I'm not sure if this belongs in the N&R thread but I think enough people are interested in this series that it deserves it's own here so without further ado: The Future of Games Workshop, Part 13.
The Future of Games Workshop - Part 13
RIP 'Eavy Metal
I really don't feel like doing this.
It was Friday night, we had a great day here in the Paintingbuddha cave, I skyped with nerdy friends in France, Spain and the US about future projects and I was finally looking forward to having a relaxing evening playing some LoL with my friends. Then someone linked me to a post on Facebook and I felt compelled to write about it here.
Coincidentally, the apparent genius that currently runs Games Workshop has been a topic throughout the day in our office and I told someone who asked me to continue our 'mini-series' about the Future of Games Days and Games Workshop that I don't even feel like talking about them anymore. We would see the bitter truth in their upcoming yearly report anyways.
Store sales are allegedly down (according to some stores by up to 50% compared to last year), some 'creative' revenue-generating campaigns are being run for independent retails which are only aimed at moving as many sales into the current fiscal year as possible (creating an automatic 'bad start' into the next year), everyone in the US and the UK operations seems to have been fired - so cost should be down... Same ol' story.
A quick money grab with the rushed 40k rules was the straw we all expected and from what I can hear and read it has not been or will not be that successful.
Games Workshop.... I begin to feel like I don't care anymore - but people asked me to report on the latest 'fan-base interaction' - so here we go. I'll make it short and sweet
'Eavy Metal Facebook Page closes down
After GW slammed the door in the face of about 45,000 fans by shutting down their Forge World and Black Library pages (without prior notice), at least this time the admin of the 'Eavy Metal page gave us a two day warning before everything was gone.
The first to report on this was Ben Kelly on Blogs of War with an article appropriately named 'Powder Keg'. Head over to their blog for some more detailed inside information on what was going on.
So another 5600 GW fans shut out by GW's anti-social (media) efforts to estrange even their toughest hard-core fans.
At least there were about 2000 saved and invited to the new and inofficial 'Eavier Metal group.
I don't know - what do you think? Does anyone have an idea what GW is doing right now? If you do, please leave a comment
International Towel Day
So instead of ruining my Friday writing about this I actually ended up playing LOL with my friends until late at night and enjoyed the weekend by tearing off wallpaper and moving heavy oak furniture for a friend. Good times!
And now I sit here and waste the last few minutes of the 'International Towel Day' with yet another disappointing post about Games Workshop.
I think it's time someone did something about them.
There is certainly a very different 'feel' to this one than the early ones. To the point where I would say the author is just completely over it.
The Eavy Metal facebook page was set up, without permission of the company, by Eavy Metal painters but left open to invite others to come and post.
It used trademarked, official GW logo and design.
It was a site/page where 3rd party minis and parts were often displayed.
Occasionally other companies' ranges were shown.
Frequent discussion of other companies' paints and materials were shown.
Painters used it to display their wares and offer their services, ebay sales were linked.
It was unregulated, whilst it did have admin, they could not be there all the time, it's language and content could not be monitored, something that might not sit well with a company that aims towards a young market and could be legally implicated, due to the 'official' look of the sight, should something untoward occur.
I personally find it absolutely boggling that GW continue to totally withdraw from any form of social media and interaction with their customer base, but in this case, I see it and see why they are doing it right away. It wasn't set up professionally, it could have been mistaken for an official site and people were doing things on it not in the best interests of the company.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Like he said, when the yearly report comes out, we'll all know for certain, one way or the other.
But they will do some smokescreen writing so that everything will look peachy. I think GW will Continue on a few more Years? And without an announcement it will just stop.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Eavy Metal facebook page was set up, without permission of the company, by Eavy Metal painters but left open to invite others to come and post.
It used trademarked, official GW logo and design.
It was a site/page where 3rd party minis and parts were often displayed.
Occasionally other companies' ranges were shown.
Frequent discussion of other companies' paints and materials were shown.
Painters used it to display their wares and offer their services, ebay sales were linked.
It was unregulated, whilst it did have admin, they could not be there all the time, it's language and content could not be monitored, something that might not sit well with a company that aims towards a young market and could be legally implicated, due to the 'official' look of the sight, should something untoward occur.
I personally find it absolutely boggling that GW continue to totally withdraw from any form of social media and interaction with their customer base, but in this case, I see it and see why they are doing it right away. It wasn't set up professionally, it could have been mistaken for an official site and people were doing things on it not in the best interests of the company.
.
My thoughts exactly, and after trying to explain this to the QQing masses on FB I got sick of constantly being shouted down.
TBH I can see why GW just don't bother with open discussion now. However if they could have a decent monitored forum it would be very welcome, however they know it will just turn into the crap-storm that was the Star Trek Online beta release forum and the ban hammer will loom large, then close down, then re-open with more shouting, close again and eventually a year or so later, re-open and the haters had left. GW I feel doesn't have the inclination to put that mch effort in, and I don't blame them.
Just theory crafting here. Is it possible they've been in a communication tear-down mode for a while now because they are under the impression they can start the slate clean when the new investors or management group is hired?
You generally don't see hibernation mode like this unless a a company is preparing to be sold off, (outside of normal marketing channels) but my own experience is with investors like ABRY and others..
The company has probably been going through and is still restructuring.
You can't look at forge world or the black library website even in a GW store now. Those are sister sites and are blocked on the order point.
Individual GW stores live or die by the community that supports them locally. If you don't order through the store order point or buy off the shelf through the store itself you don't support the store. Even if you order through the website at home and ship to the store, you don't support the store. GW stores cannot advertise anything other than the individual GW store facebook page (which is so stupid. I mean, the store can't even put up a sign other than what's on the storefront? That does the store no good if the store is in a recessed area of a strip mall.) The GW store can't even put a little sign saying that it's running an event in the store itself. If that individual store does not make money, don't expect it to stay.
GW seems to have been doing a lot of "We are covering our butts" when it comes to their IP over the last year. After all the chapter house stuff has settled out, you can see why some of these pages have probably disappeared.
The seventh edition of Games Workshop’s Warhammer 40,000, which launched last Friday, is outselling Sixth Edition, which launched two years ago (see “Warhammer 40k Sixth Edition Rulebook’”). “We’re already beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition,” Games Workshop Director of North American Sales Trade Recruitment Matt Lewandowski told ICv2. “It’s selling better because it’s a better product, and long term what will happen is that our customers will vote with their wallets and you’ll see great things from this edition.”
Lewandowski explained the differences in play between the two editions. “The 7th Edition of 40k is going to change the way that people build their armies,” he explained. “It’s going to revolutionize how we build our armies and play the game. Previously there was a very structured way that you would organize and build your armies. You’d use what’s called a Force Organization Chart. You have to have so many troops and so many heroes, etc.
“You can still build your army that way in the new edition, but in addition to that, you can build your army using something called Unbound, which quite literally means there are no restrictions. You take any model you like, regardless of point value, size, anything, and you can put it together and build an army. So literally there are no limits. You can do anything you want whether it’s a background story and replicating that, whether it’s just I like these ten models and they look great, or I want to have these five characters and they’re really cool together, and do it.”
The core product is a slipcased set of three hardcovers: A Galaxy of War is 144 pages explaining the art of collecting and painting armies; Dark Millennium is 128 pages describing the setting of the 41st Millennium; and The Rules is a 208-page rulebook for Warhammer 40,000. The set retails for $85.
The seventh edition of Games Workshop’s Warhammer 40,000, which launched last Friday, is outselling Sixth Edition, which launched two years ago (see “Warhammer 40k Sixth Edition Rulebook’”). “We’re already beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition,” Games Workshop Director of North American Sales Trade Recruitment Matt Lewandowski told ICv2. “It’s selling better because it’s a better product, and long term what will happen is that our customers will vote with their wallets and you’ll see great things from this edition.”
Sir Arun wrote: maybe 7th edition was GW's last desperate attempt to reignite the hobby? they might be closing shop by the end of the year
Interesting post... shows how much hysteria there is concerning the company. They have indeed done lots of silly things, but they're still making around £15m a year.
What more likely is that they will close up some shops. The main exposure is their retail network. Our FLGS is a big online retailer, and they reckon sales are up on many recent releases; they sold hundreds of Imperial Knights, even Tyranids sold well. But I don't get the same feeling from the local GW store, and they all have heavy fixed costs, so if sales are moving from their high-street stores to discount outlets, it will leach profits quicky.
TBH I can see why GW just don't bother with open discussion now. However if they could have a decent monitored forum it would be very welcome, however they know it will just turn into the crap-storm that was the Star Trek Online beta release forum
STO was a garbage product that cost too much and the company had no intention of listening to their fanbase.
Hmm, there seems to be a common thread here.
Sir Arun wrote: maybe 7th edition was GW's last desperate attempt to reignite the hobby? they might be closing shop by the end of the year
If things are as bad as they look, I don't think a new edition of one of their games would save them. They might be on the way out already and just making one last cash grab. It wouldn't be GW without them!
I find it very hard to believe but then I don't have any real proof that isn't the case so I guess I'll have to wait until the next financial report.
Even if it is selling really well though I don't think the report will be anything more than the half yearly one with a bunch of stuff duct taped to it to make it seem solid for one more year.
Sir Arun wrote: maybe 7th edition was GW's last desperate attempt to reignite the hobby? they might be closing shop by the end of the year
Interesting post... shows how much hysteria there is concerning the company. They have indeed done lots of silly things, but they're still making around £15m a year.
What more likely is that they will close up some shops. The main exposure is their retail network. Our FLGS is a big online retailer, and they reckon sales are up on many recent releases; they sold hundreds of Imperial Knights, even Tyranids sold well. But I don't get the same feeling from the local GW store, and they all have heavy fixed costs, so if sales are moving from their high-street stores to discount outlets, it will leach profits quicky.
And as they close shops, they'll find it harder to recruit and keep customers, making things worse. At least, that's what'll happen without decent 3rd party support. There's no reason a local GW couldn't close and leave an FLGS as the official go-to place with direct ordering etc, but they'll never do that.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Eavy Metal facebook page was set up, without permission of the company, by Eavy Metal painters but left open to invite others to come and post.
It used trademarked, official GW logo and design.
It was a site/page where 3rd party minis and parts were often displayed.
Occasionally other companies' ranges were shown.
Frequent discussion of other companies' paints and materials were shown.
Painters used it to display their wares and offer their services, ebay sales were linked.
The major issue here was that it was Facebook.
This is an IP nightmare.
If you set up an eBay trade 'company' your company effectively belongs to eBay, not you.
If you set up a Facebook site, that site belongs to Facebook not you.
Place IP images on Facebook those images are hosted on Facebook property, the images are still yours but the copies are not, they are Facebook's.
It's ok if a third party places images on Facebook, no IP rights are surrendered, for GW to do it makes their position legally unclear.
A lack of legal clarity is bad for GW when it comes to IP, and the problem is specific to GW. So its safer not to have an official presence on Facebook while other companies are gunning for you.
After all there is no market for bootleg Warmachine miniatures et al, only the Warhammer's and Battletech have this problem on any notable scale.
I can see a smartaleck lawyer getting away with saying something along the lines of: 'Our clients based their miniature on this image GW of their own will posted on Facebook. Facebook legally owns the .img file hosting and have not issued a C&D to defend their property. Our clients only used this specific .img file for their inspiration and not any other."
Ridiculous? Yes. But a loophole is a loophole.
I find it very hard to believe but then I don't have any real proof that isn't the case so I guess I'll have to wait until the next financial report.
Even if it is selling really well though I don't think the report will be anything more than the half yearly one with a bunch of stuff duct taped to it to make it seem solid for one more year.
That's very easy spin.
7th is outselling 6th, sure, but at what point in 6th's life cycle? Has 7th outsold 6th on launch weekend figures, or last weekend's?
Very easy to make a point without lying and still be massively deceiving, time will tell.
I find it very hard to believe but then I don't have any real proof that isn't the case so I guess I'll have to wait until the next financial report.
Even if it is selling really well though I don't think the report will be anything more than the half yearly one with a bunch of stuff duct taped to it to make it seem solid for one more year.
What one can say is that it is crazy unusual for GW to do an interview like that. GW has been pretty drastically (for GW) changing course on several of its long established practices. While laudable, to me it reeks of desperation rather than a sudden epiphany in the management. GW has always been very slow to adapt and highly resistant to change. That change, such as it is, has only come on the heels of such a dismal mid year report and precarious position says 'frantic scramble' to me far more than 'well-structured reorientation of perspective'. But hey, GW has surprised before...
I am skeptical though. I've seen the way those guys at GW think and behave. It is hard to not see them making the same stubborn, short-sighted mistakes over and over. Remember that Tom Kirby was the guy who touted the viability of GW's IP enforcement scheme to go after "intransigent small infringers" that "cease and desist as soon as they get the letter" immediately after GW's dismal outcome in the Chapterhouse trial and just prior to firing the company's general counsel.
Our plan works, even though it objectively does not, and despite the fact that we got rid of the counsel that put the plan into action. But don't worry investors, 7th Ed is selling better than 6th Ed! If you compare the first two days of 7th Ed sales through direct order with those of 6th Ed...
I don't think anything can kill GW, and and any rumors of its impending demise are premature. That doesn't mean it'll be doing all that great either, but just slouching onwards like the crippled giant it is, churning dividends for its faceless investors and selling kits to an ever-changing horde of 10-12 year olds.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I don't think anything can kill GW, and and any rumors of its impending demise are premature. That doesn't mean it'll be doing all that great either, but just slouching onwards like the crippled giant it is, churning dividends for its faceless investors and selling kits to an ever-changing horde of 10-12 year olds.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with this.
All-in-all, the state of GW is just sad. Looking at the News&Rumors thread about GW-Germany closing down, it is obvious the company is continuing to shrink from its market domination ten or so years ago, and a lot of it seems self-inflicted. More and more of GW's facets have disappeared and what we're left with now is 40k being plugged for all its worth to keep the company profitable.
I think that in the long run GW will continue to run, but it will become less and less popular until eventually it'll be seen in FLGS at the volume of less dominant games like X-WIng or even historicals (with people talking about the "good-old days" ). And I guess that's good for diversity, but still, it never needed to happen.
I'll say this (again)... 7th Edition is the very first edition of 40K I have no intention of buying. I've bought every single one before this including Rogue Trader.
It just doesn't generate excitement for me in the same way any more. As I've mentioned before, this could be because I'm approaching 40, but my every increasing X Wing Miniatures Game collection suggests I'm still not adverse to the idea of buying new toys.
EDIT - And if they pull this unbound crap in a new Fantasy Edition, I'm definitely through with GW games.
I find it very hard to believe but then I don't have any real proof that isn't the case so I guess I'll have to wait until the next financial report.
Even if it is selling really well though I don't think the report will be anything more than the half yearly one with a bunch of stuff duct taped to it to make it seem solid for one more year.
That's very easy spin.
7th is outselling 6th, sure, but at what point in 6th's life cycle? Has 7th outsold 6th on launch weekend figures, or last weekend's?
Very easy to make a point without lying and still be massively deceiving, time will tell.
Without more information it really isn't a useful statement. Outselling how? When 6th dropped - it was listed at $74.25 for the basic book and $132 for the collector's edition. The current basic book is $85 and the collectors edition is $340. It also has Visions, the psychic cards, the iBook, eBook...
If they are talking units sold - I find it hard to believe that they have been selling more actual rulebooks than 6th Edition. But, they can still sell to a lot less people and be "beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition". The price increase alone would make up for over a 10% drop in sales. If even a small fraction of people are picking up one of the electronic versions to go along with their physical book - that would help make up a lot of ground as well. Include the things like the cards and perhaps the Visions book...well, their customers could shrink by 50% and they can still beat the previous edition in sales (in dollars).
Exactly Sean, you can prove anything with statistics!
If you can't make it the best edition yet on $ sold, or units shifted, you then start making more ephemeral statements like "fastest selling" or "best edition yet" which can be defined and structured to suit your purposes.
I really hope they take a hit on the next financials otherwise we are doomed to see no change at GW.
I have not bought 7th out of principle as it seems a lot of money for basically a fix of a few things from 6th. I am waiting for the small rulebook as I can't justify the cost
We've actually seen a LOT of change from GW recently, just not perhaps enough in the areas that matter to us as wargamers.
We've seen multi purchases earning a discount, digital editions at cheaper price points etc etc.
There are signs that they are slowly realising their somewhat unconventional approaches weren't earning them enough cash and simultaneously were earning them the ire of their customer base, which was only going to hurt them further.
Total change will take time, and the retirement/redundancy/leaving of certain key personnel, but I see another one or two underwhelming reports as a good thing, as it will send the only message that GW will hear - that the way they do business is not working, not making money, and they need to change it.
I will actually be MORE optimistic for the long term future of GW and 40K if the FYE report shows they're still a good bit down, year in year, and so will have to keep trying to improve, rather than return to being lazy and complacent.
The seventh edition of Games Workshop’s Warhammer 40,000, which launched last Friday, is outselling Sixth Edition, which launched two years ago (see “Warhammer 40k Sixth Edition Rulebook’”). “We’re already beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition,” Games Workshop Director of North American Sales Trade Recruitment Matt Lewandowski told ICv2. “It’s selling better because it’s a better product, and long term what will happen is that our customers will vote with their wallets and you’ll see great things from this edition.”
Lewandowski explained the differences in play between the two editions. “The 7th Edition of 40k is going to change the way that people build their armies,” he explained. “It’s going to revolutionize how we build our armies and play the game. Previously there was a very structured way that you would organize and build your armies. You’d use what’s called a Force Organization Chart. You have to have so many troops and so many heroes, etc.
“You can still build your army that way in the new edition, but in addition to that, you can build your army using something called Unbound, which quite literally means there are no restrictions. You take any model you like, regardless of point value, size, anything, and you can put it together and build an army. So literally there are no limits. You can do anything you want whether it’s a background story and replicating that, whether it’s just I like these ten models and they look great, or I want to have these five characters and they’re really cool together, and do it.”
The core product is a slipcased set of three hardcovers: A Galaxy of War is 144 pages explaining the art of collecting and painting armies; Dark Millennium is 128 pages describing the setting of the 41st Millennium; and The Rules is a 208-page rulebook for Warhammer 40,000. The set retails for $85.
Hmm.. I think I can smoke emanating from some trousers there, and also possibly smell a rodent nearby. 'We're beating the sales numbers of the last edition' is a rather ambiguous phrase though in any case, meaningless without numbers.
Normally things like this sell very well when there has been a long gap since the last one hit the market. I'm sure that's why the PS4/Xbox One are selling so well, there was a sense of anticipation within that industry and tremendous buildup, but that is reduced significantly if you start to spam your customer base with releases.
This one is more expensive, comes on top of recently released, expensive expansion books, and had practically zero marketing. So, if it is really a sell-out, I would be extremely surprised!
Without more information it really isn't a useful statement. Outselling how? When 6th dropped - it was listed at $74.25 for the basic book and $132 for the collector's edition. The current basic book is $85 and the collectors edition is $340. It also has Visions, the psychic cards, the iBook, eBook...
If they are talking units sold - I find it hard to believe that they have been selling more actual rulebooks than 6th Edition. But, they can still sell to a lot less people and be "beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition". The price increase alone would make up for over a 10% drop in sales. If even a small fraction of people are picking up one of the electronic versions to go along with their physical book - that would help make up a lot of ground as well. Include the things like the cards and perhaps the Visions book...well, their customers could shrink by 50% and they can still beat the previous edition in sales (in dollars).
On the other hand, they could be selling more 7th rulebooks than 6th for a very simple reason: the 6th Edition starter set. How many people bought that instead of the big rulebook? With no 7th starter right now, people are forced to buy the rulebook instead, thus, more sales of the rulebook.
Of course, this theory is based on the assumption that the 6th Edition starter came out at the same time as the rulebook. I don't really remember if it did.
On the other hand, they could be selling more 7th rulebooks than 6th for a very simple reason: the 6th Edition starter set. How many people bought that instead of the big rulebook? With no 7th starter right now, people are forced to buy the rulebook instead, thus, more sales of the rulebook.
Of course, this theory is based on the assumption that the 6th Edition starter came out at the same time as the rulebook. I don't really remember if it did.
Think the starter didn't come out for several months afterwards - but I haven't been following 40K closely enough to know the release schedule.
An interesting rumor I have heard from several sources is that the "new rules" they will be putting in the starter set in a few months will not be the whole of the rulebook, rather just some quickplay rules. Makes sure people can't save money by buying those and they have to shell out for the BRB.
Flashman wrote: I'll say this (again)... 7th Edition is the very first edition of 40K I have no intention of buying. I've bought every single one before this including Rogue Trader.
It just doesn't generate excitement for me in the same way any more. As I've mentioned before, this could be because I'm approaching 40, but my every increasing X Wing Miniatures Game collection suggests I'm still not adverse to the idea of buying new toys.
EDIT - And if they pull this unbound crap in a new Fantasy Edition, I'm definitely through with GW games.
I would buy it, if it was in a new boxed set. (Squats Vs Space Skaven )
Without more information it really isn't a useful statement. Outselling how? When 6th dropped - it was listed at $74.25 for the basic book and $132 for the collector's edition. The current basic book is $85 and the collectors edition is $340. It also has Visions, the psychic cards, the iBook, eBook...
If they are talking units sold - I find it hard to believe that they have been selling more actual rulebooks than 6th Edition. But, they can still sell to a lot less people and be "beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition". The price increase alone would make up for over a 10% drop in sales. If even a small fraction of people are picking up one of the electronic versions to go along with their physical book - that would help make up a lot of ground as well. Include the things like the cards and perhaps the Visions book...well, their customers could shrink by 50% and they can still beat the previous edition in sales (in dollars).
On the other hand, they could be selling more 7th rulebooks than 6th for a very simple reason: the 6th Edition starter set. How many people bought that instead of the big rulebook? With no 7th starter right now, people are forced to buy the rulebook instead, thus, more sales of the rulebook.
Of course, this theory is based on the assumption that the 6th Edition starter came out at the same time as the rulebook. I don't really remember if it did.
Or you know, they could just actually be looking at like for like periods and like for like products , so when 6th launched they sold how ever many thousand books in the first week and then they just compared that to how many of 7th they sold in the first week, maybe people should just accept that its perfectly possible that GW actually took on board feedback from 6th, and produced a good product that people have looked at and bought because they like the idea of unbound armies and the psychic phase and three separate books making it easier to game with etc. Is it so hard to think that GW might actually be doing better than it was? its almost as though people want to see them fail....
All of the numbers and anecdotes we've seen so far conflict with that statement though. I think a lot of us want to see them succeed but there doesn't appear to be any obvious way in which the statement is actually true. Reports from FLGS's so far appears to be that it's doing worse than 6th Ed, and the annual reports certainly hints at a reduced number of customers, as does the remaining stock volumes of the LE's (they've sold 1800 LE's in almost 2 weeks whereas they sold 5000 6th Ed LE's in a few hours)
kitsandbits wrote: Is it so hard to think that GW might actually be doing better than it was?
If you had asked before the FAQs hit your argument might have carried a bit more weight but between the Chaos stuff (Abby being able to turn into a spawn, hellturkey being hull mounted gun again), the BA stuff (no more fast but still priced like it is), the GK one (having stuff in there for space marine vehicles that they con't have access too) and the Nid one (not fixing anything) I don't think you can call those FAQs anything more than rushed/lazy.
Proper, frequent, FAQs are something people have been calling for for years now and what we got was... that.
And that would suggest that GW are not taking on feedback and using it to create a better product.
Isn't the end of their financial year the end of this month?
I don't know how people think they are going to die and shut up shop - I simply can't see that as a realistic thing. They do, however, look like they are primed to sell (7e release timing, price hikes, etc) they all give a short term boon that is only useful for sale.
It could, obviously, just be a series of terrible decisions though - but as little as some folks feel about the guys running GW, they are interested in their own pockets, and that requires a healthy and successful company.
That said, I think shutting down the FB groups is more in line with what Orlanth said (IP).
kb_lock wrote: It could, obviously, just be a series of terrible decisions though - but as little as some folks feel about the guys running GW, they are interested in their own pockets, and that requires a healthy and successful company.
But it isn't a healthy company. It is a company that sells a social product that requires a community to thrive and they are doing everything they can to limit communications between them and their fans and seem to be actively chasing the idea of getting the same amount of money our of a smaller and smaller fanbase every year.
If Kirby and friends where running a successful company and filling their pockets with the profits then we would still be coming out ahead. What we are seeing now feels much more like an old, stagnant company suddenly being thrown into a market where they have to compete for people's money and having no idea how to do that anymore.
I never stated they are doing a good job, only that they would logically try to do what they think is best for the company simply because it is in their own interest. Now, their logic may be completely wrong, but without knowing their intentions, this is all speculation.
For example, killing off community projects is very secure for your IP, albeit horrible for your community, but many investors could care less about community compared to IP.
Do I think that the current strategy they have is a long term one? Absolutely not, I sincerely hope it is that they are going to sell the company, because they will need to at this rate.
This whole Edition change reminds me of charges laid by Mark Bunker (Wise Beard Man) against Scientology for constantly republishing the core books of the sect so that parishioners would have to rebuy copies.
GW gains revenue by forcing customers to rebuy core books. I am particularly suspicious of the rumours of a new Orc army book just after 9th comes out next year.
Orcs haven't had a 'codex' for that long, and it was one of the expensive hard backed ones costing £30, so it ought to have some more shelf life. I am very reluctant to fork out another £30 or whatever the price will be next year if this rumour is true.
I would also be miffed had I bought Dark Vengeance and needed to replace it, as I don't collect either of the armies included I didnt.
I wonder if this is a deliberate milking policy of shorter edition cycles.
Right now GW do not have a future, or much of one anyway.
Their IP may do, but their current management and, sadly, the staff they have employed do not.
Of course I may be mistaken, but the published accounts demonstrate that 40k and Fantasy peaked for volume sales in 2001/02 (yes, I am an accounting geek and have them downloaded on my PC dating back to when I first started noticing their was a rabbit away, back in 2001). The LotR bubble masked that effect for 4 years, and then disappeared.
All GW's tinkering with prices, new rules, bigger battles, 1-man stores, revamping WD etc., etc. has had zero impact. Turnover increased in cash value some years, but discounting for average inflation (and that is conservative - we all know GW's prices rise ahead of average inflation) GW's Turnover has declined in "real" value every year since 2004 and, for the first time for the 1st half of this financial year, it actually declined in cash terms.
Nothing they have done so far has halted the decline. Of course I cannot predict the future, but why should it be any different? For instance none of the new editions of 40k since 3rd editio has improved salves volumes. Why should this one? Their last rewrite of WFB, was so bad it virtually killed the game stone dead, at least by its former standards.
The remaining core customer support for GW's products is getting dangerously low. At some point, it will come off the rails and be too small to susteain the cost base (just as specialist games were deemed to be - ignoring their knock-on customer-retention effect), unless they do something drastic, and nothing I have seen them do of a constructive nature has been drastic enough, which makes me believe their existing management are unable to conceive of a functional rescue strategy.
We can cast around for appropriate augeries. For me it will be when they are starting to close 1-man stores. Once they have given up on their retail arm, which has been gutted to the point it is barely functional in some cases - then they will have to implode back to the centre, and it is touch and go whether the existing management team could survive that. By then even their current dozy shareholders would have noticed the problem.
Reinholt wrote:
Games Workshop, Stock Prices, The Future, and Cats Without Sufficient Coffee
I made a terrible mistake this morning, and I read this article on BoLS.
