Heavens no, not as in "everyone should be like them", but as in "only making models".
GW has intimated for a few years now that they primarily are about making models. What if they were to completely embrace that aspect - dump making rulesets, let Black Library make some fiction novels and just concentrate on making "high-quality" model kits, ala Tamiya, Revel, Monogram, Testors and the other makers of plastic models?
Would you still buy GW's models if they weren't involved in making the rules for a game to play them in?
Well, they'd make a lot less money... I'm interested in updating my Tyranid army to the current edition with a few pods, but only because it's decently playable in-game. You see this all the time with amazing kits not selling well due to their in-game performance, such as the Haruspex / Exocrine kit.
If they made generic enough fantasy and sci-fi figures I could use in my other games, then yes. GW make far crisper sculpts than most other manufacturers.
As we know though, their figures are becoming more and more specialised and mostly only suitable for their own universe, so no.
I just like my fantasy figures to look like generic fantasy figures rather than greek mask wearing robots that look like bad aliens from 1970's Dr Who episodes.
They put out TONS of very cool models. And I set there and look at them and say, "That's really beautiful/awesome/whatever."
I do not push the buy button for "cool" things. I have limited income so I buy things I can use. Currently I buy some of the fantasy stuff to use in my D&D game. It has to have a function.
Sitting pretty on my self isn't reason enough to buy it.
So, "Not being a game company" is bad for business.
As it currently stands, I don't play GW games anymore and their models (while generally excellent) are specifically designed for the Warhammer universe, so I have no use for them.
no ifs, ands, or buts from me...
i only collect the minis, because gaming doesn't attract me as a way to spend my time...
i would rather paint, chase girls, and surf...
the models, fiction, and art all go hand in hand, to me, but the games are the least important bit...
this goes for every company in the mini wargaming industry, not just GW...
GW does produce my favorite minis, though...
Well, it appears that we have agreed here at Dakka that 40k only playable in a closed group but not on the basis of a pickup game like chess.
Look at the GW homepage, the button "Gaming" has been replaced by "Modeling and Painting". This says it all.
GW will crash and burn if they become a modelling company due to the fact that their sales are directly linked to their IP and their IP is, first and foremost, used to provide background to a tabletop wargame. Which means the moment they keep making miniatures only for that specific IP and do not provide it with a (decent) game to use the miniatures on, they're done for.
jah-joshua wrote:i would rather paint, chase girls, and surf...
Ah yes, the obligatory underlying insult to gamers. How quaint.
Logic says i would still buy cool models but wouldn't buy as many as i do now.
After all, for gaming I have to buy a minimum of 2 troops choices for every race which are essentially the same more often than not. As a painter and collector I wouldn't need 2.
I would say i am a painter / collector and gamer so both go hand in hand so if you remove the gaming aspect they essentially just become collectibles which I stopped buying years ago.
However having said that in 2009 I started building up a full Ultramarines Secend Company.
There was no reason for it back then, I would only rarely get to play with if at all as we don't play Apocalypse, and even now with 7th Edition I would rarely use it all.
So I guess I do collect things which serve no gaming purpose.
Then again on the flip side there are models I have bought and painted that I really don't like but I "need" for gaming.
The two obvious examples would be the Storm Raven and Storm Talon - hate the models, still do but you need flyers in the current game so needed them really.
I guess look at Forge World. They have sold a lot of Warlord Titans, but how many people will actually game with them?
It's a tougher question to answer than i thought but GW get a fair bit of money out of me now as I can collect, paint and game with my man dollies.
If I didn't game with them I don't know what I would do with them....
Logic says i would still buy cool models but wouldn't buy as many as i do now.
After all, for gaming I have to buy a minimum of 2 troops choices for every race which are essentially the same more often than not. As a painter and collector I wouldn't need 2.
I would say i am a painter / collector and gamer so both go hand in hand so if you remove the gaming aspect they essentially just become collectibles which I stopped buying years ago.
However having said that in 2009 I started building up a full Ultramarines Secend Company.
There was no reason for it back then, I would only rarely get to play with if at all as we don't play Apocalypse, and even now with 7th Edition I would rarely use it all.
So I guess I do collect things which serve no gaming purpose.
Then again on the flip side there are models I have bought and painted that I really don't like but I "need" for gaming.
The two obvious examples would be the Storm Raven and Storm Talon - hate the models, still do but you need flyers in the current game so needed them really.
I guess look at Forge World. They have sold a lot of Warlord Titans, but how many people will actually game with them?
It's a tougher question to answer than i thought but GW get a fair bit of money out of me now as I can collect, paint and game with my man dollies.
If I didn't game with them I don't know what I would do with them....
A quick question for you, out of honest curiosity: what if you were introduced to the hobby without the tabletop game? As in here are these cool looking miniatures from a sci-fi universe. You can buy and paint and collect them, but that's it. There are also books about the universe that you can buy and read. There's no game, no way to use the miniatures apart from being displayed in your glass cabinet.
I don't buy any GW models now (last things I bought were some Epic fighters in the Forgeworld fire sale) so whether there's a game not makes no odds to me.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: GW will crash and burn if they become a modelling company due to the fact that their sales are directly linked to their IP and their IP is, first and foremost, used to provide background to a tabletop wargame. Which means the moment they keep making miniatures only for that specific IP and do not provide it with a (decent) game to use the miniatures on, they're done for.
jah-joshua wrote:i would rather paint, chase girls, and surf...
Ah yes, the obligatory underlying insult to gamers. How quaint.
how did i insult anyone???
i simply stated what my priorities are...
what anyone else chooses to do with their free time is their prerogative...
i'm no less of a hobbyist than any gamer, and i have no beef with gamers...
are we not allowed to say that girls are awesome here???
am i not allowed to say that i'm a surfer???
please don't put words in my mouth, especially when i am such a dedicated member of this community...
i have never intended to insult anyone who is passionate about this hobby when i talk about my personal perspective...
I haven't bought direct from GW in a long while. I've been getting stocked up on stuff I want through eBay and Element Games, but I've recently obtained the final thing I give a gak about.
If GW ceases making rulesets, I can be reasonably certain that my units won't become invalidated in the future. It would benefit me.
Unless they stop before updating the IG codex to 7E. Then I'll rage.
I'm moving over to GW's long-abandoned ruleset, Epic Armageddon, and I'm using the Net Epic version. Which means I can stop caring and continue hobbying
Personally I do own a lot of early SMs (late 80s) that I did buy at the time for general SF use, because back then the choice of 28mm SF figures on the market was minute.
Out of the current range of models, only Tau and Eldar IMO are useable as 'aliens' in non-40K settings. The rest are too identifiable as GW creations.
Secondly, there are now many good ranges of SF figures in 28mm.
As for the idea of buying GW figures without a game at all, it seems rather unlikely, but of course in actuality GW do publish a game and it is good enough to give people an excuse for buying the model kits. A high proportion of GW players are newcomers to wargaming and (1) don't have anything to compare against GW, (2) don't necessarily play a lot of games, so are easily satisfied with playing the occasional game and buying the models.
To be fair, I have a lot of non-GW figures and armies bought over the years that hardly ever get an outing, partly because like most wargamers I am a hoarder.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to whether GW is no longer a games publisher, it should be noted that in the past 15 years they have published three new games: Dread Fleet (a flop) Age of Sigmar (more of a deep revision of an existing game than a totally new product) and some other game I can't remember the name of because no-one is interested in it. I think it's some kind of skirmish spin off from 40K.
So from that angle, can anyone argue that GW is a games publishing company?
GW can. Its entirely possible to start your company as one thing, change it to do two things, and then only support the second. GW may have been a games publisher in the past, and a board-game inventor currently, but in the future they may cease.
And I say good riddance. If I want a skirmish game, I'll play OnePage40k. If I want a sort of RPG/Company-scale battle, I'll use 7E.
Stormonu wrote:
GW has intimated for a few years now that they primarily are about making models. What if they were to completely embrace that aspect...
Would you still buy GW's models if they weren't involved in making the rules for a game to play them in?
I do. I've held onto a few old orks, tyranids and SMs for use in Victory Decision: Future Combat, and scraped a few more bits off ebay to that end. I only started to buy my burgeoning high and dark elf armies afterWHFB died, for Dragon Rampant!
I think that if GW stopped with the rules framework for buying, sales would drop off a bit. Towards the level of other companies who manage to sell generic minis, or minis without rules, maybe. On the other hand, 40K players who stick around in the hobby, and look for some way to use their existing minis rather than move wholesale to another 'YOU MUST USE OUR MINIS WITH OUR RULES' game, might find a number of pleasant surprises: independent rulesets where the 'rules framework' is more about balance, tactics, gameplay, and including any ranges, than on selling certain specific minis. By extension it'd smooth out RiTides' complaint about underperforming units leading to underperforming sales, to some degree.
Think about it like... the ending of Total Recall (the Arnie version), or Logan's Run, or Demolition Man, or...
And what's more, it'd be an implicit admission on GW's part about their charades of games, which would earn a crumb or two of respect. Maybe not as much as if they actually put in a bit of effort on good rules; but from my own, personal PoV, I wouldn't be too sore if GW made that decision.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Ah yes, the obligatory underlying insult to gamers. How quaint.
@Vermis: again, when have i ever insulted gamers, or said i had a problem with gamers???
i am very passionate about wargaming miniatures, art, fiction, and painting, just not the actual wargaming...
what is so wrong about saying where my priorities lie???
just read the two things that have been posted under "interests" on my profile since day one, for 9 years now...
jah-joshua wrote: @Vermis: again, when have i ever insulted gamers, or said i had a problem with gamers???
i am very passionate about wargaming miniatures, art, fiction, and painting, just not the actual wargaming...
what is so wrong about saying where my priorities lie???
just read the two things that have been posted under "interests" on my profile since day one, for 9 years now...
cheers
jah
I think you must have hit a sore spot with the girls comment
For me it's a bit of an AoS issue. I loved the rules and fluff of whfb, I spent quite a bit of money in the last year of 8th edition.
I don't like the rules and fluff of AoS, I haven't bought a damn thing since, the models are cool. But that isn't enough for me to buy it. If I wanted an ornament, I'd buy a China llama.
jah-joshua wrote: @Vermis: again, when have i ever insulted gamers, or said i had a problem with gamers???
i am very passionate about wargaming miniatures, art, fiction, and painting, just not the actual wargaming...
what is so wrong about saying where my priorities lie???
just read the two things that have been posted under "interests" on my profile since day one, for 9 years now...
cheers
jah
I think you must have hit a sore spot with the girls comment
Not personally a sore spot of mine, but I just find it curious that this specific... "priority" is repeatedly brought about in the typical dismissive "shut up and deal with it nub, this is just a game" post.
Like I said, it's quaint
Automatically Appended Next Post:
angelofvengeance wrote: If they were to hand over rules development to FFG and focus solely on making models and all the gubbinz like paint etc I wouldn't mind.
That would be something I'd heartily applaud - this partnership that would bring immense profit to both companies and exponentially increase the quality of the games themselves, thus becoming a major benefit for the community.
I would but that's because Tyranids are amazing and I don't really play 40k so much as imagine I might one day.
I'd be interested to see how well they do with actual pure modellers. From my anecdotal experience I've seen the ones I know occasionally buy GW models, mostly LotR and few of the more impressive 40k and Fantasy kits. They mostly stick to doing historical and modern vehicles especially Spitfires. The last model show I went to was like 25% Spitfires.
I would still buy, I have not played 40k for ages but I have still been buying stuff.
The fluff will always be there and if they stopped making rules I suspect we would just use the one rules or adapt them from a another game.
I'm with Vermis here (Hi V!). I use GW as another model company, to buy the figures and vehicles I like for a variety of games. Final decision is a combination of utility, price and aesthetic. Or pure minis lust, depending... :-)
Not a player of current 40k, so I'm not on the codex- and unit-upgrade treadmill. Taken like this, a lot of their core models are actually decent value. A squad of 40k troops is often a great skirmish force, with a lot of weapon choices.
