a game around that scale model gives you an excuse
so people don't buy the models to play the game, but because they there is a game they buy models for display
and marketing sets in because how much a model is worth is related to the rules and the high price justified because you play with a model that is worth the money in points
if you don't ever plan to play or see no chance to play because there is no community, it is just an expensive display model, and not worth to put on the shelf, even if it is the same with the other models
this also is a reason why only the official edition/rules count
it is not about playing the game at all, so the actual rules don't matter
for those that actually want to play the game, things are different, but because they want to play the also stick to GW because Warhammer is the game played
Adding to the issue is an edition that has pandered so hard to the competitive cupcake, it has driven away a huge swath of customers.
I don't think that is true. I stopped playing 40k this edition because the game wasn't fun. The whole primary/secondary objectives thing was a game, not a wargame. It is fine in Killteam where I expect that granularity, but not in a company+ sized engagement. It is like being at work where the 1* outlines his top 6 number 1 priorities (I jest, he has changed, the last time we asked him at a staff call he said his priority was to 'do everything well'.) The amount of info I have to know about the opponent isn't fun.
Plenty of games are highly competitive. Take Art De La Guerre which is played very competitively. It is still a fun wargame. Or online games like counterstrike. I am rubbish, but I can have fun for half an hour, there isn't a wild imbalance or lack of knowledge that ruins things for me. 40k is a mess, to the extent that while we had some great fun doing 500 point narrative linked games in 8th, we can't even seemingly do that in 9th without running into rule and codex and stratagem problems.
1) So as long as you're playing a game you'll buy stuff you know you'll never actually use? But you won't won't buy the crocodile men (or whatever) that you like for a game you aren't playing....
???
I actually bought a lot of the crocodile men from wargods of aegpyt or whatever it was called because I thought crocodiles were cool... Everything can always be a supporter in blood bowl at the end of the day
ccs wrote: I just don't understand this mentality, either paragraph of it.
1) So as long as you're playing a game you'll buy stuff you know you'll never actually use? But you won't won't buy the crocodile men (or whatever) that you like for a game you aren't playing....
???
2) So you had a community who enjoyed playing Warmachine/Hordes 2e. Ok, so PP put out 3e & you all didn't like it. So what? Why'd you stop playing the edition you did like?? That you aren't playing WM/H 2e is all on you & your group, not PP. They can't make you play an edition you don't like. I doubt all your 2e books spontaneously combusted or were magically recalled off your shelves. So why'd it end?
The point is there's a chance I'll use them (even if it probably won't happen). Versus other games where the chance appears to be zero - or has become zero. I don't think its rational exactly. But when you go to the FLGS, play a game of 40k etc, the boxes are all on the shelves etc, so you can just buy a new kit. "New year, new army, lets get a starter or something, ah I'm bored a unit or two in, never mind." And it was the same with WM/H around 2012-2016 or so. You are having fun in the game, so why not?
Its different from just buying models for another game I don't play - and don't expect to ever play. Just as its different to buying lego or model trains or MTG cards.
I don't really know why WM/H 2e didn't continue - but it didn't. (And I don't think we were unique in this, I feel it pretty much disappeared all over the UK). I know some people keep the fire going for things like oldhammer, fantasy etc. But over the years I find that when the music stops most people just move on to other things. In this case a lot of people who had long been alienated with 40k in the 5th through 7th process got back into it. Interest in X-Wing, WM/H, Infinity etc just sort of disappeared as people got new 40k armies and were happy to play with them.
Warmachine died fast because PP made a series of mistakes all at once. Ending the PG program; gutting their own forums; messing up the launch of 3rd edition (which I've heard rumours of being rushed out the door).
These issues added ontop of things like supply chain problems and production issues and their unpopular choice of casting materials for plastics.
At the same time GW was doing a load of good moves so pepole jumped off one and into the other game. It killed 3rd edition and killed off 2nd edition for Warmachine. The loss of PG I think was a huge blow for a firm that relies heavily upon local vested interest to keep the game afloat outside of random store owners (who already had a problem with stock issues for some)
But the other factor is certainly that many people like being involved in something active and being worked on - something "alive". Which is why current editoins of games typically do better than old; why many move with them and why most things rely upon a firm or powerfully interested group to keep the attention alive
Overread wrote: But the other factor is certainly that many people like being involved in something active and being worked on - something "alive". Which is why current editoins of games typically do better than old; why many move with them and why most things rely upon a firm or powerfully interested group to keep the attention alive
This. I spent a bunch of time trying to think of how to put it, too, but you beat me to it. Basically as the 9th Agers put it when I tried to keep 8th going where I lived: "8th Ed is a dead game, there's not going to be any updates."
Those "updates" are important to a lot of people psychologically.
Tyel wrote: The idea that I "could" use those minis is important.
There's a famous quote about books that I think applies here: "When we buy books, we think we are also buying the time to read them." Engaging in the delusion, and it really is a delusion, that we'll have the time to read all our books, listen to all our records, finish each of our whiskey bottles in good company, etc. is incredibly common. We like to believe we govern our own lives. In the cold light of day we sometimes realize we are on the large part governed by something else entirely.
Overread wrote: But the other factor is certainly that many people like being involved in something active and being worked on - something "alive". Which is why current editoins of games typically do better than old; why many move with them and why most things rely upon a firm or powerfully interested group to keep the attention alive
This. I spent a bunch of time trying to think of how to put it, too, but you beat me to it. Basically as the 9th Agers put it when I tried to keep 8th going where I lived: "8th Ed is a dead game, there's not going to be any updates."
Those "updates" are important to a lot of people psychologically.
I think it applies to many markets, but for Wargames I think part of it is that we invest a lot of time into them, money too but building and painting is a big time sink. So we like to think that for that huge time sink there's going to be more to enjoy after that. If the idea is that the army, let alone the game itself, won't get any new updates. No balance adjustments, no new art, models, stories, etc... Even when you see games that are maintained without a host company driving interest you often see balance updates and new things from the community itself. Bloodbowl had this in buckets even to the point where a few firms started up to supply that market with new models.
You see the same thing in video games too, those games that often last the test of time are not just really well made, but often served by a keen modding community or a dedicated competitive end organising events and the like.
The difference between company and community though is that communities need a lot more work to drive popularity up and also to remain focused. A company derives income and has the game as their focus; whilst a community project often has to contend with the fact that its a hobby nad that you either need a few skilled and dedicated people who never leave; or a large enough population that those who leave can be swiftly replaced with those of at least equal skill and dedication. Otherwise they fall apart
Overread wrote: Even when you see games that are maintained without a host company driving interest you often see balance updates and new things from the community itself. Bloodbowl had this in buckets even to the point where a few firms started up to supply that market with new models.
Depends on the game. 2nd Ed 40K and Oldhammer not so much, but Kevin Coleman has been doing stuff for EEFL(including a revamp of his Goblin sub-races he did for White Dwarf) and there's the various retcons of End Times(Age of Rebuilding and the like).
Just watched the video and made it through it successfully (which was a surprise). Sucks to hear that FLGS's will be squeezed like this by GW trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Overread wrote: But the other factor is certainly that many people like being involved in something active and being worked on - something "alive". Which is why current editoins of games typically do better than old; why many move with them and why most things rely upon a firm or powerfully interested group to keep the attention alive
This. I spent a bunch of time trying to think of how to put it, too, but you beat me to it. Basically as the 9th Agers put it when I tried to keep 8th going where I lived: "8th Ed is a dead game, there's not going to be any updates."
Those "updates" are important to a lot of people psychologically.
This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.
The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.
Historical is almost a retirement hobby though and some elements are different. Eg for them the rules are more about simulation than in fantasy/scifi wargames.
Plus they endlessly tinker with the representative numbers. It's just based upon hew historical documents of past battles and wars.
Plus there are loads of firms making new models for historical games. There's always a new sherman or tiger tank
That they're just about simulation isn't an argument, all games are trying to simulate something, the difference is only the the thing fantasy games are trying to simulate is made up. It's also not entirely true, for as much as there's a thread that is trying to recreate precisely what happened, there's plenty that are playing a sandbox "What If?" style of game that's functionality little different to many fantasy systems.
They do tinker, yes, but they do so among themselves, they don't require the latest edition handed down to them on high. If something isn't working as they feel it should then they agree to changes (or, speaking from what I've seen, the owner of the game will assume responsibility for fixing it.)
There's literally dozens, if not hundreds, of fantasy and sci fi models by many different studios (even more if you include STLs) released every month. That you need the "right" troll or bowman or sci fi man with laser cannon is one of GWs greatest marketing successes and is a symptom of the same line of thinking.
I am not sure this is related to the genre at all but to a certain mindset I usually encounter with people who come from GW
there are the SciFi Gamers who still suggest Dirtside II or FullThrust, though they haven't seen an update in years
than you have met some people who think/say that a game that does not change (and really mean change, not just additional content) at a regular bases, like at least once a year, is a dead game (as people don't like to play the same army list for 2 years and therefore quit and the game is dead)
a negative example would also be 1st Edition of SAGA, which is a historical game
2nd Edi update was not well received, yet people did not only not switched over, but also stopped playing 1st because it is not the most recent set of rules
even going so far that the rather wide spread community rules for other settings (there was a generic Fantasy version, a Lord of the Rings version and a Song of Ice and Fire version) died because they were not updated to work with the 2nd Edition and therefore not played
it is also not really model related, there are so many SciFi and Fantasy models out there, (though a lot are aimed to meet the GW style) that finding something that fits the rules/setting is not a problem at all
thinking that games need to have a new Edition on a regular bases is really something that comes with people growing up with GW games get marketing telling them that this is necessary
kodos wrote: I am not sure this is related to the genre at all but to a certain mindset I usually encounter with people who come from GW
That's probably true, just given GW's ubiquitous presence, I generally assume anyone with fantasy leanings will have been inside the machine at some points.