After shaking my head sadly, turning my attention back to work for a while, downing an entire large coffee, and diving deep into the morass of negotiating legal terms around trades, I came back to it. I shook my head again.
So, I wanted to post this on Warseer (my favorite grounds for this kind of thing, truth be told), and see if I can start a discussion that would actually clear up some of the misconceptions around GW and what is actually going on with them as a business, from a financial perspective.
As a little background, I work on Wall Street. Not literally; the only actual bank left on the physical street is DB and virtually none of the buy side firms are there. Most of the banks are now scattered throughout midtown ranging down into flatiron, and a few are downtown. The asset managers are shotgunned across NYC, Jersey, and the rest of the northeast (and are spreading into the west), and hedge funds... well, look, three dudes, one computer, and a broom closet can qualify as a hedge fund, so what the hell can I really say? Point is, I have an MBA from a top-tier school, I run a trading desk, and I've been doing this for a while. I would caveat that all of this is my personal opinion, I am in no way representing any firm, and that none of this is intended as investment advice (I own no GW stock). In fact, you probably shouldn't read it. Your eyes will likely start bleeding, you will wail and gnash your teeth, and then you will smash your forehead through your monitor / ipad / tinfoil hat. Consider yourselves warned. After that, I will take questions.
Why shareholders are not the problem, or at least not in the way people think they are
Public companies are beholden, first and foremost (though not always only) to their shareholders. Those are the people who, you know, literally own the thing. GW has them. There are those who claim that GW is run by some shadow conspiracy, or in the palm of Tom Kirby as a maniacal dictator, or that a small group of nefarious insiders are deliberately destroying the company. All of these things are untrue. Several of them are also illegal.
If you want to know who owns GW, all you need to do is have a Bloomberg terminal, grab the GAW ticker, and run the OWN and HDS reports, which helpfully gives you the owners of the firm. Roughly speaking, GW has a pretty atomized ownership structure. ~14.5% percent appears to be owned by insiders (Kirby, other directors, former c-level executives, etc.), ~81% of the owners are from the UK, ~80% are owned through investment advisors (retirement funds, asset managers, and the like), and the largest individual holding is around 7% (Kirby).
In a technical sense, to have a controlling interest in a public firm, you need > 50% of the voting shares of a company. Nobody is close to that with GW. What you should realize, however, is that 80% ownership of investment advisors in a very small company means that it is unlikely anyone is paying much attention to GW at all, as they care about the returns of their portfolios, and GW is a tiny piece of your portfolio. GW is a tiny, tiny fish in the global stock market. To put this in concrete terms: Apple is worth 2,758.92 times as much as GW at the time of this writing. Worrying about GW for most portfolio managers would be like worrying exactly how much change is in your couch while your ferrari is on fire in the driveway. It's literally not worth their time.
In a literal sense, firms like this often tend to be inefficient. This is why activist shareholders and hedge fund managers can make money (think of them as adults who show up and rudely force the children to behave), why managers can do things that are destructive to the long-term interets of the shareholders for long periods of time before anyone notices, and why companies often take forever to die even if they are terrible (because nobody is paying enough attention to take their ball away). If GW's behavior looks mildly insane, as though no adult supervision is going on, or as though nobody who really knows how to run a business is paying attention, that's probably because all of those things are likely to be true.
With that said, there are generally two things that can make you a successful public company in the long run:
1 - You consistently grow your customer base while preserving your margins (eventually). Growth is the key driver of most (though not all) stock prices. Grow, grow, grow, grow, and figure the rest out later is a recipe several firms have used successfully. These firms tend not to pay dividends (they are re-investing the money to grow the firm), have increasing sales and customer bases, and are largely valued on the basis of future earnings.
2 - You have a stable customer base, a strong edge/moat, and return tons of capital to your shareholders while earning an above-market return on your capital. This is less common, because most companies are unable to accept they are out of growth. Even more so, most companies are bad at returning capital for all kinds of issues I won't get into here. However, when you find the companies that do this, they are often undervalued and hugely valuable.
I would suggest that GW is neither of those, which leads me to a core point: GW's problem is not being a public company. There are plenty of successful public companies. The shareholders are not demanding that GW sacrifice their future and destroy all of the capital they have been given to get some pissant 2% dividend today. The shareholders are not demanding that GW shrink their customer base, release books ridden with typos and unclear language, and open and close their stores at erratic hours with unsuitably low staffing levels. The shareholders want a stable, average to above-average long-term return on their capital.
The problem with GW is their management, and the fact that nobody is paying attention from an ownership perspective (and probably won't be until GW is in much worse shape than they are now).
Stock prices are an excellent indicator of how bad humans are at stock pricing
You shouldn't read too much into GW's short term price movements. My favorite example of this sort of issue was Lehman Brothers. In early 2008, it was trading for roughly $20 per share (adjusted for splits, etc, as best I can from the historical data I have handy). At the end of 2008, it was trading for $0 because it was dead. What will GW's stock price be a year from now? Will it even have a stock price a year from now?
Note: I am not predicting anything here. I am merely pointing out that we love to imply meaning into things that may not have any discernable meaning when it comes to patterns, and stock prices bring out the worst in the human mind about this.
In aggregate, in the long run, I do believe stock prices tend to be correct-ish. However, correct on average does not mean correct at any given moment, and especially does not mean correct about what the future price will be. Just remember: all firms will eventually go bankrupt, shut down, or be acquired. Nothing lives forever.
Whenever anyone writes an article primarily focused on the changes in stock price without a clear explanation of why that price is changing (as the price, over the long run, should reflect the actual fundamental performance of the firm), you should ignore it, because they aren't communicating any information and probably have no clue what they are talking about (or have a clue but can't communicate it, which isn't any more helpful to you as a reader). If they can communicate it, you should still think long and hard about if you believe they are correct. There is far more bull---- about finance out there, due to a combination of lack of knowledge and people trying to take your money, than there is useful information. You should be reading even what I am writing here with a skeptical eye (though at least I'm not trying to sell you anything). I can assure you I am not always right.
WTF is actually going on with GW then, you stupid looking orange cat?
If I were to boil GW's problems down to a few key points, it would be the following:
1 - Uneven product quality
2 - Mismatch between production & design, pricing model, and customer/segment expectations
3 - Lack of business capability at all levels of the firm
These problems, to be clear, are not unusual. I've seen them in many, many situations over time. Most small to medium size firms are terribly managed, and GW is remarkably average in that regard. To that end, all of their problems can be traced back to poor management (and I'd be glad to expound of any of these points as I have in the past, if anyone is even more of a masochist than most people who have read this far).
This is the key: poor management is leading to products that don't match what the customers want, to pricing that is actively adversarial to the goal of selling to customers and retaining them, to confrontational/absent relationships with a customer base that wants to be engaged or independent sellers, and to opening up market spaces for competitors to consistently chew away at GW.
In terms of observables, there has been a single trend that has concerned me about GW for 5+ years now: losing customers. Even if you raise prices enough to cover the lost revenue, this cannot continue forever. Eventually your customers will go to zero (more realistically, the price increases stop working at some point, which is about where GW put themselves today, and now they aren't smart enough to figure out how to get back out of it).
Mr. Orange Cat, GW is profitable now and you are just some idiot blowhard on the internet. How dare you question them?
Hyperboli aside, this is another line of thought I often see (GW is still in business, so they are fine), to which I offer the long-running counter-example of companies like GM, Lehman, or any of the thousands of small and meidum sized companies that have gone bankrupt. Perhaps Sears is a good example of a downtrend right now. Companies are fine until they are not. Problems are usually observable before profits go completely to hell. This is why some companies in the red are not considered problems (they are in the red because they are either growing rapidly and funding that expansion, or because of temporary/fixable issues), and some companies in the black are considered problems.
Or, to put another way, would you argue that the train is still on the rails, so it's not a problem, even if it was about to ram straight into another train in 10 seconds?
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. All firms that went bankrupt were operational at some point prior to that. I am not predicting the imminent demise of GW, either. I am predicting that they will either be gone (through bankruptcy or being eaten by someone bigger), or much smaller in the next decade-ish if they don't change their ways.
So what could change things and what is a "turn around"?
This one is simple: GW will have turned around when they being growing at the same rate as the segment again, retaining their current customers, and adding new customers.
Until this happens, the rest is all just hot air. If you want to argue things at GW have changed, you need to argue they are adding people instead of losing them. That is the bottom line. Anything else is just noise.
Okay, that's the majority of what I have to say for now, but if anyone was foolish enough to read all of that, I'm glad to discuss/debate/expound of any of it. Enjoy.
Orlanth: I bought that hardback Orc book, and it totally put me off buying any more hardback books from GW. The content was nearly identical to the previous codex, with maybe 2 or 3 pages of new background, the rest was word for word the same. The new special characters were lacklustre in concept and background, and didn't have models OR artwork to represent them in the book (lame!) and tactically the army remained pretty much the same, just with a giant spider model that is thematically out of place in an Orc and Goblin army. I looked at the price I paid for what I got, and I haven't bought a book for Warriors of Chaos or Dwarves, which are the other two armies I run which have come out. At least Vampire Counts was mechanically a little different, that Orc book was an embarrassment. Apparently now 7th edition is a similarly content light update. Charging premium prices for premium product is okay. Charging premium prices for reprints of old material with 1-3 pages of new stuff is a pisstake.
I am curious to see how things go. I've obviously seen people on here that like the new direction, and anecdotally I know people who love it to bits, but it's certainly not for me. I might keep buying their miniatures though, sans rules, for use in other systems (or older editions). They are often very good.
Reinholt wrote:
Games Workshop, Stock Prices, The Future, and Cats Without Sufficient Coffee
I made a terrible mistake this morning, and I read this article on BoLS.
Spoiler:
After shaking my head sadly, turning my attention back to work for a while, downing an entire large coffee, and diving deep into the morass of negotiating legal terms around trades, I came back to it. I shook my head again.
So, I wanted to post this on Warseer (my favorite grounds for this kind of thing, truth be told), and see if I can start a discussion that would actually clear up some of the misconceptions around GW and what is actually going on with them as a business, from a financial perspective.
As a little background, I work on Wall Street. Not literally; the only actual bank left on the physical street is DB and virtually none of the buy side firms are there. Most of the banks are now scattered throughout midtown ranging down into flatiron, and a few are downtown. The asset managers are shotgunned across NYC, Jersey, and the rest of the northeast (and are spreading into the west), and hedge funds... well, look, three dudes, one computer, and a broom closet can qualify as a hedge fund, so what the hell can I really say? Point is, I have an MBA from a top-tier school, I run a trading desk, and I've been doing this for a while. I would caveat that all of this is my personal opinion, I am in no way representing any firm, and that none of this is intended as investment advice (I own no GW stock). In fact, you probably shouldn't read it. Your eyes will likely start bleeding, you will wail and gnash your teeth, and then you will smash your forehead through your monitor / ipad / tinfoil hat. Consider yourselves warned. After that, I will take questions.
Why shareholders are not the problem, or at least not in the way people think they are
Public companies are beholden, first and foremost (though not always only) to their shareholders. Those are the people who, you know, literally own the thing. GW has them. There are those who claim that GW is run by some shadow conspiracy, or in the palm of Tom Kirby as a maniacal dictator, or that a small group of nefarious insiders are deliberately destroying the company. All of these things are untrue. Several of them are also illegal.
If you want to know who owns GW, all you need to do is have a Bloomberg terminal, grab the GAW ticker, and run the OWN and HDS reports, which helpfully gives you the owners of the firm. Roughly speaking, GW has a pretty atomized ownership structure. ~14.5% percent appears to be owned by insiders (Kirby, other directors, former c-level executives, etc.), ~81% of the owners are from the UK, ~80% are owned through investment advisors (retirement funds, asset managers, and the like), and the largest individual holding is around 7% (Kirby).
In a technical sense, to have a controlling interest in a public firm, you need > 50% of the voting shares of a company. Nobody is close to that with GW. What you should realize, however, is that 80% ownership of investment advisors in a very small company means that it is unlikely anyone is paying much attention to GW at all, as they care about the returns of their portfolios, and GW is a tiny piece of your portfolio. GW is a tiny, tiny fish in the global stock market. To put this in concrete terms: Apple is worth 2,758.92 times as much as GW at the time of this writing. Worrying about GW for most portfolio managers would be like worrying exactly how much change is in your couch while your ferrari is on fire in the driveway. It's literally not worth their time.
In a literal sense, firms like this often tend to be inefficient. This is why activist shareholders and hedge fund managers can make money (think of them as adults who show up and rudely force the children to behave), why managers can do things that are destructive to the long-term interets of the shareholders for long periods of time before anyone notices, and why companies often take forever to die even if they are terrible (because nobody is paying enough attention to take their ball away). If GW's behavior looks mildly insane, as though no adult supervision is going on, or as though nobody who really knows how to run a business is paying attention, that's probably because all of those things are likely to be true.
With that said, there are generally two things that can make you a successful public company in the long run:
1 - You consistently grow your customer base while preserving your margins (eventually). Growth is the key driver of most (though not all) stock prices. Grow, grow, grow, grow, and figure the rest out later is a recipe several firms have used successfully. These firms tend not to pay dividends (they are re-investing the money to grow the firm), have increasing sales and customer bases, and are largely valued on the basis of future earnings.
2 - You have a stable customer base, a strong edge/moat, and return tons of capital to your shareholders while earning an above-market return on your capital. This is less common, because most companies are unable to accept they are out of growth. Even more so, most companies are bad at returning capital for all kinds of issues I won't get into here. However, when you find the companies that do this, they are often undervalued and hugely valuable.
I would suggest that GW is neither of those, which leads me to a core point: GW's problem is not being a public company. There are plenty of successful public companies. The shareholders are not demanding that GW sacrifice their future and destroy all of the capital they have been given to get some pissant 2% dividend today. The shareholders are not demanding that GW shrink their customer base, release books ridden with typos and unclear language, and open and close their stores at erratic hours with unsuitably low staffing levels. The shareholders want a stable, average to above-average long-term return on their capital.
The problem with GW is their management, and the fact that nobody is paying attention from an ownership perspective (and probably won't be until GW is in much worse shape than they are now).
Stock prices are an excellent indicator of how bad humans are at stock pricing
You shouldn't read too much into GW's short term price movements. My favorite example of this sort of issue was Lehman Brothers. In early 2008, it was trading for roughly $20 per share (adjusted for splits, etc, as best I can from the historical data I have handy). At the end of 2008, it was trading for $0 because it was dead. What will GW's stock price be a year from now? Will it even have a stock price a year from now?
Note: I am not predicting anything here. I am merely pointing out that we love to imply meaning into things that may not have any discernable meaning when it comes to patterns, and stock prices bring out the worst in the human mind about this.
In aggregate, in the long run, I do believe stock prices tend to be correct-ish. However, correct on average does not mean correct at any given moment, and especially does not mean correct about what the future price will be. Just remember: all firms will eventually go bankrupt, shut down, or be acquired. Nothing lives forever.
Whenever anyone writes an article primarily focused on the changes in stock price without a clear explanation of why that price is changing (as the price, over the long run, should reflect the actual fundamental performance of the firm), you should ignore it, because they aren't communicating any information and probably have no clue what they are talking about (or have a clue but can't communicate it, which isn't any more helpful to you as a reader). If they can communicate it, you should still think long and hard about if you believe they are correct. There is far more bull---- about finance out there, due to a combination of lack of knowledge and people trying to take your money, than there is useful information. You should be reading even what I am writing here with a skeptical eye (though at least I'm not trying to sell you anything). I can assure you I am not always right.
WTF is actually going on with GW then, you stupid looking orange cat?
If I were to boil GW's problems down to a few key points, it would be the following:
1 - Uneven product quality
2 - Mismatch between production & design, pricing model, and customer/segment expectations
3 - Lack of business capability at all levels of the firm
These problems, to be clear, are not unusual. I've seen them in many, many situations over time. Most small to medium size firms are terribly managed, and GW is remarkably average in that regard. To that end, all of their problems can be traced back to poor management (and I'd be glad to expound of any of these points as I have in the past, if anyone is even more of a masochist than most people who have read this far).
This is the key: poor management is leading to products that don't match what the customers want, to pricing that is actively adversarial to the goal of selling to customers and retaining them, to confrontational/absent relationships with a customer base that wants to be engaged or independent sellers, and to opening up market spaces for competitors to consistently chew away at GW.
In terms of observables, there has been a single trend that has concerned me about GW for 5+ years now: losing customers. Even if you raise prices enough to cover the lost revenue, this cannot continue forever. Eventually your customers will go to zero (more realistically, the price increases stop working at some point, which is about where GW put themselves today, and now they aren't smart enough to figure out how to get back out of it).
Mr. Orange Cat, GW is profitable now and you are just some idiot blowhard on the internet. How dare you question them?
Hyperboli aside, this is another line of thought I often see (GW is still in business, so they are fine), to which I offer the long-running counter-example of companies like GM, Lehman, or any of the thousands of small and meidum sized companies that have gone bankrupt. Perhaps Sears is a good example of a downtrend right now. Companies are fine until they are not. Problems are usually observable before profits go completely to hell. This is why some companies in the red are not considered problems (they are in the red because they are either growing rapidly and funding that expansion, or because of temporary/fixable issues), and some companies in the black are considered problems.
Or, to put another way, would you argue that the train is still on the rails, so it's not a problem, even if it was about to ram straight into another train in 10 seconds?
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. All firms that went bankrupt were operational at some point prior to that. I am not predicting the imminent demise of GW, either. I am predicting that they will either be gone (through bankruptcy or being eaten by someone bigger), or much smaller in the next decade-ish if they don't change their ways.
So what could change things and what is a "turn around"?
This one is simple: GW will have turned around when they being growing at the same rate as the segment again, retaining their current customers, and adding new customers.
Until this happens, the rest is all just hot air. If you want to argue things at GW have changed, you need to argue they are adding people instead of losing them. That is the bottom line. Anything else is just noise.
Okay, that's the majority of what I have to say for now, but if anyone was foolish enough to read all of that, I'm glad to discuss/debate/expound of any of it. Enjoy. [spoiler]
That was how I view the subject as well. GW is still on the tracks, but those tracks aren't leading anywhere good.
Rick_1138 wrote: TBH I can see why GW just don't bother with open discussion now. However if they could have a decent monitored forum it would be very welcome, however they know it will just turn into the crap-storm that was the Star Trek Online beta release forum and the ban hammer will loom large, then close down, then re-open with more shouting, close again and eventually a year or so later, re-open and the haters had left. GW I feel doesn't have the inclination to put that mch effort in, and I don't blame them.
While I agree with the theory on this, this is the nature of the internets. However this does not seem to stop other game companies from running thriving forums and investing in their communities. I'll admit, as a long time MtG and Pathfinder player, seeing how GW treats the community was quite a culture shock when I started playing this game; and I still think they have it completely backwards. I just don't understand how any gaming company does not understand the power of the internet and would not find a way to use it rather than treating it like a bad infection
Ok, a couple of things previously mentioned in a few posts:
The end of the year for GW is the end of this month.
There were a few months gap between the release of the 6th edition rulebook and the box set. As of right now, they are just putting stickers on the dark vengeance box set which states that this box set does not have the current rule book in it. There are still plenty of people out there, though that are like "I'll just wait for the boxset.". Unless you play in a store that enforces the newest edition of the rules (like GW stores) and/or do tourneys, you don't have to buy a new rulebook right away. You could just sit around and play any old edition you wanted.
If we get a new 40k box set, we probably won't see it until aug/sept.
New Ork models just came out for pre-order today, and the games workshop logo is suitably orky. I have no idea what tomorrow's White dwarf says about new box sets or anything like that, but I would expec a new 40k Ork release next month.
As previously mentioned, IP on facebook is huge. Facebook does this weird blanket statement when it comes to pictures and stuff that you post up there, they own.
Rick_1138 wrote: TBH I can see why GW just don't bother with open discussion now. However if they could have a decent monitored forum it would be very welcome, however they know it will just turn into the crap-storm that was the Star Trek Online beta release forum and the ban hammer will loom large, then close down, then re-open with more shouting, close again and eventually a year or so later, re-open and the haters had left. GW I feel doesn't have the inclination to put that mch effort in, and I don't blame them.
While I agree with the theory on this, this is the nature of the internets. However this does not seem to stop other game companies from running thriving forums and investing in their communities. I'll admit, as a long time MtG and Pathfinder player, seeing how GW treats the community was quite a culture shock when I started playing this game; and I still think they have it completely backwards. I just don't understand how any gaming company does not understand the power of the internet and would not find a way to use it rather than treating it like a bad infection
The reason why GW dislike the internet is that GW has a strong yes-man culture and runs by group-think. They do not hire for competence, they hire for toeing the company line. They are run by a very small management team who are nearly all old colleagues.
The internet constantly threatens GW's group-think with dissenting views, so they try to shut it out -- a characteristic behaviour of group-think.
Group-think has long been recognised as a dangerous state for a group to get into. There is a long held principle of management that if two people running a business always agree with each other, one of them doesn't need to be there. Healthy management needs to be challenged with different viewpoints presented and explored. GW shuts that out.
Without more information it really isn't a useful statement. Outselling how? When 6th dropped - it was listed at $74.25 for the basic book and $132 for the collector's edition. The current basic book is $85 and the collectors edition is $340. It also has Visions, the psychic cards, the iBook, eBook...
If they are talking units sold - I find it hard to believe that they have been selling more actual rulebooks than 6th Edition. But, they can still sell to a lot less people and be "beating the sales numbers we did on the last edition". The price increase alone would make up for over a 10% drop in sales. If even a small fraction of people are picking up one of the electronic versions to go along with their physical book - that would help make up a lot of ground as well. Include the things like the cards and perhaps the Visions book...well, their customers could shrink by 50% and they can still beat the previous edition in sales (in dollars).
On the other hand, they could be selling more 7th rulebooks than 6th for a very simple reason: the 6th Edition starter set. How many people bought that instead of the big rulebook? With no 7th starter right now, people are forced to buy the rulebook instead, thus, more sales of the rulebook.
Of course, this theory is based on the assumption that the 6th Edition starter came out at the same time as the rulebook. I don't really remember if it did.
Or you know, they could just actually be looking at like for like periods and like for like products , so when 6th launched they sold how ever many thousand books in the first week and then they just compared that to how many of 7th they sold in the first week, maybe people should just accept that its perfectly possible that GW actually took on board feedback from 6th, and produced a good product that people have looked at and bought because they like the idea of unbound armies and the psychic phase and three separate books making it easier to game with etc. Is it so hard to think that GW might actually be doing better than it was? its almost as though people want to see them fail....
Highly doubtful. 7th Edition Fantasy was well known to be majorly broken with the Magic Phase. It had a dramatic impact on customers abandoning WHFB. They fixed many of those issues with 8th edition Fantasy, but it was rather too late as the permanent damage was done.
So... we come to 7th edition 40k and what do they do? Mimic the magic phase of 7th edition Warhammer, rather than use the learning from it in 8th edition. I have a feeling it will have a similar impact on 7th edition 40k like 7th edition Fantasy had on WHFB.
GW is too focused on "sell more models". To a point where they are making some extremely poor decisions in game design that will/are having the opposite effect of what they believe it will have.
While this is just a small microcosm, it serves as an example. Talking with my FLGS owner the other day he told me he sold 32 copies of 6th edition 40k on launch day. For 7th edition, he hasn't sold even one and hasn't had a single person ask to order it either. So, while that is only 32 copies lost, you have to wonder just how many other shops have had a very similar experience with 7th edition.
A two year edition cycle seems like milking it to me, they re-release the game and it's guaranteed cash as their player base buy up the new ones, despite the fact that the only places that would enforce new edition usage are GW stores that mostly don't offer gaming tables any more. It's a good way to put a number on your loyal customer base. This will only be a problem if people widely reject it. A two year release cycle is a bit of a joke all the same. It's proof they don't playtest and put serious thought into their rules, when your 6th edition of a product needs rapid replacement it's plainly obvious you're more interested in churning product over rather than aspiring for a quality ruleset.
Also this 'unbound' is cynical gimmick to encourage miniature sales that is described as being revolutionary by one of their sales directors. Really? How much thought and imagination had to be put in to telling people they can abandon all the Force Organisation Charts and just play with whatever models they like? I was doing that decades ago. That's the abandonment of rules, it's a goofy White Dwarf article at most, does it really need a 'revolutionary' new edition?
Wayshuba wrote: Highly doubtful. 7th Edition Fantasy was well known to be majorly broken with the Magic Phase. It had a dramatic impact on customers abandoning WHFB. They fixed many of those issues with 8th edition Fantasy, but it was rather too late as the permanent damage was done.
So... we come to 7th edition 40k and what do they do? Mimic the magic phase of 7th edition Warhammer, rather than use the learning from it in 8th edition. I have a feeling it will have a similar impact on 7th edition 40k like 7th edition Fantasy had on WHFB.
The fact that it's happened that way is an interesting "tell", if you will, for the people making this game. We've spent countless hours over countless posts over countless years wondering things like "How do the miss these things?""How didn't they see that?" and "What were they thinking?", and for the longest time we never considered that the answer was that they miss these things and fail to see these things specifically because they're not thinking. It becomes clearer and clearer with each new release and bit of rules that the fine folks writing 40K don't have a real understanding of what the game is or even what they want the game to be. It's frightening to see them make these changes, seemingly at random, and then put in a "Forging a Narrative" side-bar on a page as if to excuse rules deficiencies that they don't even acknowledge as actual problems.
Now I know what some of you may be thinking - "There goes that HMBC again, having another free kick at the 'Forging a Narrative' stuff. Broken record amirite?". If only it were that simple (and it's HBMC - the B comes before the M!). The constant reminders to "Forge a Narrative" are to me what the old Chapter Approved sections in White Dwarf eventually became: a safety net through which responsibility for rules could be abdicated. If you put getting it right the first time into the 'too hard' basket and assume that you can always fix it in post, so to speak, then why try to get it right the first time? That's what Chapter Approved eventually became, and now they appear to have circumvented it completely by just saying "The rules aren't quite right? Well, it's meant to be a narrative game anyway, so don't worry about it too much.".
I write RPG rules. I wonder if my project lead would let me get away with writing shoddy rules if I gave him the excuse "Nah brah! It's cool! It's a narrative game, just 420 forge it!". I doubt he'd go for that, and he'd be right to tell me to stop being an idiot and fix the fething rules.
I had a look through the 7th Ed book today for the firs time. The picture book is just that - a hardback copy of Warhammer Visions that seems to shy away from showing old models (Dante doesn't even show up in the Blood Angel section - Astorath is new poster boy for the BA's, along with lots of Death Company Marines with Bolters for some reason!). The fluff book is nothin' we ain't seen before, and then there's the rules.
First page says this:
Forging a Narrative Throughout this book, you will see boxed out text entitled ‘Forging a Narrative’. These boxes contain advice on how to make your gaming experience even more enjoyable, and revolve around evoking the imagery and feel of the 41st Millennium. At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between fellow hobbyists – and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for all players as possible. If you stick to the advice offered in these boxes, you can’t really go far wrong!
That's on the first page. Right up front we know that Forging a Narrative is now the done thing for 40K. It's lazy, and it shows not only contempt for the people playing the game (the customers - the people they need) but also when combined with these mystifying decisions (just look at the recent FAQ's, and how quickly they had to be 'fixed') shows how un-engaged the people making the rules are. Forging a Narrative? It should be retitled to "Near Enough is Good Enough".
When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
I just saw this pop up in my facebook feed and found it relevant to this discussion even if it is somewhat anecdotal.