What I'm not going to do is buy five of something just because it's good in-game. On the other hand, I do want a gaming model out of my efforts, so I won't buy, say, the new Tau suit just because it looks amazing
I do buy models that I never intend to play with, just because I want to build and paint them. Sometimes I'll invest in whole armies just for the fun of building and painting, and then sell em on ebay because I need the cash to start a new one
That being said, if it wasn't for the game I probably wouldn't buy any at all. I don't really get to play that often, but it's nice to have that option.
Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
I think making a poll about it wouldn't be a bad idea, actually.
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
I think making a poll about it wouldn't be a bad idea, actually.
Thinking about it, we're a highly biased section of the internet, as this forum is mainly focussed around the game, not the modelling aspect. The opposite would be true on a modelling site. We'd need to take that poll to the GW site itself.
I believe that Games Workshop can't survive as a model company alone... (NOTE: I'd like to preface by saying that I'm looking at this from the point of new customers vs existing ones)
GW's appeal is highly tied to the "epic" battles of the 41st millenium. Customers are drawn in by encountering tabletops of hand-painted models on epic terrain (or word of mouth) for new entrants to the hobby. Once they've made their first buy in: their IP is such that the storyline feeds into the user's imagination, which leads to further sales (and hopefully superfans) Moving to a model-only structure is problematic in a few ways.
(a) Presently, GW's system leverages the game as fluff delivery. There are snippets of fluff on the webstore, but the fluff that is delivered with each physical model kit is practically non-existent. GW is so entrenched in the idea that customers who buy their products already know about their products that kits don't contain much information about weapon options, what they look like, or what the kit actually contains, other than something vauge and IP protectable like Tempestus Militarum Bullgryns. This is going to mean feth-all to a new customer, and the dearth of information is NOT a gateway into the GW IP universe. Another issue with the fluff is how all new fluff is just an exercise in hyperbole and IP protection: A hillarious example are the Khorne Wrathmongers - Even the name Wrathmonger is ridiculous. What are they... sellers of Wrath? Distributors of "Citadel Fine-Wrath"... and the webstore description...
"Lunatic murdersmiths who are feared and revered in equal measure, the Wrathmongers are absolute in their fervent devotion to Khorne. Infused with the unnatural energies of daemons, they are the elite of the Chaos tribes and are unstoppable in battle, hurling themselves at their foe with unnatural vigour as their wrath-flails describe brutal, bloody parabolas."
Lunatic MURDERSMITHGS???!?? Makers of the highest quality Citadel Fine-Murder??? Parabolas.... PARABOLAS???? Does the writer even know what a parabola is? Sure, you can get a parabola out of a chain if you whip it in a vertical fashion, but seriously... IMHO, GW's creative team is either vastly underpaid, or their over-mining of the existing fluff is scraping bottom or both! I think 1000 Jokero at 1000 typewriters could come up with evocative, but less ridiculous descriptions.
(b) But GW Black Library fluff exists outside the game you might say! This is true, but this stuff panders to the initiated. While a Forgeworld Siege of Vraks book might be totally awesome to us GW Grognards, it occupies the same niche as say "Ships of the Starfleet" (Star Trek) and the "Star Wars Visions"... They're cool buys for those in the fandom, but are so niche that they would be nothing more than curiosities to the casual passer-by. There's is nothing to draw new customers to something like the Horus Heresy books vs Frank Herbert's Dune series on a bookseller's shelf.
(c) This brings us to the AESTHETIC. This might be the most contentious assertion that I'm going to make... First off, there is no question that GW's models are TECHNICALLY brilliant. The issue is that as a range, as they move to more IP protectable imagery, the models have a tendency to move towards self-parody, as they take everything that makes GW models unique and pushes it past 11. Let's go back to the Wrathmongers and their Exalted Belt-buckles of Khorne - The Wrathmongers are a technically excellent execution of a terrible idea. The terrible idea being that the less ridiculous Skullreapers MUST be a dual kit, and that the new models need to be festooned in IP protectable imagery. The new models are designed to function with the GW IP and the GW IP only. The new terrain - the realm of battle, realmgates, Khorne Skull Castle of Skulls... this stuff is all excellently rendered, but has no usability outside the GW hobby.
In addition to this, GW's slavish adherence to heroic scale is making much of the range look dated compared to competing ranges which are, or are (glacially in the case of PP,) moving towards truescale. This has a tendency to make GW's human/elf aesthetic look very dated. IMHO, AoS was a great opportunity to move towards truescale for the fantasy range, but GW apparently knows better and is stubbornly going down the same road. Considering how polarizing the Sigmarine release was (either love-or-hate), this doesn't bode well for GW if they were to become a model only company. There's plenty of other ways to get bulky armored dudes.
(d) The price. GW will be forced to lower prices if they go to models only. The only reason that models can sustain such high prices is because the game system suggests a value added system when you purchase the pieces. Look at competing miniature ranges with NO RULES such as Reaper and Dark Sword. These guys produce high quality metals directly targeted at the collector / RPG market (if you discount the old items in their ranges... very old if you consider Reaper) and sell at a fraction of GW. This is because they know nobody is going to buy a Pathfinder Wizard for $35, extra options or not!
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
I think making a poll about it wouldn't be a bad idea, actually.
Thinking about it, we're a highly biased section of the internet, as this forum is mainly focussed around the game, not the modelling aspect. The opposite would be true on a modelling site. We'd need to take that poll to the GW site itself.
That is true, and unfortunately I fear GW will never care enough to put a poll like that on their site.
Bottle wrote: I wonder, in this hypothetical situation, what game we would be able to play with our minis in a GW store.
Anyway, I would keep buying. I already have enough rules from GW and lots of armies I still want to make to go with them.
Less of an issue here in the US where you're more likely to have a Bigfoot sighting than see a GW store.
In that scenario you wouldn't play any game in a GW Store as there would be no space for that. There would be no table as it wouldn't be necessary - they wouldn't be a gaming company anymore, they now sell premium plastic miniatures for collecting purposes, not gaming.
At the most you'd be able to assemble and paint something there? Maybe, perhaps, if they're feeling generous enough to place a station there.
Logic says i would still buy cool models but wouldn't buy as many as i do now.
After all, for gaming I have to buy a minimum of 2 troops choices for every race which are essentially the same more often than not. As a painter and collector I wouldn't need 2.
I would say i am a painter / collector and gamer so both go hand in hand so if you remove the gaming aspect they essentially just become collectibles which I stopped buying years ago.
However having said that in 2009 I started building up a full Ultramarines Secend Company.
There was no reason for it back then, I would only rarely get to play with if at all as we don't play Apocalypse, and even now with 7th Edition I would rarely use it all.
So I guess I do collect things which serve no gaming purpose.
Then again on the flip side there are models I have bought and painted that I really don't like but I "need" for gaming.
The two obvious examples would be the Storm Raven and Storm Talon - hate the models, still do but you need flyers in the current game so needed them really.
I guess look at Forge World. They have sold a lot of Warlord Titans, but how many people will actually game with them?
It's a tougher question to answer than i thought but GW get a fair bit of money out of me now as I can collect, paint and game with my man dollies.
If I didn't game with them I don't know what I would do with them....
A quick question for you, out of honest curiosity: what if you were introduced to the hobby without the tabletop game? As in here are these cool looking miniatures from a sci-fi universe. You can buy and paint and collect them, but that's it. There are also books about the universe that you can buy and read. There's no game, no way to use the miniatures apart from being displayed in your glass cabinet.
That's a fair question and I love the 40K setting and "most" of the designs that go with it. I would still read a ton of the fiction and background books to go with them.
But would I have bought the models if there hadn't been a game to go with it?
Possibly, but not to the extent I do now. I am a man in his forties who collects tiny plastic soldiers, and has spent a ridicilous amount of money on them. In the past i also used to collect Stars wars toys, comics and all the associated stuff and large action figures, kits etc. I stopped buying those, not because I thought they were childish or anything like that, but because they took up way too much space and were a pain to keep tidy.
But then I have 5 Ikeas Detolf cabinets full of painted miniatures, a 6ft by 4ft walk in cupboard full to the ceiling of unpainted figures and a huge 2 door custom cabinet for my large FW models.
If I wasn't gaming with my minis and just collected them I couldn't justify my house being taken over like that and they would probably all go into storage.
However if GW stopped producing rules but started to produce large scale, more detailed kits rather than in 28mm that might be a different story.
Bottle wrote: I wonder, in this hypothetical situation, what game we would be able to play with our minis in a GW store.
Anyway, I would keep buying. I already have enough rules from GW and lots of armies I still want to make to go with them.
Less of an issue here in the US where you're more likely to have a Bigfoot sighting than see a GW store.
In that scenario you wouldn't play any game in a GW Store as there would be no space for that. There would be no table as it wouldn't be necessary - they wouldn't be a gaming company anymore, they now sell premium plastic miniatures for collecting purposes, not gaming.
At the most you'd be able to assemble and paint something there? Maybe, perhaps, if they're feeling generous enough to place a station there.
...forget about it.
I don't play games in GW stores anyway, there's one in my entire state and you have actually know where it is to find it.
To me without a game there would be literally be zero reason for me to own any GW miniatures. The game's bad enough but it's still somewhat ubiquitous around here and hasn't been completely replaced by WM/H or X-Wing (though it's much easier to find an X-Wing tournament than a 40K one). I know that people like the "fluff" but I've tried to read several black library books and have yet been able to finish one; it's more like pulp fiction (not the movie) rather than literature and I can see some of the attraction but there's only so much of reading about lone marines wiping out entire planets you can take before you just sigh and put it down (yes, that's a gross exaggeration).
Bottle wrote: I wonder, in this hypothetical situation, what game we would be able to play with our minis in a GW store.
Anyway, I would keep buying. I already have enough rules from GW and lots of armies I still want to make to go with them.
Less of an issue here in the US where you're more likely to have a Bigfoot sighting than see a GW store.
In that scenario you wouldn't play any game in a GW Store as there would be no space for that. There would be no table as it wouldn't be necessary - they wouldn't be a gaming company anymore, they now sell premium plastic miniatures for collecting purposes, not gaming.
At the most you'd be able to assemble and paint something there? Maybe, perhaps, if they're feeling generous enough to place a station there.
...forget about it.
I don't play games in GW stores anyway, there's one in my entire state and you have actually know where it is to find it.
To me without a game there would be literally be zero reason for me to own any GW miniatures. The game's bad enough but it's still somewhat ubiquitous around here and hasn't been completely replaced by WM/H or X-Wing (though it's much easier to find an X-Wing tournament than a 40K one). I know that people like the "fluff" but I've tried to read several black library books and have yet been able to finish one; it's more like pulp fiction (not the movie) rather than literature and I can see some of the attraction but there's only so much of reading about lone marines wiping out entire planets you can take before you just sigh and put it down (yes, that's a gross exaggeration).
I don't/didn't play either (no official GW store here in Portugal) but I am just hazarding a guess as to what one would expect if GW did go "full modelling" mode.
Though I do find the idea of several painting stations set side by side to be quite a charming way to promote the hobby.
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
I think making a poll about it wouldn't be a bad idea, actually.
Thinking about it, we're a highly biased section of the internet, as this forum is mainly focussed around the game, not the modelling aspect. The opposite would be true on a modelling site. We'd need to take that poll to the GW site itself.
That's a good point, actually.
Going to Armorama, a major AFV modelling forum, there is almost no GW content. Except for talking about paints, the last time a GW model was mentioned was in 2011 as far as I can see.
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
I think making a poll about it wouldn't be a bad idea, actually.
Thinking about it, we're a highly biased section of the internet, as this forum is mainly focussed around the game, not the modelling aspect. The opposite would be true on a modelling site. We'd need to take that poll to the GW site itself.
That's a good point, actually.
Going to Armorama, a major AFV modelling forum, there is almost no GW content. Except for talking about paints, the last time a GW model was mentioned was in 2011 as far as I can see.