I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.
And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule.
I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.
I lurk these forums occasionally in the hope that one day either (a) GW will stick with a ruleset, actually improve it, and hopefully end up with a good consistent game system that will last many years (not likely); or (b) a greater number of fans/players/consumers will eventually decide to get off the GW40k rules churn rollercoaster and move to a "3rd party" ruleset (ex. One Page Rules) that allows us to play a fun game with our little army men and not be shackled by GW's terrible rules writing, bloat, and churn. Maybe one day. In the meantime, my gaming time these days is taken up mostly by Blood Bowl, a game that does not require so much of me (or my wallet), with gameplay that is always exciting, strategic and fun (and funny), win or lose.
Azreal13 wrote: That they're just about simulation isn't an argument, all games are trying to simulate something, the difference is only the the thing fantasy games are trying to simulate is made up. It's also not entirely true, for as much as there's a thread that is trying to recreate precisely what happened, there's plenty that are playing a sandbox "What If?" style of game that's functionality little different to many fantasy systems.
They do tinker, yes, but they do so among themselves, they don't require the latest edition handed down to them on high. If something isn't working as they feel it should then they agree to changes (or, speaking from what I've seen, the owner of the game will assume responsibility for fixing it.)
There's literally dozens, if not hundreds, of fantasy and sci fi models by many different studios (even more if you include STLs) released every month. That you need the "right" troll or bowman or sci fi man with laser cannon is one of GWs greatest marketing successes and is a symptom of the same line of thinking.
Think this is absolutely spot on.
Just seeing what happened to some of the Heresy players with the new release, actually hundreds of pounds worth of miniatures, that have similarly taken hundreds of hours to complete, that they could now not use in game. I actually find quite obscene.
And it's one very strong reason to try and step back from the 'wave' of new releases. Find a gaming group or some pals that just want to play something, and that it doesn't have to be the absolute latest edition, or a game that isn't going through the rapid release cycles (most games aren't like it, and GW is by far the most egregious in this regard, as its a fundamental part of their business model).
I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.
And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule.
I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.
.
This is why I'm firmly on the side that as soon as affordable consumer AR glasses are a thing the game aspect of our hobby will being switching to AR played via the internet vs in person with real models. Sub model at $15 month and you get access to the game and all new releases. Save and pick up where you want. No arguing about rules as the game has them baked in.
So let me get this straight - not only are they banning games being played in their official stores....but they are trying to shut down all the other game stores where people can play 40k as well?
Brilliant.
So where do people play, especially new players? Is WH supposed to only be plàyed at homes, like it's a dirty little secret?
It makes no sense. It's like a Dungeons and Dragons store where you can't play Dungeons and Dragons or a library that bans reading actual books.
Yes. Play at home to avoid unsavory subjects. This should actually be a rule on the first page. I have played in thirty years in the hobby five times in a GW store and most of these were N18 intro games.
I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.
And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule.
I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.
.
This is why I'm firmly on the side that as soon as affordable consumer AR glasses are a thing the game aspect of our hobby will being switching to AR played via the internet vs in person with real models. Sub model at $15 month and you get access to the game and all new releases. Save and pick up where you want. No arguing about rules as the game has them baked in.
I'm not so sure. There is something "special" about the tangible feel and weight of playing an in-person game with models and face-to-face communication and interactions with your opponent that I don't get from online games. Ex. Chess with an actual physical board and pieces vs. an online computer chess game. 40k tabletop vs. Tabletop Simulator online computer game. Or often in my case these days, tabletop Blood Bowl vs. the online computer game. While I can have fun with both types of games (in-person and online), I get much more enjoyment from an in-person game with physical models/pieces and the face-to-face banter with my opponent. Yes, it takes more time to set up, move figures, roll real dice, etc. but I imagine I'm not the only one that gets more satisfaction from the in-person game.
This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.
The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.
This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.
My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.
The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.
As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.
Then again, the old despising the young is a perennial feature of civilization so it's questionable if we should fight it. My parents never understood me or thought my concerns were in any way valid, so why wouldn't I perpetuate that towards the young people of today? Let our hatred be the wind beneath their wings to propel them to better things, just like that of my parents' generation was for the greatest minds of mine. Not me though, I'm a waste of life who never amounted to anything.
Agamemnon2 wrote: As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.
Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.
It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.
There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.
Agamemnon2 wrote: As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.
Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.
It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.
There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.
I'm not going to experiment if I have to pay $60 for a codex. It needs to be well written to begin with.
Not to detract from this topic but what was made invalid from the new HH edition? I couldn’t find anything on someone saying they couldn’t use their models anymore.
Agamemnon2 wrote: As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.
Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.
It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.
There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.
I'm not going to experiment if I have to pay $60 for a codex. It needs to be well written to begin with.
In doing a lot of collecting and reading of vintage gaming materials in recent years and also getting way back into Battletech, I've started to think the problem with modern GW players is organized play. It causes this expectation that everyone must always play the exact same way and prevents any discussion of what kind of game or which rules you may want to play before arranging a game. There's no room for flexibility or tailoring the game experience to your preferences, it simply must be played as written in the book. When we prep for a game of Battletech it's a conversation about what story we want to tell or what units we want to try out and then coming up with the right framework and which optional rules we want to use to best have that experience. It's a totally different mindset that seems to be not even an option for GW players (of which I still am as well).
I wonder if its a partly cultural thing? Only I seem to see this "we can only play as its written in the rule book" extreme purity reported by people in the USA. Which could be just that there's more in the USA talking on dakka so I'm picking up on it more, or could be a cultural thing.
It might not even be that surprising considering that, from what I'm aware, the USA GW staff were more trained for the hard sale than being a hobbyist whilst the UK lot were more trained for the hobbyist side of things (which doesn't mean they aren't there to sell, they are shopkeepers, but that they are less focused on hard sales tactics and the like).
The only other thing is that GW tends to have extremes of matched or open (narrative is just one or the other with story) and with open there's often so much potential variety its not talked about much because two different people won't have the same open play experience. So matched becomes the standard most talk about because it provides a known level ground to discuss.
Prometheum5 wrote:
In doing a lot of collecting and reading of vintage gaming materials in recent years and also getting way back into Battletech, I've started to think the problem with modern GW players is organized play. It causes this expectation that everyone must always play the exact same way and prevents any discussion of what kind of game or which rules you may want to play before arranging a game. There's no room for flexibility or tailoring the game experience to your preferences, it simply must be played as written in the book. When we prep for a game of Battletech it's a conversation about what story we want to tell or what units we want to try out and then coming up with the right framework and which optional rules we want to use to best have that experience. It's a totally different mindset that seems to be not even an option for GW players (of which I still am as well).
The cult of officialdom is a real thing & very difficult to overcome without a ton of effort. every single 30/40k game I've ever played has followed this methodology.
This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.
The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.
This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.
My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.
The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.
Perhaps views on censorship have changed for those growing up in the age of hate-speech driven mass shootings. Or maybe nothing ever changes and only one perspective is ever right.
Agamemnon2 wrote: As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.
Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.
It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.
There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.
I'm not going to experiment if I have to pay $60 for a codex. It needs to be well written to begin with.
In doing a lot of collecting and reading of vintage gaming materials in recent years and also getting way back into Battletech, I've started to think the problem with modern GW players is organized play. It causes this expectation that everyone must always play the exact same way and prevents any discussion of what kind of game or which rules you may want to play before arranging a game. There's no room for flexibility or tailoring the game experience to your preferences, it simply must be played as written in the book. When we prep for a game of Battletech it's a conversation about what story we want to tell or what units we want to try out and then coming up with the right framework and which optional rules we want to use to best have that experience. It's a totally different mindset that seems to be not even an option for GW players (of which I still am as well).
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Starting of from a good point helps facilitate that, GW just put out bad rules and bogs it all down.
If it wasn’t for the common use of GW rules, I wouldn’t hesitate to drop them completely and use something better as my starting point.
But this also comes from time, and who your playing with, if your playing at a club or shop. Your limited more on what you can do.
GW has done well to pull people into the cycle, but I am seeing that break more and more. Which I think is healthy for the hobby as a whole.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
For a rulebook that cost $20 and hasn't had an update in 15 years? That's a perfectly reasonable expectation.
For a ruleset that costs many times that, has near monthly updates and despite decades of opportunities is still as riddled with balance problems and errors as it was in the 90s? Less so.
Not that I'm under any illusions that the balance churn isn't working as intended because they get higher sales from constant flux than working towards some sort of end point of "balanced."
I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.
I lurk these forums occasionally in the hope that one day either (a) GW will stick with a ruleset, actually improve it, and hopefully end up with a good consistent game system that will last many years (not likely); or (b) a greater number of fans/players/consumers will eventually decide to get off the GW40k rules churn rollercoaster and move to a "3rd party" ruleset (ex. One Page Rules) that allows us to play a fun game with our little army men and not be shackled by GW's terrible rules writing, bloat, and churn. Maybe one day. In the meantime, my gaming time these days is taken up mostly by Blood Bowl, a game that does not require so much of me (or my wallet), with gameplay that is always exciting, strategic and fun (and funny), win or lose.