The Combat Company wrote:We are getting lots of questions about the Dystopian Wars v2 releases. These have been hugely popular. The book has out sold 40k v7 6:1. Stock is arriving and we are shipping first order in first order out. Please be patient and rest assured your orders will be sent ASAP.
Kilkrazy wrote: When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
This in a nutshell. A lot of the "rules" that GW puts out aren't even needed, as people could do it before. Unbound, for example, or allying with CtA armies. You already could do that with your own groups, and since 40k assumes that everyone playing is part of some gaming club, these rules are superfluous. And yet they willfully ignore actual rules that would help everybody.
jonolikespie wrote: I just saw this pop up in my facebook feed and found it relevant to this discussion even if it is somewhat anecdotal.
The Combat Company wrote:We are getting lots of questions about the Dystopian Wars v2 releases. These have been hugely popular. The book has out sold 40k v7 6:1. Stock is arriving and we are shipping first order in first order out. Please be patient and rest assured your orders will be sent ASAP.
So that doesn't bode well for GW in the Australian market, but on the other hand it explains why my book and starter set haven't been dispatched yet
In my neck of the woods in the Upper Mid-West US, everything is outselling 7th edition 40k. Not a single copy has been ordered by our FLGS because not a single person wants it. Amazing what the last two years have done to the 40k player base here.
jonolikespie wrote: I just saw this pop up in my facebook feed and found it relevant to this discussion even if it is somewhat anecdotal.
The Combat Company wrote:We are getting lots of questions about the Dystopian Wars v2 releases. These have been hugely popular. The book has out sold 40k v7 6:1. Stock is arriving and we are shipping first order in first order out. Please be patient and rest assured your orders will be sent ASAP.
So that doesn't bode well for GW in the Australian market, but on the other hand it explains why my book and starter set haven't been dispatched yet
Hmm, could be significant, as the Combat Company is one of the larger/better known online retailers in Australia. Could be due to a few other factors, of course, but yeah, I'd say that doesn't bode well for 40k at the moment.
The thing about 40k at the moment is that it still works fine and is a lot of fun if you have a small group that self regulates (and the group of 40k players at my club are a great bunch who do). The only issue is that *any* game can do well in that sort of environment, one of the big draws of 40k has always been that you could find games anywhere, and people would see it being played at events, in stores and so on. If the game retreats back to being an at home game among friends (and the rules do seem to be pushing this way), or in little clubs around the place, is it going to get the exposure needed to hook in new players, especially when other games are now ramping up their event exposure?
Good to hear about Combat Company shifting bugger all in Aus. Would love a 20% loss for GW in Aus to shock them to their senses. I hope everyone starts using "digital" versions of GW rules, especially in Aus.
I have to say that the bundles GW have been doing lately have actually been decent value from a discounter when you exclude regional pricing with something like a 30% discount on the contents of the bundles. I've preordered three SM Ultra boxes from the US (I'll just sell on spare termies and dreads for a profit, but I need the LRs, SRs and Cappies). They'll give the two DVDA sets and 3 SM Strike Forces that are my current SM army some much needed armour and air.
Maddermax wrote: The thing about 40k at the moment is that it still works fine and is a lot of fun if you have a small group that self regulates (and the group of 40k players at my club are a great bunch who do). The only issue is that *any* game can do well in that sort of environment, one of the big draws of 40k has always been that you could find games anywhere, and people would see it being played at events, in stores and so on. If the game retreats back to being an at home game among friends (and the rules do seem to be pushing this way), or in little clubs around the place, is it going to get the exposure needed to hook in new players, especially when other games are now ramping up their event exposure?
That is a massive concern imo, and one GW seem to be oblivious to, which does not stack well with the fact that the buy in is so high. Even if there is exposure from those small groups how do people at home sell the game to their friends?
I was expecting another 'average' report in a month or so (or whenever it is due to come out), followed by some back and forth about how with 7th being pumped out and profits being flat GW must be in trouble, and that no everything is fine, nothing is broken because they are still profitable, etc, etc.
But after this I can't imagine it looking any better than the mid year report.
Flashman wrote: I'll say this (again)... 7th Edition is the very first edition of 40K I have no intention of buying. I've bought every single one before this including Rogue Trader.
It just doesn't generate excitement for me in the same way any more. As I've mentioned before, this could be because I'm approaching 40, but my every increasing X Wing Miniatures Game collection suggests I'm still not adverse to the idea of buying new toys.
EDIT - And if they pull this unbound crap in a new Fantasy Edition, I'm definitely through with GW games.
I would be prepared to be "done" with GW games then.
I have a feeling we're going to see something very much like Battle-Forged and Unbound. Looking back over the rumors surrounding WHFB, there's lots of indicators this is going to happen.
After reading the article, the fact that the old guard left as they did, as well as the group think mentality discussed earlier is exactly why this company is going toss, and that the 7th will more then likely be GW's death knell.
GW is doing things we don't need them to, but isn't doing things we need them to do.
Yes if you want to put it that way.
To be clear I have nothing against Unbound in itself. It obviously can be a riot of fun to lob everything on the table and play a big battle. I just don't need to pay GW £60 for permission to do that.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be clear I have nothing against Unbound in itself. It obviously can be a riot of fun to lob everything on the table and play a big battle. I just don't need to pay GW £60 for permission to do that.
Yep, did that pre-7th. CSM + Renegade Guard (IG) + Daemons, all treated as battle brothers. My group loved the list - but I wouldn't have taken it to a shop where the reasonable "baseline" didn't allow it. Unbound just creates too potential problems for random and tournament games. Home games weren't helped by this, random and tournament games were hurt. It's a similar problem imo to Map Packs in multiplayer FPS games - it fractures the community reducing the players available to any group which results in it dying off much quicker. 40k *really* doesn't need more difficulty getting games given the already declining playerbase.
Kilkrazy wrote: When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
I suspect that I am going to be quoting this a lot.
Hell - when I was playing with toy soldiers I came up with rules to force some kind of structure. Not much of a rule set - roll a D6, on a high die the green army man dies, on a low die the grey army man dies.... Range was one foot. (A year later I played my first real wargame'.)
GW is doing things we don't need them to, but isn't doing things we need them to do.
Or..
"they're expecting us to buy what they make, rather than making what we'll buy."
When I coined that, I had no idea how accurate I apparently was. It's a total bass ackwards way of running a business, but it explains so much.
You know, GW reminds me a good bit of those failing restaurants on Kitchen Nightmares (UK or USA version), in the sense that they have this grand vision of what they want to do, and are barreling straight forward with it ignoring all the flaws and ignoring what their customers actually want. The main difference is that GW has gotten lucky in that they were basically the only restaurant in town for 20+ years so people had no choice but to eat there even if the food's quality dropped but prices went up, and even if the special of the day was random scraps thrown together into a stew, and people who asked for a balanced meal were thrown out by the people who liked that they could have dessert and dinner at the same time and skip the vegetables.
The point behind that anecdote was that on Kitchen Nightmares, what has to be drilled into the businesspeople's heads is that just because YOU want to have let's say a fine dining restaurant, your customers might want a diner instead, and if you don't provide that experience then somebody else will. While the pipe dream would be well-balanced rules and about a 50% price decrease, that's also unrealistic. What's not unrealistic IMO though is GW realizing that they need to offer more value for the price, offer bundles to give a discount without actually giving a discount, and actually creating rules that can appeal to all players not just the niche they think everyone fits into. Case in point their battleforces and army deals should be full blown armies at a decent level (battleforces should be ~750 points) to make a good staring point for someone, not generally still require a couple of hundred extra bucks to actually use.
Personally, one of the most egregious things GW has done, one that really stands out in my mind as proof the company has lost their way, is the fact that all of the books, codexes and the like used to include a basic painting guide for some of the units - even if it was at barely beginner level with just basecoats. Then they stopped that, and have the gall to charge extra for a "How to Paint X" book, usually digital only.
GW is doing things we don't need them to, but isn't doing things we need them to do.
Or..
"they're expecting us to buy what they make, rather than making what we'll buy."
When I coined that, I had no idea how accurate I apparently was. It's a total bass ackwards way of running a business, but it explains so much.
You know, GW reminds me a good bit of those failing restaurants on Kitchen Nightmares (UK or USA version), in the sense that they have this grand vision of what they want to do, and are barreling straight forward with it ignoring all the flaws and ignoring what their customers actually want. The main difference is that GW has gotten lucky in that they were basically the only restaurant in town for 20+ years so people had no choice but to eat there even if the food's quality dropped but prices went up, and even if the special of the day was random scraps thrown together into a stew, and people who asked for a balanced meal were thrown out by the people who liked that they could have dessert and dinner at the same time and skip the vegetables.
The point behind that anecdote was that on Kitchen Nightmares, what has to be drilled into the businesspeople's heads is that just because YOU want to have let's say a fine dining restaurant, your customers might want a diner instead, and if you don't provide that experience then somebody else will. While the pipe dream would be well-balanced rules and about a 50% price decrease, that's also unrealistic. What's not unrealistic IMO though is GW realizing that they need to offer more value for the price, offer bundles to give a discount without actually giving a discount, and actually creating rules that can appeal to all players not just the niche they think everyone fits into. Case in point their battleforces and army deals should be full blown armies at a decent level (battleforces should be ~750 points) to make a good staring point for someone, not generally still require a couple of hundred extra bucks to actually use.
Personally, one of the most egregious things GW has done, one that really stands out in my mind as proof the company has lost their way, is the fact that all of the books, codexes and the like used to include a basic painting guide for some of the units - even if it was at barely beginner level with just basecoats. Then they stopped that, and have the gall to charge extra for a "How to Paint X" book, usually digital only.
I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
When I do feel like it's a huge value, however, is when I read the concise, clear rules, and realize that rulebook only costs $30.
GW's costs would be tolerable if the game didn't suck.
In my case I have extensive Tau and Tyranid armies built up from 4th edition onwards, as well as SM and IG models from 30 years ago, but if I want to play now I need to find £120 for the new rules and (already out of date) codexes, not counting any data slates or new models that have appeared since 5th edition slightly under two years ago. And the Psychic Cards my armies can't use and the Objective Cards I don't like.
So probably well over £200 just to keep playing with now incomplete and uncompetitive armies.
Kilkrazy wrote: In my case I have extensive Tau and Tyranid armies built up from 4th edition onwards, as well as SM and IG models from 30 years ago, but if I want to play now I need to find £120 for the new rules and (already out of date) codexes, not counting any data slates or new models that have appeared since 5th edition slightly under two years ago. And the Psychic Cards my armies can't use and the Objective Cards I don't like.
So probably well over £200 just to keep playing with now incomplete and uncompetitive armies.
What is it like for new beginners?
Someone did the math (roughly) in the "how desperate is GW" thread.
Rules book. Codex Battle force Hobby starter set (paints, brush, glue) Dice Tape measure
$345.75 US retail.
That's how bad it is for new beginners, and that's the entry-level "Baby's First 40k Game" level for tutorial-level games. And as I said in that thread, I could buy a 35-point Warmachine army (standard level games) including hobby supplies for roughly the same price.
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Kal-El wrote: GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Have you bought any of the new WGF plastics such as the WWX or Dreamforge Games stuff? They're superior to GW stuff imo. New GW plastics are great - I'm really happy with the new tacticals and stern/vanguard vet kits. But the WGF kits I've got have been better.
---
I think Warmachine (and Deadzone, KoW, Dreadball, X-Wing etc) are good to compare to GW rules-wise. They all seem to have much better playtested rules with better balancing. Comparisons to $$ required I think has to be taken with a grain of salt given the disparity in models required to play games. You need more models to play 40k, so you will of course pay more in that regard. I think your best bet is breaking down what you're looking at, and also excluding hobby materials required such as paints as that is easily sourced outside or borrowed to begin with: - Pricing and availibility of starter kits. - Pricing of rules if separate from starter kits. - Total price for a baseline army. - Total price for a "full" army - Expected yearly outlays to keep up to date.
GWs problems come down to overpriced rules and overpriced minis, both by something like 40% on average. Hard plastic should not cost as much as GW charges, especially at the quaantities they produce of it. Not to mention the quantities that would be demanded if it were 40% cheaper. I would happily have armies for all factions at that price as yes, I love the 40K setting (if they don't continue to rape the fluff) and the models are in general great (Khornemower, Taurox etc. aside).
GW has recently started to do decent value (from US discounters at least) starter kits, with the initial SM Strike Force and now the Strike Force Ultra. If they continue to go this route, I will be pretty happy - though I still think it could use more of a baseline price drop. Even fully discounted with bundle and discounter ddiscounts, termies are $6 a piece for hard plastic - that's resin mini territory.
GW always sells itself as a miniature company. That would be great - they should release free rules in this case imo. Free rules would greatly reduce the barriers to entry and bring in a lot more new blood. They'll lose the rulebook sales, but greatly gain in model sales. This would improve their market share by cannibalizing other miniature games, and GW really likes their market share which has been dwindling.
The "doom and gloom" is because the company is, to be frank, ass backwards in its business practices. What they NEED is for people to not want to buy their products, so they'll get the kick in the ass they need to fix the major issues.
Having recently gone to Warmachine, I will agree that sometimes the mold lines are in annoying places (I especially hate when there's this big chunk still attached that has to be carved off), but overall I find their quality to be just as good as GW without the insane and IMO unnecessary level of detail on 28mm figures. The key argument here is that 40k stands alone as a game where you need several hundred dollars just to get started at the entry level. Every other game out there the buy-in is very low so its easier for new people to get started as they won't have to drop a hefty amount of cash just to play beginner-level games.
Its not the points values that we're talking about, it's the fact if somebody new wants to get into Warmachine, their buy-in is approximately $85 (rulebook + Battlegroup for their faction) and they can get started with beginner-level games (it's a bit more if you factor in supplies, but let's assume no supplies and just glue to assemble) or get started in a Journeyman League, and to top it off the figures overall end up cheaper when you're starting because you need less of them and many of them are small groups, not big units (and the big units run $50 for basically ever option you could field with them, and you only need one box typically versus GW's $40 for one box with limited options that you need 2+ of anyways).
In comparison, GW's *rules* are $85 alone, and then a starter army is likely another $100+, and to get to the basic level is probably another $100 depending on what you're playing. So you're looking at a sizeable investment just to get started playing, and that's not even factoring in the general issues with the rules and the meta - if your meta only plays 2k point games, then you're screwed (and it can happen, my local area doesn't like to go under 1850 as near as I can tell)
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
Just play the game and support the hobby IMO.
What utter tripe.
GW nor Warhammer are "the hobby" which, let's be honest, is actually what you're referring to. If the largest company with the most widely played game in the hobby has contrived to allow it's utter dominance in the market to atrophy to the point where "a vocal minority" on the Internet can hurt sales (and which is it? seems those that argue in favour of GW simultaneously attribute anyone criticising as a minority and with the potential to damage their "hhhobby." It can't be both) then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
You'll find few criticising the technical quality of GW models (aesthetic is subjective and a pointless discussion) but I think you'll find "but mold lines!" isn't an argument you'll get much success with, when people are paying less for a viable army (points are totally arbitrary, investment to get a playable, viable force is the best, and only true, measure of how expensive a game is to the player) with a less, shall we say, controversial? ruleset.
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Where they're great comparisons is that they're both wargames. I agree on PP models, they're terrible and the material is iffy at best. I like the aesthetic well enough but the execution leaves something to be desired. I do, however, love the rules and the quick game play. There's something to be said for clearly written rules. I wonder if the people that write GW's rules actually ever play the game anymore or just put models on the table, take a few pictures then write their "narrative"..
This is the price for a 35-point Warmachine Khador army, which is generally the normal size for games outside of tournaments:
Warmachine MkII Rulebook - $29.99 Forces of Warmachine: Khador - $34.99 Khador Battlegroup (Sorscha, Juggernaut, Destroyer) - $49.99 --- You can play basic games to learn here and start in a Journeyman League Widowmakers - $19.99 --- You can play beginner-level games here Winter Guard Infantry (Leader, 9 Grunts, 3 Rocketeers) - $49.99 Winter Guard Officer & Standard Bearer - $12.99 Kovnik Jozef Grigorovich - $10.99 Great Bears of Gallowswood - $37.99 Gorman di Wulfe (Merc) - $7.99 Khador Token Set - $11.99 Warmachine Template Set - $9.99 2x Khador Heavy Wreck Markers - 2x @ $9.99 = $19.98 Work Hobby Brush - $6.99 Fine Hobby Brush - $6.99 Primer - $9.99 Hobby Knife - $6.99 File Set - $8.99 Superglue - $6.99 Khador Colors Paint Set - $17.99
Comes to $361.80 USD, and that is including hobby supplies so this is from the perspective of somebody going from brand new "What's this Warmachine game?" to "I can play the majority of non-tournament games at my FLGS"
What would $360 get you if you were just starting out in 40k? Likely a lot less than the above (not counting picking up armies on eBay or the like), in fact likely closer to just the basic level of beginner-level games, not the normal size for the majority of games out there.
That, in a nutshell, is the issue. It costs more to get started in 40k than it does to have a good-sized collection (relatively speaking) for another, similar game.
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
Trying to dismiss criticism of a company as well as those doing the criticising by characterising said criticism as "hysteria" is a bad way to start, son of Krypton.
Kal-El wrote: Just play the game and support the hobby IMO.
What hobby would that be? Miniature Wargaming, which is what it is, or the Games Workshop HHHobby, which is what GW thinks it is?
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models.
So what? You still need a fraction of the model count to play an equivalent sized game.
Kal-El wrote: The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
And herrings are also red!
Kal-El wrote: GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Excellent. Nothing to do with this conversation though. No one's going after GW's model quality and/or mold lines.
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
Trying to dismiss criticism of a company as well as those doing the criticising by characterising said criticism as "hysteria" is a bad way to start, son of Krypton.
Kal-El wrote: Just play the game and support the hobby IMO.
What hobby would that be? Miniature Wargaming, which is what it is, or the Games Workshop HHHobby, which is what GW thinks it is?
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models.
So what? You still need a fraction of the model count to play an equivalent sized game.
Kal-El wrote: The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
And herrings are also red!
Kal-El wrote: GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Excellent. Nothing to do with this conversation though. No one's going after GW's model quality and/or mold lines.
Or, given PP's use of resin, perhaps we should compare the quality of WARMAHordes miniatures to GW's resin - Finecast?
Not a lot of argument about mold lines, I will grant you... missing limbs, figures that melt in the hot sun of Leeds, bubbles that you can use to bail out a canoe... but not mold lines....
heartserenade wrote: Perry has very good plastic models, in fact in par (maybe even better!) than GW since you know, they're the same fething sculptors.
Resin and metal-wise? Infinity at the top of my head.
No, GW doesn't have the best product model-wise.
+1 to both of those. Just putting some Perry War of the Roses miniatures together at the moment actually - the sculpt detail is at least as good as the GW Empire/Bretonninan equivalents (with a personal preference for the more realistically proportioned style), and you can buy a box of 40 of them, inc. command options, for about the same price as 10 GW miniatures. You also get a little painting/heraldry guide in the box. Think that illustrates the point of value pretty well in my book.
They are the best if you like the GW heroic proportions and design aesthetic; spikes, skulls, purity seals, rivets, and so on.
If you need to have the official models of course it is a monopoly.
In terms of actual sculptural quality and quality of rendition in the materials, I don't think GW are any better than most of the other wargame figure companies, and they certainly did so very badly with the quality of Finecast that the reputation has rubbed off on "restic" and other resinous type materials used by some of the other companies.
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models.
We went over this in the 'OMG Infinity is a skirmish game?' thread, but: this means absolutely nothing other than GW has decided to require more models for an entry level force than other games, and Games Workshop has also sometimes decided to not give complete starter forces with their starters. And at all with their battleforces.
Yes, the 2 player Warmachine set gives you 2 complete starter forces. They're small, but complete. The game also requires less models than Warhammer 40k overall. There's nothing at all wrong with this, it's simply a different approach to game design. And yes, it's absolutely a factor of importance when discussing entry level costs.
We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
Are the rules the backbone of any system regardless of how pretty or ugly or mold-lined the models are?
Here is my personal opinions (they are just mine, no more or less valid then anyone else's).
To me rules are number 1. If I don;t like how the game plays I don't care about the models. Models to me are the physical representation of rules in the game (it does help me want to paint it if I like the model but its not essential to my enjoyment of the game).
Number 2 on my list is the community and support of said community by the company. I like being able to interact with folks from the game companies its cool to meet the dude that put out that amazing new model (rules wise or ascetics wise) and ask them about how they do it. I like being able to get onto the PP boards and ask a question of a rules developer and actually get an answer. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and mostly I feel like I am part of the community.
So I ask you whats the hobby to you and is GW fulfilling your expectations? If they are, hey right on keep trucking. If they are not I'd ask you to look around and find something that you really like.
We are blessed in this time of war gaming, there are so very many good/great games out there. WM/H, Infinity, BattleTech is back, Firestorm Armada. The list goes on. There is really no need to gnash teeth and loose sleep over what GW is or is not doing.
Kilkrazy wrote: In terms of actual sculptural quality and quality of rendition in the materials, I don't think GW are any better than most of the other wargame figure companies, and they certainly did so very badly with the quality of Finecast that the reputation has rubbed off on "restic" and other resinous type materials used by some of the other companies.
Yeah, this is pretty much where I landed, having just assembled the whole WM starter set. A lot of things feel different, but I don't feel it's any better or worse than GW. The models go together differently, the plastic is a bit harder and heavier, the bases are different.
IMO, the mold lines were no worse. There were one or two that were horribly located, but I've certainly had that happen on GW models as well. Also, I didn't have any molds that were "off" where the two halves were slightly displaced, and I certainly saw that in the 6th edition boxed set for 40k.
darefsky wrote: We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
...
...
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
darefsky wrote: We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
...
...
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
All very good points. But, I wonder: Is GW really trying to alienate the veterans? One of the biggest reasons for releasing all new kits like the Imperial Knight and the Gorkanaut is because it is something new that the veterans don't already have. They're not necessarily making these new things (like Centurions and Hunter/Stalker tanks, as well) just to push on the newbies, since they can push the entire army on to the newbies. The veterans already have their armies, so what is the one thing veterans don't have that GW can sell them? New models, new rules, new special paints, etc. So, maybe they think they're actually serving the veterans with a lot of these new releases?
I mean, sure, it feels like we're being alienated because of all the things GW keeps taking away that we remember from over the years. I think the real problem is that GW no longer even knows how to handle the concept of veteran players. They're more focused on the quick sale and the short term cash grab. The upcoming financials will certainly be an eye opener in many ways, I suspect.
I do not think GW have decided to do whatever they can to piss off veterans. They just don't care if their changed strategy does piss off veterans or they perhaps mistakenly think veterans will welcome it.
To a veteran the result is the same however it comes about.
As you say, perhaps GW have lost sight of what veteran players may mean to them.
darefsky wrote: We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
...
...
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
Those are some really good points, KK.
I really wish GW would look at this with some level of introspection. My love for 40k has been taking tremendous hits since halfway through 6th edition (about a year ago!). I went from only exploring Dystopian Wars in a friend's group to ditching my third 40k project and looking into WM/H. Part of me feels weird because 40k is something I've enjoyed for such a long time, but it seems like the company that built it just isn't there any more other than in name.
Time will tell, but I just don't see 40k making any big positive steps in the future.
Kilkrazy wrote: I do not think GW have decided to do whatever they can to piss off veterans. They just don't care if their changed strategy does piss off veterans or they perhaps mistakenly think veterans will welcome it.
To a veteran the result is the same however it comes about.
As you say, perhaps GW have lost sight of what veteran players may mean to them.
I think that GW is confused in that they claim to market to kids - in fact it could be rationalized that the entire concept of Unbound armies aims directly at a younger market who will pick and choose things based on what looks cool, and previously wouldn't be too thrilled (rather, their parents wouldn't be thrilled) with the idea that all those things you bought for Junior won't let him play the game, you need to buy more. Of course, that begs the question of if this is really GW's target market. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to see many 500 point or "1 HQ and 2 Troops" type of games going on, and even then with gross imbalances between factions "1 HQ and 2 Troops" means a lot of different things to different people. Maybe that works for a demo game, or the start of an Escalation League or campaign, but not more than that. I can't imagine that somebody who always turns up with minuscule points values is going to find a game more than a few weeks in a row at which point they'll be expected to turn up with a "real" army.
I definitely agree though that part of the appeal of 40k is that it's ubiquitous. Go to any games/miniatures store, and you're very likely to find that they sell 40k miniatures, and that 40k games go on. In fact I just had this talk with a staff member at my FLGS as we (and some others) have become enthralled with Warmachine, but interest has waned for unknown reasons; people started up, played games and enjoyed it, but have now gone back to Warhammer (Fantasy in this case) and there's only a handful of us who still actively talk about Warmachine (much to my chagrin). Both of us used to play 40k, although I no longer have any armies for it having long since lost them to the ether. We both made the comment that while we like 40k, we dislike GW for a myriad of things but most noticeably their disgusting business practices and the ever-increasing cost of their kit: The staff member made a point to show the Space Marine Reclusiam squad (with the Chaplain that's only available in that box). It costs $90 for 5 guys, a character and a tank; that's $90 for something that doesn't even give you enough to begin playing despite a hefty investment in buying it (IMO that box should be closer $65 in price; that would be reasonable). In comparison, you can buy a Warmachine/Hordes Battlegroup starter box for $49.,99 and get started playing, or you could buy the 2-player box for $100 and have everything needed to get started playing plus the rules. In comparison there is Dark Vengeance but the armies in DV are woefully imbalanced. That's a big issue to me, possibly the largest issue as outside of the big kits (Knight, Riptide, etc.) the cost of 40k tends to level out as you build your "collection", but it's the initial cost that makes most players balk. To get started playing, IMO one shouldn't have to spend more than $100 on an entry-level force. Even GW's Battleforces often run $100 or more and still don't give you enough to get started playing in many cases; this is unacceptable to me.
I wouldn't mind dropping $100 if I knew it would give me the entry-point of an army; it's when I have to spend $100 and still spend another $100 or more just on a basic force (to say nothing of almost $150 just for the rules) that other options start to look better and better - I can't justify that insane cost just to *get started* with anything. As has been said many times, the only thing luxury about the GW hobby is the price. A Space Marine Captain costs $30 for a plastic model with fixed options; in comparison one of the Khador Warcasters (Vlad2) costs $20 for a *metal* figure with fixed options. The SM Captain, barring the fact he's plastic and therefore costs less to make, would be tolerable at $20. At $30 it's taking the piss.
Part of my issue in particular is that I love the 40k fluff and background, but I can't justify paying the price GW asks with a game that's has not a care towards balance or fairness, where you can spend hundreds of dollars and screw yourself due to picking the wrong faction or wrong units, and to top it all off with a local meta that seemingly has nothing other than pick-up games and tournaments going on. I flat out told the staff member that I might be persuaded to actually give 40k a shot if, and only if, there were people playing it at the store and if there was some kind of league or campaign going on that promoted casual and fun games, not the typical tournament style games that go on at one of the other FLGSes in the area. I get that GW doesn't care for competitive play, but a good portion of the playerbase does and if your meta has those kinds of people, you're really between a rock and a hard place, and it's quite ironic that there's a good bit of competitive play for a game that doesn't want to be a competitive game, and too often said competitive play is what causes the least fun games; while yes the rules could be more balanced, I personally don't think the rules are an issue when you're playing in a more laid back environment. The abusive combos only tend to rear their head with competitive gamers.