There's a few guys doing 40k stuff on the more Sci-Fi focussed Modelgeek section of site, but that is all.
Just a thought.. could the "we're a model company" idea be tied more to them wanting to be more like a company that controls the IP, and have some other company take over more of the game production? There's already Fantasy Flight doing the RPG and all those ipad game companies. Would GW ever dump the games onto someone else, and focus on just models & fluffbooks?
Bottle wrote: I wonder, in this hypothetical situation, what game we would be able to play with our minis in a GW store.
Anyway, I would keep buying. I already have enough rules from GW and lots of armies I still want to make to go with them.
Less of an issue here in the US where you're more likely to have a Bigfoot sighting than see a GW store.
In that scenario you wouldn't play any game in a GW Store as there would be no space for that. There would be no table as it wouldn't be necessary - they wouldn't be a gaming company anymore, they now sell premium plastic miniatures for collecting purposes, not gaming.
At the most you'd be able to assemble and paint something there? Maybe, perhaps, if they're feeling generous enough to place a station there.
...forget about it.
Hit the nail on the head. Why have gaming tables, if you don't sell any games? Hell, as it is, a lot of GW stores already don't have game tables.
Would I buy from GW if they were a minis-only company? Maybe if they had always been so. As it stands, all of the reasons I don't buy from them currently would still exist, so no. It doesn't matter, though. Discontinuing all rules would be a death knell for GW. If they ever did, they'd be filing for bankruptcy within 12 months.
Necros wrote: Just a thought.. could the "we're a model company" idea be tied more to them wanting to be more like a company that controls the IP, and have some other company take over more of the game production? There's already Fantasy Flight doing the RPG and all those ipad game companies. Would GW ever dump the games onto someone else, and focus on just models & fluffbooks?
You could easily think of this more pronounced statement of "we're models first" as being a result of the Chapterhouse lawsuit. If their models can be construed as works of art and not toys, they have more control. That said, I never see GW outsourcing their rules writing as long as the models are even remotely tied to a game.
I think killing 40k would destroy them as a company which explains why they've slowing been transitioning the game more towards AoS type gameplay with the Decurion style books and add-ons rather than an abrupt change like we saw with fantasy getting the knife.
Genuine question, no hidden agenda:
Whats the difference between a games company, hobby company, toy company, model company or some combination thereof?
If they made the models and handed the rules writing off to a different company I'd be on board. If they only made models without making rules, that'd kind of suck since I wouldn't have much to do with my minis aside from play old rulesets of an unsupported game that almost definitely won't attract any new players.
Ratius wrote: Genuine question, no hidden agenda:
Whats the difference between a games company, hobby company, toy company, model company or some combination thereof?
As agnosto mentions above you, it came to light during the Chapterhouse case that toys have signifcantly reduced periods of copyright protection compared to collectors' items. Memory is hazy on this one, you'll have to get the details from those threads, but IIRC we could be hassling GW for the right to make stuff they last made? created? not more than a decade ago. How that would interact with the LotR licence, I have no idea, though I suspect those designs are covered for longer.
It's in GW's best interest not to be labelled as a toy company. Beyond that, the names are possibly no more than a description of where marketing or production focus lies.
Adding to what Momotaro stated. I believe that being labeled a "toy", at least in UK law, means less copyright protections as came out when some company in the UK was able to thumb their nose at Lucas Arts over making something or other several years ago.
Well, if they were only a model company it really would not matter what they made or when.
We would then have to depend on some other group to make rules much like Kings Of War has taken over for Fantasy Battle.
I think GW would not take kindly of other groups deciding the "value" of a given model for them.
It really would raise the question of why would I want a squad of 10?
5 models even?
A single maybe?
If they truly mean what they say, I fully expect them to fail in a big way.
I think of Jah and that yes being in it only for the models is well and good.
But he does make an income by painting models.
How many pay because they want to have a piece of his artwork?
How many pay because they just want their models painted to look good so they can play?
I think if the rules dry-up so too would most painting services at least for GW product.
Possibly another victim to GW policy much like Miniwargaming.
Taken like this, a lot of their core models are actually decent value. A squad of 40k troops is often a great skirmish force, with a lot of weapon choices.
True. And a single dreadspears box can be an entire 'heavy foot' unit.
agnosto wrote:but there's only so much of reading about lone marines wiping out entire planets you can take before you just sigh and put it down (yes, that's a gross exaggeration).
What, only put it down? I never truly understood the 'throw the book at the wall' saying until I started buying BL.
agnosto wrote:
Necros wrote: Just a thought.. could the "we're a model company" idea be tied more to them wanting to be more like a company that controls the IP, and have some other company take over more of the game production? There's already Fantasy Flight doing the RPG and all those ipad game companies. Would GW ever dump the games onto someone else, and focus on just models & fluffbooks?
You could easily think of this more pronounced statement of "we're models first" as being a result of the Chapterhouse lawsuit. If their models can be construed as works of art and not toys, they have more control. That said, I never see GW outsourcing their rules writing as long as the models are even remotely tied to a game.
I think killing 40k would destroy them as a company which explains why they've slowing been transitioning the game more towards AoS type gameplay with the Decurion style books and add-ons rather than an abrupt change like we saw with fantasy getting the knife.
Yup. I think there's that old element of control in the rules - the codex creep, rules churn, buffing and nerfing etc. - that might mean GW don't want to pass them on to anyone else, let alone discard them completely as a 'shopping guide'. (or as a cattle prod) Can't let FF tinker with the rules - they might accidentally introduce some balance or limiting factor or continuity that means you only need to buy and keep a certain number of minis. Horrifying!
jah-joshua wrote: @Vermis: again, when have i ever insulted gamers, or said i had a problem with gamers???
i am very passionate about wargaming miniatures, art, fiction, and painting, just not the actual wargaming...
what is so wrong about saying where my priorities lie???
just read the two things that have been posted under "interests" on my profile since day one, for 9 years now...
cheers
jah
I think you must have hit a sore spot with the girls comment
Not personally a sore spot of mine, but I just find it curious that this specific... "priority" is repeatedly brought about in the typical dismissive "shut up and deal with it nub, this is just a game" post.
Like I said, it's quaint .
once again, you are putting words in my mouth...
i have never said, "shut up and deal with it noob, this is just a game", nor am i dismissive of other people's perspective in this hobby...
3/4 of my closest friends are gamers, including my little brother, and i respect all of them...
i only speak about myself, not others...
i don't know what your problem with me is, but maybe you should ask someone what they meant, instead of just jumping to judgement...
i value the existence of gamers very much, i just don't happen to be one...
the question was, "Would you still buy GW models if they weren't involved in making rules for a game to play them in?"
my answer is yes, of course, because i have never been interested in gaming, but i am a huge fan of the GW aesthetic...
thitry years ago, i walked into a model shop, saw GW minis on the rack, and fell in love...
Dragons, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Centaurs, and Nazgul all seemed so much cooler the than real world scale models i had been building and painting up to that point...
then i found out there were books loaded with art and stories, and was hooked for life...
playing the game never factored into it, but painting became an obsession...
I think of Jah and that yes being in it only for the models is well and good.
But he does make an income by painting models.
How many pay because they want to have a piece of his artwork?
How many pay because they just want their models painted to look good so they can play?
I think if the rules dry-up so too would most painting services at least for GW product.
Possibly another victim to GW policy much like Miniwargaming.
this is an interesting point, and illustrates the importance of why i would never sling insults at gamers...
gamers provide about 3/4 of my income, and i really care about bringing their visions to life...
if the rules dried-up, my GW mini painting commissions would certainly see a decline, but i don't think it would dry-up completely...
there are still collectors of display minis out there who have a soft spot for GW stuff...
not that i want to see the GW games die out, i don't, i'm just not personally invested in playing the games...
if the rules for GW games did dry up, my business would just shift to painting Infinity, WarmaHordes, Malifaux, and such...
people hire me both because they want my work, AND because they want good looking models to play with...
with my prices, there are plenty of cheaper options out there if a client is not interested in having a piece of MY artwork...
clients don't hire me for generic "good" paintjobs, but for unique takes on old themes, and meticulous attention to detail...
that said, i am definitely concerned about GW management's seeming determination to piss off and drive away so many of their loyal customers...
i don't want to limit the pool of potential clients for my painted models...
on the other hand, branching out into getting commissions for other companies' minis is not a bad thing...
i am happy to paint any quality sculpt...
I think that part of the 'We are a model company!' stance is from the IP issues (misunderstood by the folks who are in charge) and in part from the disconnect that the folks at the top of GW have from who actually buys their toys and games.
Yup. I think there's that old element of control in the rules - the codex creep, rules churn, buffing and nerfing etc. - that might mean GW don't want to pass them on to anyone else, let alone discard them completely as a 'shopping guide'. (or as a cattle prod) Can't let FF tinker with the rules - they might accidentally introduce some balance or limiting factor or continuity that means you only need to buy and keep a certain number of minis. Horrifying!
Quite interesting. I have ruminated on same for a while.
However - a tight ruleset dosent necessarily mean limited model sales.
E.g. SM Terminators get some love.
Premise:
Every geezer and his dog owns Termies (space hulk sculpts, 2nd ed, ebay, cheap kits, players seeing them as "filler" etc).
FF rewrite their rules and GW co-releases a new kit - more options, more dynamic, more "cool!".
Would they sell or not?
Yes imho.
So the game balance can go inherently with "we are an elite model making company who sells premium price "sculpts" "
yes, I would buy the models on the proviso that any other company they hired to write the rules would do a better job, you would still have codex creep however because GW would still have creative control.
The short answer is that, yes, I would buy GW models just for the fun of modelling. Since I do this with PP and Infinity models, I don't see why it would be any different.
But no, this would be at terrible idea, because I wouldn't buy nearly as many models. I'd be buying a squad of space marines, instead of like, 6 for every chapter I model. I have 1 drop pod instead of like... uhh.. I lost count. I'd have one stormraven, not 3. And on and on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kirasu wrote: Without a game, GW models would be bought at staggeringly lower amounts. If you're someone who has *actually* played other wargames (IE non-GW), especially in the 90s, you'll recall many games which ended and with them virtually everyone stopped buying the models.
GW seems to think there are lots of collectors that just mindlessly buy models for no reason. I suspect that the amount of true collectors that don't play the game is drastically lower than their predictions.
Without a game context, there would be lower sales in every way for models for both gamers and non-gamers, I think. It certainly would be so for me.
I don't agree that collectors mindlessly buy models for no reason, though. I have a friend who buys a LOT of Forge World, but doesn't play 30k because, well, the rest of us want to play 40k. So, effectively, he's a FW collector -- but he doesn't just buy them because he's a shopping cart zombie. He loves the models, enjoys modelling and painting them, and loves the completed model -- therin lies his value. The way he looks at it, if a model takes him 100 hours to complete and costs $300 to buy, that's $3 / hour of entertainment, and he's ok with that.
For me, personally, I have no problem spending the 100 hours on the same model, but I'd just rather spend it on a model that I can ALSO play with after in a game, even if it's only a few times
In addition, I consider myself a both a collector and a gamer, but in truth, I model and paint at least 20x more than I game, and I buy way more stuff than I can reasonably model and paint. Practically, over years, what happens is, my favorite factions get 100% of their models painted (though they pile up, and then I paint them all at once), and about 50% get decent game time. And then it falls off a cliff from there: the factions I don't really identify with as much, but I love the models of, I'll just randomly paint stuff here and there for fun -- but I may have on my shelf a pretty complete set of brand new or in-progress models.
Without rules, GW dies. There would be no reason what so ever to buy two boxes of anything unless you have someone who has a desire to build entire forces just for the look.
The average person who paints models for model sakes wouldn't paint two or three of anything simply because there are other models from other companies that need the brushes magic touch.
I have painted about 30 1/6 th scale anime garage kits. They are all done for looks and just sit on the shelf. I have only two kits that are the same character (different poses thou) simply because there are so many other characters I want to get to.