For what it's worth, I'm mostly in the same boat minus the Blood Bowl. For a few years after I stopped playing due to balance and churn issues, I'd still buy models for rpgs and to paint as well as novels to read. Eventually, those stopped too. I hoped the primaris edition reset (8th?) would have signaled a change but the churn continued.
“I wonder if its a partly cultural thing? Only I seem to see this "we can only play as its written in the rule book" extreme purity reported by people in the USA. Which could be just that there's more in the USA talking on dakka so I'm picking up on it more, or could be a cultural thing. ”
Weve wondered that too. Reading or watching UK battle reports always seems to be fellas who either just had a beer together or were planning on one afterwards. Generally friendly, good sports for the most part. I’m certain it’s mostly greener grass syndrome but game philosophy certainly feels like it’s different in the states from some places.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
For a rulebook that cost $20 and hasn't had an update in 15 years? That's a perfectly reasonable expectation.
For a ruleset that costs many times that, has near monthly updates and despite decades of opportunities is still as riddled with balance problems and errors as it was in the 90s? Less so.
Not that I'm under any illusions that the balance churn isn't working as intended because they get higher sales from constant flux than working towards some sort of end point of "balanced."
I'm with you on the balance churn 'working as intended'. That's clearly the current sales model. My suggestion is, don't keep up. Play with the books you like and agree with your opponent to ignore others. If everyone knows the army you're bringing is 'unbalanced', make use of that in your game. Give the weaker army the advantage or set up a game scenario that doesn't cater to those strengths. There's so many ways to use the tools the rules writers provide to do more and have a better time, but 40K/AoS are simply relegated to '2000 points, GT packet missions, pick up games with whoever's at the store'. That sucks, and some of it is on the players.
Oh, I'm well off that treadmill dear boy. I've moved on to games I enjoy, and, aside from a firmly low priority 30K modelling project, there's little I buy these days from GW except paint.
I'm just keeping a weather eye out for the day they make another 40K edition I want to get involved with again, even if that's only looking likely by accident these days.
I've been off the treadmill for a while, though getting back into painting minis now and taking a look. But holy crap GW stuff is hard to justify if you're not playing. I reckon everything is at least 1/3rd more than I'd want to pay so at least at 20%ish off I can handle it.
Take that Christmas orc rocker guy. £21 for a single 32mm mini is crazy; I can buy a squad of something or a huge reaper mini for that. For 20% less at £16.80? That's painful but I can handle it.
Of course, people will buy up that rocker guy because it'll be out of production by Christmas and it's pretty much guaranteed to make profit.
And while, theoretically, you could hope to hold on to GW minis for years to make money, that's quite a different business plan. You would want to sell stock in order to get cash to buy more stock. Like a shop.
Ultimately Scalping is exploiting the law of one price. Within reason GW or FLGS have to sell to everyone at one price. But as we see in this thread, the value people assign to such things is all over the place. There will be some people who really want certain things. So if you can buy that stock and find those people, you can make the profit on the difference. But if those people can get the product at the regular price, they will do that and not buy from you.
Scalpers don't scalp stuff that has an open supply, so it's clearly more about supply.
Time on quantity limited figures like games day minis? Perfect for scalpers, because they won't expire and people will be forced to pay whatever the asking price as the supply drops to 0.
The same happens when Lego kids stop production; people will drive round the stores and buy up all the stock because the price will only go up.
The same largely applies to festivals and concerts - they don't happen that often and an artist may not be back to a city for years if ever, so if it sells out then fans will be forced to pay way above market value for tickets or miss out. Like Blink 182 - their gigs sold out within a day and tickets were available for 10x the original price.
The only time it's based on price and not supply is something like a Space Marine squad box is exploiting regional pricing - buy it at 20% off in the UK and then sell it to someone in Australia for more than retail because it's still cheaper for them than buying locally.
This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.
The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.
This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.
My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.
The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.
Part of it might also just be the perception of the job market.
It's easy to be bolder when you can leave work in the morning and have another job by the afternoon. These days just landing a half decent job isn't all that easy. So I suspect many people are more defensive and wand their boss on their side if they do anything risky. Because the potential blowback can be extreme. Esp with the internet able to whip up a storm in a teacup and many firms caving over a weekend of bad publicity before the internet forgets it and moves on. For an artist that might be a big concern for them, that if they go too far suddenly they are out of a job and landing a new one might be extremely difficult.
Hence a desire to toe the line a bit more.
Then again they are also kids in school and, well, listening to authority figures is kinda drummed into you at school. Esp if its a good school were the kids are generally well behaved and such.
As for communities hashing out rules on their own, Age of Sigmar sparked a huge wave of that upon its launch. Indeed it encouraged that behaviour. The reason it didn't last is because different groups want to play together. It's hard to organise that if everyone is using their own rules. So I'd wager a big part of it is that local groups are potentially more connected (or aspire to be more connected) to a chain of other clubs and groups. Furthermore individuals within groups want to compete and play within larger group events, so they want to play the standard rules system. So everyone gravitates toward a standard (even if its not the best) because they want to experience going to that major tournament event and such. Plus with wargames taking hours, many people don't have the time to play every evening of a week so they can easily play multiple game systems and rules.
Overread wrote: Historical is almost a retirement hobby though and some elements are different. Eg for them the rules are more about simulation than in fantasy/scifi wargames.
Plus they endlessly tinker with the representative numbers. It's just based upon hew historical documents of past battles and wars.
Plus there are loads of firms making new models for historical games. There's always a new sherman or tiger tank
Sheesh. Way to stereotype historical wargamers. In the same light I guess all 40k players are either greasy spotty smelly teenagers who are scared of girls, or single fat bearded middle-aged whales.
This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.
This seems true. But I think it stems from the way these folks are bred in the GW environment. If there isn't a new set of rules and books every 2-3 years then the game is "dead". The problem is that other game companies now follow this awful GW methodology. Good for profit, maybe, but bad for gaming. A new edition should be to fix rules, bring in errata etc, not just change the game to re-sell it.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Is there anything in the board gaming space that is similar or has similar issues in writing and editing that GW written rules have?
Gloomhaven looks like expensive piece of kit. Are the rules playable out of the box? Well crafted and edited? (love or hate it the rules are easily followed?)
There are poor rules and poor editing but GW have made both a feature of their product. In the same space is there any other games maker who shows an equal disregard in their own printed materials?
I'm only 23 and I've played at least two games of Bolt Action. I would like to think I break the stereotype, but historical wargames have a broader base than just retirement age guys.
RaptorusRex wrote: I'm only 23 and I've played at least two games of Bolt Action. I would like to think I break the stereotype, but historical wargames have a broader base than just retirement age guys.
Bolt Action and to a degree Flames of War do tend to buck the "only boomers play historicals" myth, although it still skews older than 40k.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.
To emphasise the question, if you have the rules, you and your opponents both dislike rule A, why can you not agree to not use rule A or to modify it to a manner more pleasing to you both?
You're not alone on this forum but there's a nugget of people who seem to actively despise the rules and subject themselves to abject horror by playing something they hate as RAW almost to prove some weird point.
RaptorusRex wrote: I'm only 23 and I've played at least two games of Bolt Action. I would like to think I break the stereotype, but historical wargames have a broader base than just retirement age guys.
Bolt Action and to a degree Flames of War do tend to buck the "only boomers play historicals" myth, although it still skews older than 40k.
I've worked in both a GW and FLGS (many years ago now). You did used to get a series of younger kids/teenagers that played GW games; If they didn't stop altogether when they hit early/mid-teens (due to other distractions) they sometimes moved over to historicals. As I worked in the FLGS after the GW, they were quite often the kids I recognised from coming into the GW from several years before, and then were getting into FoW (this was the most popular historicals game at the time, before Bolt Action really started to take off).
> Gloomhaven looks like expensive piece of kit. Are the rules playable out of the box? Well crafted and edited? (love or hate it the rules are easily followed?)
Yes, but GH is more of a hybrid boardgame, so playtested boardgamey mechanics are more important than thematic dakka dakka simulation.
> To emphasise the question, if you have the rules, you and your opponents both dislike rule A, why can you not agree to not use rule A or to modify it to a manner more pleasing to you both?
Actually, wrtGH (: many boardgamers who prefer simulation were positively apoplectic that you could not pick up the loot after killing all the bad guys. The reason is that, as a boardgame, the game is designed to force players into making "meaningful decisions", often the decision being whether or not to make an attack and help the party reach its objective, or grab loot to help yourself. Changing this rule makes the game easier, which reduces the challenge of the game.
That said, we pay game designers to design games. Changing a rule implies that the game designer hasn't done their job. I'm sure, though, what a "game" means to a player is subjective, and how far a game can deviate from their definition before not being bought is subjective as well. I'm usually more critical of boardgame design because I'm into that "balance" thing (: while with miniature games, I'm fine with changing rules (and don't get me started on terrain placement (: because sometimes an edge case will lead to odd behavior or results that break immersion.
Then again they are also kids in school and, well, listening to authority figures is kinda drummed into you at school. Esp if its a good school were the kids are generally well behaved and such.