WayneTheGame wrote: As has been said many times, the only thing luxury about the GW hobby is the price. A Space Marine Captain costs $30 for a plastic model with fixed options; in comparison one of the Khador Warcasters (Vlad2) costs $20 for a *metal* figure with fixed options. The SM Captain, barring the fact he's plastic and therefore costs less to make, would be tolerable at $20. At $30 it's taking the piss.
That example gets even more obscene when you realize that GW does their own designing, sculpting, mold-tooling, and plastic production. They're not paying anybody else to do it, and there's no extra costs from contracting a sculptor and having a factory somewhere else produce the model and ship it to GW's warehouse. It's allGW.
Yeah, these days you can buy super detailed 'luxury' Kingdom Death or Wild West Exodus resin minis (that really are greatly detailed with high or higher quality sculpts) for $13-25 each mini, depending ont he mini.
Compare this to finecrap characters, or their plastic librarian clampack ($-ouch)... I love 40k, but I no longer love the price, especially when there are other games with better, more detailed, cheaper minis and just as good of fluff/gameplay.
GW used to give deals and had decent valued minis, but for the first time in 15 years I have no reason to defend them and have no desire to play anymore (after I read the new rulebook/changes).
Has anyone noticed that 40k seems to be played by 17-25 yo's, and once people reach 30+, they seem to get into other mini games?
If they dropped their prices, they would probably see many more people buying their products or returning to their game.
:(
WayneTheGame wrote: Yes, but like the restaurants on Kitchen Nightmares, they have this "vision" and think that lowering the price indicates a drop in quality.
The funny thing about Kitchen Nightmares is that the exact same solution is eventually rolled out for every failing restaurant:
1) A re-establishment of working as a team rather than one individual dominating everything
2) A re-connection with the local community, up to and including apologies when needed
3) An acceptance that the product being offered isn't as good as they think it is.
4) A return to high standards in terms of operations and cleanliness.
5) A redesigned menu that is both simple, uses fresh and home made food that is cooked to order.
6) A product which is good value for the money
7) A spruced up decor to bring things up to modern times rather than being dated or filthy.
Some variation of this approach is what happens on nearly every episode. It's just such simple, normal business practice that I'm shocked that so many restaurants fail to acheive it. Yet here we are with GW showing the need for a plan that parallels this approach in surprising ways.
I don't really know that this is the case. I left 40k when 6th hit and I honestly don't know that I could be enticed back. Maybe if they went back to the specialist lines. I have long wanted to try things like Necromunda, BFG, Inquisitor and the like.
I just honestly have no desire to play that big of a game anymore. I like the feel of smaller sized games, I actually feel like its more in depth planing out moves for individual models in a 10 man unit and figuring out the best order of activation. And yes I know that this is my personal experience. I honestly would have never known that I was not as happy as I could have been with miniature games if I hadn't left the GW nest.
They don't have to get you darefsky, they just have to get enough of your friends.
Besides, a small scale game is some thing they're crying out for as a gateway product anyway, should things start to be run in a more orthodox manner, you may well get your wish.
azreal13 wrote: They don't have to get you darefsky, they just have to get enough of your friends.
Besides, a small scale game is some thing they're crying out for as a gateway product anyway, should things start to be run in a more orthodox manner, you may well get your wish.
Azreal, that's just it though.... at my FLGS its swung to the point of 70% WM/H, 20% 40k, and a rapidly grown 10% Firestorm Armada.
We have it kinda split that Wed is 40k night. Thursday is WM and Saturday is open play. I can still find a game on Wednesday nights for WM and Saturdays its us, the space ship guys, and the board gamers.
I do hope you are right and they are bringing back the specialist stuff. I don't mind throwing money at GW (I don't think they are the resurrection of the 3rd Reich or some such nonsense, that can go on around here at times.)
I'm not saying they will, but I really think a squad level, boxed game which shares rules DNA with the main core systems would be an intelligent move.
But my point was more that if GW really gets the message with the next 12 months or so of sales figures showing still further drop off, to the point where they make a concerted effort to improve the game, they don't need to entice you back directly, if enough of your Warmahordes and FA playing friends have their heads turned, you may eventually decide to play again purely because 40K is the game it's easiest to get.
Which is why a lot of us started in the first place!
azreal13 wrote: I'm not saying they will, but I really think a squad level, boxed game which shares rules DNA with the main core systems would be an intelligent move.
But my point was more that if GW really gets the message with the next 12 months or so of sales figures showing still further drop off, to the point where they make a concerted effort to improve the game, they don't need to entice you back directly, if enough of your Warmahordes and FA playing friends have their heads turned, you may eventually decide to play again purely because 40K is the game it's easiest to get.
Which is why a lot of us started in the first place!
I'm not necessarily a fan of small (Infinity level) skirmishes, but I really like the general size of Warmahordes where you have a big guy or two and a few units of infantry; that seems like the sweet spot where it's above a skirmish but not full-blown large combat - I personally think that the typical size of a Bolt Action game is where 40k should have stayed at. It's actually funny I was looking through some old White Dwarfs, and remembered that in 2nd edition when the game was still a skirmish game, they had an Imperial Fists Strike force that contained:
and that was 1,500 points back then, and came in at 65 pounds in 1998. And then points were cut in half for 3rd edition, and since then it's been slowly getting larger and larger to where we have what amounts to 28mm Epic 40k now.
azreal13 wrote: I'm not saying they will, but I really think a squad level, boxed game which shares rules DNA with the main core systems would be an intelligent move.
But my point was more that if GW really gets the message with the next 12 months or so of sales figures showing still further drop off, to the point where they make a concerted effort to improve the game, they don't need to entice you back directly, if enough of your Warmahordes and FA playing friends have their heads turned, you may eventually decide to play again purely because 40K is the game it's easiest to get.
Which is why a lot of us started in the first place!
Maybe. I think that it depends on where we are recruiting new gamers from. We are seeing a good amount of recruitment from MTG players over to WM/H here. If there are a substantial amount of new table top players that are being brought in that have never been exposed to 40k or are already entrenched in other systems it might be a bit harder to pull off.
And I am right there with you with 40k I didn't even know I liked stuff like this till a friend from work brought me to his FLGS to "pick up a magazine" (and by that I mean get me hooked). I walked in and found a whole bunch of guys having a blast, being loud and the little plastic dudes looked cool. I was hooked in about 10 seconds.
I do hope you are right and they are bringing back the specialist stuff. I don't mind throwing money at GW (I don't think they are the resurrection of the 3rd Reich or some such nonsense, that can go on around here at times.)
I think it's potentially too late for the specialist games; for each one there is inevitably a competing product already out there that'll both be better and cheaper. They do have the brand recognition so it might still work if they don't take too long.
Has anyone noticed that 40k seems to be played by 17-25 yo's, and once people reach 30+, they seem to get into other mini games? .
:(
It says in their reports that their targeted demographic is 14 to 24 year old well mannered young males and their families. I think what you say is true, to an extent. Most of us got into wargames via 40k, lasted a while and then got into other games, whether as a side project to 40k, or as an outright alterative. That said, more and more young gamers are coming through the ranks having never played a gw game.
Here's an amusing one for you. Last year, or the year before, there was a big tourney event organised near the city -flames of war, 40k and warmachine tournaments were all run. I looked at the people attending each, and their age profiles, and couldn't help smiling - it was rather amusing.
Flames of war was mainly played by the older gents. Let's say 40+. Longbeards, and greybeards.
Warmachine was attended by the grown ups - twenty something's and thirty something's.
40k was played by kids. Early teens, if that. And a pair of fat, ungroomed grognards.
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Umm... Well apart from the obvious GW emergency White Knight account, you have some rather invalid points.
GW is not the Hobby. It is the HHHobby, something that it has been trying to be. Its rules are lacklustre and its models are stupidly expensive and resemble kiddies toys. Oh, and Finecast melts at room temperature.
GW does have MAJOR moldline issues. I got a Vampire Slaying Dwarf model from them and it looked as though the mold has slipped. I had to hack off half the detail from some places and then resculpt it. Compare this to the Bonejacks that I have for my Warmachine army. The moldlines where easy to remove and harmed none of the detail.
And if we are going to compare WM and 40K/WHFB: Well, I recently calculated the entry costs for a HE army. It would cost me close to £300-400 for a viable army and an army book, compared to around £100 for a WM army.
The starter sets that GW produce are lacklustre, with the current WHFB one having terrible balance issues. You have the Skaven army which is balance and actually not bad. Then you have the HE one that is a pile of crap. you have 2 units that are only in there to act as fillers and then you have the Swordmasters and the prince on his chickencat which is an illegal unit for the size of the forces. Then you have to buy the units to finish your armies off, usually around £300 worth.
The WM one comes with 2 armies that are fully completed and legal and need around £60-£70 worth of units/solos to finish. Oh, and their balanced.
TL;DR, GW is a dieing company. Its models are frequently made to resemble childrens toys and the games are unbalanced. Oh, and the products are overpriced.
The 40K box is meant to be as bad; the DAngels aren't a legal force (well, until Unbound) and has a significantly higher points cost that the Chaos side.
Herzlos wrote: The 40K box is meant to be as bad; the DAngels aren't a legal force (well, until Unbound) and has a significantly higher points cost that the Chaos side.
The 40K box is meant to be an intro. They didn't intent it to be "bad". That's silly.
Herzlos wrote: The 40K box is meant to be as bad; the DAngels aren't a legal force (well, until Unbound) and has a significantly higher points cost that the Chaos side.
The 40K box is meant to be an intro. They didn't intent it to be "bad". That's silly.
Well it's terrible as an entry level product least because it doesn't provide you with a legal force. But then I guess everything is legal now... I know it includes forces for the narrative in the set.....I just got a sick feeling. ...maybe they think people love narrative gaming because of the number of starters sold. Ick.
Herzlos wrote: The 40K box is meant to be as bad; the DAngels aren't a legal force (well, until Unbound) and has a significantly higher points cost that the Chaos side.
The 40K box is meant to be an intro. They didn't intent it to be "bad". That's silly.
Yet it fails at an intro. The Chaos player isn't going to have a good time as their force isn't half as good, to say nothing of outnumbered, which it's debatable if that's the intent as GW constantly pushes Space Marines of all flavors and clearly set them up to be the "good guys". Which again goes back to the fundamental issue that GW cares more about telling an interesting story than having a balanced game, but the sheer fact they have points values assigned to units indicates some semblance of balance, and they don't exactly push imbalanced narrative battles as the core game either - all the missions to my knowledge are assumed equal points and therefore should be assumed balance with all else equal. It would be a different story if every mission was a narrative mission representing some type of conflict (similar to how WHFB used to have battles that had imbalanced forces e.g. Defender has 50% the points of the Attacker).
This is where personally I find the disconnect. If GW just pushed out things like the warzone books detailing a specific conflict (e.g. Taros, Badab, Damocles) and published ways to refight those battles or use them to make your own campaigns, balance wouldn't be such a concern as it would be clear the game is intended to play interesting battles. Instead, they try to be everything to everyone and therefore fail at everything. IMO they should focus on warzone books detailing campaigns, and campaigns themselves. That way there's zero ambiguity and more people are going to play narrative type games. Instead if you're in a competitive meta, there's a vast disconnect with how the game is meant and how people actually play.
WayneTheGame wrote: Yet it fails at an intro. The Chaos player isn't going to have a good time as their force isn't half as good, to say nothing of outnumbered, which it's debatable if that's the intent as GW constantly pushes Space Marines of all flavors and clearly set them up to be the "good guys". Which again goes back to the fundamental issue that GW cares more about telling an interesting story than having a balanced game, but the sheer fact they have points values assigned to units indicates some semblance of balance, and they don't exactly push imbalanced narrative battles as the core game either - all the missions to my knowledge are assumed equal points and therefore should be assumed balance with all else equal. It would be a different story if every mission was a narrative mission representing some type of conflict (similar to how WHFB used to have battles that had imbalanced forces e.g. Defender has 50% the points of the Attacker).
This is where personally I find the disconnect. If GW just pushed out things like the warzone books detailing a specific conflict (e.g. Taros, Badab, Damocles) and published ways to refight those battles or use them to make your own campaigns, balance wouldn't be such a concern as it would be clear the game is intended to play interesting battles. Instead, they try to be everything to everyone and therefore fail at everything. IMO they should focus on warzone books detailing campaigns, and campaigns themselves. That way there's zero ambiguity and more people are going to play narrative type games. Instead if you're in a competitive meta, there's a vast disconnect with how the game is meant and how people actually play.
I never said that it didn't fail at an intro. I said it wasn't designed to be bad, because it wasn't. "Designed to be bad" implies conscious thought went into making it "bad", and frankly the people writing the rules don't understand those rules enough to intentionally make something bad. If it fails at an intro it's because the people who designed it didn't understand why a force consisting mostly of squishy humans and a single (bad) vehicle might have some issues against an army of Marines, Terminators, Bikes and an enemy Psyker.
Flames of war was mainly played by the older gents. Let's say 40+. Longbeards, and greybeards.
I worked in an independent store some years ago. I'd worked in a GW years before that - quite a lot of the guys that came in to buy FoW had been kids when I had last seen them years before, and wanted to move on to something else after playing 40k or Fantasy for years. Other than the older 30/40+ fraternity that collected FoW, there were actually quite a few 16/17yr olds who would come in with their dads - their kids are studying history at school, and they wanted something that was beyond what was perceived as a childish pastime and the younger kids that occupied the GW store.
That being said I wonder how Battlefront have been doing financially, and whether the number of other companies producing high quality kits (for less money, most notably PSC) have hurt them at all - read about a store having stock flow problems with their goods, although don't know if that was an isolated incident.
Interestingly enough, even in the heavy competitive 40kFLGS, it's all adults (early 20s and up I'd wager through mid/late 30s or even 40s). No kids at all.
In terms of 40k rules trying to include a bit of everything to try to appeal to every one.
This is a strategy enforce by the sales department IMO to try to cover a wide demographic with as little effort as possible.
They seem to think that if they shoe horn all the cool ideas from the specialist games in to 40k they do not need any other games !
But not understanding game play issues ,fail to see the folly of this.
It is like putting starters, the fish course, main course and dessert , all mashed up together on one plate, it is not that appealing when you get to try to eat it!
Sure everyone sees a bit of their favorite food , but the taste when you eat it is just a diffuse and horrid mess.
This is the best annallagy I could come up with for current 40k rules!(Ascetics over function.)
IMO they should release a starter skirmish rule set, that is suitable for random pick up games , with an expansion with scenario driven campaigns, for more narrative game play.
9An easy in for new players.)
AND a battle game rules set , suitable for random pick up games , with an expansion with scenario driven campaigns.
(For those who want to try this out when they have large model collections.)
The battle game uses the same rules as the skirmish game , but focuses on unit interaction , rather than individual model interaction.
This way there is clear distinction between the sizes of the game, and the styles of play, so like minded games find other players much easier.
Sir Arun wrote: maybe 7th edition was GW's last desperate attempt to reignite the hobby? they might be closing shop by the end of the year
I'm pretty sure it was, they nuked 6th after 23 months. If it was a success then the people buying it are resounding idiots, completely unaware that by allowing that behaviour they are only asking for more, GW is pushing the boundaries of fullretard and how much punishment the sycophants are willing to take.
For me, GW have tried to recreate Epic 40K in 28mm. I know some people are like, "Big models, yay!", but the core rule system is inherently unsuitable for this type of play.
As Lanrak suggests, perhaps the answer is a tight set of rules for skirmish level play (involving troops and smaller vehicles / walkers such as Land Speeders and Wraithlords) and broader rules for big arse battles where Riptides and Imperial Knights reign supreme and entire Tactical Squads can be wiped off the board in the blink of the eye.
And before you ask, no I don't think Apocalypse/Escalation covers the latter game type because the core rules are still used at the moment making interactions between different units a bit fiddly.
As Killkrazy said earlier, what you definitely don't need is a set of rules giving you permission to indulge in narrative games. By all means give examples of wacky scenarios, but the "Do what you like" section of the book needs to be one page long max.
Sir Arun wrote: maybe 7th edition was GW's last desperate attempt to reignite the hobby? they might be closing shop by the end of the year
I'm pretty sure it was, they nuked 6th after 23 months. If it was a success then the people buying it are resounding idiots, completely unaware that by allowing that behaviour they are only asking for more, GW is pushing the boundaries of fullretard and how much punishment the sycophants are willing to take.
Let's just clarify that a ~10% down turn in profits year on year is significant, but to try and parley that into "closing shop by the end of the year" would take such a ridiculous swing in fortunes as to be totally absurd.
GW are not going anywhere in the short to medium term, the best outcome we can hope for from the recent financials is an attempt to re-focus in order to turn things around, and that the attempt to re-focus brings them back to a place where they start to act with more respect for their whole customer base, and don't just treat it as a resource to be exploited.
Yeah there's still a while to go before they start losing money, but if they keep retreating they are going to start falling off a lot of gamers' radars
azreal13 wrote: Let's just clarify that a ~10% down turn in profits year on year is significant, but to try and parley that into "closing shop by the end of the year" would take such a ridiculous swing in fortunes as to be totally absurd.
Yep. They aren't in any danger of going out of business and the fact they have been cost cutting is a good thing to insure their survival. We can also be pretty confident that their numbers are real since they aren't manipulating their revenue so earnings quality isn't in question.
azreal13 wrote: GW are not going anywhere in the short to medium term, the best outcome we can hope for from the recent financials is an attempt to re-focus in order to turn things around, and that the attempt to re-focus brings them back to a place where they start to act with more respect for their whole customer base, and don't just treat it as a resource to be exploited.
I would still argue that most of the primary threat to their survival is the global economy. The US is now officially 1 quarter away from being in a recession, China has contracted for 5 consecutive months* and Europe makes those situations look good by comparison. Needless to say, those are pretty major headwinds. Whether it be by luck or by design, I think they are making the right decisions to survive.
All macro economic arguments aside, people even during a recession/depression find ways to spend money on entertainment. Look back at the Great Depresion and you will find the rise of the board game (see MONOPOLY) for a great example.
In short you can't blame the bad economies of the world for GW's issues. They are bringing the vast majority of it on themselves.
A company that only offers 2 major and 1 minor product lines and somehow tries to parlay that into an international chain of retail stores is asking for a rude awakening.
I owned GW stock until an auto-sell left me with a tidy sum in January when the stock tanked. I don't think that they will go belly-up at any moment but neither do I buy that there is any more cost-cutting to be had. You can only trim so much fat before the corporate body begins to feed upon itself to the detriment of the company as a whole and I think GW's about reached that point. One man operations are not efficient in supplying an open retail outlet to consumers, that's why no serious businesses do it (to my knowledge).
agnosto wrote: A company that only offers 2 major and 1 minor product lines and somehow tries to parlay that into an international chain of retail stores is asking for a rude awakening.
I owned GW stock until an auto-sell left me with a tidy sum in January when the stock tanked. I don't think that they will go belly-up at any moment but neither do I buy that there is any more cost-cutting to be had. You can only trim so much fat before the corporate body begins to feed upon itself to the detriment of the company as a whole and I think GW's about reached that point. One man operations are not efficient in supplying an open retail outlet to consumers, that's why no serious businesses do it (to my knowledge).
azreal13 wrote: GW are not going anywhere in the short to medium term, the best outcome we can hope for from the recent financials is an attempt to re-focus in order to turn things around, and that the attempt to re-focus brings them back to a place where they start to act with more respect for their whole customer base, and don't just treat it as a resource to be exploited.
I would still argue that most of the primary threat to their survival is the global economy. The US is now officially 1 quarter away from being in a recession, China has contracted for 5 consecutive months* and Europe makes those situations look good by comparison. Needless to say, those are pretty major headwinds. Whether it be by luck or by design, I think they are making the right decisions to survive.
Of course you would. I'm pretty sure you'd argue that for reasons why your milk had gone off.
darefsky wrote: All macro economic arguments aside, people even during a recession/depression find ways to spend money on entertainment. Look back at the Great Depresion and you will find the rise of the board game (see MONOPOLY) for a great example.
Of course people will have disposable income during a recession. A recession isn't a complete collapse and neither is a depression. The difference is that people will have less disposable income and will be more selective about where they spend money. If your budget for wargaming drops by 50%, that doesn't mean you'll not buy models, it just means you'll buy less. From a business' perspective, during a business cycle you simply don't expand going into a recession. Smart companies prepare for it. They consolidate their resources and reduce their liabilities and close non-performing stores/product lines. To me, that is exactly what GW is doing while their competition is going crazy over expanding trying to steal market share. If the economy flounders (which it looks like is actually happening) their competition will have a lower return on their investment and in many cases, be unable to pay creditors.
This isn't something new.. It's happened many times over the years because the niche gaming sector is highly cyclical and volatile. Back in 05-06 it was "confrontation is going to surpass 40k!".. What happened there? Oh that's right.. 08 happened..
darefsky wrote: In short you can't blame the bad economies of the world for GW's issues. They are bringing the vast majority of it on themselves.
I'm not saying GW doesn't have company specific problems. I'm just stating that the main risk to the company isn't some upstart company trying to steal market share. I think the global economy is going to play a much bigger role in their earnings than how they operate a facebook page.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: Of course you would. I'm pretty sure you'd argue that for reasons why your milk had gone off.
Well.. you have to admit that I was saying the economy was slowing before any of this data was released. That discussion was all the way back in January before all the GDP, ISM and retail sales figures came out.
An apparently more and increasingly dissatisfied customer base and an increasingly higher quality offering from multiple competitors vs economic slow down in China?
This is old ground, I have no intention of retreading it, but I know where my money is in terms of most immediate and telling factors on GW's finances.
azreal13 wrote: An apparently more and increasingly dissatisfied customer base and an increasingly higher quality offering from multiple competitors vs economic slow down in China?
This is old ground, I have no intention of retreading it, but I know where my money is in terms of most immediate and telling factors on GW's finances.
Not just china. The US and Europe as well. The sector is highly sensitive to changes in disposable income.
azreal13 wrote: An apparently more and increasingly dissatisfied customer base and an increasingly higher quality offering from multiple competitors vs economic slow down in China?
This is old ground, I have no intention of retreading it, but I know where my money is in terms of most immediate and telling factors on GW's finances.
Not just china. The US and Europe as well. The sector is highly sensitive to changes in disposable income.
How are you not bored of talking about this?
We have been having the same conversation over and over for months, there has been no new information and we have already discussed how the UK, where I and GW are based, are not the US or even Europe.
I'm done, I guess I'll see you when the EOY report is published, perhaps try talking about some wargaming on this here wargaming site in the meantime huh?
agnosto wrote: A company that only offers 2 major and 1 minor product lines and somehow tries to parlay that into an international chain of retail stores is asking for a rude awakening.
I owned GW stock until an auto-sell left me with a tidy sum in January when the stock tanked. I don't think that they will go belly-up at any moment but neither do I buy that there is any more cost-cutting to be had. You can only trim so much fat before the corporate body begins to feed upon itself to the detriment of the company as a whole and I think GW's about reached that point. One man operations are not efficient in supplying an open retail outlet to consumers, that's why no serious businesses do it (to my knowledge).
GW suffering from Anorexia related problems
That's funny yet oddly appropriate... The point here is that cost-cutting is something that many talking heads like to throw around as a good thing but there a numerous examples of how damaging it can be if taken too far. My opinion is that GW is there or very nearly so.
azreal13 wrote: We have been having the same conversation over and over for months, there has been no new information and we have already discussed how the UK, where I and GW are based, are not the US or even Europe.
Other than the fact the UK had to add hookers and blow to their most recent GDP calculation to massage economic numbers? The UK is all smoke and mirrors. I'd argue they are going to have it worse than most near the tail end of the next recession.
And the UK is the MOST financially interconnected country in the world accord to bloomberg research. Why? Because it has no industry other than finance at this point. What does the UK actually make nowadays?
as for Europe (which the UK is most dependent on)...
-The unemployment rate in the eurozone as a whole is still sitting at an all-time record high of 12.1 percent.
-It Italy, the unemployment rate has soared to a brand new all-time record high of 12.7 percent.
-The youth unemployment rate in Italy has jumped up to 41.6 percent.
-Many analysts expect major economic trouble in Italy over the next couple of years. The President of Italy is openly warning of "widespread social tension and unrest" in his nation in 2014.
-Citigroup is projecting that Italy's debt to GDP ratio will surpass 140 percent by the year 2016.
-Citigroup is projecting that Greece's debt to GDP ratio will surpass 200 percent by the year 2016.
-Citigroup is projecting that the unemployment rate in Greece will reach 32 percent in 2015.
-The unemployment rate in Spain is still sitting at an all-time record high of 26.7 percent.
-The youth unemployment rate in Spain is now up to 57.7 percent - even higher than in Greece.
-The percentage of bad loans in Spain has risen for eight straight months and recently hit a brand new all-time record high of 13 percent.
-The number of mortgage applications in Spain has fallen by 90 percent since the peak of the housing boom.
-The unemployment rate in France has risen for 9 quarters in a row and recently soared to a new 16 year high.
-For 2013, car sales in Europe were on pace to hit the lowest yearly level ever recorded.
-Deutsche Bank, probably the most important bank in Germany, is the most highly leveraged bank in Europe (60 to 1) and it has approximately 70 trillion dollars worth of exposure to derivatives.
To get an idea of the level of desperation in Spain, check out the following anecdote from a recent NPR article...
But I digress.. Clearly you must have a facebook page in today's world or people wont buy stuff from you... Much more important than people having jobs and money to pay for your merchandise.
Now go back and relate all of that painstakingly researched post you've written to Games Workshop and their financial performance, and I will reward you with total apathy.
Seriously, just stop posting this stuff for my benefit, I'm so totally past having the same conversation with you again I don't even know how to express it.
That's funny yet oddly appropriate... The point here is that cost-cotting is something that many talking heads like to throw around as a good thing but there a numerous examples of how damaging it can be if taken too far. My opinion is that GW is there or very nearly so.
Naturally it's circumstantial. The question is where do they cut the costs without harming their earnings. Just because a specific store is generating $ for them, doesn't mean having that store there is necessary to drive sales. It could be more profitable in the long term to have 3rd party vendors make fewer sales than operating a brick and mortar store that has overhead.
As for marketing online.. I think a vast majority of the marketing they need already exists for free from communities like this. Not sure how much more money they could make from constant communication with their customers. I don't think they should aim to please everyone because a vast majority of the people whining still buy their product.
See, i have the distinct feeling that your last paragraph is similar to whats being trotted around the office up in Nottingham every quarter. Every decision they've made has purely been financial, the player base be dammed.
In other news, GW won't be doing an across the board price increase this year, though anything that gets repackaged will be brought inline with the current trend.
Now go back and relate all of that painstakingly researched post you've written to Games Workshop and their financial performance, and I will reward you with total apathy.
Seriously, just stop posting this stuff for my benefit, I'm so totally past having the same conversation with you again I don't even know how to express it.
I'm not making this personal or trying to convince you. You keep prompting me for a response so I respond in kind..
The issue at hand here is that you seem to believe that GW's sales are not determined by discretionary income.
So there is no confusion... This is what I mean by discretionary incomes..
The amount of an individual's income that is left for spending, investing or saving after taxes and personal necessities (such as food, shelter, and clothing) have been paid. Discretionary income includes money spent on luxury items, vacations and non-essential goods and services.
If you and I can agree that it's a discretionary item, you have no choice that to admit the following..