The same thing would apply to GW models. I'd probably only have 1 Hammerhead instead of the three that I do own now because there would be no reason to actually own 3.
For me to buy a model for the sake of being a model, it's gotta be dang good. I buy Gundam models because they're a whole other beast to put together and the detail and posability...and engineering in general blow anything GW makes out of the water. For 1/3 the price.
But without a game, I don't buy minis. I love collecting and painting, but they need some practical purpose for me.
Jayden63 wrote: Without rules, GW dies. There would be no reason what so ever to buy two boxes of anything unless you have someone who has a desire to build entire forces just for the look.
The average person who paints models for model sakes wouldn't paint two or three of anything simply because there are other models from other companies that need the brushes magic touch.
I have painted about 30 1/6 th scale anime garage kits. They are all done for looks and just sit on the shelf. I have only two kits that are the same character (different poses thou) simply because there are so many other characters I want to get to.
The same thing would apply to GW models. I'd probably only have 1 Hammerhead instead of the three that I do own now because there would be no reason to actually own 3.
while i agree that the rules are important for the wider reach of the business, without rules, there is still incentive for a collector like me to have multiples of the same kit...
one is simply different loadouts and the other is, as you mentioned, building an entire force for the look, as well as painting an army to sell, or even for competition like Armies on Parade...
while it is pretty obvious that rules drive model sales overall, don't think that a non-gamer like me buys any less than a gamer...
i am the one who keeps saying that i don't care about price, nor do i need a use for the model other than it looks cool, but am just passionate abot collecting minis...
i have three Vindicators because the Apocalypse box was a good deal...
i bought entire WFB armies simply because the big box came with the book and an LE mini, and i collected them all...
i own one of every variety of Land Raider, including the Terminus Ultra and FW varients...
that is the point of being a "Collector", you need to have all the rare and special stuff, as well as the normal stuff for when it goes OOP...
when i say i am a collector, i am not saying i am a casual customer...
the Collector, large"C", is a mini fanatic...
i totally get the "without rules, GW dies" argument...
i do not, however agree with the "collectors never buy two boxes of anything" argument...
a lot of times it is easier to buy a second box of something than it it is to go looking for another copy of the choicest bits from a box...
pay $15 bucks for two bits i really want, or $25 for a second box???
i just buy the second box, every time...
jah-joshua wrote: i totally get the "without rules, GW dies" argument...
i do not, however agree with the "collectors never buy two boxes of anything" argument...
I have many friends that game, but also paint models of for armies they have no interest in ever gaming. Many of those actually have multiple copies of the same model, sometimes for a simple a reason as, "I like the model, and I want to own it painted in more than one scheme". In fact, you see people who collect (and paint) models have multiple copies of *character* models, something that pure gamers rarely do. I'm just as guilty: I think I own 6 copies of Captain Victoria Haley, and 4 of Major Victoria Haley. And I've never played Cyrix.
yeah, i have a few mini that i get multiple copies of to make conversions...
on top of that, i also bought all the Collector's Series stuff, both from Forge World and Rackham...
as a collector, large scale items are just as appealing as 28mm stuff...
i'll also be buying the two new 40K campaign boxes, just because i want the special characters...
i already own a box of Vanguards, but i used the cool sword and Sergeant's jump pack...
those two bits are enough to make me happy about getting another box...
with bundle discounts, and a 25% off discount on top of that, i am more than happy to have the rest of the contents of the boxes, even though i don't need the minis gaming-wise...
i can always use the Land Speeder for something like the Riptide to stand a foot on, or the Pirahna for the base of a Wraithknight...
Pathfinders would make a cool squad for a painting comp., and the Sternguard are just something i want in my collection, but haven't got around to buying...
i have multiple boxes of Tacticals, Assault Marines, and Devastators, just for a project or two that i daydream about...
i see plenty of gamers who say that they only buy the things they will have a use for...
i buy everything that i think is cool...
gamers say, "I'm on a budget.", while i say that money is just there to get me cool stuff...
while i am one guy, and there are hundreds of thousands of gamers, i don't have any illusion about who butters GW's bread...
my only point is that Collectors, like me, don't just pick and choose single minis here and there, but buy everything that appeals, because you never know when it will go OOP...
many people are buying Rogue Trader minis on eBay, while i have had those same minis in my collection since they were new releases, including box sets and starters...
some people collect Beenie Babies, Lego, Transformers, or G.I.Joe...
i collect wargaming minis, mags, and books...
@jah - yeah Cyngar, sorry. O.O >hangs head in shame<
Unless PP is now making microprocessors I bought a few Cyrix CPUs back in the day too... those were horrible, hahaha.
I too will buy the Ravenguard box essentially just to get the special character. I've basically also raided Sternguard and Vanguard boxes for parts, so I guess if I get another set of them... I could always build Sternguard and Vanguard Vets, hehe. Those are fantastic sets for bits, anyhow -- it was around then that GW picked up its game in terms of bits madness for me.
At the end of the day, though, the OP's question is really a moot one. There is no reason for GW to stop printing rules, because, well, they make lots of money off of rules -- both to gamers and non-gamers alike.
It's like saying, would people still go to McDonalds if they took out all of the chairs and tables? Or, would people still go to the grocery if they stopped selling vegetables and milk? Maybe... but the sales would surely be lower, and for what possible reason would they?
@ talys & jah-joshua: the question isn't so much whether or not you'd buy multiples of units without a game attached, but whether or not there are enough people like you to support gw if there wasn't a game bringing in gamers.
@Talys: right...
there is no reason for GW to stop making rules...
this whole kerfuffle is, as far as i can tell, a result of the legal strategy for the Chapterhouse case, which people have jumped on and taken to an illogical extreme...
the amount of people stoked for the new Tau releases show that 40K isn't going anywhere soon...
i could be wrong, but i think that as long as GW keeps making high quality HIPS kits, they will not go the way of Rackham...
if they switch to pre-painted plastics, then we know the end is nigh...
@Torga: honestly, i think the answer is overwhelmingly no, GW would not survive the abandonment of gaming...
i know that i am a fairly unique case, but i don't think i am the only one who buys way more minis than i could ever use or paint...
however, there are enough customers who call themselves gamers, but they play so infrequently that they may as well be called collectors, who have a closet full of kits...
the rules are still important to them, because they entertain the idea of playing...
one interesting question is, where do the rules start and stop???
for instance, i don't read the rules sections of the big rule books (as pertains to how to move, shoot, take casualties, morale, and such), but i read the fluff, and look at the pretty pictures...
for a Codex, i read the fluff, as well as the squad options, which inform the daydreams of building an army...
it also helps to know how to advise my clients on builds and game legality...
so, while i would still buy minis without a game behind it, i don't want to see the game die, because i still enjoy the army building side of the rules...
long story short, gaming is not important to me as a collector, but rules are very important to me as a professional painter...
Nope, it's a real question. I stopped playing 40K back in 2E, but continued to collect the models. I was curious if I was alone in collecting and not playing. I only started back actually playing when Necrons were revised (I set my son up with Dawn of War, and when I showed him the old minis I had, he wanted to try it out with the models), and I play only about once every two months or so. Of what I had seen with Age of Sigmar, it really feels like GW is trying to get away from bothering with rules and instead trying to push "models turned to 11" with lots of "story" behind them - not rules, but stories.
For me, if GW stopped making rules and just did the models, it'd be a relief. Especially if someone else - say FFG - started making the ruleset for them. However, I suspect (as many others have stated), that if GW went model only, it would be unsustainable for them.
The line "we make models not games" or "We are a models company first" is far far older than the Chapterhouse case, it shows a deeply rooted mentality in GWs high management.
GW is not a models company, if they were they would behave like one, which they do not, their behavior is far from what any model company does and their prices are also way out of line for a models only company.
If they ever attempted to be a models company and not a games company producing game pieces (toy soldiers) for wargames they would fail spectacularly, as is they are a games company who uses their games to add value to their products and drive the sales they need to be sustainable, because frankly even if a small percentage of their current customers buy a kit many times, because reasons, the vast majority of the customers that they would have as a models only company would not do so.
I cannot decide if their stance of dismissing the true nature of their business at least externally (AoS is a clear example of how much rules are important to their models) is because they do not understand their product, because they do not know how to sell it to their investors (we make toys and rules to play with them) or because they have illusions of grandeur, but as a company their models alone do not carry them.
I really don't think so - some of the responses have been short, but I am seeing none that are knee-jerk 'No! DIE!' reactions.
But I do think that most folks, even those that most love the GW kits as models, agree that more purchases are driven by gaming than by those that just want to paint the models and put them on the shelf.
A well painted model gets a better reaction as it is placed on the table - sitting on the shelf is a lot easier to overlook.
Stormonu wrote: Heavens no, not as in "everyone should be like them", but as in "only making models".
GW has intimated for a few years now that they primarily are about making models. What if they were to completely embrace that aspect - dump making rulesets, let Black Library make some fiction novels and just concentrate on making "high-quality" model kits, ala Tamiya, Revel, Monogram, Testors and the other makers of plastic models?
Would you still buy GW's models if they weren't involved in making the rules for a game to play them in?
All I see is a company running itself into a wall with an overinflated product, and little to no common business sense. They will bleed money for the next couple of months or so, then we're going to see the writing on the wall come the next profits meeting, as they kill off a couple of those one man shops every month, sell of the little profit makers here and there and keep it going just a little while longer, chalking up a win, while walking down the street naked.
I'm back-paddaling on my GW purchases to zero in the past two years. This is from a guy who typically in a month would buy 120.00-400.00 for the armies a month, and if it went well, sometimes a week..
That new game is typical of GW anymore. Make some sort of high speed models, and people will just jump at it like lemmings. Any day, I'm expecting them to say--" Ha ha, you tools will buy ANYTHING with GW on it, bow down and Workshop us!!!"
I don't want to make it into a painted versus unpainted thread. It needs to be considered, though, that anyone playing with unpainted or semi-painted figures is playing for the sake of playing, not because they just want to build models.
So, the question is whether or not a company with significantly higher prices than other brands, poor detail and kit quality, and limited mainstream appeal can survive purely on the quality of its models without any rules to support them? And we're asking this when the company in question is struggling to succeed even with rules to drive its sales? Of course the answer is "no". How did we manage to have three pages worth of discussion on this subject?
Peregrine wrote: So, the question is whether or not a company with significantly higher prices than other brands, poor detail and kit quality, and limited mainstream appeal can survive purely on the quality of its models without any rules to support them? And we're asking this when the company in question is struggling to succeed even with rules to drive its sales? Of course the answer is "no". How did we manage to have three pages worth of discussion on this subject?
"significantly higher than other brands" Only partially true. Warmahordes, the one everyone loves to bring up, is just as much. It, like many other hobbies, end up running about 40-70 dollars a month after you first big "getting into the game" push. Yes, there are hobbies that are cheaper. No, most of the big name ones aren't, it's precieved value.
To OP: no where near as much. maybe some of the Cooler looking models, to paint. I.E. FW's primarchs, pedro cantor, etc.
Brennonjw wrote: "significantly higher than other brands" Only partially true. Warmahordes, the one everyone loves to bring up, is just as much. It, like many other hobbies, end up running about 40-70 dollars a month after you first big "getting into the game" push. Yes, there are hobbies that are cheaper. No, most of the big name ones aren't, it's precieved value.
I'm talking about historical and other non-gaming kits. If GW becomes a model-only company then that's their competition, and they don't have the advantage of "you can use these in a game" to boost the value of their kits.
If GW is compared to actual modeling kits like that they fail hard. A good Tamiya tank is like a third of the price of an equivalent sized GW one, is so much more detailed and involved when it comes to the building of it and the actual kit is technically far more advanced (brass etch and metal barrels to avoid the mould lines all the way up immediately spring to mind.)
why would we compare GW's kits to fine scale models???
it isn't even the same ballpark...