American colleges have a tradition of student rebellion. Occupy the dean's office. Protest on the square. Art schools have always been noted for in-your-face attacks on the status quo. Now they're all about conforming. So yeah, there's a generational component to it.
As for the rules churn, yes, that's absolutely a factor. When the 3rd ed. came out, GW promised that they had fixed the wild imbalances of 2nd ed. (see also, Space Wolves armies with nothing but terminators using assault cannon).
They had an org chart, and selections, and set scenarios and stuff. The idea was you could put any army against any other and somehow the points and the org chart would make it fair, but it didn't.
And that's pretty much still going on. I'm firmly in the "narrative/cooperative effort" camp of how to have a fun game. My group comes up with fun ideas for scenarios, throw out oddball armies that fit and then play for fun rather than victory at any cost.
But I don't think that's the mainstream of the "GW Hobby."
Dudeface wrote: To emphasise the question, if you have the rules, you and your opponents both dislike rule A, why can you not agree to not use rule A or to modify it to a manner more pleasing to you both?
Because it's far more likely that one person likes rule A but the other person doesn't, or that rule A is also related to rules B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L such that changing A has a bunch of other effects that have to be accounted for and just putting up with A is easier than figuring out how to overhaul large sections of the game. Simple cases of "just don't use A" are relatively rare.
Mr. Burning wrote: Is there anything in the board gaming space that is similar or has similar issues in writing and editing that GW written rules have?
Gloomhaven looks like expensive piece of kit. Are the rules playable out of the box? Well crafted and edited? (love or hate it the rules are easily followed?)
There are poor rules and poor editing but GW have made both a feature of their product. In the same space is there any other games maker who shows an equal disregard in their own printed materials?
There were some fairly significant balance changes between the first and second Gloomhaven printings. But then once they had it right they just stopped as there's no need to make further changes.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.
Should the Votaan codex been released as is, yes or no?
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.
Should the Votaan codex been released as is, yes or no?
Probably not, no. It would have been better to release it in the state its in now. Can you now answer the question instead of trying to deflect?
From observation, the poster in question has two settings - deflect, or attack.
"Engage in good faith" doesn't seem to be something they understand, unfortunately.
+ + +
I did see a topic around here somewhere, I think - has anyone heard any more about which regions this price increase is going to affect, or are we still waiting on further details?
When I started a box of 20 guardsmen was $50 AUD. That was from GW directly. They were much less from a discount retailer, from memory, I was paying about $37.50 AUD.
The old Cadian Battleforce box was $150 AUD. Which had 20 guardsmen, 3 heavy weapon teams, a leman russ, and terrain. I was paying about $112.50 AUD from the shop I went to.
Now-a-days they're $77 AUD for 10 models. So if I wanted to buy 100 guardsmen now, that's $770 AUD from GW or about $616 from a discount retailer. Back then it was $250 AUD from GW and $187.50 from the shop I went to. Which is pretty ridiculous and I would have never started this hobby at todays prices.
Dysartes wrote: From observation, the poster in question has two settings - deflect, or attack.
"Engage in good faith" doesn't seem to be something they understand, unfortunately.
+ + +
I did see a topic around here somewhere, I think - has anyone heard any more about which regions this price increase is going to affect, or are we still waiting on further details?
Think we are waiting on further details.
Stocking/supply issues are going to matter as well. My FLGS is having issues with getting the stock they want in and isn't offering a such a great discount as they previously did.
I would assume higher value/volume trade accounts could negotiate a staggered increase.
Mr. Burning wrote: Is there anything in the board gaming space that is similar or has similar issues in writing and editing that GW written rules have?
Gloomhaven looks like expensive piece of kit. Are the rules playable out of the box? Well crafted and edited? (love or hate it the rules are easily followed?)
There are poor rules and poor editing but GW have made both a feature of their product. In the same space is there any other games maker who shows an equal disregard in their own printed materials?
I am not aware of any other game, be it a wargame or board game, with GW level of issues
most have some sort of problems with their first Edition, but those are either removed with FAQ/Errata or handled with a 2nd Edition, that a game has the same problems over several Editions and a simple "but the next time it will be solved" is enough to keep it running is pretty much unique to GW
kodos wrote: I am not aware of any other game, be it a wargame or board game, with GW level of issues
Then you're not aware of many games, I take. Either paper or computer ones. In almost everything you can find some sort of wombo combo, it's just that 40K not only has many more people looking, it has a lot of WAAAC types willing to pee all over fluff and fun of both sides to cherrypick whatever brainless "I win" netlist button they can find.
To give you one example, XCOM (the new PC skirmish game) is pretty well balanced, except for some reason level 2 medic is very competitively priced given his stats (better than any other operative at the same price point). This is pretty obscure because few players take one medic, let alone more or upgraded ones, so it's overlooked option (doubly so because people don't take medics for shooting skills and pay attention to his utility stuff first, which is probably why this slipped through playtesting)... But if you suddenly see a spam team of 5 upgraded medics without a single medkit, loaded up with plasma guns, you can be confident it's a netlister. If it's balanced team composition like it's supposed to be in fluff, I am strangely sure there is much smaller chance the opponent will be unpleasant tryhard and will instead try to win on skill merit, not on edge case abuse.
That said, GW has issue that inept writers grandfathered in because they joined 20 years ago and now they are way too senior and well connected to be fired because they can't write good fluff or rules on modern level (*cough* Cruddace *cough* Kelly *cough* Tau dude), sure. New companies on tabletop market have to hit at least okay quality from the get go or they go bankrupt. Still, GW used to have good rule writers - one was screeched out of company by 4chan level for a single line of fluff in his books he didn't even write despite making the best, most balanced, and frankly fun edition in 40K history, the 5th one. Go figure. This is the best proof rules quality, being friendly towards conversions, and having tons of ways of building balanced, varied army doesn't sell.
The other made some really fun, tight rules (Betrayal at Calth was excellent skirmish game) - cue clowns on forums smugly talking how they never tried it (and in fact gloating they instantly trashed the game having bought it for minis only). I still remember facepalming at this idiocy back then. He also left company because none of his systems got praise (and thus financial recognition) they deserved thanks to being side products and HH/40K players clinging to their main games and being unwilling to try something new. GW eventually did built some successful things based on his rules, even if no longer as good, tight and well balanced - but I am not sure if they still have anyone capable of repeating this. Maybe in AoS team, they seem to be much more capable and willing to write good army books and game systems than 40K side of company does...
so you consider 1 broken unit in a game that is 2 Editions old (there is no XCOM3 yet?) to be the same level of broken as 40k that is 9 Editions old and still suffer from Alpha Strike in General and not just 1 broken unit type?
than of course every single game out there has the very same issues as 40k even Monopoly is just as badly written as 40k if you now get down that rabbit whole
I never bought the prospero box because of Calth. Specifically, because it wasn’t an extension of the Betrayal at Calth rules. I have no idea what they thought they were doing with that system. I tried it out in a store demo and bounced off hard. Calth was so much better as a game it’s scarcely credible.
Mr. Burning wrote: Is there anything in the board gaming space that is similar or has similar issues in writing and editing that GW written rules have?
Gloomhaven looks like expensive piece of kit. Are the rules playable out of the box? Well crafted and edited? (love or hate it the rules are easily followed?)
There are poor rules and poor editing but GW have made both a feature of their product. In the same space is there any other games maker who shows an equal disregard in their own printed materials?
I am not aware of any other game, be it a wargame or board game, with GW level of issues
most have some sort of problems with their first Edition, but those are either removed with FAQ/Errata or handled with a 2nd Edition, that a game has the same problems over several Editions and a simple "but the next time it will be solved" is enough to keep it running is pretty much unique to GW
Underworlds was a pretty well designed, tight system that they seemed to then go break on purpose in various future seasons so they could then "fix" it - it's quite weird.
A tiny bit of me, admittedly it may have some tin foil involved, thinks that, in part, that historical games are seen as skewing slightly older maybe due to GW's success'
Many many moons ago when I was at Secondary School (11-16 for non UK dakkas) there was a wargaming club at the local RAF base, and even with the teenager tendency to label anyone over 30 as "old" it was a fair mix of ages, mostly Napoleonics and Ancients as best I recall
Fast forward to when my old FLGS opened (1994ish) and locally it was all about the 40k, with a splash of WHFB, given this was pre-internet there may well have been pockets of historical gamers but I don't recall any (the base also changed from RAF to Marines so the club stopped I think)
Given I'm lumbering towards the big 50 and GW games were till about a decade ago the only wargames I played, I'm guessing any of the players from the RAF club are of retirement and above age
remembering back of the old days, I and some others were the old guys in the store played 40k and the young ones (<20) all played Flames of War and Lord of the Rings, while the competitive gamers played Warhammer Fantasy
deano2099 wrote: Underworlds was a pretty well designed, tight system that they seemed to then go break on purpose in various future seasons so they could then "fix" it - it's quite weird.
funny, the guy running the FLGS back in the days once said, for every other game it is wait for the 2nd Edition before you go big but for a GW game lets hope they never make one
and this is still kind of true, the best GW games are those that never saw a 2nd Edition with Blood Bowl being the exception but mostly because of the community LRB
kodos wrote: I am not aware of any other game, be it a wargame or board game, with GW level of issues
Then you're not aware of many games, I take.