Aggregate discretionary income levels for an economy will fluctuate over time, typically in line with business cycle activity. When economic output is strong (as measured by GDP or other gross measure), discretionary income levels tend to be high as well. If inflation occurs in the price of life's necessities, then discretionary income will fall, assuming that wages and taxes remain relatively constant.
Discretionary spending is an important part of a healthy economy - people will only spend money on things like travel, movies and consumer electronics if they have the funds to do so. Some people will use credit cards to purchase discretionary goods, but increasing personal debt is not the same as having discretionary income.
It is without question in my mind that GW products are discretionary items. By extension, they are most certainly cyclical and their business model reflects that. In fact, a niche discretionary item is the most sensitive to changes in discretionary income. If GW doesn't fit that description, i don't know what would...
Now.. I'd love to actually see someone explain to me why it's not cyclical. Aside from a CEO talking up his stock price ofcourse.
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: Every decision they've made has purely been financial, the player base be dammed.
I don't think they have the attitude of "players be damned". If you are referring to the price increases, I think they are fair considering how much prices have increased in general. The biggest issue is that wages haven't increased at the same rate as everything else has but that's an entirely different topic.
Maybe i'm a bit naive but I haven't heard nearly as many complaints about this edition of 40k than I did for 4th, 5th or 6th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: Seriously, your responses are so repetitive you're like a spam bot.
You are having the exact same conversation again, and it doesn't appear that anything I say is stopping you!
You aren't saying anything. You are saying they are "special" because they aren't impacted by the business cycle.
I would like to know why you think they aren't cyclical.
azreal13 wrote: We have been having the same conversation over and over for months, there has been no new information and we have already discussed how the UK, where I and GW are based, are not the US or even Europe.
Other than the fact the UK had to add hookers and blow to their most recent GDP calculation to massage economic numbers? The UK is all smoke and mirrors. I'd argue they are going to have it worse than most near the tail end of the next recession.
And the UK is the MOST financially interconnected country in the world accord to bloomberg research. Why? Because it has no industry other than finance at this point. What does the UK actually make nowadays?
Pharmaceuticals, computer chips, aerospace components, high-tech auto engines, cars, computer games, pop music, films, musicals, weapons, and in terms of service industries graphics, advertising, higher education and tourism.
Back in the mid-2000s when the world economy was booming GW was suffering several years of bad revenues and actual losses.
Pharmaceuticals, computer chips, aerospace components, high-tech auto engines, cars, computer games, pop music, films, musicals, weapons, and in terms of service industries graphics, advertising, higher education and tourism.
78% of the economy is service based.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back in the mid-2000s when the world economy was booming GW was suffering several years of bad revenues and actual losses.
Yep.. it lead the way down and lead the way back up.
Starting in 05 IIRC.. Things bottomed out in July of 08 and rallied into September 2013..
Did the same thing in 1998.. bottomed in early 2000 ahead of the dot com disaster and rallied into 05..
There are leaders and there are laggards..
I really wouldn't describe 05-07 as a booming period. It's was entirely speculative and debt financed. We actually saw plenty of indicators the economy was slowing back in 06 and I was on the boards talking about it back then as well. On the surface things might look fine to most people today but if you are really paying attention, things are pretty crappy globally..
WayneTheGame wrote: And then points were cut in half for 3rd edition, and since then it's been slowly getting larger and larger to where we have what amounts to 28mm Epic 40k now.
I just pointed up my 5k point (the equivalent of 2000 points in 40K) Epic marine army using the current 40K marine codex, it came to 3325 points and if the terminators were replaced with tactical marines the points would be about 2750 ish. In other words we have nearly reached the point where an army comprised entirely of 6mm figures have nearly reached numerical parity with an army comprised of 28mm figures. That says a lot about the type of game that 40K has become.
Palindrome wrote: I just pointed up my 5k point (the equivalent of 2000 points in 40K) Epic marine army using the current 40K marine codex, it came to 3325 points and if the terminators were replaced with tactical marines the points would be about 2750 ish. In other words we have nearly reached the point where an army comprised entirely of 6mm figures have nearly reached numerical parity with an army comprised of 28mm figures. That says a lot about the type of game that 40K has become.
Wow.
They really do want to sell more miniatures and are willing to have a rules scope/scale/model count mismatch in order to do it.
I remember when 40k was about space marines and imperial guardsmen and tyranid warriors and the like and not about knights, wraith knights, riptides alongside huge tanks and flyers.
Palindrome wrote: I just pointed up my 5k point (the equivalent of 2000 points in 40K) Epic marine army using the current 40K marine codex, it came to 3325 points and if the terminators were replaced with tactical marines the points would be about 2750 ish. In other words we have nearly reached the point where an army comprised entirely of 6mm figures have nearly reached numerical parity with an army comprised of 28mm figures. That says a lot about the type of game that 40K has become.
Wow.
They really do want to sell more miniatures and are willing to have a rules scope/scale/model count mismatch in order to do it.
I remember when 40k was about space marines and imperial guardsmen and tyranid warriors and the like and not about knights, wraith knights, riptides alongside huge tanks and flyers.
Which was all fine for Apocalypse games, when players used their entire collections, or teams of players pooled their collections together for long epic games.
But now every game is an Apocalypse game, every game can have huge Titans and super heavy tanks.
As an aside part of the big breakdown in rules with 40k is that the rules are for a skirmish/company-level game, not a massive army. If they really want Epic 40k in 28mm, that's fine and dandy (but wallets everywhere have a look of horror...) but the rules of the game as they are now do not support such a thing. I get that they want to get some of the feel of Epic rather than "The big stuff is offscreen" that 2nd edition 40k mostly had, but you can't play a large-scale game with small-scale rules. The fact a typical 40k game takes like half a day to complete should be seen as a bad thing, not a good thing.
Epic's rules were streamlined for exactly that reason, due to the number of things you had on the board and nuances of a large-scale wargame. 40k needs to either throw the rules out and have 8th edition or whatever be a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd edition was, or they need to stop this nonsense of encouraging larger and larger collections.
As to Derek's thesis, I will say that there is a reverse correlation between GW's performance and larger economic factors. Miniature gaming and similar hobby pursuits seem to be the type of things people get more interested in during lean economic times. So I think he's exactly wrong and backwards on this. There are certain business and types of products that are relatively recession proof or even thrive during bad economic times.
The only way GW could force itself out of that market would be to price themselves out of it. To push themselves from being a high volume of entertainment per dollar proposition into a low value proposition.
With the economies of the world once again getting shakey, people should be more willing than ever to buy a GW kit and spend some time assembling and painting it up. Or getting a game in. Instead, GW is flat lining while similar products that offer high volume of entertainment per dollar are thriving.
WayneTheGame wrote: The fact a typical 40k game takes like half a day to complete should be seen as a bad thing, not a good thing.
Epic's rules were streamlined for exactly that reason, due to the number of things you had on the board and nuances of a large-scale wargame.
Right now my hobby reading time has been spent on articles, magazines and books related from miniature wargaming published from 1955 to 1975, the "founding" of the modern miniature wargaming hobby and the time when HG Well's Little Wars and it's derivatives finally spread to a much larger audience. And from there, the development of a wide variety of rules and conventions.
The same discussions are in those publications. About how your rules and your scope need to line up. And how people may want to use a rules set that concerns itself with the position of each individual soldier to fight a full sized battle, and how that path leads to wasted weekends and exasperated hobbyists as they struggle both to find the time and the money for huge collections of figures.
So what was the solution? In the late 50s and early 60s Joe Morschauser and Dr. Gerry Gre began advocating the use of smaller scale miniatures (40mm and 54mm were standard at the time and they advocated 18mm and 25mm) and pioneered both the movement tray and the practice of permanently fixing multiple figures on single base elements.
Just like Epic or Flames of War or a million other games that people have come up with since when they wanted a game meant to handle battles rather than skirmishes.
GW is running into the exact same problem of rules publishers of the late 50s and early 60s who insisted on high model counts in large scales, all individually based. Where are they now? Even miniature gaming history enthusiasts like myself can barely list them. The ones we can list like Featherstone, Grant, Morschauser, Bath, Scruby, Barker, etc., all ended up embracing the notion that the scope of the game and the scale of the figures and how they are based should be done in an appropriate fashion. Featherstone was pretty much the GW of his day, amassing a personal fortune in publishing rules and selling figures for those rules, working closely with Scruby and Bath to turn wargaming into a viable business. They accomplished bringing UK style miniature wargaming to many other places in the world, with their greatest success being in the United States.
40k needs to either throw the rules out and have 8th edition or whatever be a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd edition was, or they need to stop this nonsense of encouraging larger and larger collections.
Or publishers that get it will beat out GW by using the same figure count GW did when they grew from a UK based importer of D&D to a worldwide miniature company.
azreal13 wrote: How are you not bored of talking about this?
We have been having the same conversation over and over for months, there has been no new information and we have already discussed how the UK, where I and GW are based, are not the US or even Europe.
I'm done, I guess I'll see you when the EOY report is published, perhaps try talking about some wargaming on this here wargaming site in the meantime huh?
It's the dark truth of how to win arguments on the Internet. Pick a position, and do not budge. Eventually, your opponents will grow sick of talking with you, and you can declare victory.
I think they're both partly right, It won't be one thing that brings GW down. GW is bleeding customers at a time when they need cashflow.
The economy is making people look for the best value, when parting with their leisure money.
Epic's rules were streamlined for exactly that reason, due to the number of things you had on the board and nuances of a large-scale wargame.
Epic Armageddon has extremely good rules and they fit into around 20 pages of A4. 40K has rules that are about 6 times as long yet produce a markedly inferior game, in essence the rules are far too complex yet the game is far too simple.
At this stage the only thing that will save 40K is if the rules were completely rewritten, ideally with an extended 'open beta' period to allow the community to playtest them to destruction. Attempting to use rules that were originally designed for a table top RPG in an 'epic' style game is never going to work well. This will never happen with the current management, or if it does happen it will be too little too late.
In an ideal world there would be 2 tiers of 40k, an indepth skirmish game like 2nd and a large scale 'epic' game like 7th is supposed to be. I would also like to see 6mm Epic resurrected (properly!). Again, this will never happen but it would allow 40K to appeal to a very wide wargaming audience.
Epic's rules were streamlined for exactly that reason, due to the number of things you had on the board and nuances of a large-scale wargame.
Epic Armageddon has extremely good rules and they fit into around 20 pages of A4. 40K has rules that are about 6 times as long yet produce a markedly inferior game, in essence the rules are far too complex yet the game is far too simple.
At this stage the only thing that will save 40K is if the rules were completely rewritten, ideally with an extended 'open beta' period to allow the community to playtest them to destruction. Attempting to use rules that were originally designed for a table top RPG in an 'epic' style game is never going to work well. This will never happen with the current management, or if it does happen it will be too little too late.
In an ideal world there would be 2 tiers of 40k, an indepth skirmish game like 2nd and a large scale 'epic' game like 7th is supposed to be. I would also like to see 6mm Epic resurrected (properly!). Again, this will never happen but it would allow 40K to appeal to a very wide wargaming audience.
To be honest I'd like (never happen, but stil) something like 30-40mm for a skirmish/company 40k game and like 15mm for the large-scale battle. I played a tiny bit of Epic and 6mm was way too tiny IMO.
The economy is making people look for the best value, when parting with their leisure money.
Does it though? Leisure activities tend to be fairly resilient to economic conditions (within reason). People will of course look for the best value in general and this is what is exactly hurting GW, I don't think that the economy really has much to do with it.
To be honest I'd like (never happen, but stil) something like 30-40mm for a skirmish/company 40k game and like 15mm for the large-scale battle. I played a tiny bit of Epic and 6mm was way too tiny IMO.
28mm for Skirmsh/platoon level games, 15mm for Company level games and 6mm for army level games. That's my favoured scale anyway.
The economy is making people look for the best value, when parting with their leisure money.
Does it though? Leisure activities tend to be fairly resilient to economic conditions (within reason). People will of course look for the best value in general and this is what is exactly hurting GW. I don't think that the economy really has much to do with it.
People do look for value everyday. When money is tight, people are far more discerning, to the extent that something that is only marginally good value will be dropped in favor of things perceived to be of more value.
Games Workshop has no future, by the look of the price and the quality of the spin.
When you see it, you'll be impressed by the pretty box, but then you have to open the book and the Emperor wears no cloths. LGS owner doesn't have a lot of faith in it to the point that he's only going to get a couple, and pray that those Board games can soak up the losses. On a good note, There is a serious going on for all things Zombicide, which has me slightly regretting selling my gear when I did. I could have made bank on it around here, They didn't even know about the KS figures.
The larger figures are being seen as more of a running joke to the game, BTW. People are fed up and the lie has worn thin when you can't even buy a squad set and play a simple base game with something out of the box.
The streamlined rules set is offset by this years price-gouge, which word on the street is- it will be the worst one yet. (Finecrap is gone, but not the fineprice.)
If current trends continue, I'll be selling My GW stuff and cutting it down substantially this year.
Couple of weeks, You'll know what I'm talking about.
Elemental wrote: I don't like the idea that one poster can intentionally tank a thread they happen not to like.
Err... when did I say that I didn't like the topic?
I just acknowledge a headwind for their business and happen to agree with the concept of reducing their costs. It could be entirely coincidental that they are doing this cost cutting when they are and I'm giving no credit to management.
Elemental wrote: It's the dark truth of how to win arguments on the Internet. Pick a position, and do not budge. Eventually, your opponents will grow sick of talking with you, and you can declare victory.
Umm no.. He posed questions and I answered them. Saying that the business is cyclical doesn't mean that how the company is run doesn't matter. If they overextend themselves, it can mean the death of a business. So management most certainly does matter.
The issue here is that I just fail to see how their failure to run a facebook page is going to materially impact their business more than changes in disposable income. I think it's immaterial to running their business.
The economy is making people look for the best value, when parting with their leisure money.
Does it though? Leisure activities tend to be fairly resilient to economic conditions (within reason). People will of course look for the best value in general and this is what is exactly hurting GW. I don't think that the economy really has much to do with it.
People do look for value everyday. When money is tight, people are far more discerning, to the extent that something that is only marginally good value will be dropped in favor of things perceived to be of more value.
And yes they do.
We have had some interesting comments and a lot of them are things that those people who had the wisdom to say topics such as one example,... the global economy affecting our buying power.
Others have commented on what is popular in miniatures/board games and the increases of revenue.
And so on.
What I think most would agree is that Games Workshop has got such a negative brand on their IP's due to their own actions that only mostly those who are truly hardcore/and or have the disposable will continue to play this game.
The rest of us have just stopped playing due to....
1. Lousy Rules
2. The cost of playing the game. Too damned high.
3. The perceived arrogance (true or not) of the management of said company.
Some of us did indeed vote with our wallets. Some of us have access to the marketing publications to see the trends on what is hot and what is not. Some of us watch and read the financials.... carefully....
You should really listen to those professionals that are in here because they have that certain inside within their sphere of influence. Already mentioned who they are. Do not need to mentioned them again.
Like pieces to a puzzle you can get the correct to the question at hand.
It has been an interesting read so far on this thread so I hope it continues a bit more.
Elemental wrote: I don't like the idea that one poster can intentionally tank a thread they happen not to like.
Err... when did I say that I didn't like the topic?
I just acknowledge a headwind for their business and happen to agree with the concept of reducing their costs. It could be entirely coincidental that they are doing this cost cutting when they are and I'm giving no credit to management.
He didn't quote you, wonder why you think he was referring to you?
Elemental wrote: It's the dark truth of how to win arguments on the Internet. Pick a position, and do not budge. Eventually, your opponents will grow sick of talking with you, and you can declare victory.
Umm no.. He posed questions and I answered them. Saying that the business is cyclical doesn't mean that how the company is run doesn't matter. If they overextend themselves, it can mean the death of a business. So management most certainly does matter.
The issue here is that I just fail to see how their failure to run a facebook page is going to materially impact their business more than changes in disposable income. I think it's immaterial to running their business.
Didn't ask you a single question, neither did anyone else that I saw, you just used my post to write what you wanted to, and didn't tie it to the topic at all.
Elemental wrote: I don't like the idea that one poster can intentionally tank a thread they happen not to like.
Err... when did I say that I didn't like the topic?
I just acknowledge a headwind for their business and happen to agree with the concept of reducing their costs. It could be entirely coincidental that they are doing this cost cutting when they are and I'm giving no credit to management.
Elemental wrote: It's the dark truth of how to win arguments on the Internet. Pick a position, and do not budge. Eventually, your opponents will grow sick of talking with you, and you can declare victory.
Umm no.. He posed questions and I answered them. Saying that the business is cyclical doesn't mean that how the company is run doesn't matter. If they overextend themselves, it can mean the death of a business. So management most certainly does matter.
The issue here is that I just fail to see how their failure to run a facebook page is going to materially impact their business more than changes in disposable income. I think it's immaterial to running their business.
No! bad nooby. Go sit in the corner and right on your piece of paper 1000 times. "I will not be that guy"
We are not talking about a goram Facebook page. We are talking about a company that has basically disengaged itself from its customers. Most companies spend insane amounts of money to find out what the customer is thinking, how their products are being received (other than through sales figures), and what customer expectations are.
I worked for a fortune 50 computer company for 6 years before I found out I was loosing my soul and went back to the military (ask my wife about the 60% pay cut that she is still not happy about). We spent MILLIONS to get a pulse on what our customers thought, and even more on what the people who were not buying our products thought. Now can GW afford that kind of campaign? Nope not even a little. Are there ways to do something like this with a lot less money? Yep.
Social media is a thing and its only getting bigger. For a company to turn its back is ludicrous beyond comprehension, and honestly the management team are not being good shepards of the stock holders money.
You say its the economy. I call BS. I see a company with its collective hands over its ears singing "Nana nana poopoo I can't hear you!" In a time of resurgance in gaming where board games cost $90+ how on earth is GW not booming? How are companies like PP stepping up there Con presence? How is Mantic crushing records with there KS? How are folks like Strong Hold Games, and MTG making it rain? I'll answer it for you because you are gonna get all OCD and quote me exchange rates between China and Argentina during the monsoon months of Japan. The answer is all of these companies realize that the CUSTOMER is the most important thing a business has and they darn well take that seriously.
Now off to the corner with you and scan in the page when your done with your time out.
The issue here is that I just fail to see how their failure to run a facebook page is going to materially impact their business more than changes in disposable income. I think it's immaterial to running their business.
.
Lol, how'd I miss this.
Further evidence that while you may possess certificates that say you know something about how stockmarkets work, you have no fething clue about running a company.
Please, for the love of rolling dice, just ignore (or Ignore) him.
Sooner or later this thread will be closed if this level of acrimony continues.
Azrael - how many times have you said that you are done arguing with him?
Well, then don't argue with him!.
I agree, he is looking at a single tree, and declaring it a forest - but it really does take two to make an argument. (Which is why I work for the abuse department - much easier logistics. The arguments department requires much greater use of resources.)
So.... Yeah... GW is in trouble, and given that the new edition of their best selling game does not appear to fix what most people, or at least a large and vocal minority, consider the games greatest problems... I do not know how well they will perform in the next few years.
They have a very nice property - but are exploiting it poorly. At a time when they need to reach out they are instead digging a hole and pulling it in behind them.
They need allies, but are already in siege mentality - and are blaming everything else for their own mistakes.
When I heard of 7th edition, I was hoping that it was to address the problems that beset 6th... instead.... oi!
The issue here is that I just fail to see how their failure to run a facebook page is going to materially impact their business more than changes in disposable income. I think it's immaterial to running their business.
.
Lol, how'd I miss this.
Further evidence that while you may possess certificates that say you know something about how stockmarkets work, you have no fething clue about running a company.
Agreed. I work for a small business in a niche market and I am about to personally start a facebook page to try and increase sales through interaction with our customers. Since the majority of new customers use the net first, I think such a small allocation of my time will result in a positive interaction with sales.
Do I think the current economic climate has something to do with lower sales, sure. Am I going to use any available tool to try and change this? yes.
The fact that you and GW do not get this point means that you are of the same mind business wise.
If I closed my facebook page and blog, my publisher would slap me silly for being a total moron. Free ways to advertise are necessary. GW seems to only want word of mouth, but then they alienate their veterans and other customers so that word of mouth won't be positive.
Either there's an insanely genius plan behind all of this or....
Spartan games were very open about the release of dystopian wars 2.0 and where talking with the fans a ton on their official forums as well as getting those fans to playtest the game thoroughly and give feedback. SG then used that feedback.
Dyst wars 2.0 has now outsold 7th ed, which arrived with all of a week or twos warning, 7 to 1 through FLGS channels here in Oz.
Clearly one method is better than the other.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Please, for the love of rolling dice, just ignore (or Ignore) him.
Sooner or later this thread will be closed if this level of acrimony continues.
Azrael - how many times have you said that you are done arguing with him?
Well, then don't argue with him!.
I agree, he is looking at a single tree, and declaring it a forest - but it really does take two to make an argument. (Which is why I work for the abuse department - much easier logistics. The arguments department requires much greater use of resources.)
I didn't say I wouldn't continue the 'discussion' in fact I said almost the compete opposite. What I refused to do was retread old ground, but apparently my lack of participation wasn't sufficient to stop the discussion until I posted literal nonsense (hence my purple dinosaur comment.)
I'm happy to keep moving things forward, what I'm unprepared to do is have the same conversation for approximately the third time. Unfortunately, Derek seems to have a limited repertoire and the determination to execute regardless.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Please, for the love of rolling dice, just ignore (or Ignore) him.
Sooner or later this thread will be closed if this level of acrimony continues.
Azrael - how many times have you said that you are done arguing with him?
Well, then don't argue with him!.
I agree, he is looking at a single tree, and declaring it a forest - but it really does take two to make an argument. (Which is why I work for the abuse department - much easier logistics. The arguments department requires much greater use of resources.)
I didn't say I wouldn't continue the 'discussion' in fact I said almost the compete opposite. What I refused to do was retread old ground, but apparently my lack of participation wasn't sufficient to stop the discussion until I posted literal nonsense (hence my purple dinosaur comment.)
I'm happy to keep moving things forward, what I'm unprepared to do is have the same conversation for approximately the third time. Unfortunately, Derek seems to have a limited repertoire and the determination to execute regardless.
That is why there is an Ignore function - you know that you won't get anything new out of discussing things with him, so why bother?
Ah, well....
We shall see in a few weeks how the EoY report comes out - but meanwhile, I continue to be part of the problem for GW; I play other games, instead of Warhammer or WH40K.
Hell, these days I don't have enough time for all the games that I do enjoy playing. (I love Deadzone... but have played a total of four games since I got the box....)
Total revenue for the year of 121 million pounds. Total profit of 15 million pounds. Basically a continuation of their previously report results amounting to around a 12% reduction in revenue and a 25% reduction in profit compared with the previous year. And a slightly worsening cash position as they continue to invest in restructuring and closing and opening retail locations looking for the right location and staff to make them stick.
The area I'm most likely to be wrong is that I'm underestimating just how much money they've saved cutting admin staff when they closed various regional HQs over the last six months or so. If they see the benefits of that restructuring in this reporting period, their profit might only decline in proportion to their revenue rather than at twice the rate.
Basically I'm guessing that despite launching a new edition and doing everything they can to sell more and more product direct for better margins, they're still going to see a decline both in revenue and profit. Possibly a large one. I do not think they will report a loss in this period. Their current job ad for a full time position to analyze which sales channels different products are allocated to makes be believe they are doubling down on direct only and we'll see an even larger (ever growing) portion of GW products no longer available to independent partners at trade discount. Their customer sales experience analyst position also leads me to believe they will continue to double down on their single employee store model and will have increased expenses from opening them at a faster rate than closing them in a shot gun blast approach, hoping some of the pellets stick in a good target and result in a profitable store.
azreal13 wrote: We've actually seen a LOT of change from GW recently, just not perhaps enough in the areas that matter to us as wargamers.
We've seen multi purchases earning a discount, digital editions at cheaper price points etc etc.
There are signs that they are slowly realising their somewhat unconventional approaches weren't earning them enough cash and simultaneously were earning them the ire of their customer base, which was only going to hurt them further.
Total change will take time, and the retirement/redundancy/leaving of certain key personnel, but I see another one or two underwhelming reports as a good thing, as it will send the only message that GW will hear - that the way they do business is not working, not making money, and they need to change it.
I will actually be MORE optimistic for the long term future of GW and 40K if the FYE report shows they're still a good bit down, year in year, and so will have to keep trying to improve, rather than return to being lazy and complacent.
azreal13 wrote: Further evidence that while you may possess certificates that say you know something about how stockmarkets work, you have no fething clue about running a company.
I've been looking for jobs recently, and the amount of times I've come across positions screaming for new media/social media editors to get their message out across the web is crazy. Everyone wants this - even 2-bit one-location fashion stores want a Facebook site or a Twitter manager to get the word out.
But no... I'm sure it's "the economy" that's causing it all, a bit like how "minimum wage" is the reason why some Oz prices are 200% that of US prices.
Each store can have a FB page at the manager's discretion. As for their company wide page, I know they deleted it when they tried to IP bully a small author doing a charity project for wounded veterans and they got a lot of hate for it. Did they start it up again?
There's an automatically generated page for FB, but no actual FB page that someone posts to.
No, they have a page for each store that is as disconnected from GWHQ as possible and the actual GW page was taken down over a year ago after the backlash from the Spots the Space Marine debacle.
Since then they have shut down the FW, BL and digital editions pages because 'they where too popluar' and, more recently, the Evy Metal one because... reasons?
The point is if I have feedback to give GW I can now only get it as far as a storefront employee and it will not go further than that, nor will he have the power to do anything about it.
The buying of luxury items does go against economic trends, but it's more like people going to the cinema, eating out or making other occasional feel good purchases. I don't think a poor economy encourages people to undertake an ongoing high cost investment, which is what GW demand in their games. Further, people buying luxuries still want value for money, and GW don't stack up well against their competitors. If the global economy was driving GW that much then why are so many gaming companies doing so well while GW continue a trend of flat lining? The only thing GW have got going for them is that they have been historically very popular so have a large player base and are easy to find in any gaming shop. If they lose that ubiquitous player base and ease of accessibility they are in huge trouble.
Then there's simply the problem that they are an unfriendly and impersonal company that fail to make the customer valued. Many people find their stores a chore to go in. Most don't offer gaming facilities so can't create a community. They're just a storefront to push product. But when you can get the same product, sometimes cheaper, from independent stores that offer a lot more opportunity to play, just why go to GW? Instead of offering inducements to go to their stores, such as gaming facilities or a reward points system, they use 'exclusive' products force players to theirs shops and website. I don't think people respond that well to that when there's no reason to be enamoured of the company. They are more likely to give it a miss.
GW don't do anything to communicate with the customer or build any feelgood factor with the community. They've closed their forums, Facebook, Twitter and various other pages. All that remain are Facebook pages for individual stores, not the actual company. There's a lot of bad publicity about GW on hobby sites because of their poor product (finecast) and their absurd IP aggression. Their response is to hide and close down their public face to the world, their Facebook and Twitter pages. It all feeds back to the same attitude expressed when one of their directors described 'buying GW' as one of the favourite activities of their hobbyists. They just see their customers as cash machines, they don't see a community that needs to be respected, nurtured and interacted with in order to thrive.
I just can't get my head around how anti social their approach is in an increasingly interconnected world where social media is an everyday thing. They've just released a new edition of the game which will force people into choosing whether to stay or leave. Seems a slightly dangerous proposition to me but GW seems to think their customers will not stop buying and an expensive new set of rule books is money in the bank. We'll see.