GW is a wargaming miniatures company, no matter how we slice it...
they make miniatures that are intended for use in wargames...
they also produce the rules for the games that the miniatures are intended to be used in...
they promote collecting, modeling, painting, and gaming as one unified hobby...
GW themselves, in all of their official literature (i.e. the Investors website) call themselves a miniature wargaming company, as in they make miniatures and war games to use those miniatures in...
nowhere that i can find do they say that they only make miniatures, and don't care about the games, yet people carry on like that is the case...
i would be very happy to see where the actual "we make models not games" quote comes from...
as for "we are a models company first" that is quite reasonable, though i don't know where that exact quote comes from either...
every company that produces miniatures, and has a game, is actually a model company first and foremost...
you may only need one rulebook, but you will need at least a handful of minis...
the drive is always going to be selling more minis than books for every wargaming miniature company...
take Infinity for example, for 2nd ed. you had 3 books, but you needed an average of 10 minis...
of course CB is going to be more than happy to see you buy multiple factions...
in the end, you have 3 books, and 30 minis...
which brought the company more profit???
the only difference is, CB has pissed off, and driven away, less customers than GW...
selling minis is still CB's top priority...
honestly, i think the distinction between gamer and collector is needless, and unnecessarily divisive...
if you play, you are a collector, too...
an army is a collection of miniatures...
we are all collectors...
Hmm, I actually went to the GW investors relations page and you are correct, they do include the gaming as part of the description of the hobby and their business model.
However, whenever questioned about the poor quality of their rules their response is "We are a model company, not a gaming company." They might not have always considered the gaming to be unimportant, but these days they do very much consider it secondary to the modeling.
That is the point here, if we were to take them at their word about being a modeling company and they theoretically stopped producing the game then they would be compared to scale model kits, and they would fail hard.
The motivation for collection is the distinction. As a gamer, I don't mind doing some collecting, but I'll only do it if I can out it to use in a game. A true collector cares not about utility, just about assembling something aesthetically pleasing.
jah-joshua wrote: why would we compare GW's kits to fine scale models??? it isn't even the same ballpark...
GW is a wargaming miniatures company, no matter how we slice it... they make miniatures that are intended for use in wargames... they also produce the rules for the games that the miniatures are intended to be used in... they promote collecting, modeling, painting, and gaming as one unified hobby...
GW themselves, in all of their official literature (i.e. the Investors website) call themselves a miniature wargaming company, as in they make miniatures and war games to use those miniatures in... nowhere that i can find do they say that they only make miniatures, and don't care about the games, yet people carry on like that is the case...
i would be very happy to see where the actual "we make models not games" quote comes from... as for "we are a models company first" that is quite reasonable, though i don't know where that exact quote comes from either... every company that produces miniatures, and has a game, is actually a model company first and foremost... you may only need one rulebook, but you will need at least a handful of minis... the drive is always going to be selling more minis than books for every wargaming miniature company... take Infinity for example, for 2nd ed. you had 3 books, but you needed an average of 10 minis... of course CB is going to be more than happy to see you buy multiple factions... in the end, you have 3 books, and 30 minis... which brought the company more profit??? the only difference is, CB has pissed off, and driven away, less customers than GW... selling minis is still CB's top priority...
honestly, i think the distinction between gamer and collector is needless, and unnecessarily divisive... if you play, you are a collector, too... an army is a collection of miniatures... we are all collectors...
cheers jah
Well, they need to clue the CEO in on that then because he has this to say;
Strategy and objectives Games Workshop's ambitions remain clear: to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit, and it intends doing so forever. All of our decision making is focused on the long term success of Games Workshop, not short term gains.
Hmm, no mention of games in that first passage of the corporate strategy, other than the name of the company. Maybe I missed it elsewhere...
The first element - we make high quality miniatures. We understand that what we make is not for everyone, so to recruit and re-recruit customers we are absolutely focused on making our models the best in the world. In order to continue to do that forever and to deliver a decent return to our owners, we sell them for the price that we believe the investment in quality is worth.
Our customers tend to be teenage boys and male adults with some spare money to spend and time to enjoy hobbies. I'd like to think our Hobby - modelling, painting, collecting, gaming - is for anyone. Our customers are found everywhere. Our job is to, on a day to day basis, find them, commercially, wherever they are.
The second element is that we make fantasy miniatures based in our imaginary worlds. This gives us complete control over the imagery and styles we use and complete ownership of the intellectual property. Aside from our core business, we are constantly looking to grow our royalty income from opportunities to use our IP in other markets.
Ah, there it is. Miniatures are mentioned numerous times, as well as modelling and "hobby" but the word "game" appears one time in the entirety of the corporate Strategic Report. You know, the document created by the CEO that outlines what the business is going to be about in the next year.
If the CEO sees the company as primarily a model company, guess what that means....one guess, yeah you got it, it means they're primarily a model company.
Wait. Maybe this is a new thing, just brought in by Kevin Rountree. Hmm. Let's go back another year, under Kirby and see what he had to say.
This statement includes all the key elements of what we do and why we do it that way.
The first element is the high quality. We consciously and deliberately pursue a niche market model. Not everyone wants to collect miniatures, but those that do demand high quality. All niche market customers are like that. It is what defines the niche — quality above price. Our strategy is to make the best miniatures in the world.
The second element is that we will only ever make fantasy miniatures, and by that we mean those that are in our imaginary worlds. This gives us complete control over the imagery and styles we use and complete ownership of the intellectual property.
The third element is the global nature of our business. Niche market customers are pretty thin on the ground and they need to be searched out all over the world. The main growth in our business will be as a result of this geographic spread.
The fourth element is our desire to make money doing it. We want to be efficiently profitable, partly because we enjoy paying ourselves and our owners well but even more because it allows us to keep going. We want to be in business for as long as possible and that means we need to be profitable in both good times and bad.
There is no fifth element which is a shame as it would have allowed me to indulge in a lot of movie jokes and references.
"Game" not even mentioned once. So at least Kevin Rountree realizes that they make games...one supposes anyway.
Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
I know you must have seen this quote before. It kind of rounds out what the Chairman, then Chairman and CEO, Kirby thinks their business is.
Again, if you think that a company can somehow ignore the leaders of the company, who apparently think "miniatures first and we might get around to this "game" thing that people go on about.", I think you might have never had corporate experience, which is fine, so let me clue you in. When the Chairman and CEO tell people that the company is focused on one aspect of their product line, employees follow that, if they want to keep their jobs.
jah-joshua wrote: why would we compare GW's kits to fine scale models???
Because we're talking about a hypothetical future where GW abandons the entire gaming aspect of the hobby and becomes a pure model company. And at that point they're competing with all of the other model companies, not other miniatures games.
@jono: i agree, they don't compare to Tamiya in either price or detail...
@Selym: why the need for a distinction in the hobby community???
i am not a fan of "us vs. them"...
@Agnosto: thanks for taking the time to port those quotes over...
my point is that nowhere in there does it say, "we make models not games", or "we are a models company first" (and thus don't care about the game)...
that is an inference made by the community...
yes, i had read all of those things before, especially the last one...
nowhere does it say that the customers who collect those miniatures do not play war games with them...
@Peregrine: i honestly hope that hypothetical future never comes...
@Selym: why the need for a distinction in the hobby community???
i am not a fan of "us vs. them"...
Its not an us vs anyone situation, its distinguishing between two hobby preferences. One wouldn't be overly troubled by GW not producing rules, and the other would be totally routed. We're just not the same
@Agnosto: thanks for taking the time to port those quotes over...
my point is that nowhere in there does it say, "we make models not games", or "we are a models company first" (and thus don't care about the game)...
that is an inference made by the community...
yes, i had read all of those things before, especially the last one...
nowhere does it say that the customers who collect those miniatures do not play war games with them...
cheers
jah
I agree to an extent but those are statements made by the people steering the company. If nothing else, it explains why the rules and models don't always align or are utter crap in some instances.
Irregardless, if they cared as much about the games as they do about the miniatures, one would think they would at least mention it in their strategic plan instead of focusing almost completely on the miniatures. Another telling point is that the margin for selling rulebooks should be much higher than models sales as paper and printing is dirt cheap compared to creating molds, 3d modelling etc; they need just pay for a writer and they have those on staff so....
does anyone honestly think that GW will stop producing rules???
i don't think that they are that stupid...
i get that it's just a thought exercise, but the discussion still gets heated, when this is all just a "what if"...
welcome to the internet???
@Selym: yet it becomes a divisive issue...
me simply stating that i am not a gamer was interpreted as me being dismissive of gamers...
that kind of thing is what i am trying to clear up...
@Selym: yet it becomes a divisive issue...
me simply stating that i am not a gamer was interpreted as me being dismissive of gamers...
that kind of thing is what i am trying to clear up...
cheers
jah
You do know that we can see who posted by looking to the left of the post, right?
I don't see how making a distinction between who would stay with GW or not as a divisive issue. Its central to GW's survivability. We can't not make a distinction.
@Agnosto: thanks for taking the time to port those quotes over...
my point is that nowhere in there does it say, "we make models not games", or "we are a models company first" (and thus don't care about the game)...
that is an inference made by the community...
yes, i had read all of those things before, especially the last one...
nowhere does it say that the customers who collect those miniatures do not play war games with them...
This is my favourite source of the "we make toy soldiers not games":
Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jah-joshua wrote: does anyone honestly think that GW will stop producing rules???
i don't think that they are that stupid...
i get that it's just a thought exercise, but the discussion still gets heated, when this is all just a "what if"...
welcome to the internet???
Interesting question, and the short answer would be no i think. But does producing rules to the level of AoS still count as producing rules? Need to see what happens with 40k i guess.
@Agnosto: as i pointed out on the last page, a company can expect to sell WAY more minis than books, thus the lifeblood of a miniature wargaming company is going to be miniature sales...
you may only need two books to play, but you need a lot of minis...
would you not agree???
@Selym: yet it becomes a divisive issue...
me simply stating that i am not a gamer was interpreted as me being dismissive of gamers...
that kind of thing is what i am trying to clear up...
cheers
jah
You do know that we can see who posted by looking to the left of the post, right?
I don't see how making a distinction between who would stay with GW or not as a divisive issue. Its central to GW's survivability. We can't not make a distinction.
it is a divisive issue, because some people pass judgement on a person stating their perspective, seeing it as an attack on those who see things differently...
i guess that has more to do with the internet not providing the tone of a post very well...
as for the other bit, sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say about looking to the left...
are you saying i shouldn't sign off on my post???
i've noticed a few people call me on that, but i don't understand why it annoys people...
i just find it to be a polite way to end a post...
on that note...
it is a divisive issue, because some people pass judgement on a person stating their perspective as an attack on those who see things differently...
i guess that has more to do with the internet not providing the tone of a post very well...
If we based everything we say around making sure nobody on the internet would pass judgement on it, we'd never post anything. The internet will judge you, and judge you harshly, no matter what.
as for the other bit, sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say about looking to the left...
are you saying i shouldn't sign off on my post???
i've noticed a few people call me on that, but i don't understand why it annoys people...
i just find it to be a polite way to end a post...
on that note...
cheers
jah
In old forums (and still on the 4chan forums) there used to be no marker for who posted what, so everyone would put their name on their post so that a conversation could be identified. Its a bit of a relic now, and sometimes looks odd or forced. On the left of your post is your name and avatar, identifying that it was you who posted. The sign off was made redundant when this sort of feature was introduced to forums.
Just to clear something up, Jah. You started out on the wrong foot when you said you'd rather spend time with girls than game. It came off as condescending and rude. I don't think you meant it that way but its kind of tinted others' perception of your arguments. That's the origins of the decisiveness of gamer vs collector in this discussion.
@Torga: again, nowhere in your quote does it say, "we make toy soldiers not games"...
that is the interpretation of the community, yet is always presented in quotes, as if those are the direct words from Kirby's mouth...
notice the use of words like army lists, campaigns, and events, all of which infer gaming taking place...
personally, i see AoS as Jervis Johnson, Jeremy Vetock, and Phil Kelly's prefered method of playing...
the rules do function, it just happens to go against the predominant view of how the community wants their games to be structured...