To be fair, I can't think of another wargame that has simultaneously sustained such a burden of issues and widespread success for decades on end. GW's near-monopoly in the Sci-Fi wargaming sphere has insulated them from directly observable consequences; no one can say how much more success they could have had, if different decisions were made. Compared to Coke losing market share, it is directly observable via Pepsi's gain.
On the fantasy side of things the competition is small, but it does exist, and continues to do so with a decent degree of stability. AoS does better because it needs to do better; WHFB 8th and AoS 0.5 made it abundantly clear that if the game isn't good people will not play it.
To draw an entirely reasonable conclusion from the above: the reason 40k's game state so bad is the Ultramarine's fault for being so popular /s
NinthMusketeer wrote: Warcry 2nd edition is great, precisely because they changed almost nothing about the rules.
Whereas 40k continues to suffer from people who are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel every chance they get, with new paradigms and forms of escalation coming into play, or popular solutions to problems they created themselves (a lot of the damage mitigation rules in 9th are continued attempts to patch the lethality of 8th/9th 40k) being tweaked from book to book. They only treat symptoms, which is why we get bizzare rules like the Daemon Save that isn't an Invulnerable Save, so can't be ignored by the weapons that (arbitrarily) ignore invul saves, a type of save you shouldn't be able to ignore in the first place.
Meanwhile, BattleTech is - technically - on it's, what 7th Edition? 8th? I think they've changed two major rules in that time.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.
Should the Votaan codex been released as is, yes or no?
Probably not, no. It would have been better to release it in the state its in now. Can you now answer the question instead of trying to deflect?
What question needs to be answered? That I don't buy GW rules because they're changed BY NECESSITY two weeks later and therefore invalidate their own printed material? Yeah you're right, I don't buy GW printed material, and I encourage other people to do the same.
That's why I pose the question regarding Votaan to you and how you, and others on the forum, did overall defend GW on what was clearly a lopsided release in terms of balance and quality. I do hope GW lost money on the Votaan release.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.
Should the Votaan codex been released as is, yes or no?
Probably not, no. It would have been better to release it in the state its in now. Can you now answer the question instead of trying to deflect?
What question needs to be answered? That I don't buy GW rules because they're changed BY NECESSITY two weeks later and therefore invalidate their own printed material? Yeah you're right, I don't buy GW printed material, and I encourage other people to do the same.
That's why I pose the question regarding Votaan to you and how you, and others on the forum, did overall defend GW on what was clearly a lopsided release in terms of balance and quality. I do hope GW lost money on the Votaan release.
This is the question, you handily cut it out of your response:
To emphasise the question, if you have the rules, you and your opponents both dislike rule A, why can you not agree to not use rule A or to modify it to a manner more pleasing to you both?
And has nothing to do with Votann. You also mistaking it by seeing people ad defending the state of the Votann book, when many were defending the integrity of their defined process. They made changes completely blind as to how much impact they'd have due to a lack of data. I don't see you and your buddies decrying other releases that are broken in the same way.
The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.
Andykp wrote: The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.
In wargaming for sure. But in terms of the discussion of other stuff like Underworlds (which is an expandable board game), and the new Warhammer Quest games, they very much don't make the most money. It's a valid marketing model but it's not necessarily "the best".
This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.
The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.
This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.
My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.
The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.
I'm not so sure. Millienials on Gen Z's are more likely to question authority, whilst older folk are more likely to go along with it.
I think it's skewed by the material available. Gamers older than maybe 30-ish came from a much more self sufficient space, where minis and games were detached and some element of DIY was necessary. It was actively encouraged too. I'm 40 and remember White Dwarf magazines that came with plans to scratchbuild vehicles they had rules for but not models, suggestions on mini games and the likes.
Now from the GW sphere it's very locked down - you get the official minis and the official rules and that's it.
But with historics in particular, where there's almost no link between rules and minis (except for perhaps Flames of War), home brew rules and modification is much more commonly accepted by the norm.
Then with older gamers favouring historics, I think it's likely just people who got into gaming via GW who found the game lacking and branched out to other parts of the hobby and got engrossed over there.
So it's not an age thing as such, more an experience/expectations thing.
And yeah, if I'm buying a rule book for $50+ and it's on it's 9th iteration from the biggest company in the industry, I expect it to be perfect. I don't expect to be seeing typos on the first page, or horrible balance.
I didn't mind it for the old rules from the 80's that were black and white typewriter photocopies with a color cover, but then they cost like $5 and were written and produced by some dude called Gerald in his shed so he could game the a very specific battle from the Napoleonic campaign.
Andykp wrote: The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.
In wargaming for sure. But in terms of the discussion of other stuff like Underworlds (which is an expandable board game), and the new Warhammer Quest games, they very much don't make the most money. It's a valid marketing model but it's not necessarily "the best".
They clearly aren’t setting out to make the “best game”, but while the money is coming in they won’t be changing anytime soon.
Meanwhile, BattleTech is - technically - on it's, what 7th Edition? 8th? I think they've changed two major rules in that time.
8th and technically we currently see the release of a 9th Edition
and no one is asking catalyst to do a full reboot/reset for 10th because by some wired magic the game still works
Not a fan of Battletech, played it from time to time because it was what was out there. I haven't looked at it in 20 years, but I'm assuming the core mechanics are the same.
The remarkable thing about GW is how much they've modified 40k to the point that it's not really the same game. I mean, the stat lines have seen significant alteration as has the turn sequence. Though even older, Dungeons and Dragons still uses the same core stat lines, the iconic "hit points" and "armor class" etc. Indeed, last time I checked, the current version is a strong reversion to the system used during the 80s.
Of course, RPGs by definition are very individualized, but miniatures games should have some sort of consistency and commonality because there's only so many ways to conduct a firefight.
I bailed out when it became clear that all my 3rd ed. books were now going to be resold to me because GW had now decided on a 3-4 year product cycle and at the time I simply couldn't afford to keep buying books on that basis. Others are, which is a remarkable thing.
A lot of people want to know why someone would keep doing that, but my question is simply: where do you find the space to keep all those books?
Andykp wrote: The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.
In wargaming for sure. But in terms of the discussion of other stuff like Underworlds (which is an expandable board game), and the new Warhammer Quest games, they very much don't make the most money. It's a valid marketing model but it's not necessarily "the best".
They clearly aren’t setting out to make the “best game”, but while the money is coming in they won’t be changing anytime soon.
I agree but I think they're leaving money on the table. Their board game minis are the best in the business, the artwork and presentation is always strong... if they can build a dungeon crawler where the rules and content are on par with something like Gloomhaven or even Descent, it'll be the biggest game of its kind ever.
They seem not to care on the basis that the games sell anyway and even if the rules are bad, people will buy them for the minis. But the board game market is so huge right now they're leaving cash on the table.
Looking at Blood Bowl they have been very subtle with updating the team rosters so that existing/old teams (many of which had been catered for by 3rd party producers) have had their roster changed. So myself and fellow grognards who want to play with the new rules need to buy a few new minis or a new team. The same with the rule changes really, I could count on one hand the number of meaningful changes the new version has brought in (with some useless re-labelling, changing 'Go for it' to 'dash' for instance). Did it need a new version and rulebook? Absolutely not, it has done nothing to improve the game by any meaningful measure.
It has also just made league planners' lives a little bit harder as they have to go through removing the poorly thought out new changes (mercs for example), limiting start players, or having to make rulings on the new FAQ releases (because, again, it seems poorly thought out).
And all the time, you are just thinking through gritted teeth .. "leave... it... the ... feth.... alone" But, it's part of the business model, and you have to think it's actually in their interests to have imbalanced rules and a constant stream of new books and miniatures. You can keep on doing that because, by and large, at least in the sci-fi market they have a near monopoly.
But the board game market is so huge right now they're leaving cash on the table.
I'm not sure current day GW would be up to the task in terms of delivering a quality product similar to the examples you mentioned. While I agree that a portion of customers does buy these games for their miniatures, even if the games turn out to be unappealing, I suspect the majority is primarily looking for a good game, which is something GW tends to struggle with these days. This is the dividing line between wargamers and board gamers.
That being said, if GW were to start a Kickstarter campaign for a project of this scope, their unique position in terms of popularity and IP strength could allow them to set an unprecedented funding goal. With that, they could leave their conservative approach behind and go all out hiring the most expensive game devs, voice actors etc to deliver a high-end product.
If GW did a Space Marines Kickstarter Boardgame it could indeed possibly one of the highest funding KS model campaigns ever, quite easily.
At the same time I don't think GW would want to hand 10% of that income to KS just to be on KS. GW doesn't need the marketing KS brings to fund raise.
GW are also famous for not taking on debts and, in theory, a KS is a loan that you take out to produce a product. GW tends to prefer to operate with zero loan overhead and instead uses the money they generate to invest into future product lines.
Pacific wrote: Looking at Blood Bowl they have been very subtle with updating the team rosters so that existing/old teams (many of which had been catered for by 3rd party producers) have had their roster changed. So myself and fellow grognards who want to play with the new rules need to buy a few new minis or a new team. The same with the rule changes really, I could count on one hand the number of meaningful changes the new version has brought in (with some useless re-labelling, changing 'Go for it' to 'dash' for instance). Did it need a new version and rulebook? Absolutely not, it has done nothing to improve the game by any meaningful measure.