GW seems to be concerned about why people aren't buying, perhaps they should be more concerned about why people aren't playing... The rules are constantly flawed and unedited, the models are cheaper online than they are from GW stores, and everyone is turning to games like FoW, Malifaux and Warmahordes because its often easier and cheaper... People are getting smarter with how they spend, and why... I myself have collected over the last 20 years and have more than enough to satisfy my urges (even with the constant unit requirements each new codex has ensured), there is no need to visit my local GW store except to buy touch up paints... Lately I have lost loads of interest, started with flyers then 6th edition turned to chaos with the forceful melding of epic and apoc rules, 7th (2nd ed redux attempt) is now just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, mixed ideas and more FAQ complication and OP list writing... The closing down of Eavy Metal was stupid, I was a frequent poster there, and despite some anger at the recent spamming (which happens on every group) and links to kickstarters (which I think were mainly facebook interest related ad spam anyway) I found the site very informative and a great way to connect with modellers and painters outside of my local gaming group... Now that's its been axed I have also lost some interest in painting and displaying GW models...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll continue to back GW as I think the products are amazing, but if they don't start acknowledging their fan base and the needs of the masses then they'll have to start considering how to continue selling their product to annoyed and frustrated nerds... We have a large disposable income, they know this, have for years and years, they should not try to bite the hand that feeds them...
It dawned on me a little over a year ago that GW has effectively embraced a direct sales model. Like those used by life insurance companies, car sales, and jewelry sales. Similarly their trade sales department are basically telemarketers with very short call lists (existing game, hobby and comic shops).
Their independent stockists are treated like their customers who should just shut up and buy rather than as partners. Their retail staff basically have their jobs on the line. Meet your quotas or we'll close your location and lay you off. On the other end, they're rewarded like life insurance salespeople with bonuses for high volume and doing well.
I believe this sales uber alles approach is driving game design. Now with unbound, the individual employee can literally sell each week's release to each player. It doesn't matter what army you play, you can use it! And you'll want the codex as well, for the rules. And what about some paints? Etc.,.
Their desire for larger margins has also caused them to emphasize their direct sales. They'd like nothing more than for a customer at an independent store to start using the GW online store. They've already started removing many products from what the independent stockists can get at their full trade discount. And now they're hiring a person to figure out what sales channels different products can be sold in. I think we'll see that mean a decrease in products available to independent stores.
The end results has been a slow slide into irrelevancy to the larger industry. Independent stores that used to rely on GW have either closed or learned to expand their offerings, many being kept in business by collectible card game sales and the explosion in board games, comics and collectibles.
However, I also think it's what's going to keep them in business over the next few years. They can open up single employee locations and people will see the big sign and wander in and the employee can give them the hard sell on a product they have no frame of reference for. If the right locations and sufficiently able sales people are found, they can develop a chain of single employee stores that are profitable solely by traditional direct sales techniques.
Identify prospect. Develop rapport. Qualify prospect. Reduce sales resistance. Increase sales acceptance. Place product in hand. Direct to cash register to close. Add on sales. Close.
Just like how you sell bad life insurance or overpriced jewelry. Time tested hard sales techniques.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
major_payne wrote: then they'll have to start considering how to continue selling their product to annoyed and frustrated nerds... We have a large disposable income, they know this, have for years and years, they should not try to bite the hand that feeds them...
Young professionals with good incomes haven't been GW's target audience for over a decade. Their targe audience is 14-18 year olds who spend mommy's money (or maybe money from a part time job or babysitting). You are not GW's primary target demographic. Though they are willing to keep you if you want to stick around. They have Forge World to sell you. More direct sales with high margins and minimal customer contact.
If I was an independent seller, I'd be doing everything I could to promote other games like X-wing, Warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc. More options, the more chances are someone will find something they like. I'd get tournaments going for each game and have my employees always ready with an army for a demo game.
True, I agree with that... In our state our primary access to any GW products has been to 1-2 specific retailers. Last year we had our first GW store ever open up the road from our usual and popular retailer... It has 1 staff member, who it seems worked at another store on the mainland and despite the hundreds of interested applicants took the helm in a store the size of a small cafe... This has caused alot of contraversy as the older experience gamers/customers found it hard to accept the new store, esp having spent the last 4 or so years wondering why GW was being so mean to our wallets whilst offering slowly degrading interest in the foundations of the game... Apparently the local retailers have had 'issues' with ordering GW products, they either 'disappear' or turn up 2 weeks later than expected, this leaving the retailers clutching at straws to maintain interest from the regulars who slowly dribbled to the GW store for the somewhat more organised stock pool... Thing is the retailer in question has been primarily responsible for the 2 statewide tournaments (biggest 40k, Hammer events of the year here!) so GW's lack of respect to the previous stockists is only making hatred bloom amoung the local hardcore gamers (esp the frustrated competitive players that make up the majority of big order buys pre event)... Another thing is that the GW guy (sole staff member) is hardly known outside of the store, unlike the retail staff who regularly get to know the frequent customers so as to constantly see to their interests and future needs...
dereksatkinson wrote: Of course people will have disposable income during a recession. A recession isn't a complete collapse and neither is a depression. The difference is that people will have less disposable income and will be more selective about where they spend money. If your budget for wargaming drops by 50%, that doesn't mean you'll not buy models, it just means you'll buy less.
Assuming for a moment that all of GW's problems are simply because people have less spending money, can you answer a few points?
1. All the evidence points to huge growth in gaming, increased sales, hundreds of new companies appearing. How can that be if people don't have money to spend?
2. Almost none of the feedback on here is related to gamers not having the funds for gaming, but still want to buy GW.
3. Almost all of the feedback here is that the GW product is substandard compared to the competition.
Anecdote: My disposable income has gone up YoY a bit higher than inflation, and I have a reasonable hobby budget and could comfortably buy every plastic kit GW release on a monthly basis, yet I spend essentially nothing on GW (I now don't have the latest rules for either system or army books for either army, or any kits from either army (Guard and Dwarfs)). The reasons are many fold: The game is far more expensive and less enjoyable (it takes too long and there's minimal strategic involvement) than the competition, so I get better value elsewhere for my hobby fix. GW has also made some pretty shocking decisions that have put me off them as a company and I'd rather spend my money with companies that don't offend me.
So the reason I don't buy from GW now has nothing to do with the economy, and from what I can tell on here the same can be said for the vast majority of dakka members.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: And now they're hiring a person to figure out what sales channels different products can be sold in. I think we'll see that mean a decrease in products available to independent stores.
Which is bizarre, because there are only 2 answers, neither needing a full time role to determine.
The logical answer you'd get from an independent party: Sell in as many channels as possible.
Or the yes-man answer: Sell direct only as much as possible.
I imagine they are looking for the latter to blame if it doesn't work.
Herzlos wrote: So the reason I don't buy from GW now has nothing to do with the economy, and from what I can tell on here the same can be said for the vast majority of dakka members.
I'm in that exact same boat at the moment which makes those kind of arguments seem hilarious to me. I've not been working full time for a full year yet and I'm still getting used to having all this cash to throw at my hobby (really not all that much, but still soooooo much more than I've had in the past). I'm spending tons on the hobby, but barely anything on the HHHHHobby, not because I can't afford it but because I don't see any value in it.
dereksatkinson wrote: Of course people will have disposable income during a recession. A recession isn't a complete collapse and neither is a depression. The difference is that people will have less disposable income and will be more selective about where they spend money. If your budget for wargaming drops by 50%, that doesn't mean you'll not buy models, it just means you'll buy less.
Assuming for a moment that all of GW's problems are simply because people have less spending money, can you answer a few points?
1. All the evidence points to huge growth in gaming, increased sales, hundreds of new companies appearing. How can that be if people don't have money to spend?
2. Almost none of the feedback on here is related to gamers not having the funds for gaming, but still want to buy GW.
3. Almost all of the feedback here is that the GW product is substandard compared to the competition.
Anecdote: My disposable income has gone up YoY a bit higher than inflation, and I have a reasonable hobby budget and could comfortably buy every plastic kit GW release on a monthly basis, yet I spend essentially nothing on GW (I now don't have the latest rules for either system or army books for either army, or any kits from either army (Guard and Dwarfs)). The reasons are many fold: The game is far more expensive and less enjoyable (it takes too long and there's minimal strategic involvement) than the competition, so I get better value elsewhere for my hobby fix. GW has also made some pretty shocking decisions that have put me off them as a company and I'd rather spend my money with companies that don't offend me.
So the reason I don't buy from GW now has nothing to do with the economy, and from what I can tell on here the same can be said for the vast majority of dakka members.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: And now they're hiring a person to figure out what sales channels different products can be sold in. I think we'll see that mean a decrease in products available to independent stores.
Which is bizarre, because there are only 2 answers, neither needing a full time role to determine.
The logical answer you'd get from an independent party: Sell in as many channels as possible.
Or the yes-man answer: Sell direct only as much as possible.
I imagine they are looking for the latter to blame if it doesn't work.
Wow, you pretty much nailed it on the head. Especially the highlighted part.
Herzlos wrote: So the reason I don't buy from GW now has nothing to do with the economy, and from what I can tell on here the same can be said for the vast majority of dakka members.
And given the explosion of board games, collectible card games and so many more options in the miniatures arena, more than just dakka members, but gamers in general.
Which is bizarre, because there are only 2 answers, neither needing a full time role to determine.
Technically you also have questions like "do we allocate store shelf space to this or just have it available to be brought in?" and "is this good as a printed book or would it be better as an electronic product?" and the like.
The logical answer you'd get from an independent party: Sell in as many channels as possible.
Yep. Let the market tell you which channels are good for which products and then do more of that.
Or the yes-man answer: Sell direct only as much as possible.
I imagine they are looking for the latter to blame if it doesn't work.
While this and the customer experience positions are prime candidates for scapegoating, I'd like to think they actually want these people to do something at GW rather than just do whatever for a year and then get the ax after being blamed for larger, systemic failures. I think they are hiring these people to implement their chosen plans. Given that they won't be hired for a pre-existing skill set, but for attitude, they'll be told exactly what to do and will do it. The customer experience guy will travel around and make a report of what the top sellers are doing at their single employee locations. The product channel guy will help figure which products should be shifted to direct only in order to steal as many customers from independents as possible.
Herzlos wrote: So the reason I don't buy from GW now has nothing to do with the economy, and from what I can tell on here the same can be said for the vast majority of dakka members.
And given the explosion of board games, collectible card games and so many more options in the miniatures arena, more than just dakka members, but gamers in general.
Which is bizarre, because there are only 2 answers, neither needing a full time role to determine.
Technically you also have questions like "do we allocate store shelf space to this or just have it available to be brought in?" and "is this good as a printed book or would it be better as an electronic product?" and the like.
The logical answer you'd get from an independent party: Sell in as many channels as possible.
Yep. Let the market tell you which channels are good for which products and then do more of that.
Or the yes-man answer: Sell direct only as much as possible.
I imagine they are looking for the latter to blame if it doesn't work.
While this and the customer experience positions are prime candidates for scapegoating, I'd like to think they actually want these people to do something at GW rather than just do whatever for a year and then get the ax after being blamed for larger, systemic failures. I think they are hiring these people to implement their chosen plans. Given that they won't be hired for a pre-existing skill set, but for attitude, they'll be told exactly what to do and will do it. The customer experience guy will travel around and make a report of what the top sellers are doing at their single employee locations. The product channel guy will help figure which products should be shifted to direct only in order to steal as many customers from independents as possible.
Not going to touch on GW's Direct only practices and attitude to competition. But in an organisation that in many ways is cult like in its internal identity and indoctrination of staff into doing things their way only, and hiring almost only for attitude/fit rather than skill. Any external party brought in to critically examine their workings is going to fail. If the appetite for change and acceptance of critical thinking is not present then nothing will happen. As the company could be considered to be built to resist all change.
Which, while no doubt accurate, is a bit like saying "sometimes I eat food that isn't spoiled and doesn't give me stomach cramps and make me sick." In that it really should be something so automatic, it doesn't need to be said.
Like I have said before, next period financials are going to be the telling point of where this is heading. The signs over the last six months are all "spaghetti on the wall" techniques (let's keep doing random things and hope something sticks) which generally come from companies either in dire straights or that have lost competence in their talent base. Right now, GW is hoping things are going to turn around. As they say in business - Hope is not a strategy. The window is closing on GW and all the next period financials are going to do is simply indicate just how fast that window is closing.
GW's biggest problem is they don't have the "talent" at the moment to turn this around. They are so insular and polarized by "group-think", they really do not have the necessary people to fix this. It is already obvious at this point that without some new OUTSIDE management coming in, cleaning house on management, and building a new, customer pro-active culture quickly, GW is not going to survive. They truly believe what they are doing is the right course of action (as evidenced by recent positions they are recruiting for) and they are not going to change it. They also believe they have much more time to fix it than they really do. As I have indicated before, business history is littered with text book cases that when companies cross a certain threshold with their customer base it is very rarely a slow decline, but it becomes an outright collapse (see TSR, Wang Computer, Lehman Brothers, Digital Equipment Corporation, et al).
No matter what they do with their channels, the internet, their web store, or how many prayers they say, they are not going to turn this around. They do not have the base product assortment to do it anymore. They are taxing the limits of their current products beyond reality and they have a serious amount of competition now. They do not know their customers, their market, and even what their own products are anymore. Yes, they say who they want to sell to, but the reality is they do not know HOW to sell to them. If the rumors we are catching wind of that 40k 7th is not selling all that well, then GW has even lost their staple product to boost earnings when needed - which is all the 7th edition was released for.
If revenues next period are down 10% or more, than it will be there in black and white that the threshold has been crossed. If over 20%, then we are looking a company on the very edge of collapse.
I thought it was funny that they had Jervis Johnson doing the promo vids for the new edition, its like he was the brave face putting it to the masses... I never realised how much he reminds me of Mr Bean...
Wayshuba wrote: The signs over the last six months are all "spaghetti on the wall" techniques (let's keep doing random things and hope something sticks) which generally come from companies either in dire straights or that have lost competence in their talent base. Right now, GW is hoping things are going to turn around. As they say in business - Hope is not a strategy. The window is closing on GW and all the next period financials are going to do is simply indicate just how fast that window is closing.
While I want GW to continuing to slowly bleed away it's market share in order to allow competition in and customers to transition and shift in an organized fashion that will result in the maximum number of GW customers continuing in the hobby after GW is gone (or irrelevant), I think we've had enough of that over the last ten years and we've hit a point where everything would be more than okay if GW's ended up disappearing as quickly as you say might happen.
They truly believe what they are doing is the right course of action (as evidenced by recent positions they are recruiting for) and they are not going to change it. They also believe they have much more time to fix it than they really do.
I've maintained earlier in the thread that before the end, we'd see GW's single employee store plan fail first. That before the point of collapse, we'd first see a failure of their retail plan and then a resulting scramble before the end. I've been poking a bit more in their financial reports and now see that they are entirely dependent on their plan working and working quickly. They emptied their cash reserves.
They paid out their substantial cash reserves as dividends last year. They knew sales volume was dropping, that Warhammer Fantasy was fading and that a contraction was starting and they had all this money to reinvest in turning the company around. Or if they didn't want to reinvest it in advance to return to growth, money they might need if their current plan fails. And they paid it out as a dividend even after they entered into a period of business that they knew would not be able to sustain the dividend.
If they end up negotiating a loan to cover losses and keep operating while they ostensibly turn things around, I hope their corporate loan officer asks them why they emptied their cash reserves into declining revenue. It'd be funny.
If revenues next period are down 10% or more, than it will be there in black and white that the threshold has been crossed. If over 20%, then we are looking a company on the very edge of collapse.
The funniest thing ever would be if the have revenue fall by 10% or more, profit barely hold and then borrow money to pay a dividend. They've done it before.
When they started squeezing the nerds, the nerds struck back, using their superior intellect, attacking everything GW had set to win from (I mean nerds basically invented and fed the game)...
Overpriced codices and awkward Digital editions became itorrentz on ipads.
Overpriced models quickly became cheap and nasty ebay bulk sales (hehe, oh no, not allowed to sell internationally in GW labelled box? = NIB + bubble wrap) or PINKY (cause what TO is really gunna go scratching every pro painted model to check its authenticity, and besides most stores now sell casting blocks) or even second hand Dettol/Simple green soaks...
Its revolution baby... And as the disgruntled players mingle with the younglings, then this information and means to deny mumma of such a large financial burden to make the hobby acceptable will become the norm...
And who you really denying support to then, The GW fat cats who obviously don't even play the games anymore cause they are busy counting the millions,
or 1 under payed, overworked staff member in your local store that does the same job as your home computer but without the sales pitches or sleazy overbearing overpowering 'I'm so cool cause I get to play with models at work' attitude?.
GW is really ruling over the text now, and as far as I felt this newest edition it was like, 'Meh, we can't be bothered anymore, here's our rulebook, FAQ'd by Black Library, middle finger to the TO's, and everyone else, sort it out among yourselves or what the hell, just take whatever you have lying around and put it on the table'.
GW is really ruling over the text now, and as far as I felt this newest edition it was like, 'Meh, we can't be bothered anymore, here's our rulebook, FAQ'd by Black Library, middle finger to the TO's, and everyone else, sort it out among yourselves or what the hell, just take whatever you have lying around and put it on the table'.
GW is in trouble...
I have to agree with your outlook on the latest edition. This 'unbound' idea is a crap pot waiting to happen and it does just seem like a desperate effort to sell more big kits.
That said and done, GW may be suffering but there is still a long way to fall before they really are in trouble.
I just got a piece of information forwarded to me that's drastically changed my reading of the preambles and notes of the last few financial statements.
I will no longer be championing the potential of the single employee store to actually work in turning things around. They will be, at best, a means to enter into a controlled decline and the most important factor in whether or not they end up becoming a millstone around the company's neck is the cost of closing a loss-making one and opening a new one elsewhere.
Furthermore, unless GW can open them far more rapidly than they are closed and have a solid majority of the new ones never be loss making, then things are not looking good for the plan. And even if they do succeed in doing that, they'll still not be making any headway in terms of actually returning to growth, just continuing in a controlled decline.
frozenwastes wrote: I just got a piece of information forwarded to me that's drastically changed my reading of the preambles and notes of the last few financial statements. It has to do with sales volume by channel and makes complete sense given the position they've been advertising. I now think that GW is beginning to see independent traders as cannibalizing their direct sales. This totally fits with their regional embargoes and their ever more draconian trade terms that they release each year. As well as the reduction in what products are not available to independent stockists at their normal discount levels (or at all).
Didn't they at some point (maybe like 5+ years ago now) call all their trade partners freeloaders? Anyone selling their product without having a physical storefront was just mooching off of the GW stores who bring in new customers and create the community, the online stores just steal sales. I believe that was the beginning of the decline that led to people in Oz and Canada no longer being able to just buy the stuff from the US and get it mailed for a significant discount.
At my Games Club there are about 20 regular players. When 5th Ed was released, all of us bought a rule book. 6th Ed, this dropped to about ¾. This time round, no one so far has ordered the new edition, nor has anyone any plans to. Make of this what you will. This is 1 Games club.
For me, it’s not the £££, my disposable income has increased over that same period. It’s the perceived value attached to that £££ and I just don’t feel GW products bring me value for money anymore. Then there is the overly complex rules and codex, constantly flicking between the two books. The last edition of Orks was my final big army purchase from GW. I doubt I’ll spend anything with them again except on their paints (which I quite like).
The club I’m in has steadily moved away from GW games, there is so much good stuff out there now, GW has far more competition now than it ever had, and it’s current strategy of Price Gouging, general Anti-Everything that’s not bought directly with GW, is pushing more and more people to their competition. Where are the articles of old from GW, “Here’s a Tin can, here’s how you can make it into a watch tower”. Now it’s, “stuff the hobby, buy our overpriced plastic watch tower kit because it’s the only way to have a watchtower”. You get my point.
We now play Warmachine, DUST Tactics, Super Dungeon Explore, Firestorm Armada, Infinity, Drop Zone, Flames of War, Mercs. Board games have been popular recently. We’ve jumped on KS and are waiting for Kingdom Death, Relic Knights, DUST, Aliens Vs Predator. Bottom line, GW has much more competition than it used to, and it’s current strategies are continually pushing previous loyal fans to them more and more.
The hellish global economy is to blame for the more than doubling in my income since 5th edition was released. Fart farmers in Botswana be damned! The price of oranges in Nicaragua has really pushed me away from GW and forced me into spending several thousand dollars on other games.
Went to the local club last night and my friend and I were the only two playing 40k. Super Dungeon Explore and several smaller games were occupying everyone else's attention. There was some talk from people that amounted to them being done with GW for good and one TO saying that maybe at some point he'd need to call a meeting to discuss the need/desire for future 40k events. Complete apathy all around from a group that played loads of 40k less than a year ago.
I can't imagine a justification for a company wide pull back from social media. I mean, I get half my PP info from Facebook and Twitter. I've purchased new factions/models/etc just based on those posts alone (mostly because I can't be bothered to track release dates).
I mean, PP has a PINTEREST page! I don't even really know what Pinterest is (the Mrs. loves it), but they deemed having another social media outlet beneficial.
Young professionals with good incomes haven't been GW's target audience for over a decade. Their targe audience is 14-18 year olds who spend mommy's money (or maybe money from a part time job or babysitting).
People keep saying that and I've never once believed that it's true. I think that's an excuse GW has made for extremely questionable business decisions in the past. But I think even they realize that teenagers don't have the disposable income required to play their games, and most parents are going to balk at the prices.
Young professionals with good incomes haven't been GW's target audience for over a decade. Their targe audience is 14-18 year olds who spend mommy's money (or maybe money from a part time job or babysitting).
People keep saying that and I've never once believed that it's true. I think that's an excuse GW has made for extremely questionable business decisions in the past. But I think even they realize that teenagers don't have the disposable income required to play their games, and most parents are going to balk at the prices.
Tom Kirby himself has said in investors reports that GW are in the business of selling toys to children. I think they are just that disconnected from their customers that they really do believe that's their target audience.
I really want to reaffirm what a bunch of people are saying about the value not being there anymore.
Last year I spent about $450 on Dark Eldar, trying to build a new army. I still fell pretty short of 2000 points and every additional purchase just felt lousy. Spending another $35-$50 per unit or TRANSPORT just feels terrible. It got to the point where the thought of assembling and painting and SPENDING to play a game I didn't think was even fun to play or well designed was causing me anxiety and stress. I finally gave up and sold my Dark Eldar stuff and washed my hands of GW forever. When I heard 7th edition was coming out barely 2 years after 6th, I was just really happy to be out.
Apparently I was not the only one. Our local store has a ton of old GW diehards playing WarmaHordes now, when no one would even look at it before. The consensus I've heard is that it's a tremendously better value, and the rules make strategy matter a lot more. For my part, I've spent about $160 and I have a VERY solid force. And it's a game that I find enjoyable to play. The value is just a lot better. And I don't feel like I am in an adversarial relationship with PP.
Young professionals with good incomes haven't been GW's target audience for over a decade. Their targe audience is 14-18 year olds who spend mommy's money (or maybe money from a part time job or babysitting).
People keep saying that and I've never once believed that it's true. I think that's an excuse GW has made for extremely questionable business decisions in the past. But I think even they realize that teenagers don't have the disposable income required to play their games, and most parents are going to balk at the prices.
Tom Kirby himself has said in investors reports that GW are in the business of selling toys to children. I think they are just that disconnected from their customers that they really do believe that's their target audience.
I honestly wonder what their goal is in that. I mean, a kid's not going to buy a 4k point army to play the huge games GW keeps encouraging. So what do they actually think they're going to end up with? It really does sound like a pump and dump scam - sell the boxed set to kids, sell a squad or three of Space Marines, and move on to the next sucker. Do they really see 14-18 year old kids turning up with a large army to play at the GW store (since they think the hobby revolves around the GW store)?
They seem to have a total disconnect or else are almost blatantly running a scam. They encourage large games, which a 14-18 year old if that's their supposed target market isn't going to be able to afford. They cut their stores down to the bone so that you can't even really play there, but think that the GW store is some community meeting place. It's completely backwards thinking and I really can't fathom what the actual goal is.
The idea behind Apocalypse was to sell larger armies and particularly larger models such as the Baneblade. There are plenty of people who would like to add a large model to their collection, the success of the Forge World kits showed this.
GW doesn't engage their customers because they view their customers to be at the same level of livestock, to be led to slaughter.
My gaming group of around a dozen GW refugees bought 2 copies of 6th Ed (one of them being me)... played about that many games, and zero copies of 7th. TBH, the fact that 6th didn't fix any of the flaws that bothered me about 5th really stuck in my craw and was the last straw for me... Reading the reviews of 7th doesn't really encourage me to change my decision.
Kilkrazy wrote: The idea behind Apocalypse was to sell larger armies and particularly larger models such as the Baneblade. There are plenty of people who would like to add a large model to their collection, the success of the Forge World kits showed this.
Silence! This doesn't fit the narrative being spun by the collective group think. GW is only one thing..
frozenwastes wrote: It dawned on me a little over a year ago that GW has effectively embraced a direct sales model. Like those used by life insurance companies, car sales, and jewelry sales. Similarly their trade sales department are basically telemarketers with very short call lists (existing game, hobby and comic shops).
Holy gak that blew my mind. BECAUSE YOU'RE CORRECT.
Next evolution: to be more profitable, GW will turn into a multi-level marketing scam.
Kilkrazy wrote: The idea behind Apocalypse was to sell larger armies and particularly larger models such as the Baneblade. There are plenty of people who would like to add a large model to their collection, the success of the Forge World kits showed this.
Silence! This doesn't fit the narrative being spun by the collective group think. GW is only one thing..
Spoiler:
Says the man who is on record dismissing arguments/evidence/information that contradicts his viewpoint "cos."
MWHistorian wrote: If I was an independent seller, I'd be doing everything I could to promote other games like X-wing, Warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc. More options, the more chances are someone will find something they like. I'd get tournaments going for each game and have my employees always ready with an army for a demo game.
The only issue is that there are so many systems that are 'not-40k' so might be locally clustered. Malifaux and batman are really hard to get a game of compared to 40k.
My FLGS has said that GW stuff brings people in which is why it's important to have even if he doesn't get a whole lot of margin on it.
MWHistorian wrote: If I was an independent seller, I'd be doing everything I could to promote other games like X-wing, Warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc. More options, the more chances are someone will find something they like. I'd get tournaments going for each game and have my employees always ready with an army for a demo game.
The only issue is that there are so many systems that are 'not-40k' so might be locally clustered. Malifaux and batman are really hard to get a game of compared to 40k.
My FLGS has said that GW stuff brings people in which is why it's important to have even if he doesn't get a whole lot of margin on it.
A lot of the guys who play warmachine don't sell their 40k armies for this very reason. It's easier to get in games if you play 40k. If you go up to warmachine night, you usually see a couple 40k games going on but you don't see the inverse on 40k nights in my experience.
MWHistorian wrote: If I was an independent seller, I'd be doing everything I could to promote other games like X-wing, Warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc. More options, the more chances are someone will find something they like. I'd get tournaments going for each game and have my employees always ready with an army for a demo game.
The only issue is that there are so many systems that are 'not-40k' so might be locally clustered. Malifaux and batman are really hard to get a game of compared to 40k.
My FLGS has said that GW stuff brings people in which is why it's important to have even if he doesn't get a whole lot of margin on it.
A lot of the guys who play warmachine don't sell their 40k armies for this very reason. It's easier to get in games if you play 40k. If you go up to warmachine night, you usually see a couple 40k games going on but you don't see the inverse on 40k nights in my experience.