AoS fits with the articles that Jervis and Jeremy have written for years, and is close to Phil's design philosophy for Dreadfleet, with less customization and more random as a design philosophy...
where they miss a beat is in foisting their ideas on the community, rather than going with the community's expectations and desires...
is that bad business???
not necessarily, but with GW's overhead, i would say it is way too risky...
is it going to maximize profit???
hell no!!!
there are no end of problems with GW's management, but i really don't think that the focus on minis is the most egregious...
rules can always change...
as i said earlier, what do you think the focus of Corvus Belli is, minis or rules???
what do you think they sell more of???
@Torga: again, nowhere in your quote does it say, "we make toy soldiers not games"... that is the interpretation of the community, yet is always presented in quotes, as if those are the direct words from Kirby's mouth...
Its a paraphrase. Its what they meant to say, but without having to write up a whole paragraph of quote.
Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
Kirby outright dismisses the gaming aspect, thinking that it has nothing to do with miniatures sales. He doesn't understand why we buy the minis.
MWHistorian wrote: Just to clear something up, Jah. You started out on the wrong foot when you said you'd rather spend time with girls than game. It came off as condescending and rude. I don't think you meant it that way but its kind of tinted others' perception of your arguments. That's the origins of the decisiveness of gamer vs collector in this discussion.
here is what i actually said:
"i only collect the minis, because gaming doesn't attract me as a way to spend my time...
i would rather paint, chase girls, and surf..."
notice that painting and surfing take equal priority (and honestly more, to the dismay of my girlriends) to chasing girls...
how is that condescending and rude???
i never directed that at anyone, but simply stated my priorities...
i am genuinely curious as to why that would be read as an attack on gamers...
cheers
jah
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Selym: i disagree...
i feel that it is an inference made by the community...
nowhere does he "outright dismiss the gaming aspect"...
that is your interpretation...
as i said, army lists, campaigns, and events all implies gaming taking place...
you may not agree with me, but that doesn't change the fact that this whole beef is about different interpretations of Kirby's words...
jah-joshua wrote:@Selym: i guess I'm a relic of a bygone age...
@Torga: again, nowhere in your quote does it say, "we make toy soldiers not games"...
that is the interpretation of the community, yet is always presented in quotes, as if those are the direct words from Kirby's mouth...
notice the use of words like army lists, campaigns, and events, all of which infer gaming taking place...
The use of words like army lists, campaigns, etc are all dismissed within the quote, as: even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful. Emphasis on toy soldiers, not games.
Selym wrote:
Kirby outright dismisses the gaming aspect, thinking that it has nothing to do with miniatures sales. He doesn't understand why we buy the minis.
I think that Games Workshop as a company is treading on thin ice.
I was at a FLGS that I hadn't been to in a while and picked up a few paints. They have a new staffer who is very supportive of GW and is actively trying to build a community. The local gamers are enthusiastic about the hobby and have nicely painted models! This is good news for the hobby! On the flip side, he also said that product generally ISN'T MOVING. Especially the big expensive ones. Even flavor du-jour models like the one Imperial Knight they stocked is decorating the shelf unbought!
If the large centerpiece models don't sell despite having strong game presence, I think it will be even more difficult to sell these to the casual nerd passer-by.
@Jah/Talys: I get where you are coming from that sufficient obsession is able to overcome even the hugest sticker shock. After wanting one all my childhood, I finally bought one of those die-cast Macross Valk toys and the optional super parts. Still... there are limits to obsession... The thing was an exercise in wallet destruction, and I can't fathom how real collectors buy squadrons of them. Can't justify buying more as I don't actually play with it, as the one I got has noted durability issues, so it just sits there collecting dust in my case.
@Torga: like i said, i think that the focus of every miniature wargaming company is selling miniatures first, and the war game second...
of course, since the miniatures are the most important thing to me, it makes sense that i would not have a problem with that attitude...
i still fail to see why people choose to interpret a focus on minis as a dismissal of gaming, but that's just me...
if you don't like the direction that the rules have taken, then it is very easy to get upset about the company's priorities...
i choose to enjoy the products, and not worry about the marketing speak, but like i said, the existence of the rules is still important to my business, so i hope GW's management pulls their head out soon, and starts to rebuild some of those burnt bridges...
cheers
jah
Automatically Appended Next Post: @keezus: i hear you, man...
i just don't think the "bad" rules are the sole issue driving people away from GW...
i think the price rises and the IP bullying have way more to do with it...
if the company was seen as more customer friendly, and had lower prices, they would move much more product...
simple as...
Peregrine wrote:So, the question is whether or not a company with significantly higher prices than other brands, poor detail and kit quality, and limited mainstream appeal can survive purely on the quality of its models without any rules to support them? And we're asking this when the company in question is struggling to succeed even with rules to drive its sales? Of course the answer is "no". How did we manage to have three pages worth of discussion on this subject?
It's a hypothetical. I notice a lot of people were truly upset with GW about the paper-thin AoS rules, as if GW's only duty was to write rules and then sell models to accompany that process, not the other way around - which seems to be GW's stance. I was curious if GW kept the fictional world (so you knew what these crazy models represented), but dumped the rules completely, how would people react to that? It's not about "would GW go under", it's more "how would you react to that? Would you still buy their stuff (, possibly to use in another game or just collect, doesn't really matter).
Kilkrazy wrote:This thread actually ought to be related to the painted/not painted argument.
Presumably all the people who prefer to play with unpainted figures would be players first, modellers second.
Most likely, though in my case the gray hordes are because I haven't gotten to painting the orcs yet because I want to know what their stuff does before I finalize things, and I'm clearly more collector (not necessarily painter) than player .
jah-joshua wrote:@Torga: like i said, i think that the focus of every miniature wargaming company is selling miniatures first, and the war game second...
Well it seems to me that the miniatures are an offshoot of the game. They're both important, but without the game the miniatures would be far less important (and sellable). It also seems to me that gw aren't placing the 'game' second, it's coming much lower on the list of priorities. Which is problematic if you accept my contention that the game is what drives sales.
jah-joshua wrote:of course, since the miniatures are the most important thing to me, it makes sense that i would not have a problem with that attitude...
Its horses for courses i guess, everyone has their own interests. To try and give my perspective, i used to be interested in the game and have since moved into interest in the company. I get a small release every year (half year results) and a big release every year (eofy results). Both of which are free. It's cheaper (free), more reliable updates than what the game itself provides, and is just as if not more-so entertaining.
jah-joshua wrote:i still fail to see why people choose to interpret a focus on minis as a dismissal of gaming, but that's just me...
if you don't like the direction that the rules have taken, then it is very easy to get upset about the company's priorities...
i choose to enjoy the products, and not worry about the marketing speak, but like i said, the existence of the rules is still important to my business, so i hope GW's management pulls their head out soon, and starts to rebuild some of those burnt bridges...
That's the million pound question. Why does management go out of their way to divide and alienate the customer base? Claiming figures like 20% of their customers are gamers and the rest collectors when they also go on record as doing no market research? My personal opinion is that it's a combination of apathy and greed at the top (not incompetence), but it really is a good question imo. Why?
jah-joshua wrote:@keezus: i hear you, man...
i just don't think the "bad" rules are the sole issue driving people away from GW...
i think the price rises and the IP bullying have way more to do with it...
if the company was seen as more customer friendly, and had lower prices, they would move much more product...
simple as...
Speaking for myself, while i think the prices are bat-gak crazy, i would still be willing to pay high prices if the game was good. I *want* to go back to the game. But as someone who has an addictive personality, even i can't bring myself to do it. Something is truely wrong here.
Stormonu wrote:It's a hypothetical. I notice a lot of people were truly upset with GW about the paper-thin AoS rules, as if GW's only duty was to write rules and then sell models to accompany that process, not the other way around - which seems to be GW's stance. I was curious if GW kept the fictional world (so you knew what these crazy models represented), but dumped the rules completely, how would people react to that? It's not about "would GW go under", it's more "how would you react to that? Would you still buy their stuff (, possibly to use in another game or just collect, doesn't really matter).
It is an interesting question, and my answer is no: i would not still buy their stuff. I don't buy it as it is now, i certainly wouldn't buy it if it got 'worse' (in my view).
Stormonu wrote:Most likely, though in my case the gray hordes are because I haven't gotten to painting the orcs yet because I want to know what their stuff does before I finalize things, and I'm clearly more collector (not necessarily painter) than player .
And therein lies the problem (in my opinion). I want to know what their stuff does before i finalize things. And their 'stuff' will change in a couple years or so, invalidating what i have now. Assuming their 'stuff' as it stands now is even remotely competitive in the context of the game, which it very well might not be.
Example: New Tau codex is coming soon, only about two years after the previous one. In the interim there have also been various formations.
If you want to play the game, you have to resign yourself to running up the down escalator.
That wasn't so bad when a codex cost £12 and you bought one every four or five years. It's a very different matter when they cost £30 and have to renew them every two years or so.
Kilkrazy wrote: Example: New Tau codex is coming soon, only about two years after the previous one. In the interim there have also been various formations.
If you want to play the game, you have to resign yourself to running up the down escalator.
That wasn't so bad when a codex cost £12 and you bought one every four or five years. It's a very different matter when they cost £30 and have to renew them every two years or so.
Well, if you discount the rules contained in it, the CSM codex is better value, having been released in October 2012...
Thanks, GW. You couldn't just do a cyclical update? You just *had* to have another Tau codex?
take Infinity for example, for 2nd ed. you had 3 books, but you needed an average of 10 minis...
of course CB is going to be more than happy to see you buy multiple factions...
in the end, you have 3 books, and 30 minis...
which brought the company more profit???
the only difference is, CB has pissed off, and driven away, less customers than GW...
selling minis is still CB's top priority...
Since you dragged CB in it.
CB is a wargames company, they make wargames that is a complex hobby that includes modeling, historical research (fictional or historical) and the game part all in unison, they put as much effort in designing their models as they do in the background and in the rules, no part is left behind because they make money from selling the models and no part is been sacrificed to just sell more models.
Now that this is out, the thread is about GW making what they say to their investors models first or models only and if they could survive on the premise of models alone, in the opinion of most of us, however biased we may be, they are not in par with model companies and surviving as a models only company is impossible to them, how this should be taken into account by them and how much they should have changed their bad rules side of the hobby into been more in par with the models side is debatable, but puts some food for thought.
GW is almost like the "skip legs day" joke unfortunately.
To add to that, they also take a very different approach to GW with using rules to sell models.
GW will throw buffs on new units to sell new kits, in order to pay for the development costs of the unit. This is very transparent when new units are the hotness, often surpassing even similar units in raw power and/or survivability.
CB passes all units through a formula based on their stats, equipment, skills, weapons and faction (factions have their own strengths and weaknesses that can affect costs), ensuring all units are fairly priced based on what they can do in the faction they are in.
The other difference between the two is that one plays its own game and balances extensively, and one seem to like the 'throw enough mud at the wall until something sticks' approach.
The results are very different. Corvus Belli has seen very steady growth and expansion of their company, while GW's financial reports have shown a multi-year plateau.
Actually, Corvus Belli is a miniatures company. They developed the game in order to sell miniatures. They used to make very nice 15mm historicals, until demand for infinity minis forced a 'suspension' in production. Turns out their game is very, very good at driving sales of minis. It helps that the minis are by and large excellent. And the game is fun and balanced. These things happen when a company listens to its customers.
I believe Wyrd started out as a miniatures company too. Games Workshop started out making cribbage boards or some such. Companies do change.
The answer to the OP is no. I haven't bought anything from Games Workshop in over 10 years. I don't foresee ever buying any of their offerings again.
No and it is obvious, they don't just make models, they make a wargame.
A models company makes only models and survives in model sales alone, CB before Infinity may have only made models, but CB of today is a company that sells games (well a game) and supports it fully in all aspects of it (barring providing actual paints and glue).