On paper, I quite like the idea of splitting Agility and Passing as stats, though I'll stress that I've not had the chance to play a game of the current edition.
They did manage to do the one thing I always want them to do in editions when they don't, though - made it crystal clear when you get to decide to use Mighty Blow. Always annoys me when they do an edition that doesn't say when you get to choose to use it, just because of the arguments it'll cause down the line...
Overread wrote: If GW did a Space Marines Kickstarter Boardgame it could indeed possibly one of the highest funding KS model campaigns ever, quite easily.
At the same time I don't think GW would want to hand 10% of that income to KS just to be on KS. GW doesn't need the marketing KS brings to fund raise.
GW are also famous for not taking on debts and, in theory, a KS is a loan that you take out to produce a product. GW tends to prefer to operate with zero loan overhead and instead uses the money they generate to invest into future product lines.
If they viewed this as an advertising opportunity, it could be really, really big.
A re-re-re-release of Space Hulk or Warhammer Quest (original style) would probably make the most money, but I could see it also as a test bed for their more esoteric boxed games like Man o' War or Epic.
Space Hulk would likely be the best option, as it is a perennial favorite, been around for decades, and is currently unavailable. Heck, they could even use the Space Marine Heroes 2 as new additions to the game.
So many possibilities there.
Even if they offered a straight reprint, it would make real money. And stretch goals? Just more plastic. They already own the relevant molds for the minis, so a couple of cents per frame per $50-$100K and watch the numbers rise.
Thing is GW can do a re-release through their own marketing channels, though their own website and sell it direct. Why pay Kickstarter 10% when GW will likely reach just as big a market on their own.
KS makes a lot of sense for smaller firms and those who need investment or which are taking a risk and want to mitigate that risk; or to get enough pre-orders gathered into make it affordable to make mass production orders with manufacturers.
GW doesn't need to do any of that. The own most of their own production; they've a very healthy income that gives them enough cash to invest into such a product and make the orders themselves. Heck they could even run a pre-order KS like campaign of their own with a bit of website development and the like.
GW can basically do it all in house and don't really benefit from what KS brings to the table.
And all the time, you are just thinking through gritted teeth .. "leave... it... the ... feth.... alone"
My thoughts exactly re: Blood Bowl. The game was in a very good state for 15 years after GW abandoned it. 2016 GW BB I didn't mind so much as they essentially copied/pasted the Living Rule Book that the BB community/fans had developed. 2020 GW BB got me worried with the "changes for the sake of change" mentality and starting up the GW rules churn treadmill a la 40k.
Overread wrote: Why pay Kickstarter 10% when GW will likely reach just as big a market on their own.
Because they can't. Kickstarter is several times as exposed as GW marketing, especially to board game crowds. It's more present in the "mainstream", if you will. I'm convinced that KS would be a net boon in that regard.
Then there is the fact that KS has an established and tested infrastructure for crowdfunding in place, while GW would have to build one from the ground up. Then again, WH+ has shown that they are not adverse to building new infrastructure to support new concepts.
Anyway, I'm sure they are well aware of that market and have considered these things internally.
deano2099 wrote: I agree but I think they're leaving money on the table. Their board game minis are the best in the business, the artwork and presentation is always strong... if they can build a dungeon crawler where the rules and content are on par with something like Gloomhaven or even Descent, it'll be the biggest game of its kind ever.
Debatable. Their minis might be the best minis in boardgames, but they are not the best minis for boardgames. They are fiddlier, more fragile, and they need assembly, while for boardgames it's better to have tougher minis that come as ready to use as possible.
Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?
Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?
I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.
Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?
Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?
Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.
Should the Votaan codex been released as is, yes or no?
Probably not, no. It would have been better to release it in the state its in now. Can you now answer the question instead of trying to deflect?
What question needs to be answered? That I don't buy GW rules because they're changed BY NECESSITY two weeks later and therefore invalidate their own printed material? Yeah you're right, I don't buy GW printed material, and I encourage other people to do the same.
That's why I pose the question regarding Votaan to you and how you, and others on the forum, did overall defend GW on what was clearly a lopsided release in terms of balance and quality. I do hope GW lost money on the Votaan release.
This is the question, you handily cut it out of your response:
To emphasise the question, if you have the rules, you and your opponents both dislike rule A, why can you not agree to not use rule A or to modify it to a manner more pleasing to you both?
And has nothing to do with Votann. You also mistaking it by seeing people ad defending the state of the Votann book, when many were defending the integrity of their defined process. They made changes completely blind as to how much impact they'd have due to a lack of data. I don't see you and your buddies decrying other releases that are broken in the same way.
Because it's more than Rule A. It's Rule A, B, and C. Those rules are connected to Rules D, E, and F in some manner.
If you agree that the Votaan codex shouldn't have been released as is, you should understand why saying "just ignore Rule A" doesn't actually work. It's also a matter of principle GW needs to write functional rules.
Overread wrote: Why pay Kickstarter 10% when GW will likely reach just as big a market on their own.
Because they can't. Kickstarter is several times as exposed as GW marketing, especially to board game crowds. It's more present in the "mainstream", if you will. I'm convinced that KS would be a net boon in that regard.
Eh I don't really know if it is.
KS doesn't really market for you at all. Yes you're on KS which adds a level of legitimacy to campaigns from very new or small/niche firms. However what marketing you actually get depends on what marketing you put into it on your own. I've seen great looking campaigns that failed to fund or only funded slightly because the company put almost no effort (or put poor/incorrect effort) into marketing. Meanwhile many of the biggest campaigns come with pre-loaded fanbases. Be it something like a firm or a known IP. Both are pre-loaded with fans.
Board games do have quite an established crowed on KS, but at the same time the boardgames I see doing really well tend to be
1) From firms that have run many campaigns before and built up a fanbase for themselves that has grown each time
2) From known/major IP franchises
3) From established firms in the BG market going into KS as a new outlet.
4) Firms that put a lot of money and time into pre-KS marketing campaigns.
Many that do well often have multiple videos with key youtube channels; attend big conventions with demo stalls; do demo games with online game playing systems and such.
Basically just appearing on KS alone does nothing because KS won't market for you. If GW went on KS you can bet they'd get a huge funding amount yes, but how many would be legitimately new customers and how many would simply be drawn in from their established customerbase. Furthermore any marketing they did for KS they could do for themselves on their own site. GW has a big established brand; they are a known firm and reliable. So its not as hard to convince people to sign up to their website and such.
And all the time, you are just thinking through gritted teeth .. "leave... it... the ... feth.... alone"
My thoughts exactly re: Blood Bowl. The game was in a very good state for 15 years after GW abandoned it. 2016 GW BB I didn't mind so much as they essentially copied/pasted the Living Rule Book that the BB community/fans had developed. 2020 GW BB got me worried with the "changes for the sake of change" mentality and starting up the GW rules churn treadmill a la 40k.
Agreed. The 2016 release was the first step on getting bb on the churn mill. Making Passing its own stat breaks down the monolith. New players won’t want to go back and veteran players now have a choice of playing only LRB/16 or updating. Leaving it alone meant money for third party folks. Now the rules and rescaled board/templates are things you have to get directly from the source. GW have reclaimed the drivers seat
This might well be a misconception of mine, so please take it with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen and heard, Kickstarter projects are advertised on social media (that's in regular ads, while GW marketing seems to be restricted to followers of their channels).
It could be the actual developers advertising with KS branded material, but it's there and regularly appears in my ads feed.
Just appearing on KS might also help in the sense of exposure to people who already have a KS account (and receive recommendations, newsletters etc), especially those that already have backed similar campaigns in the past. To me that market is entirely separate from the GW core customer base and their marketing. Again, this might be selective/anecdotal perception on my part.
This might well be a misconception of mine, so please take it with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen and heard, Kickstarter projects are advertised on social media (that's in regular ads, while GW marketing seems to be restricted to followers of their channels). It could be the actual developers advertising with KS branded material, but it's there and regularly appears in my ads feed.
It is in fact a misconception of yours. Next time you see one on Facebook, actually look at which page is posting it, I guarantee you it will be the company running the Kickstarter or an affiliated group/company. Kickstarter does no marketing or advertising beyond what's on their front page. As well, that's advertisement cultivated for you due to your browsing history and interests. My wife, for example, gets NO Kickstarter ads on her feed because there's nothing in their algorithm to feed her from Kickstarter, partly because she's never been on Kickstarter.
Yeah, KS doesn't do any extra "advertising" other than it showing up on their own page, really.
Also, there are several folks out there (myself included) who dislike seeing larger established companies (GW definitely falls in this category) use KS to launch a product. This is less common a feeling anymore, but there are definitely those that view it as "bad form," considering KS to be something for "smaller" companies to try to get things launched. CMON and Reaper have kinda shattered that, though, and routinely use it as a pre-order system.
I can't see GW really benefiting from doing something via KS. Sure, they might get a few more clicks from people randomly coming across it on their KS searches, but I don't think it'd be enough of a bump to justify the KS costs, frankly.
Heck in the 3D printing world quite a few now run a patreon for several months and then do a Kickstarter with those same models. It often does pretty well because you get all the people who found you through the Patreon late joining up to get models they missed out on. Plus hte marketing boost. Plus the fact that there's a good many who don't want a subscription system and prefer a one and done purchase.
I think the bad-taste of bigger firms using KS can still be valid, but personally I don't mind it. In my mind many of those big firms still might not have done those projects if they'd not had the KS to generate the income.