That's the ENTIRE point of my post, If I were a store owner, I'd be actively working to change that.
MWHistorian wrote: If I was an independent seller, I'd be doing everything I could to promote other games like X-wing, Warmachine, Infinity, Dust, etc. More options, the more chances are someone will find something they like. I'd get tournaments going for each game and have my employees always ready with an army for a demo game.
The only issue is that there are so many systems that are 'not-40k' so might be locally clustered. Malifaux and batman are really hard to get a game of compared to 40k.
My FLGS has said that GW stuff brings people in which is why it's important to have even if he doesn't get a whole lot of margin on it.
A lot of the guys who play warmachine don't sell their 40k armies for this very reason. It's easier to get in games if you play 40k. If you go up to warmachine night, you usually see a couple 40k games going on but you don't see the inverse on 40k nights in my experience.
Counter anecdote: over here GW games are practically dead. The much lauded "last 6th edition tournament" for 40k managed to grab a record breaking 6 players (and that really is record breaking since I think it was the first 40k tournament in close to 4 months that wasn't cancelled due to lack of participants). The WHFB tournament this month wasn't so lucky and was once again cancelled due to lack of participation.
So to sum it up, yes, ubiquity is probably the only reason why 40k keeps going in allot of places, but even that is no longer true in many others.
Even though GW is obviously digging it's own grave, it is still hilarious to see people's reactions. People are using a single hobby shop as a reference point for the entire state of the business or trying to use their "economy knowledge" to predict the future. It's obvious that there are things going in behind the scenes that might paint a different picture...
Bronzefists42 wrote: Even though GW is obviously digging it's own grave, it is still hilarious to see people's reactions. People are using a single hobby shop as a reference point for the entire state of the business or trying to use their "economy knowledge" to predict the future. It's obvious that there are things going in behind the scenes that might paint a different picture...
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but when it's the same story over and over, it starts pointing towards a trend.
MWHistorian wrote: That's the ENTIRE point of my post, If I were a store owner, I'd be actively working to change that.
Because you'd get better margins... Damn greed shop owners.
PhantomViper wrote: So to sum it up, yes, ubiquity is probably the only reason why 40k keeps going in allot of places, but even that is no longer true in many others.
I've kind of seen it go in cycles honestly.. Games will get hot,, the for some strange reason, in a few years they are no longer on the shelves.
I remember when confrontation was big and everyone was talking about how Rackham was going to take the place of warhammer fantasy. They even went public back in 2005 and it took less than 5 years for them to go under due to the economic downturn. They overextended themselves and went under even though management was doing exactly what the players wanted.. imagine that..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: Even though GW is obviously digging it's own grave, it is still hilarious to see people's reactions. People are using a single hobby shop as a reference point for the entire state of the business or trying to use their "economy knowledge" to predict the future. It's obvious that there are things going in behind the scenes that might paint a different picture...
The economy has secular and cyclical trends... That's kind of the whole basis for economics.
You follow the trend and look for historical precedence to get an idea where you are in the cycle. I never said I had a crystal ball that was capable of "predicting the future". I just believe the economy is going to be a major headwind for GW going forward. I don't see how that is controversial.
Kilkrazy wrote: The idea behind Apocalypse was to sell larger armies and particularly larger models such as the Baneblade. There are plenty of people who would like to add a large model to their collection, the success of the Forge World kits showed this.
Silence! This doesn't fit the narrative being spun by the collective group think. GW is only one thing..
Spoiler:
Uh, what? I'm pretty sure that's what everyone thinks the purpose of Apocalypse is/was. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen people really complain about Apocalypse. It offers products that a certain percentage of players may want to engage in at different times, selectively.
However, people *do* have a problem with Escalation. That throws away the whole optional content style of Apocalypse and replaces it with "Those big models are for all games, guys. It's not really optional."
MWHistorian wrote: That's the ENTIRE point of my post, If I were a store owner, I'd be actively working to change that.
Because you'd get better margins... Damn greed shop owners.
I'm not even sure what your your argument is. Perhaps being less snarky and more clear would help?
I don't see how that response was snarky.
You pointed out that GW products are relatively low margin vs other games. It's in the game store owner's best interest to promote the game that makes them the most money for THEM. Same reason why gamestore owners sell magic cards..
My "greedy game shop owners" comment was clearly sarcastic. People who run game stores don't do it to make a lot of money.
There are two active posters on my ignore list. Dereksatkinson is one of them and for very good reason. Don't feed the troll.
In my PMs i've had about a half dozen of these..
Saw in [ur=http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596875.page]this[/url] thread how you basically got kicked out for having too much knowledge so that everyone else could just sit around recycling the same old butthurt to each other and complain about prices/facebook. Have to say I'm pretty shocked, though not that surprised.
Just so you know there are some people on dakka who do appreciate posts that are factual and draw upon personal experiences and impartial sources, we don't all like to sit around whinging all day. Keep at it, fella
MWHistorian wrote: That's the ENTIRE point of my post, If I were a store owner, I'd be actively working to change that.
Because you'd get better margins... Damn greed shop owners.
I'm not even sure what your your argument is. Perhaps being less snarky and more clear would help?
I don't see how that response was snarky.
You pointed out that GW products are relatively low margin vs other games. It's in the game store owner's best interest to promote the game that makes them the most money for THEM. Same reason why gamestore owners sell magic cards..
My "greedy game shop owners" comment was clearly sarcastic. People who run game stores don't do it to make a lot of money.
There are two active posters on my ignore list. Dereksatkinson is one of them and for very good reason. Don't feed the troll.
In my PMs i've had about a half dozen of these..
Saw in [ur=http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596875.page]this[/url] thread how you basically got kicked out for having too much knowledge so that everyone else could just sit around recycling the same old butthurt to each other and complain about prices/facebook. Have to say I'm pretty shocked, though not that surprised.
Just so you know there are some people on dakka who do appreciate posts that are factual and draw upon personal experiences and impartial sources, we don't all like to sit around whinging all day. Keep at it, fella
But that's not at all what I was saying. Did you even read my post? I said that as a shopkeeper, I would encourage the other games like Warmachine, infinity, DZ, etc over 40k in case GW goes under. I never said anything about greedy shop owners or profit margins. Where in the world did you get that idea?
agnosto wrote: Gentlemen, please take your personal feud elsewhere.
There's no feud this end, I assure you, in fact I'm on the record defending Derek to other posters, but given we do have a history and I'm familiar with a number of his debating habits, appeals to authority like this aren't unusual, so I've just tried to balance it out by bringing my perspective to the table too.
MWHistorian wrote: That's the ENTIRE point of my post, If I were a store owner, I'd be actively working to change that.
Because you'd get better margins... Damn greed shop owners.
I'm not even sure what your your argument is. Perhaps being less snarky and more clear would help?
I don't see how that response was snarky.
You pointed out that GW products are relatively low margin vs other games. It's in the game store owner's best interest to promote the game that makes them the most money for THEM. Same reason why gamestore owners sell magic cards..
My "greedy game shop owners" comment was clearly sarcastic. People who run game stores don't do it to make a lot of money.
There are two active posters on my ignore list. Dereksatkinson is one of them and for very good reason. Don't feed the troll.
In my PMs i've had about a half dozen of these..
Saw in [ur=http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596875.page]this[/url] thread how you basically got kicked out for having too much knowledge so that everyone else could just sit around recycling the same old butthurt to each other and complain about prices/facebook. Have to say I'm pretty shocked, though not that surprised.
Just so you know there are some people on dakka who do appreciate posts that are factual and draw upon personal experiences and impartial sources, we don't all like to sit around whinging all day. Keep at it, fella
But that's not at all what I was saying. Did you even read my post? I said that as a shopkeeper, I would encourage the other games like Warmachine, infinity, DZ, etc over 40k in case GW goes under. I never said anything about greedy shop owners or profit margins. Where in the world did you get that idea?
Dude, dont feed the trolls.Derek is the first person I have ever put on ignore in my years of hanging out here at DakkaDakka. Its just not worth the it.
MWHistorian wrote: But that's not at all what I was saying. Did you even read my post? I said that as a shopkeeper, I would encourage the other games like Warmachine, infinity, DZ, etc over 40k in case GW goes under. I never said anything about greedy shop owners or profit margins. Where in the world did you get that idea?
No need to be hostile. I wasn't putting words into your mouth.
MWHistorian wrote: My FLGS has said that GW stuff brings people in which is why it's important to have even if he doesn't get a whole lot of margin on it.
From a gamestore owner's perspective, you want the high margin products selling so you can pay the rent and keep the lights on. So you spent $100 in his store, he'd prefer it be on warmachine over gamesworkshop. That's why so many game stores constantly hold magic nights and tournaments which is a high margin business. My JOKE was that those store owners are being "greedy" by wanting to stay in business.
dereksatkinson wrote:I remember when confrontation was big and everyone was talking about how Rackham was going to take the place of warhammer fantasy. They even went public back in 2005 and it took less than 5 years for them to go under due to the economic downturn. They overextended themselves and went under even though management was doing exactly what the players wanted.. imagine that..
You think the players wanted the abandonment of high end metals for a 100% shift into pre-painted plastics? That it was the "economic downturn" that ended Rackham?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: From a gamestore owner's perspective, you want the high margin products selling so you can pay the rent and keep the lights on. So you spent $100 in his store, he'd prefer it be on warmachine over gamesworkshop. That's why so many game stores constantly hold magic nights and tournaments which is a high margin business.
The other thing to remember about non-GW products is that the store can often negotiate a better trade discount with their distributor when they do more volume with that distributor. So every dollar of non-GW sold makes the store more money, but also has the potential to make every other sale of non-GW products more profitable. I know one local store ended up negotiating a full 5% better trade discount once they got their MTG business going after they ditched 40k on Friday nights for Friday Night Magic. This ended up making their board game sales more profitable. It made their WM/H and Infinity sales more profitable. Everything they got from that distributor was now more profitable because their buying power got their discount improved when splitting it into GW prevented that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote:Didn't they at some point (maybe like 5+ years ago now) call all their trade partners freeloaders? Anyone selling their product without having a physical storefront was just mooching off of the GW stores who bring in new customers and create the community, the online stores just steal sales. I believe that was the beginning of the decline that led to people in Oz and Canada no longer being able to just buy the stuff from the US and get it mailed for a significant discount.
They haven't been able to lock down eBay, so if Oz and Canada people really want GW stuff, there's a good chance you'll find it on eBay from the US at a good price.
The ironic thing about considering online sales freeloaders because they don't provide what a physical location does, is that GW doesn't provide those things anymore either. Everything has been slashed away. The local GW store here actually charges people to learn how to paint (they have a $80 "learn the hobby" program). There's no policy ensuring the ability to game at a local GW and many of the single employees have decided to slash gaming completely and others have so limited table space that after they keep their demo tables clear, there might be room for one game and likely a small one.
All the while GW is trying to hypocritically get independent store customers to buy from GW's online store with their limited edition and direct only items.
And they're still pulling stock shenanigans with preorders. One local store that still sells GW got a third of his preorders for 7th edition while the local GW has them filling up the shelves.
I honestly wonder what their goal is in that. I mean, a kid's not going to buy a 4k point army to play the huge games GW keeps encouraging. So what do they actually think they're going to end up with? It really does sound like a pump and dump scam - sell the boxed set to kids, sell a squad or three of Space Marines, and move on to the next sucker. Do they really see 14-18 year old kids turning up with a large army to play at the GW store (since they think the hobby revolves around the GW store)?
I think the rules are entirely an idea used to sell miniatures. If they can get the idea of a nice big game with a table full of painted models into the head of a 15 year old, then all his birthday and holiday money and money from odd jobs and babysitting can go towards chasing that goal before he finally quits without ever reaching it. It's like when financial advisors estimate how much money you'll need to retire or how much life insurance you'll need for your families needs in order to get mutual fund and life insurance sales.
heartserenade wrote:Holy gak that blew my mind. BECAUSE YOU'RE CORRECT.
Next evolution: to be more profitable, GW will turn into a multi-level marketing scam.
The reason multi-level marketing continues to survive is that the recruits are the sales targets. You tell them that if they're going to effectively sell the product, then they need to believe in it and thus use it themselves. The recruits who end up making money in MLM aren't the ones who can sell product, but the ones that can sell the dream and recruit new recruits as their customers.
The other piece of the puzzle for MLM is that the commissions need to be terrible and the margins bad to make room for overrides. So if you wanted to do a GW MLM, you'd have to start everyone at a discount that is worse than what you can already get through an online discounter. So trade sales would have to be completely scrapped first.
Given that GW pretty much relies entirely on word of mouth, their independent trade customers, and people happening across their store thinking they can get video games there, I don't think a switch to MLM would actually be that bad for them. It's a new channel.
I wonder how many 40k players would sign up to sell GW to their friends in exchange for a small discount that grows with every new recruit they make. And on top of running gaming parties at people's houses and trying to get everyone they know playing, they'd also get the joy of attending sales meetings with dreamers wearing baggy suits that don't fit chanting "recruit! recruit! recruit!"
EDIT: My personal experience with MLM is in helping some friends get out of it. They were in a couple of the financial services MLMs selling life insurance and mutual funds. They were literally getting 25% of the commission for the same sale that an independent financial advisor would get. And half that what a typical life insurance sales person would get for the same sales. They ended up eventually shifting over to being independant and now get four times the money for the same sales. It's shocking how much the MLM pyramid structure sucks out of the revenues of the participants. So it'd probably be a natural fit for GW. .
jonolikespie wrote:Didn't they at some point (maybe like 5+ years ago now) call all their trade partners freeloaders? Anyone selling their product without having a physical storefront was just mooching off of the GW stores who bring in new customers and create the community, the online stores just steal sales. I believe that was the beginning of the decline that led to people in Oz and Canada no longer being able to just buy the stuff from the US and get it mailed for a significant discount.
They haven't been able to lock down eBay, so if Oz and Canada people really want GW stuff, there's a good chance you'll find it on eBay from the US at a good price.
We don't need to use ebay and pay the extra fees involved though that is an option. Discount Games Store in the US sells to Aussies and Canadians at 20+% off US RRP and repackages items to greatly reduce shipping cost. Submit orders via email and pay with paypal and get sweet plastic goodness a couple weeks later at half of Aussie RRP. It's ridiculous that we have to do this though, and it increases the cost-value disparity with chinaforge so very few legit products come out ahead down here. Bundles and some basic troops being about it.
I tend to get more Warmachine & Hordes stuff from them lately, but if someone is in Australia or Canada and planning on sticking with GW stuff, I'd highly recommend them.
Something is wrong with regional pricing when I can get something to my door for less than the local store can get it on their trade discount.
frozenwastes wrote: I think the rules are entirely an idea used to sell miniatures. If they can get the idea of a nice big game with a table full of painted models into the head of a 15 year old, then all his birthday and holiday money and money from odd jobs and babysitting can go towards chasing that goal before he finally quits without ever reaching it. It's like when financial advisors estimate how much money you'll need to retire or how much life insurance you'll need for your families needs in order to get mutual fund and life insurance sales.
So it's basically a scam. Sad part is that I would not doubt this at all, and their goal isn't really to get you to play anything, just have the illusion of playing so you keep buying all the big toys. In fact... that scarily ties in to things like Escalation - throw out some garbage rules for fielding big expensive kits, and who cares if nobody wants to play with them, because you already bought a $50 book and spend a few hundred dollars on a couple Baneblades or Knights or Titans because GW told you that you can field it.
Same thing with Unbound... trick kids into buying a bunch of crap only to find later that hey nobody wants to play with a mishmash of kits. But GW already got their money.
That's insanely brilliant, but I doubt that GW is smart enough to perpetrate a conjob like that.
I can't call it a scam. Just like I can't call the numbers a financial sales agent comes up with a scam either. If you get sold on the idea of needing 2 million come retirement and then put a savings and investment plan in place to get you there, that's not a scam. That's just good commissions for the sales person. The only way it would be a scam is if you didn't get what you were promised. Like if the insurance didn't pay out when you died or something.
Similarly you can actually play the game at these higher points levels. And the lower ones. It's not a great or even good game, but it actually has rules and will actually play out.
The rules are a marketing idea, but they still technically are also a game. Even if GW doesn't care if you ever play it at full size as long as you buy miniatures to get there.
Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.
The key question is how pissed off are the "just not everyones" and if they desert the system what damage will that do in terms of lost sales and reduced recruitment by word of mouth?
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.
Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.
Kilkrazy wrote: The key question is how pissed off are the "just not everyones" and if they desert the system what damage will that do in terms of lost sales and reduced recruitment by word of mouth?
Well.. i've heard about people deserting the system since around 1998 which was obviously a bit premature.
It seems to be consensus that people are abandoning GW because PP is cheaper, more balanced and GW eats babies etc.. Which is fine.. More power to them. But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts). They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that. When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts).
You also don't need as many for a typical viable army.
That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.
They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare.
Because WarmaHordes is not modern warfare?
Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.
That is subjective.
When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
Again, that is subjective.
There are games out there that are just as "cinematic" and epic as 40K. Dropzone Commander, Bolt Action etc. If you really don't see games out there that are as fun as Gamesworkshop's, you're just not looking hard enough. Or at all...
But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts).
You also don't need as many for a typical viable army.
That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.
They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare.
Because WarmaHordes is not modern warfare?
Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.
That is subjective.
When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
Again, that is subjective.
There are games out there that are just as "cinematic" and epic as 40K. Dropzone Commander, Bolt Action etc. If you really don't see games out there that are as fun as Gamesworkshop's, you're just not looking hard enough. Or at all...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.
I priced it out.. it's about $450-$500 for an army. Then, if I wanted to go to a major tournament, I'd need up to 2 more armies because they seem to allow you to switch factions so you don't get a bad matchup. So to really be competitive, you are talking $1000-1500.
Because WarmaHordes is not modern warfare?
Right.. the background is bizarre and hard for a lot of people to connect with.
Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.
That is subjective.
How exactly is that subjective? Are you going to argue that every single warmachine game isn't just bubble wrapping a caster?
When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
Again, that is subjective.
I can see you disagreeing that it's more cinematic but you can't say that Warmachine is a game where vast amounts of units operate independently. People use casters to boost their units and that is where the main strategy (outside of list building) is.
There are games out there that are just as "cinematic" and epic as 40K. Dropzone Commander, Bolt Action etc. If you really don't see games out there that are as fun as Gamesworkshop's, you're just not looking hard enough. Or at all...
And how many people are saying 40k is going to be replaced by Dropzone commander? lol
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.
Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.
Kilkrazy wrote: The key question is how pissed off are the "just not everyones" and if they desert the system what damage will that do in terms of lost sales and reduced recruitment by word of mouth?
Well.. i've heard about people deserting the system since around 1998 which was obviously a bit premature.
It seems to be consensus that people are abandoning GW because PP is cheaper, more balanced and GW eats babies etc.. Which is fine.. More power to them. But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts). They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that. When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
Derek, That is because they are different games. In different settings. Warmachine is still a skirmish game played on a 4x4 table (although with the move towards more and more 120mm bases its getting kinda crowded).
The models do cost about the same but you don't need as many. If you look at a box of Winter Guard. They are $65ish for 10 of them, but you only need that one box. not 5 like you would with SM. Same goes for any other unit. Warjacks are the same way you need maybe one of each type unless you are going to use a skew list.
The big reason that people are singing the praises of PP are a few fold.
3. They actively engage the community. Through their forums, at conventions, Twitter, Pintrest (not really sure why but hey, maybe some lady who likes brownies will like Warjacks).
4. They support the heck out of FLGS with leagues, event support, Press Gangers etc.
5. While they do have faction books and new release books, you do not need them to play the game in its most current state. If you buy the books its for the fluff.
6. You will never hear the RAW vs RAI argument (my personal favorite).
Now is the game for everyone? Nope, Is any game for everyone?
The question is, what do you want out of a game? Most people just want to have fun with their Man-Dollies. How we have fun with them is what this all boils down to. Some people want massive battles with lots of stuff on the table and buckets of dice flying around. Others don't. Some folks want a game that can be played competitively with tight rules that leave very little if any ambiguity. Some folks want to sit around the table and drink a beer and have fun, they couldnt care less about how good a rules set is they are just having fun hanging out with their buddies.
My question is where do the customers come down on these things? Are the vast majority of games sitting around in the basement with friends? Are they out at the FLGS for Saturday tournaments?
Does brand perception mean more to gamers then other segments customers?
Are people mad that if they want to stay current on the rules they are dropping another $100+ just 2 years after dropping $100+?
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.
Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.
I think the hate is because the game is unbalanced (by intent) so there's basically two kinds of Unbound armies: A fluffy unbound army that can't be done with the FoC and the uber-broken TFG Unbound armies just because they can. There's a huge gap between say an all Assault Marine army representing a blitzkrieg strike force and some schmuck showing up with a bunch of Riptides, Coteaz & Friends and a Baneblade.
Well.. i've heard about people deserting the system since around 1998 which was obviously a bit premature.
It seems to be consensus that people are abandoning GW because PP is cheaper, more balanced and GW eats babies etc.. Which is fine.. More power to them. But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts). They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that. When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
The main cost argument comes from the fact you need a lot less to get started playing beginner games ($50 battle box) and generally you don't field more than one of each unit. So you end up spending the same amount over time as opposed to all at once, and outside of tournaments where you need 2-3 lists you get a normal-sized game for the price of a low-end game with GW. I did the math once and I could buy a 35-point warmachine army, which is the standard non-tournament size, for about $350 including the rulebook. 40k that $350 gets you basically the entry-level force if even that depending on what you buy.
Other than that there's the whole thing with PP supporting FLGS and the community while GW dictates from their ivory tower while hurling mud on non-GW stores.
Right.. the background is bizarre and hard for a lot of people to connect with.
Again...subjective.
Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.
That is subjective.
How exactly is that subjective? Are you going to argue that every single warmachine game isn't just bubble wrapping a caster?
By definition your opinion is subjective. YOU might not find it fun, but presumably lots of Warmachine players do.
I personally wouldn't find 40K Escalation fun, having huge chunks of my army being quickly blown away by D-Weapon equipped super heavies in small non-Apocalypse games, or Unbound lists that throw all army structure and what little remains of game balance out the window; but that too is my subjective opinion and I don't present it as fact.
When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
Again, that is subjective.
I can see you disagreeing that it's more cinematic but you can't say that Warmachine is a game where vast amounts of units operate independently. People use casters to boost their units and that is where the main strategy (outside of list building) is.
No, I'm not, given that I wasn't talking about War Machine.
You're being disingenuous. Your remark referred to "any of the competition". You were NOT specifically referring to Warmachine.
There are games out there that are just as "cinematic" and epic as 40K. Dropzone Commander, Bolt Action etc. If you really don't see games out there that are as fun as Gamesworkshop's, you're just not looking hard enough. Or at all...
And how many people are saying 40k is going to be replaced by Dropzone commander? lol
Stop changing the subject. I'm not one of those people, given that I havn't played it and have interest in it. My point was that there ARE games similar in scope and scale to 40K with Fliers, Troop Transports etc.
You have a habit of stating your opinion and pretending its indisputable fact. Please stop, its very annoying.
Kilkrazy wrote: Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.
I really like the DZC minis, I really like the the whole concept of the game (the fluff is a bit meh, but nothing to get down on) but I bought the rulebook and really couldn't get excited about it.
The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.
So, in order to find out if I even like DZC, I'd have to buy a starter, organise terrain, table etc, find a willing victim and muddle through a game where neither of us really knew what we were doing, which in turn may result in mistakes that altered the gameplay and really coloured our view. My willing victim would also have to like it enough to buy in too, otherwise it really is irrelevant what I think of the game.
Now in the two years that my current regular gaming club has been going, it has seen a shift from pure GW to a noticeable number of other games systems played regularly, but the barrier to entry for a player into a game may be lower for basically everything else on the market ahead of 40K, but the barrier to entry for a game into a community? Thats a different beast altogether, and much harder to quantify, and is almost definitely what is keeping 40K and GW at the races nowadays.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.
I priced it out.. it's about $450-$500 for an army. Then, if I wanted to go to a major tournament, I'd need up to 2 more armies because they seem to allow you to switch factions so you don't get a bad matchup. So to really be competitive, you are talking $1000-1500.
Major tournaments are two list events, not three. Also I would like to know where you are getting your numbers for both that 450$ value for a 50 pt list and the 1000$ one for two (especially considering that the two lists will more often than not have quite a bit of overlap between them).
Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.
That is subjective.
How exactly is that subjective? Are you going to argue that every single warmachine game isn't just bubble wrapping a caster?
Yes, I am going to argue exactly that and I don't even need to use anything other than math to do it.
Even if your preposterous notion that "every single warmachine game is just bubble wrapping a caster" was true (which it isn't), a FOC 7 caster will have a 14" control area, meaning that the "bubble" that he generates has 29" across, not 16" like you claim...
When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.
Again, that is subjective.
I can see you disagreeing that it's more cinematic but you can't say that Warmachine is a game where vast amounts of units operate independently. People use casters to boost their units and that is where the main strategy (outside of list building) is.
Again, you are completely wrong, WMH is allot more dependent on positioning and actual tactical game play than list building and you would just need to take a look at any top 8 in any major tournament to see this. What amount of net listing exists, it usually only happens in the bottom tables and you'll only very rarely see a list being successful, in top competition, outside the hands of its creator.
And in WMH you don't see vast amounts of units operating independently, simply because its a skirmish game, that by its very definition, doesn't use vast amounts of units...
When you are trying to argue something it would actually help if you knew anything about whatever it is you are arguing about, at least try to inform yourself about things before making posts like this...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: By definition your opinion is subjective. YOU might not find it fun, but presumably lots of Warmachine players do.
I didn't say you couldn't have fun playing it. I pointed out that they are entirely different games and are not a direct substitute for what people who play 40k necessarily want.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You have a habit of stating your opinion and pretending its indisputable fact. Please stop, its very annoying.
Now that is subjective
Stating that warmachine is played in a 16" bubble is pretty much fact. I've played the game and understand that you need casters in order for your army to operate. Those casters have a very limited range on their abilities. Or are you going to say that is subjective?
My point is.. I constantly people are saying that people are going to abandon GW and stop playing 40k. Frequently I hear that warmachine/hordes is going to be what they replace it with. I point out that the games are different.. I didn't say they weren't fun. so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.
Yes, I am going to argue exactly that and I don't even need to use anything other than math to do it.
Even if your preposterous notion that "every single warmachine game is just bubble wrapping a caster" was true (which it isn't), a FOC 7 caster will have a 14" control area, meaning that the "bubble" that he generates has 29" across, not 16" like you claim...
16" Radius..
PhantomViper wrote: Again, you are completely wrong, WMH is allot more dependent on positioning and actual tactical game play than list building and you would just need to take a look at any top 8 in any major tournament to see this. What amount of net listing exists, it usually only happens in the bottom tables and you'll only very rarely see a list being successful, in top competition, outside the hands of its creator.
And in WMH you don't see vast amounts of units operating independently, simply because its a skirmish game, that by its very definition, doesn't use vast amounts of units...
When you are trying to argue something it would actually help if you knew anything about whatever it is you are arguing about, at least try to inform yourself about things before making posts like this...
Kilkrazy wrote: Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.
I really like the DZC minis, I really like the the whole concept of the game (the fluff is a bit meh, but nothing to get down on) but I bought the rulebook and really couldn't get excited about it.
The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.