Games workshop of the ancient past may indeed made boards and they did change to be an importer of D&D and then changed again to make their own stuff, but, they are not a models only company however they try to diminish the game part in their investor statements.
Games workshop doesn't even have a clue on how to balance their own games, so they might as well just make models in my opinion. Turn the rules over to a group of people that actually understand what the word balance means.
Vikoon wrote: Games workshop doesn't even have a clue on how to balance their own games, so they might as well just make models in my opinion. Turn the rules over to a group of people that actually understand what the word balance means.
-A state in wargaming whereby all players receive at least one month of having the best codex per year, regardless of what the other 11 months look like.
The thing is that different aspects of wargaming appeal to different people. It would certainly seem sensible to appeal to as many types of customer as possible, be it wargamers, modellers, sculptors etc.
If you're alienating one group by producing a game that's gak, I think it does have a knock-on effect. Less people playing at clubs, less people see the minis, it's a vicious circle.
-Loki- wrote: To add to that, they also take a very different approach to GW with using rules to sell models.
GW will throw buffs on new units to sell new kits, in order to pay for the development costs of the unit. This is very transparent when new units are the hotness, often surpassing even similar units in raw power and/or survivability.
CB passes all units through a formula based on their stats, equipment, skills, weapons and faction (factions have their own strengths and weaknesses that can affect costs), ensuring all units are fairly priced based on what they can do in the faction they are in.
The other difference between the two is that one plays its own game and balances extensively, and one seem to like the 'throw enough mud at the wall until something sticks' approach.
The results are very different. Corvus Belli has seen very steady growth and expansion of their company, while GW's financial reports have shown a multi-year plateau.
Think this hits the nail on the head.
What I will say though is in some ways the development staff of CB produce that quality of game, where so much focus is put on game balance and mechanics, because they are allowed to. GW is a massive, publically owned company. It has to produce kits that sell well, just to cover its enormous overheads, and this directive is passed on to the rule developers.
You got the impression from some of the AoS missives released from one of the rules writers that they had their arm tied behind their back in terms of what they could and couldn't do, which is why so many games developers who start with GW eventually move on to other companies.
it is a divisive issue, because some people pass judgement on a person stating their perspective as an attack on those who see things differently...
i guess that has more to do with the internet not providing the tone of a post very well...
If we based everything we say around making sure nobody on the internet would pass judgement on it, we'd never post anything. The internet will judge you, and judge you harshly, no matter what.
as for the other bit, sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say about looking to the left...
are you saying i shouldn't sign off on my post???
i've noticed a few people call me on that, but i don't understand why it annoys people...
i just find it to be a polite way to end a post...
on that note...
cheers
jah
In old forums (and still on the 4chan forums) there used to be no marker for who posted what, so everyone would put their name on their post so that a conversation could be identified. Its a bit of a relic now, and sometimes looks odd or forced. On the left of your post is your name and avatar, identifying that it was you who posted. The sign off was made redundant when this sort of feature was introduced to forums.
Speaking as another that signs off on his posts - it is an old habit, and to me seems more polite.
But, then, I have been posting since the days of FIDO and Usenet.
In my case, it also makes it easier to Google for an old post - 'Auld + [Topic]' is generally enough for Google to rummage around with and find.
jah-joshua wrote: @Agnosto: as i pointed out on the last page, a company can expect to sell WAY more minis than books, thus the lifeblood of a miniature wargaming company is going to be miniature sales...
you may only need two books to play, but you need a lot of minis...
would you not agree???
cheers
jah
Oh no, I agree but their book prices are so high that they're producing amazing margin for them. I estimate that they're pulling in about 80-90% margin on the books and about 60-70% on the models. Yes, they want to sell the minis but the books are free money, and I think that they know that.
The thing that kills GW's business model is their dependence on their retail chain. I know I sound like a broken record as I always bring this up in these discussion but it's still true. At least in the US, they're not needed and do little good. If you're not able to cover the entire territory, you focus in dense areas and then create opportunities through differentiated trade terms with outlying communities to support growth, you don't apply a UK model and assume it'll work, because it won't; the US and Canada are just too darn big for a one-size-fits-all approach. Obviously the stores are making some money or they wouldn't be around but they're competing against themselves with the focus on webstore exclusive products and cannibalizing their own sales. It's a silly way to do business to me especially when they fire people for not meeting sales goals. They've created great efficiency in their system but there's more out there that they can do AND create goodwill with retailers.
A bit off-topic, sorry.
I agree though that in the scenario where GW would expect to survive solely on miniatures and no game, they'd die a horrible death and I think they know that at a visceral level. They appear to have a vision for how they want their games to be played as evidenced by numerous comments by designers and management which produces a greater focus on the miniatures rather than the games. AoS is this nirvana of their "hobby" and you can see 40K slowly going this way with more and more focus on detachments, I think it's just a matter of time before pts just go away altogether. Not good or bad, just the way I see things moving and I could be wrong.
I've only ever been in this for the hobbying aspect. Rules have never been a huge attraction for me for several reasons. They change too often, I don't have many friends into the gaming (all hobbyists), and tbh I don't have tons of time to sink into games that actually use a lot of my stuff. I build/paint for a couple of hours and then that's it. A whole afternoon to use great lists/armies has never been viable. Small battles here and there work, though.
At this point, it's beginning to reach my limit cost-wise. I'll pump good money into a hobby if it's worth it, but $170.00 for the new Raven Guard box set? 12 Miniatures?
I need Rules, Minis and fluff to all be good. Lack one of those three and it's a no-go.
The Robotech game for example. I friggin' love Robotech and the minis look awesome. But I've heard nothing but bad things about the rules. So, unfortunately, I'll pass.
GW, used to have good fluff, but has become stale and unimaginative. Their rules are the worst that I've personally seen. The models are excellent. One out of three isn't enough for me.
I quit 40k because of the poor rules. That was the one big reason. The rules sucked.
Oh i will buy a lot of GW models when/if GW would throw away the gaming aspect of the HHHobby.
From disgruntled players who will go elsewhere and want to get rid of their stuff
Collectors are not a sustainable market group, i am a collector, who sometimes plays, i buy what i like, not what i need to have an effective army.
I don't need 3 or 4 land raiders, i only need one of each, a gamer buys as many as he needs for his army design.
Yes i have 3 different space marine armies but 80% of it is second hand, when GW was still a gaming company i would buy every new spacemarine stuff that came out (20 years ago )
I dropped out of 40k when 7th hit because the rules were becoming more and more bloated, slow to play and clearly unbalanced. When 7th didn`t fix any of the things that needed to be fixed, and even made things even worse, I cut my losses and dropped out.
I have probably 30k+ pts of WH40k, bought new armies and grew the old ones continously. Since GW dropped the ball with the rules, I have not bought a thing from them. Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.
All my friends also dropped out around that time, all of them have many huge armies now stuffed away in attics. None of them buy anything anymore.
The tourney scene in Norway is dying. WFB used to be the largest miniature game here by miles, 8th and AOS has killed that scene.
40k tourneys are also declining rapidly in attendance and numbers.
Other rule sets, especially WM/H, has had a huge upswing because of GW`s terrible rules. The gamers are still there, but they are now buying from other manufacturers.
GW has completely thrown away the huge marked lead they had, I can`t believe they can sustain themselves for many years with their current business model.
I have been spending some time recently going back over my collection of White Dwarfs, ranging from around issues 60-200.
What has become incredibly obvious is that GW has long since given up on being a rules company. More specifically the very name Games Workpshop used to be entirely accurate. Almost every issue showed of something new and creative. New systems, new mini games, new settings or new material on existing ones. They produced a smorgasbord of different games, in different scales. Some didn't even need miniatures!
I think GW overshot the ideal point for a gaming company. When they were young they had so many ideas, so many games and terrible models. Now they have (largely) great models but no creative spark or variation. I think the ideal is somewhere in between personally and when they went too far into the miniatures side I lost interest. I might occassionally pick something up but, without a game to use it in, there is far less motivation.
To to OP's question: Nope. I would not buy the models if there wasn't a game. I got into this hobby because a friend introduced me to the Dawn of War PC game, and then the tabletop game. I had not picked up a paintbrush in 15 years before he encouraged me to try out 40k. I paint and model in order to play the game. Do I think some of the models are cool? Yes, in the context of the game. They are also absurdly expensive, and I would never have bought them on their own just to paint and collect them. Luckily (in some ways) I got started in this hobby just as many people are walking away, so I have gotten a lot of models second-hand for way less than retail. Thanks GW!
I have probably 30k+ pts of WH40k, bought new armies and grew the old ones continously. Since GW dropped the ball with the rules, I have not bought a thing from them. Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.
All my friends also dropped out around that time, all of them have many huge armies now stuffed away in attics.
While I don't disagree that the game's the thing, I can't help a twinge of dismay at the view that GW's game is the only thing for 40K minis. Which is in comparison to... what? The half-dozen other games at the top of the ICV2 list, with specific minis married to specific rules, married to an ostensibly distinctive setting?
They're your minis to do with what you like: that includes letting them lie to gather dust and an occasional bitter glance. But there's a bigger gaming ecosystem and approaches out there than some seem to suspect, where 40K minis might fit in with a minimum of jiggling, and IMO it's a lost opportunity to assume it can't be done.
I have probably 30k+ pts of WH40k, bought new armies and grew the old ones continously. Since GW dropped the ball with the rules, I have not bought a thing from them. Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.
All my friends also dropped out around that time, all of them have many huge armies now stuffed away in attics.
While I don't disagree that the game's the thing, I can't help a twinge of dismay at the view that GW's game is the only thing for 40K minis. Which is in comparison to... what? The half-dozen other games at the top of the ICV2 list, with specific minis married to specific rules, married to an ostensibly distinctive setting?
They're your minis to do with what you like: that includes letting them lie to gather dust and an occasional bitter glance. But there's a bigger gaming ecosystem and approaches out there than some seem to suspect, where 40K minis might fit in with a minimum of jiggling, and IMO it's a lost opportunity to assume it can't be done.
GW remains one of the very few companies that I can think of to actively tell retailers to discourage people from using their miniatures for other games. (The used to be the only, and then the Mutant Chronicles collectible mini game came out - in a completely different scale so folks could neither use the miniatures in most other games nor use other minis in the MC game... note that the Mutant Chronicles collectible game crashed and burned.)
And by 'actively' I mean literally telling the retailer to discourage folks from using Warhammer minis for the then new D&D third edition.
The Auld Grump - the retailer concerned laughed at the GW rep.
Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.
I think you guys missed this line and jumped to start complaining about "gamers these days."
The reality is this: Some games have very interesting and pretty well defined settings, that is what draws people to those settings and thus the miniatures for those settings.
It isn't because they can't think of doing anything else, but more like they like the world it's set in.
I mean, why don't you play Fantasy Garbledeblook game? Probably because you don't like the setting, and that's fine. It's the same reason why even if they are available, you're probably not mising Star Wars minis and Star Trek minis in the same game unless you're really, really trying too hard.
Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.
I think you guys missed this line and jumped to start complaining about "gamers these days."
The reality is this: Some games have very interesting and pretty well defined settings, that is what draws people to those settings and thus the miniatures for those settings.
It isn't because they can't think of doing anything else, but more like they like the world it's set in.
I mean, why don't you play Fantasy Garbledeblook game? Probably because you don't like the setting, and that's fine. It's the same reason why even if they are available, you're probably not mixing Star Wars minis and Star Trek minis in the same game unless you're really, really trying too hard.
Or, in the case of Games Workshop they take a decent fantasy setting and turn it into Garbledeblook.
Generic fantasy sells, in part, because it can be used for a wide selection of games.
Meanwhile, GW is trying to get the worst of both worlds.... (let's rename everything! That'll make it sell, right?!)
It is quite possible for them to destroy their market by making the figures not only too specialized for other games, but so over the top stupid looking that the rules would be the only reason to buy the over priced bit of plastic garbage.