Even healthy firms sometimes need a cash injection to get the ball rolling which means either waiting a lot longer to save up (with the inevitable "disaster caused us to spend the money early" risk); or take on investors or take out loans - the latter two of which can end up being a bleed on a firm. I'd rather a firm owed its debt to KS customers in the form of a product than debt to an investor or loan
Overread wrote: KS has evolved from its roots and diversified.
Heck in the 3D printing world quite a few now run a patreon for several months and then do a Kickstarter with those same models. It often does pretty well because you get all the people who found you through the Patreon late joining up to get models they missed out on. Plus hte marketing boost. Plus the fact that there's a good many who don't want a subscription system and prefer a one and done purchase.
I think the bad-taste of bigger firms using KS can still be valid, but personally I don't mind it. In my mind many of those big firms still might not have done those projects if they'd not had the KS to generate the income.
Even healthy firms sometimes need a cash injection to get the ball rolling which means either waiting a lot longer to save up (with the inevitable "disaster caused us to spend the money early" risk); or take on investors or take out loans - the latter two of which can end up being a bleed on a firm. I'd rather a firm owed its debt to KS customers in the form of a product than debt to an investor or loan
Yeah, I'm mostly showing my old-pantsness. STL packages on Kickstarter are definitely a common thing now, and like I mentioned, CMON and Reaper (and several others) use it as a pre-order system, and the stigma against that has lessened a lot.
But, I still can't see GW gaining enough from the platform in terms of "extra reach" to justify giving them 10%.
Pacific wrote: Looking at Blood Bowl they have been very subtle with updating the team rosters so that existing/old teams (many of which had been catered for by 3rd party producers) have had their roster changed. So myself and fellow grognards who want to play with the new rules need to buy a few new minis or a new team. The same with the rule changes really, I could count on one hand the number of meaningful changes the new version has brought in (with some useless re-labelling, changing 'Go for it' to 'dash' for instance). Did it need a new version and rulebook? Absolutely not, it has done nothing to improve the game by any meaningful measure.
There was nothing "subtle" about the changes to the current edition of Blood Bowl. It was done specifically to break the community hold over the game, and make everyone reliant on GW again.
Blood Bowl is a game that did not need GW, and hadn't needed them for a very long time.
Meanwhile, BattleTech is - technically - on it's, what 7th Edition? 8th? I think they've changed two major rules in that time.
8th and technically we currently see the release of a 9th Edition
and no one is asking catalyst to do a full reboot/reset for 10th because by some wired magic the game still works
Not a fan of Battletech, played it from time to time because it was what was out there. I haven't looked at it in 20 years, but I'm assuming the core mechanics are the same.
The remarkable thing about GW is how much they've modified 40k to the point that it's not really the same game. I mean, the stat lines have seen significant alteration as has the turn sequence. Though even older, Dungeons and Dragons still uses the same core stat lines, the iconic "hit points" and "armor class" etc. Indeed, last time I checked, the current version is a strong reversion to the system used during the 80s.
Of course, RPGs by definition are very individualized, but miniatures games should have some sort of consistency and commonality because there's only so many ways to conduct a firefight.
I bailed out when it became clear that all my 3rd ed. books were now going to be resold to me because GW had now decided on a 3-4 year product cycle and at the time I simply couldn't afford to keep buying books on that basis. Others are, which is a remarkable thing.
A lot of people want to know why someone would keep doing that, but my question is simply: where do you find the space to keep all those books?
There is a lot wrong with Battletech, but the time to change it passed over 30 years ago. They could have redone the ruleset in the 80's but by now there is too much incumbency that the only way forward is to stay the same.
People as a result forgive its many flaws.
There is a lot wrong with Battletech, but the time to change it passed over 30 years ago. They could have redone the ruleset in the 80's but by now there is too much incumbency that the only way forward is to stay the same.
People as a result forgive its many flaws.
Well, whatever you think those "many flaws" are, they don't seen to have hindered the game any. Or deterred it's many fans.
Overread wrote: If GW did a Space Marines Kickstarter Boardgame it could indeed possibly one of the highest funding KS model campaigns ever, quite easily.
At the same time I don't think GW would want to hand 10% of that income to KS just to be on KS. GW doesn't need the marketing KS brings to fund raise.
GW are also famous for not taking on debts and, in theory, a KS is a loan that you take out to produce a product. GW tends to prefer to operate with zero loan overhead and instead uses the money they generate to invest into future product lines.
If they viewed this as an advertising opportunity, it could be really, really big.
A re-re-re-release of Space Hulk or Warhammer Quest (original style) would probably make the most money, but I could see it also as a test bed for their more esoteric boxed games like Man o' War or Epic.
Space Hulk would likely be the best option, as it is a perennial favorite, been around for decades, and is currently unavailable. Heck, they could even use the Space Marine Heroes 2 as new additions to the game.
So many possibilities there.
Even if they offered a straight reprint, it would make real money. And stretch goals? Just more plastic. They already own the relevant molds for the minis, so a couple of cents per frame per $50-$100K and watch the numbers rise.
GW would never do this... They could never charge all countries the same amount for their product. People in their home country would not pay the inflated prices of USA, Canada, or AUS. And it would look really bad if europe didn't support it. And they would never lower the prices for those other countries to European prices. This is a never scenario.
I think people are missing the point with the KS discussion here. I think the point was that *if* GW were to do a KS for a large scale board game - eg. a scaled up Space Hulk or remake of the classic WHQ, it would do crazy numbers, more than enough to justify getting a high paid designers/rules writer or two. We know this to be the case because of other such products that have succeeded in this space.
The folks saying "Why would GW use KS? They could just fund it themselves and not lose 10%." are also completely correct. They could roll their own crowdfunding platform or just pay for it upfront and release it commercially. And be just as successful as on KS. Point being, it's a way of making a huge amount of money. The platform they do it on isn't relevant. The success of large scale, expensive, deluxe board games on KS just demonstrates the market exists.
deano2099 wrote: I think people are missing the point with the KS discussion here. I think the point was that *if* GW were to do a KS for a large scale board game - eg. a scaled up Space Hulk or remake of the classic WHQ, it would do crazy numbers, more than enough to justify getting a high paid designers/rules writer or two. We know this to be the case because of other such products that have succeeded in this space.
The folks saying "Why would GW use KS? They could just fund it themselves and not lose 10%." are also completely correct. They could roll their own crowdfunding platform or just pay for it upfront and release it commercially. And be just as successful as on KS. Point being, it's a way of making a huge amount of money. The platform they do it on isn't relevant. The success of large scale, expensive, deluxe board games on KS just demonstrates the market exists.
Yeah, this is where I was originally going with this, but thanks anyway to all the people clearing up my misconception about all those KS ads. It seems all they do is provide or at least allow KS-branded material for campaigns on their platform.
There is a lot wrong with Battletech, but the time to change it passed over 30 years ago. They could have redone the ruleset in the 80's but by now there is too much incumbency that the only way forward is to stay the same.
People as a result forgive its many flaws.
Well, whatever you think those "many flaws" are, they don't seen to have hindered the game any. Or deterred it's many fans.
Which include myself.
But, I shall list a handful of them.
1. 2d6 system which makes banking dice rolls difficult and clumsy.
2. Ludicrous weapon imbalances. The devs recognise this to the point that the online games are quietly but substantially changed.
3. Fizikz that makes 40K seem rational, well almost. While remaining pressed against a yardstick of modern reality, which 40K does not as a fantast game.
4. Constant bat crazy excuses for the total war in the active timeline.
5. Weapon ranges.
There is a lot more than that, but even the most hardened fanboi should admit there are many many failings to Battletech.
The thing is, its remains a workable system and has been consistent. The community goes along with that. Could you image the problems the 40K community if the weapons imbalance commonplace to Battletech were more prominent in 40K. We don't like it when one Leman Russ gun is imbalanced compared to the others, but any of those loadouts in any edition would be paragons of game balance and erudite point balance compared to the standard weaponry in Battletech.
Battletech is given a hard pass by its community but has by and large earned it. I would not change Battletech now, but a complete rewrite of the system in say 1987 +/-1 would have made the game immeasurably better.
Well, whatever you think those "many flaws" are, they don't seen to have hindered the game any. Or deterred it's many fans.
Battletech has a really cool core mechanic where heat generation serves as a proxy for Clausewitz's "friction." One can only do so much before heat shuts you down. The alternative is finite ammunition. It's really brilliant, and that's why the game endures.
There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.
That being said, the background is brilliant, the way they advanced the technology was neat and about the only truly dumb thing about it was Comstar, aka AT&T in Space. The militant army of Ma Bell was like an extended 80s joke that got out of hand.
Non-Americans may not get that for decades, phone service in the United States was a monopoly. As in, you didn't even own your own phone. So the notion of a galactic phone company with its own quasi-religious fighting force was...amusing. But also silly.
That being said, the background is brilliant, the way they advanced the technology was neat and about the only truly dumb thing about it was Comstar, aka AT&T in Space. The militant army of Ma Bell was like an extended 80s joke that got out of hand.
Non-Americans may not get that for decades, phone service in the United States was a monopoly. As in, you didn't even own your own phone. So the notion of a galactic phone company with its own quasi-religious fighting force was...amusing. But also silly.
ComStar, like the Mechanicus, is Aasimov's Foundation Scientism in all but name.