So, in order to find out if I even like DZC, I'd have to buy a starter, organise terrain, table etc, find a willing victim and muddle through a game where neither of us really knew what we were doing, which in turn may result in mistakes that altered the gameplay and really coloured our view. My willing victim would also have to like it enough to buy in too, otherwise it really is irrelevant what I think of the game.
Now in the two years that my current regular gaming club has been going, it has seen a shift from pure GW to a noticeable number of other games systems played regularly, but the barrier to entry for a player into a game may be lower for basically everything else on the market ahead of 40K, but the barrier to entry for a game into a community? Thats a different beast altogether, and much harder to quantify, and is almost definitely what is keeping 40K and GW at the races nowadays.
Some good points. Personally my gaming history goes back to the early 80's. I remember struggling through D&D books as a perplexed 12 year-old trying to makes sense of things, and eventually me and my mates did so, enough to keep us happy any how. We also struggled through Warhammer 2nd edition (I skipped 1st ed as I couldn't afford the lead back then) using cut out card figures and a green tablecloth I pinched from my mum's linen drawer. When Rogue Trader came along, boy was that weird. But that's what the world was like back then. There were no "clubs" or stores where you could meet people to play with (at least not in Newcastle! ) until I went to university, and even then it was small.
But for me that was (and still is) part of the hobby. I love the struggling through a new book bit of the hobby. I love the building or assembling a new army or warband. I love chatting over the rulebook with my mates. And generally I get bored playing the same game too frequently.
There is a mindset though, which I am not decrying, it is just different, not "inferior", that enjoys familiarity, and can't be bothered with or fears change or evolution. I suspect this conservative mindset is perhaps the dominant one in wargaming and particularly in "the GW Hobby". Couple it with practical limitations like the "sunk cost fallacy" and I can understand how being a 40k gamer can feel addictied and abused at the same time.
I don't really have a point to this post other than to express the point of view that "trying out new stuff" is and always has been, for me at least, a fun part of wargaming.
azreal13 wrote: The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.
This in a nutshell. I personally have a bunch of things I'd like to try: DZC, Kings of War, Deadzone, Infinity, FoW, Bolt Action, hell even good old DBA or Napoleonics. But nobody plays them. It's 40k at one store, WM/H at another. Nobody cares about anything outside their bubble, and hell the one time I tried to pitch KoW to the WHFB crowd I as politely told to stop "trolling" trying to get everyone to switch to the game I want. So many things but nobody cares. At least maybe something like DZC with a 2-player box I could buy it and try to set up a demo at the game shop, but from what I've seen when there was WM/H, X-wing and Battletech demos, you're lucky if anybody even bothers to ask what it is because they're too engrossed in setting up a 40k game. Here at least people don't want a gaming club that samples a variety of different gaming systems, they want a 40k club that plays 40k exclusively, and that makes me very sad :(
I think that's what GW hinges on - the fact that gaming groups will exclusively play 40k and be oblivious to everything else, and get angry or dismissive at anyone who suggests and alternative game, even if its not "GW is the devil give it up" but "There's more than just GW". It actually makes me physically depressed that there isn't a gaming club mentality where if I want to learn Bolt Action, there would be people interested in collecting a small force and having a game, or if I had the urge to try my hand at the Civil War I could find someone else who thought it'd be a cool idea, we can get a force and play and maybe encourage others to try. Instead it's "We play 40k here" and everyone else is lucky if they ever find an opponent.
If I asked about other games on the store's FB page I'd likely get zero responses or told to quit trolling
dereksatkinson wrote: Stating that warmachine is played in a 16" bubble is pretty much fact. I've played the game and understand that you need casters in order for your army to operate. Those casters have a very limited range on their abilities. Or are you going to say that is subjective?
You've being disingenuous again.
You said that War Machine is not fun because its all about bubble wrapping a Caster. Which I contested on the grounds that many War Machine players must find it fun, otherwise why would they be playing it?
(And Note, I am not one of them. I have never played WM and never will. So stop assuming I'm some Privateer Press fanboy).
The argument was NOT about whether War Machine relies on 16" Caster bubbles (which btw, Phantom Viper contests), it was about whether or not some people can find the game fun, and you know it. So please stop changing the subject, and revising your past comments. Its rude and dishonest.
I didn't say they weren't fun.
They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble andI don't see much fun in that.
You were saying?
so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.
Bolt Action. DZC. Any of the variety of sci fi mass battle games on the market. New games will appear eventually too, so while there may not "be a real option" right now, there may well be in 5 years or so. And hell, who says they have to stop playing Warhammer 40K? They can still use their Warhammer models when playing other rules systems (e.g. Infinity, as one poster mentioned). I want to play the skirmish game SAGA (Gripping Beast/Studio Tomahawk) using my Lord of the Rings models.
Kilkrazy wrote: Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.
I really like the DZC minis, I really like the the whole concept of the game (the fluff is a bit meh, but nothing to get down on) but I bought the rulebook and really couldn't get excited about it.
The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.
So, in order to find out if I even like DZC, I'd have to buy a starter, organise terrain, table etc, find a willing victim and muddle through a game where neither of us really knew what we were doing, which in turn may result in mistakes that altered the gameplay and really coloured our view. My willing victim would also have to like it enough to buy in too, otherwise it really is irrelevant what I think of the game.
Now in the two years that my current regular gaming club has been going, it has seen a shift from pure GW to a noticeable number of other games systems played regularly, but the barrier to entry for a player into a game may be lower for basically everything else on the market ahead of 40K, but the barrier to entry for a game into a community? Thats a different beast altogether, and much harder to quantify, and is almost definitely what is keeping 40K and GW at the races nowadays.
Is there a boxed set? In my experience, where there's a wargaming group, there's somebody who will split a boxed set of anything to try a new game. I say find that person, pull the trigger, and give it a shot.
Thanks for the offer, but, and this is just a suspicion, it might be a bit of a false economy! (Especially as I'm not US based, despite whatever ideas my location flag has developed in the last few days!)
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You said that War Machine is not fun because its all about bubble wrapping a Caster. Which I contested on the grounds that many War Machine players must find it fun, otherwise why would they be playing it?
Just because I don't find it fun doesn't mean that others can't. I never said that no one could have fun playing warmachine.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The argument was NOT about whether War Machine relies on 16" Caster bubbles (which btw, Phantom Viper contests), it was about whether or not some people can find the game fun, and you know it. So please stop changing the subject, and revising your past comments. Its rude and dishonest.
I'm actually doing my best to clarify my position in a respectful manner. I don't have an axe to grind with warmachine, I just explained why I don't like it. The example there was to show that IMO, it's not able to satisfy my personal gaming needs.
They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble andI don't see much fun in that.
You were saying?
There is a difference between whether or not I personally find a game fun and saying NO ONE IN THE WORLD CAN FIND THIS FUN. I don't play Magic and don't find it fun personally. That doesn't mean I don't think people should play magic. Unto each his own.
Bolt Action. DZC. Any of the variety of sci fi mass battle games on the market. New games will appear eventually too, so while there may not "be a real option" right now, there may well be in 5 years or so. And hell, who says they have to stop playing Warhammer 40K? They can still use their Warhammer models when playing other rules systems (e.g. Infinity, as one poster mentioned). I want to play the skirmish game SAGA (Gripping Beast/Studio Tomahawk) using my Lord of the Rings models.
Well.. that is the thing.. I'm not saying YOU specifically have been saying that everyone is going to stop buying GW models. The narrative being spun (and has been spun since I really 1st started getting hardcore into the game back in 1998) has been that there is going to be a mass exodus from people playing 40k and GW will go under. To which, I am saying that I don't see it happening at this point because there is no real competition to 40k. The odds of me going up to a random gaming store on a saturday and finding someone playing 40k is exponentially higher than finding someone playing the alternatives. I'm not saying they don't exist nor am I saying they aren't fun games. They fact you agree that it may well take 5 years or so for a real option to appear shows we are much closer to agreement than you might realize.
Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.
It seems sales of 40k 7th are not doing that well. LEs are still available weeks after release, many people seem to be saying few to none are buying it at their stores (while others may say it is selling well at theirs, bear in mind it used to sell well EVERYWHERE), and Dystopian Wars, of all things, is outselling 40k in some areas by a factor of 7 to 1.
It seems pretty certain there is most likely going to be another drop in YoY sales. The question is, how much that drop will be. If it is 10%-12%, not so bad - although it does wipe out six complete years of growth for GW - which is not so good. If it falls by 15% of more YoY, then it is very bad. It means the downturn is happening and you can expect it to accelerate even faster over the coming periods. A double-digit downturn, followed by an even worse double-digit downturn (especially in a market GROWING by double-digits), means the mass exodus of customers has begun and it only gets worse faster from there.
It is not uncommon to see things like a 10% drop one period, followed by a 15% drop, followed by a 30% drop, followed by a 65% drop. These things tend to accelerate, and accelerate very fast. This is why I have said, it usually isn't a slow decline - quite commonly these become outright collapses. Just as a small example, if GW followed this pattern you would see current year finishing at £117.5 million and 2015 finishing at £62.0 million. You don't want to know where the 2016 year will finish (which is usually out of business). While many will find this to read unlikely, it is best to do some homework on companies that have reached this turning point to see just how fast a mass customer exodus happens once a company crosses that threshold. You will then see this is an entirely believable scenario for GW in the very near future.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.
Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.
You can't see how people may be upset that a game with already iffy balance has been made much worse? Yes it free's up options for casual play, but the casual players probably do that anyway. What it also does is makes it much harder for everyone else to get a game - particularly in a pick up sense, or to enjoy the same as there's now more chance of losing/winning at the deployment stage.
I really don't understand why a casual game has to be imbalanced?
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.
Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.
You can't see how people may be upset that a game with already iffy balance has been made much worse? Yes it free's up options for casual play, but the casual players probably do that anyway. What it also does is makes it much harder for everyone else to get a game - particularly in a pick up sense, or to enjoy the same as there's now more chance of losing/winning at the deployment stage.
I really don't understand why a casual game has to be imbalanced?
It doesn't have to be, it's just extremely difficult to make it well balanced when the game wasn't designed that way to begin with. Rogue Trader was more like D&D than Warmachine. If they wanted to turn it into a competitive game, it would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up. That could upset a lot of people. It could also suck. Badly.
The solution is simple. We, as a community need to teach new players that the goal is for everyone to have fun, and to make sure your opponent has fun too. Devising an army list that will quickly decimate most armies is just not good form. This culture needs to be thick everywhere 40k is played. THAT is what will save the game we all love.
Rogue Trader bore barely a passing resemblance to 2nd Ed, and 3rd was a complete overhaul from that.
It WAS intended to be a competitive game when Alessio was prominent in the design team, and it WAS overhauled as a result. Your argument just doesn't hold up, sorry.
Wayshuba wrote: Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.
All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks. I don't know of a single store in my area that didn't sell out all their copies of 7th on Saturday.
Wayshuba wrote: t is not uncommon to see things like a 10% drop one period, followed by a 15% drop, followed by a 30% drop, followed by a 65% drop. These things tend to accelerate, and accelerate very fast. This is why I have said, it usually isn't a slow decline - quite commonly these become outright collapses. Just as a small example, if GW followed this pattern you would see current year finishing at £117.5 million and 2015 finishing at £62.0 million. You don't want to know where the 2016 year will finish (which is usually out of business). While many will find this to read unlikely, it is best to do some homework on companies that have reached this turning point to see just how fast a mass customer exodus happens once a company crosses that threshold. You will then see this is an entirely believable scenario for GW in the very near future.
Well.. if you are talking stock prices, I'm bearish but I don't see any reason to think it will lose 65% of it's value from here. Based on the backtesting i've run, There is only a 3% chance it will be below 360 by the end of 2016. I have a 67% probability that it will be between 460 and 360 sometime in the next 18 months.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.
I priced it out.. it's about $450-$500 for an army. Then, if I wanted to go to a major tournament, I'd need up to 2 more armies because they seem to allow you to switch factions so you don't get a bad matchup. So to really be competitive, you are talking $1000-1500.
That's your argument? You're out and out saying you can buy 2 or 3 competitive WMH armies for the cost of 1 GW one. Well feth me sideways! It's almost as if GW's models are vastly overpriced for the size of game they wish you to play.
Wayshuba wrote: Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.
All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks.
No, that's disingenuous, again.
The cards are OOS until July, which may be a sign of their popularity, that's true, but it could also be a symptom of a hiccup in supply meaning there weren't sufficient numbers in the pipeline in the first place, or it could be that GW weren't expecting them to be as popular because their recent sales numbers have been so low, and under ordered.
But "back ordered" implies that all available stock is pre sold until July, which is so eating different and not the case.
Wayshuba wrote: Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.
All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks. I don't know of a single store in my area that didn't sell out all their copies of 7th on Saturday.
For what it's worth, as of yesterday, the FLGS in Marietta, GA had multiple copies of the rule book set and the card boxes on the shelf.
Derek Atkinson said: so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.
Free;
StarGrunt
Beamstrike
In the Emperors Name
Wildfire
Fast and Dirty
ToyMallet 40C
Chain Reaction
The M42 Project
Not free;
Victory Decision - Future Warfare
The 5150 series
Lots of option for playing 40K "type" games
EDIT: Something all of these have in common is that they are generic and you stat out your forces yourself. The only exception at In the Emperor's Name and the M42 Project which at fan-based rules for making 40K a more competitive and playable ruleset
Grimtuff wrote: That's your argument? You're out and out saying you can buy 2 or 3 competitive WMH armies for the cost of 1 GW one. Well feth me sideways! It's almost as if GW's models are vastly overpriced for the size of game they wish you to play.
Not even that. Someone priced out the cost for a complete newbie to get started in 40k, including supplies and paints. It came to like $350 and the only units they had was a Battleforce for a particular army.
I then trumped that with a 35-point Khador army for about $365 that also included the rules, hobby supplies, brushes and paints. So a 35-point army that lets you play normal-sized games... or a Battleforce that's what, maybe 600 points if you're lucky and doesn't even give you a full legal army (no HQ outside of Tau) that's suitable only for the earliest levels of learning to play the game? And that's not taking into account discounts, and on top of that it was using the overpriced (IMO) official PP wreck markers (without the wreck markers it was actually *cheaper* than the GW kit).
Don't get me wrong, WM/H ends up costing the same over time (especially if you go to tournaments). It's just a much slower curve than GW.
azreal13 wrote: "It was always this way" is a redundant argument.
Rogue Trader bore barely a passing resemblance to 2nd Ed, and 3rd was a complete overhaul from that.
It WAS intended to be a competitive game when Alessio was prominent in the design team, and it WAS overhauled as a result. Your argument just doesn't hold up, sorry.
Well I was out of the loop for 3rd so I honestly wouldn't know. The rules where that different? They seem to have gone back the way they came. I can't imagine it was a complete overhaul, since the core mechanics are still the same as they were 20 years ago. Anyways I'm over it. Never try to inject positivity into the internet. That's the lesson for the day. I guess this is a hobby best kept offline.
Assuming that GW's financial report will be as bad as I suspect it will and as GW have two months before it is published I wonder if we will start seeing signs of 'corrective' measures (store closures, an even more accelerated release schedule etc) over the next wee while.
Palindrome wrote: Assuming that GW's financial report will be as bad as I suspect it will and as GW have two months before it is published I wonder if we will start seeing signs of 'corrective' measures (store closures, an even more accelerated release schedule etc) over the next wee while.
Well I was out of the loop for 3rd so I honestly wouldn't know. The rules where that different? They seem to have gone back the way they came. I can't imagine it was a complete overhaul, since the core mechanics are still the same as they were 20 years ago. Anyways I'm over it. Never try to inject positivity into the internet. That's the lesson for the day. I guess this is a hobby best kept offline.
The only things that have stayed the same is the ranged to hit chart, the Strength/Toughness chart, the basic statline and the turn structure. 2nd and 3rd ed were significantly different games both in terms of rules but also in design. There are elements that have been introduced to the newer editions that are pale shadow of the 2nd ed rules (overwatch and the physic phase are two examples).
Well, the turn structure changed. - You had the addition of the 'Assault phase' for moving assaulting models, instead of charging, plus, of course, the removal of the Psychic phase.
Many stats changed too, for example, the removal of the Movement value on models. Vehicle stats changed entirely - in 2nd edition, each vehicle had its own personal damage sheet.
Compel wrote: Well, the turn structure changed. - You had the addition of the 'Assault phase' for moving assaulting models, instead of charging, plus, of course, the removal of the Psychic phase.
Phases changed, or were rearranged, but the basic IGOUGO structure is the same.
From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?
slowthar wrote: From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?
Nope, 2nd ed was a D6 game (I think that RT was as well but I never played it).
slowthar wrote: From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?
Nope, 2nd ed was a D6 game (I think that RT was as well but I never played it).
I think it was more in reference to things like sustained fire dice, which, whilst still being 6 sided dice were not strictly speaking D6's if you get what I mean. Also stuff like melta weapons which had something like D12 damage (or was it D8?) so all the individual weapon stats had to be reworked.
slowthar wrote: From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?
Nope, 2nd ed was a D6 game (I think that RT was as well but I never played it).
Sorry,no, while it was certainly a majority D6 game, vehicle penetration, and a few other mechanics, used other dice (the old formula was D6+ Dice linked to strength of weapon + random damage dice (if it did random damage) + strength of weapon IIRC) and D10s, D8s, perhaps even D4s and D12s were all used.
slowthar wrote: From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?
Possibly, it was also largely thought that they were trying to streamline the game for younger gamers to pick up easily and thought that the added complexity of 2nd was too much for the average 12-year old to comprehend. However, it might also have been to try and balance the game for more competitive play as Alessio was part of the design team then and he was IIRC an ex-tournament player, which is also why all of his other games are balanced for competitive play.
Technically speaking the core rules of the game have only changed twice:
1) Rogue Trader to 2nd Edition 2) 2nd Edition to 3rd edition
Since 3rd edition the core rules have stayed the same and things have just been tweaked in various forms. And this also is part of the underlying issue as 3rd edition was still very much a company-level game, while ever since Apocalypse came out (5th?) the game has been pushed towards larger and larger forces while the core rules stayed suitable for a smaller-scale game.
On that subject what I honestly think they should do is split the rules into two types: Company-level and War. The Company-level would be roughly the size of a game during 2nd and early 3rd edition (or like how Bolt Action is configured for). The War version would have streamlined and more abstract rules; perhaps Order Dice (a la Bolt Action) instead of IGOUGO and not having model removal but basing things around the unit (with movement trays that have round holes in them to drop units in). This version would be meant for larger scale battles but without getting bogged down in minutiae for a smaller scale game. Basically a newer version of Epic but one that uses the same miniatures as 40k as opposed to a different scale, which would also placate the bean counters as the reason Epic was discontinued was largely rumored to be the fact that it was a different scale to 40k so people would buy Epic and not 40k.
The entire premise of this would be that you play the war version to fight out a key battle. The company version is meant to snapshot a specific portion of that battle. So for example, the simplified war rules would let you fight the Battle of Taro VI when a combined Imperial army fought off Waaagh Badskar's assault on Taro City, but the company-level game lets you fight out the lightning raid that the Brazen Bulls chapter performed on an Ork camp that let them seize the planet's missile silos and helped to turn the tide of battle. I don't know about you but that sounds like the start of a great narrative!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.
I priced it out.. it's about $450-$500 for an army. Then, if I wanted to go to a major tournament, I'd need up to 2 more armies because they seem to allow you to switch factions so you don't get a bad matchup. So to really be competitive, you are talking $1000-1500.
That's your argument? You're out and out saying you can buy 2 or 3 competitive WMH armies for the cost of 1 GW one. Well feth me sideways! It's almost as if GW's models are vastly overpriced for the size of game they wish you to play.
Not to mention his argument is flat out wrong. Iron Gauntlet is the format he's talking about and it's not popular among the playerbase and outside of the big tournaments, doesn't get much play. The standard tournament is one faction per tournament which will account for likely more that 99.9% of all tournament games. That format is extremely rare. Not to mention if you go to a major tournament, there are several other events running besides Iron Gauntlet at the same time. At those events, Iron Gauntlet always has the least number of players participating. @DA, nice try but please drive through. Better yet, leave conversations where you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Everything you've said about Warmachine in this thread is flat out wrong and by your own admission, your knowledge is limited.
Wayshuba wrote: Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.
All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks. I don't know of a single store in my area that didn't sell out all their copies of 7th on Saturday.
Because of stock issues, maybe?
My FLGS got in somewhere in the region of 100 7th Ed books, and about 10 packs of cards. At that ratio it's hardly surprising the cards will sell out quickly, especially since a lot of people might have wanted to get them for using with 6th Ed.
Selling out means nothing without having numbers. What is telling is that there are still 7th Ed collectors editions still on sale, and that was a limited run of 2000.
dereksatkinson wrote: All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks. I don't know of a single store in my area that didn't sell out all their copies of 7th on Saturday.
Two things:
First, I mentioned how this used to be typical at almost all stores. Not isolated cases. Yes in some areas, such as yours, they sold out. In areas such as mine, and other mentioned in this thread, they didn't sell any. This is a big change from how it used to be.
Second, taking the 7th edition LE as an example, GW ran 40% of the volume that they did for the 6th edition LE. Part of the reason many are sold out could simply be (and this is pure speculation on my part) that they ran a lot less initial copies of the product. Also, I have no idea how many copies stores in your area ordered to begin with, so that doesn't leave a lot to deduce from that information.
dereksatkinson wrote: Well.. if you are talking stock prices, I'm bearish but I don't see any reason to think it will lose 65% of it's value from here. Based on the backtesting i've run, There is only a 3% chance it will be below 360 by the end of 2016. I have a 67% probability that it will be between 460 and 360 sometime in the next 18 months.
I wasn't talking stock prices at all (as I could care less as they are rarely a measure of the true performance of a company). The numbers I gave as examples were strictly revenue. Stock pricing does little to hurt a company once it is floated in the market except for making capital raises more expensive and potentially opening up the company for hostile takeover. However, running out of revenue is very bad, no matter what company it is. I am talking about companies experiencing a mass exodus of customers and how fast the percentage of sales can drop.
I do like how we have what's presumably a stock broker or financial analyst type (Derek) saying one thing and a CEO/business owner/other executive type (Wayshuba) saying something different, which is also corroborated on other sites by other CEO/executive types (Reinholt on Warseer, the ex-CIO of Aldi who wrote the multi-part blog post).
Palindrome wrote: Assuming that GW's financial report will be as bad as I suspect it will and as GW have two months before it is published I wonder if we will start seeing signs of 'corrective' measures (store closures, an even more accelerated release schedule etc) over the next wee while.
I think we are already seeing it. Look at the sheer number of "store manager" openings for new areas on the GW website - especially in the US. It appears Phase II of the grand master plan to save themselves is to open stores and hammer miniatures down unsuspecting college students throats. Of course, the are going to be in for a big surprise when they find out just how little money college students have in the US because of the high cost of education and what little is left, keeping up with the required weekly beer supply.
Derek Atkinson said: so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.
Spoiler:
Free;
StarGrunt
Beamstrike
In the Emperors Name
Wildfire
Fast and Dirty
ToyMallet 40C
Chain Reaction
The M42 Project
Not free;
Victory Decision - Future Warfare
The 5150 series
Lots of option for playing 40K "type" games
EDIT: Something all of these have in common is that they are generic and you stat out your forces yourself. The only exception at In the Emperor's Name and the M42 Project which at fan-based rules for making 40K a more competitive and playable ruleset
Kind of missing the point.. Those games aren't nearly as popular and finding a stranger to play a game with would be pretty hard. I don't think i've even heard a single one of those and I haven't seen them played in my area. I have no idea about the quality of those products nor whether or not tournaments for them even exist. So which one is going to be replacing 40k?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
12thRonin wrote: Not to mention his argument is flat out wrong. Iron Gauntlet is the format he's talking about and it's not popular among the playerbase and outside of the big tournaments, doesn't get much play. The standard tournament is one faction per tournament which will account for likely more that 99.9% of all tournament games. That format is extremely rare. Not to mention if you go to a major tournament, there are several other events running besides Iron Gauntlet at the same time. At those events, Iron Gauntlet always has the least number of players participating.
Well.. The reasoning I was told that they did this format was because as the game was becoming more diverse, there were situations where specific builds would completely nullify others. So this was a way to avoid the rock/paper/scissors aspect. I've only ever seen tournaments run this way. I'd also like to point out that by your own admission the big tournaments use that format. Why does warmachine run that format at their major tournaments if it is "not popular among the playerbase".
12thRonin wrote: @DA, nice try but please drive through. Better yet, leave conversations where you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Everything you've said about Warmachine in this thread is flat out wrong and by your own admission, your knowledge is limited.
You are breaking the #1 rule on this forum. I'm willing to engage people in a discussion but you are being adversarial to say the least.
Well.. The reasoning I was told that they did this format was because as the game was becoming more diverse, there were situations where specific builds would completely nullify others. So this was a way to avoid the rock/paper/scissors aspect. I've only ever seen tournaments run this way. I'd also like to point out that by your own admission the big tournaments use that format. Why does warmachine run that format at their major tournaments if it is "not popular among the playerbase".
This is the first year they've done it and you were told wrong. The finals for the first Iron Gauntlet season are at Lock and Load this year and in every major event, Iron Gauntlet pulled less participants than the other formats did. Get out of the idea of the 40k tournament format with Warmachine. They are absolutely nothing alike. Multiple events run at the same time at every major event (multiple Steamroller formats, Masters, Hardcore, and IG), not 5 or 7 games over 2 days. As a matter of fact, this format reinforces the rock/paper/scissors moreso than staying a single faction, but if you had any clue about Warmachine, you would already know that and you've pretty much never seen a tournament run then.
You are breaking the #1 rule on this forum. I'm willing to engage people in a discussion but you are being adversarial to say the least.
No, that's good advice to keep you from looking like you have no idea what you're talking about. Keep at it though. It is apparently amusing to some people.
Kavish wrote: It doesn't have to be, it's just extremely difficult to make it well balanced when the game wasn't designed that way to begin with. Rogue Trader was more like D&D than Warmachine. If they wanted to turn it into a competitive game, it would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up. That could upset a lot of people. It could also suck. Badly.
Utter nonsense. It's been 20+ years since the RT days, and the game's nothing like that pseudo-RPG that it was back in the day. The idea that because of that start they haven't been able to make a balanced (or more balanced) game with a tight and concise ruleset is just crazy talk. The game has been redesigned from the ground up. Twice in fact. Once at 2nd Ed, and once for 3rd Ed. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th have all just been (bad, convoluted) patches to 3rd Ed.
I guess that he is another CEO/businessperson type (like Wayshuba) and says roughly the same thing, that GW is nuts and will likely be out of business in a few more years if they continue this trend.
I guess that he is another CEO/businessperson type (like Wayshuba) and says roughly the same thing, that GW is nuts and will likely be out of business in a few more years if they continue this trend.
I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.
Unbound isn't going to make this better. Look at the ideas in the WD about possible army ideas under unbound. Spamming multiple strong units. That's not going to go well in a casual game against someone who didn't latch onto a spam idea and abuse it.
GW has abandoned competitive play, but in doing so, they've actually made their product less appealing to their casual customers. This isn't a good thing for keeping those casual players buying their products.
sign other than what's on the storefront? That does the store no good if the store is in a recessed area of a strip mall.) The 
If that individual store does not make money, don't expect it to stay. 
). And I guess that's good for diversity, but still, it never needed to happen.
I have no idea what tomorrow's White dwarf says about new box sets or anything like that, but I would expec a new 
I don't see how that response was snarky.