The Auld Grump - let's do a giant eagle - with a trailer hitch!
Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.
I think you guys missed this line and jumped to start complaining about "gamers these days."
And you're doing what 'gamers these days' do, which is to think of it in a restricted, branded way and miss the point.
The idea that if you try to squeeze a redundant collection of minis into an alternative ruleset, you then also have to squeeze them into an alternative setting, is exhibit A, the prime example, one of the biggest fallacies in wargaming. The three things are different entities. It might be a difficult concept to swallow and go about with, what with GW's practise of webbing and binding minis and fluff to the rules with a plethora of unit-specific, even model-specific special rules, and their most direct or imitative competitors following suit (I know all about the rule cards of Warmachine and Malifaux - I've still got a bunch round here somewhere); but it's not impossible, and if one of that trio - GW's crappy rules - is causing you to all but abandon the other two - aaall those minis you bought and played with, and all the fluff you've internalised - it's recommended too.
What do you think I'm saying? That those murderclawfangwolf space marines can pop straight into Warmachine as a peculiar Khador army, or Infinity as various Ariadna wolves, or one of the two or three other most well known sewn-up sci-fi or sci-fantasy skirmishes? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can take those two reluctantly shelved elements - the minis and the background swirling about them - and use them with a set of pure or almost-pure rules. Sci-fi skirmish rules designed not to restrict the minis you have, but to allow them.
There are examples I haven't read through yet, like Stargrunt, 5150, Tomorrow's War and others. Heck, if Mantic don't come up with lists to let you plug your 40K armies into Warpath or Firefight, I'd be very surprised. If they can't already slot into Enforcer, Marauder, Asterian etc. lists. (And no, I'm not saying that means you have to slot them into Mantic's sci-fi universe, either. They're still MurderfangWolves vs. Orks and Eldar if you want them to be. It's just the tape measuring and dice rolling that's changed a bit.) But the one that springs to my mind first, as an example, is Victory Decision: Future Combat. Doesn't matter if you pass that up for other rules, or just let your 40K collections still moulder in the attic: just look at the page. Look at the ranges of minis in the example pics. Look at the menus of resources to the left. Look at the design notes that tell you and further down the page show you what you can do with this set of rules ("I wanted a ruleset that would give me the opportunity to play with almost any SF miniature available...") Look at the not-Star Wars conversions from his own collection. The only reason he doesn't use GW minis for these examples is, as he's said, because they won't let 'im. But then look here at a guy who's plugging his own murderdeathwolves into the rules, and getting help and discussion about it. Here's his introductory paragraph to the topic:
My game club is very heavy into 40k, but recent developments in the 40k game have driven many to start looking at other systems. I picked up Victory Decision Future Combat recently, so I thought it would be fun to come up with a scenario showing that you can (gasp) use your existing figures in another rules set and still have fun in a universe that they enjoy.
Does that first line look familiar at all? Heck, does the rest of it look like it's been mentioned recently too? I have no doubt that someone's going to stomp in here with something along the lines of "I mentioned some rules in the middle of clearing my throat once upon a time and nobody lifted their heads from their warcasting/fate cheating/remote hacking so it's pointless whatcha gonna do about it tough guy?" But who was that guy I originally responded to? Illumini? 30K+ pts of 40K, multiple armies! A bunch of friends with multiple big armies! All lying around doing nothing! That's pointless in my eyes. I gave up 40K long before that, but the only reason my minis are still sitting around is because of ViDe:FuCo. What have you got to lose, apart from, what, thirteen bucks? How much more was spent - and lost - on those 30K points? Why not sit down to bash out some stats and equipment, and use tiny portions of those enormous 40K armies to host and display some intro games and scenarios with an inclusive set of rules?
By all means, buy different games that have different minis and different backgrounds, play as many different games as you like, there are loads out there; but are you doing so because you're treating it as some weird, poorly-reasoned path of least resistance once 40K's fallen out of favour? (The path where marketing, hype and unawareness makes you buy all-new armies of expensive minis that you have to build and paint, and different rules you have to learn, rather than go through the unimaginable torment and hardship of looking at different rules alone?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: Or, in the case of Games Workshop they take a decent fantasy setting and turn it into Garbledeblook.
Generic fantasy sells, in part, because it can be used for a wide selection of games.
Meanwhile, GW is trying to get the worst of both worlds.... (let's rename everything! That'll make it sell, right?!)
It is quite possible for them to destroy their market by making the figures not only too specialized for other games, but so over the top stupid looking that the rules would be the only reason to buy the over priced bit of plastic garbage.
I agree about 'generic' fantasy, but heck, you can even drop ridiculously specific AoS minis into setting-free rules, and still fight over the various realms of the bubble universe, or whatever it's called this month. It, or at least the concept, is just that easy. The most you might miss are the overpowered special rules and lack of balance.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Or, in the case of Games Workshop they take a decent fantasy setting and turn it into Garbledeblook.
Generic fantasy sells, in part, because it can be used for a wide selection of games.
Meanwhile, GW is trying to get the worst of both worlds.... (let's rename everything! That'll make it sell, right?!)
It is quite possible for them to destroy their market by making the figures not only too specialized for other games, but so over the top stupid looking that the rules would be the only reason to buy the over priced bit of plastic garbage.
I agree about 'generic' fantasy, but heck, you can even drop ridiculously specific AoS minis into setting-free rules, and still fight over the various realms of the bubble universe, or whatever it's called this month. It, or at least the concept, is just that easy. The most you might miss are the overpowered special rules and lack of balance.
My point is not that I 'can't' it is that I wouldn't want to - they look stupid!
Karl Franz on his Thunder Chicken was what made me decide to get Kings of War.... (I miss the good old days, when the Emperor was an ineffectual man, chosen by the Elector Counts because they could push him around....)
And do not get me started on the demon thing with skulls popping out like a teen's acne after a pizza party.
At the price GW is asking few models are cool enough to warrant buying for fun. Maybe a kit or two. Without a game behind it there is no reason to buy an army from them. Plenty of people make great models for cheaper prices that work fine for display or modeling.
jonolikespie wrote: Oh right, the pile of skulls with some skin wrapped around it and animated by skull magic.
Filled with skulls, powered by skulls, invented by skulls, fire skulls out of its skulls, eats skulls, sleeps skulls, dreams skulls, skulls, skulls, skulls...
Stormonu wrote: Would you still buy GW's models if they weren't involved in making the rules for a game to play them in?
Would I spend 60€ on a 1:48 tank model with no photo-etched parts, no machined barrel, and where you have to actually paint lights, glasses and optics to pretend they're transparent?
HELL NO !
That land raider thing is worth ten bucks. Maybe twelve.
I'm willing to spend 30€ for the latest mecha, though.
Spoiler:
What? 120€? Are you fething kidding me? It's way more expensive than any 75mm mounted mini from Pegaso. Come on, we're talking about two pounds of pewter cast by an italian artisan.
It's even more expensive than Artesania Latina's Mayflower, a 2 ft long model made of wood and brass...
What's the next step ? A plastic Greater Daemon that costs more than the Hermione? Or than 90mm knights?
If GW was truly trying to make premium models they would make single large models with mixed material parts armor modelers have grown used to.
With the "heroic" look of their miniatures, other miniature companies are swiftly overtaking them.
I have not used the words "beautiful" or "gorgeous" in regards to their models for quite some time.
"Awesome" on occasion but mainly in regards to Forgeworld models.
Heck, I am still building IG from the 20-man pack from back in the day so it makes me ask why stay backwards compatible for so long except out of laziness?
Lately, if you want juvenile looking miniatures and get to play with them well: look no farther than "Skylanders" or the various me-too games out.
Then you can collect what you want and play with them (kinda).
I must admit, I grabbed a couple of those to play with my kids, oddly we each have grown rather attached to certain models due to their style of play so the "variants" get grabbed as well.
6th GW was losing me, 7th it was pretty much done.
I have all I need to play pretty much what I want and unless they can make something truly fantastic, GW games are pretty much dead to me and soon as well their models.
And they don't make any lotion for that condition.
The Auld Grump
I think they do, actually. It's called "Green Stuff."
Having recently received my Kingdom Death pledge (finally!), any lingering ideas of GW being a "model company" were completely eradicated. Regardless of how you feel about the aesthetic, the technical detail and artistry are unparalleled. No other plastic kit I've seen even comes close. GW's "best miniatures in the world" line is straight up laughable, even more so than before.
And they don't make any lotion for that condition.
The Auld Grump
I think they do, actually. It's called "Green Stuff."
Having recently received my Kingdom Death pledge (finally!), any lingering ideas of GW being a "model company" were completely eradicated. Regardless of how you feel about the aesthetic, the technical detail and artistry are unparalleled. No other plastic kit I've seen even comes close. GW's "best miniatures in the world" line is straight up laughable, even more so than before.
I actually like the Dreamforge Games kits better than the Kingdom Death kits - but both are better than GW.
Though the only KD figure that I have painted was the booby monster... which made me very glad that it wasn't mine - I would have melted from shame when my good lady saw it. Being able to tell her, with a straight face, that it was a commission made me much, much happier. She is a professional artist, and understands that the customer is always right....
The Auld Grump - that thing looked like something that had drunk too much of the milk of Shub-Niggurath....
If GW was truly trying to make premium models they would make single large models with mixed material parts armor modelers have grown used to.
... ...
GW aren't trying to make premium models. They are trying to make cheap models mass produced by injection moulding in polystyrene they can sell at premium prices because people are hooked on official Warhammer models.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW aren't trying to make premium models. They are trying to make cheap models mass produced by injection moulding in polystyrene they can sell at premium prices because people are hooked on official Warhammer models.
Hence why I laugh when I see those financial reports when they mention their product is premium or compare to a Ferrari.
I am used-to GW models, I find some joy in doing the next similar model a bit better than the last each time.
But when you have a collection, a multitude of these models, they beg to be played.
I would never, EVER, think of getting a bunch of similar models only for display unless it was a diorama.
Get a couple of each and that is PLENTY for display.
It would be like me buying my first Spitfire model kit, then buying a bunch of them so I can have a squadron... just because, that never entered my young little mind back then.
Kingdom Death I think would kill me as a modeler because I would want to do justice to each model in assembly and painting... it would take an eternity.
Never mind being faced with a horde of options to the build... blue-tac would be your friend for a bit.
I think I would be happy... though that wet-nurse monster model thingy would certainly make you look around a bit before you plunk that down on the table.
GW wants us to buy in bulk AND get "fancy" models... a rather confused way to go.
I feel somewhat ... free that GW has removed every reason why anyone should adhere to their "official Warhammer" models other than for gaming in their stores.
And they don't make any lotion for that condition.
The Auld Grump
I think they do, actually. It's called "Green Stuff."
Having recently received my Kingdom Death pledge (finally!), any lingering ideas of GW being a "model company" were completely eradicated. Regardless of how you feel about the aesthetic, the technical detail and artistry are unparalleled. No other plastic kit I've seen even comes close. GW's "best miniatures in the world" line is straight up laughable, even more so than before.
I actually like the Dreamforge Games kits better than the Kingdom Death kits - but both are better than GW.
Though the only KD figure that I have painted was the booby monster... which made me very glad that it wasn't mine - I would have melted from shame when my good lady saw it. Being able to tell her, with a straight face, that it was a commission made me much, much happier. She is a professional artist, and understands that the customer is always right....
The Auld Grump - that thing looked like something that had drunk too much of the milk of Shub-Niggurath....
Dreamforge is neck-and-neck with KD on the plastic front, to be sure. A large part of that is probably due to them both being manufactured by Wargames Factory. WGF is really the premier manufacturer-for-hire in this industry.
Well, to me, GW isn't a game company anymore. They just have people who sometimes write some lines involving throwing dice and using your collection on the board.
However, I would still buy from them if the models are nice and the price fair. Be it for the pleasure of collection or using for another game.
I must say their plastic models are very nice and easy to build and modify. Quite refreshing after dealing with horrible resin models or sturdy metal ones.