There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.
I feel like that's a bonus in a game.
At least in so much as one big risk with games is what GW had a bit of with flying units when they added aircraft. Back then only anti-air could take them out, which meant you had to take anti air in every army. However it also meant that if you went air-heavy and your opponent only took a token anti-air; you could shut that down and then attack with a great degree of impunity. Yes that is realistic, but its not as "fun" in a game setting.
Orlanth wrote: 1. 2d6 system which makes banking dice rolls difficult and clumsy.
2. Ludicrous weapon imbalances. The devs recognise this to the point that the online games are quietly but substantially changed.
3. Fizikz that makes 40K seem rational, well almost. While remaining pressed against a yardstick of modern reality, which 40K does not as a fantast game.
4. Constant bat crazy excuses for the total war in the active timeline.
5. Weapon ranges.
Those first two are not flaws.
A 2D6 system would destroy something on the scale of 40k, but when a BTech game can literally be 1 v 1, it's not a big deal. And yes, the weapon tech is imbalanced. That's part of the setting. Some things are just flat out better than others. Technology advances. Some people get left behind. It's incorporating narrative right into the rules. That's not a flaw. That's the game working as intended.
Physics problems? It's a game about giant stompy robots. By rights the tanks in the game should be bending them over every single time, but the concession is that this is a world where 'Mechs (for whatever reason) are superior to everything anyone else has come up with. There are things that annoy me - a 1 ton piece of modular armour or a shield slows your 'Mech, but replacing that with a 1 ton laser doesn't - but they're hardly 'flaws' that would require any sort of great rewrite or new edition to fix.
The constant need for war isn't a flaw in the games rules. And weapon ranges? Who gives a feth about weapon ranges? How many games really do weapon ranges correctly? Why is this a "flaw" of BattleTech's?
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.
In 40k my Guardsmen wound Warlord Titans if they hit it on a '6'.
I'll take Machine Guns doing small amounts of chip damage over that bull gak any day of the week...
At least in so much as one big risk with games is what GW had a bit of with flying units when they added aircraft. Back then only anti-air could take them out, which meant you had to take anti air in every army. However it also meant that if you went air-heavy and your opponent only took a token anti-air; you could shut that down and then attack with a great degree of impunity. Yes that is realistic, but its not as "fun" in a game setting.
Given the scale, the inclusion of flying units in 40k was an obvious money grab. Completely inappropriate at that level of simulation and horribly unbalancing. Another factor pushing me away from the "current" game and back to an older edition.
Orlanth wrote: 1. 2d6 system which makes banking dice rolls difficult and clumsy.
2. Ludicrous weapon imbalances. The devs recognise this to the point that the online games are quietly but substantially changed.
3. Fizikz that makes 40K seem rational, well almost. While remaining pressed against a yardstick of modern reality, which 40K does not as a fantast game.
4. Constant bat crazy excuses for the total war in the active timeline.
5. Weapon ranges.
Those first two are not flaws.
A 2D6 system would destroy something on the scale of 40k, but when a BTech game can literally be 1 v 1, it's not a big deal. And yes, the weapon tech is imbalanced. That's part of the setting. Some things are just flat out better than others. Technology advances. Some people get left behind. It's incorporating narrative right into the rules. That's not a flaw. That's the game working as intended.
Physics problems? It's a game about giant stompy robots. By rights the tanks in the game should be bending them over every single time, but the concession is that this is a world where 'Mechs (for whatever reason) are superior to everything anyone else has come up with. There are things that annoy me - a 1 ton piece of modular armour or a shield slows your 'Mech, but replacing that with a 1 ton laser doesn't - but they're hardly 'flaws' that would require any sort of great rewrite or new edition to fix.
The constant need for war isn't a flaw in the games rules. And weapon ranges? Who gives a feth about weapon ranges? How many games really do weapon ranges correctly? Why is this a "flaw" of BattleTech's?
I'll agree that the 2d6 to hit for every weapon can bog things down when you get beyond 1v1, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a "flaw." Sure, it will take longer, but you wind up with more detail (which you may or not like) and the possibility of at least some of your weapons hitting a target versus an all or nothing. And yeah, rolling criticals and damage locations can also take some time. Again, though, not necessarily a "flaw," as much as a style of game.
And really no game has "realistic" weapon ranges. 40k is even more ridiculous on that front than Battletech, honestly, with your bolt pistol only having a range of what, 40 feet? That's a problem to pretty much most games, though, since realistic weapon ranges would go well across the average 4x6 game table.
And really no game has "realistic" weapon ranges. 40k is even more ridiculous on that front than Battletech, honestly, with your bolt pistol only having a range of what, 40 feet? That's a problem to pretty much most games, though, since realistic weapon ranges would go well across the average 4x6 game table.
After my fantasy rules were published (link in sig), I thought about doing a "Conqueror 40k" rule set. The first thing I realized was that if I was going to keep the scale consistent, all weapons could reach across the board. Range wasn't even a thing to worry about.
Ultimately, I abandoned the project because while 40k is deeply silly in many ways, I find 2nd ed. gets me where I want to go.
Basically, I was sick of the way GW had rendered my fantasy figures largely obsolete, so I made my own system. But when it came down to it, 2nd ed. 40k was still fun. I needed some fixes, but I honestly was quite happy with it, so I didn't really see the need to reinvent the wheel.
I wish Battletech had come up with just a little more plausible reason for giant robots to dominate the battlefield, because they do look cool.
There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.
You do realize the "machine guns" on mechs are often firing 20mm rounds right? Of course a .787 round can and will chunk off armor, and or break things if you shoot it enough times in rapid succession. Shoot, we use .50 cals as anti material rifles and to tackle light vehicles.
Sure, if you want a completely different results distribution.
Battletech migh have issues, but one big thing in its favor is that you can play it with anyone who's played it at any point in time, which is not something that can be said of 40k.
Also, hexmaps remove a whole lot of ambiguities.
But yes, even using just 3025 rules there are some weapons that are mostly crap (looking at you, AC/2s and 5s) and for which you'd be always better off swapping for anything else.
Even so, I'd much rather play Btech than current 40k. It's not even a contest.
for the same reason we have weapons with 3 shots + 2 Damage and 1 shot and D6 Damage in 40k and both are considered equal because both have the same damage potential, but one is clearly better than the other in practice
There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.
You do realize the "machine guns" on mechs are often firing 20mm rounds right? Of course a .787 round can and will chunk off armor, and or break things if you shoot it enough times in rapid succession. Shoot, we use .50 cals as anti material rifles and to tackle light vehicles.
So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?
Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.
So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?
Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.
Exactly. A modern MBT is more likely to be disabled by rust than machinegun fire.
The other issue was the painstaking way damage was recorded. We used to joke that the game was a fusion of shooting craps and taking a standardized test.
I love the faction symbolism, the notion of the updates was neat because it created a similar dynamic equilbrium, the mechs looked cool, I just had a hard time funny accepting the game premises. I recall a board game version that used simple terrain and a small periscope to determine LOS. How cool was that?
I'd rather play Battletech than any 40k edition other than 2nd, though, and I think it caught on because at the time, it owned the sci-fi gaming space, just as 40k owns it now.
There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.
You do realize the "machine guns" on mechs are often firing 20mm rounds right? Of course a .787 round can and will chunk off armor, and or break things if you shoot it enough times in rapid succession. Shoot, we use .50 cals as anti material rifles and to tackle light vehicles.
So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?
Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.
I'd be curious what concentrated 20mm auto cannon fire would do to armour. 20mm set ups in aircraft can be spewing in the realm of 100 rounds a second, they're obviously not designed to take on tanks with those guns but it'd be interesting to know what it could do to armour if mounted on a stable and accurate platform launching a few hundred rounds in the space of a couple of seconds.
Of course I'm not sure what any of this has to do with GW putting the squeeze on independents, I lost track of this thread pages ago
tneva82 wrote: So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?
Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.
I mean, is this any different to super heavies being destroyed by lasguns? Because an Imperial Knight can also be destroyed by them. Not even disabled but totally destroyed.
I'd be curious what concentrated 20mm auto cannon fire would do to armour. 20mm set ups in aircraft can be spewing in the realm of 100 rounds a second, they're obviously not designed to take on tanks with those guns but it'd be interesting to know what it could do to armour if mounted on a stable and accurate platform launching a few hundred rounds in the space of a couple of seconds.
Of course I'm not sure what any of this has to do with GW putting the squeeze on independents, I lost track of this thread pages ago
Calibers can be misleading. The A-10s 30mm cannon fires depleted uranium ammo (or did) which had special armor-piercing properties but more importantly targeted the armor on the top of the turret. The 20mm cannon going back to WW II were effective against heavy tanks because they were able to fire down into the engine spaces, where there was very little armor.
The point about Battletech is that with enough time you could use machineguns to chew through the heaviest frontal armor.
I think the idea was not that it will eventually chew through the armor, and more along the lines of finding a crack/space/hole and making it's way in.
As for the A/C 2 and A/C 5, I agree on the TT they aren't represented very well.
However, in games like MPBT Online or MW Online, they can tear you apart in seconds.
Their range and the shaking of their targets causes many problems for the opposition. So perhaps the TT could do something like add a negative roll modifier for pilots suffering the impacts.
for a single line of fluff in his books he didn't even write despite making the best, most balanced, and frankly fun edition in 
