Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:22:42


Post by: -Guardsman-


I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:25:38


Post by: AnomanderRake


-Guardsman- wrote:
...Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that?...


Bingo. They're afraid if they write rules for things that aren't specific configurations in kits they sell they're giving up business to third-party bits manufacturers.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:42:48


Post by: kodos


GW still thinks that they are losing money if people buy 3rd party bits to customise GW models to play GW games

So they remove as much as possible so that you don't need to buy from other manufacturers and have more money left to buy from GW


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:49:25


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 kodos wrote:
GW still thinks that they are losing money if people buy 3rd party bits to customise GW models to play GW games

So they remove as much as possible so that you don't need to buy from other manufacturers and have more money left to buy from GW


indeed, its now so petty that basic weapon or head swaps are getting retired (see banshee exarchs, marine biker heroes any DE hq options etc)

but of course the hobby is buying GW models all else is witchcraft


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:52:11


Post by: Cronch


It does also simplify playtesting (don't have to check if X+Y combo doesn't accidentally blow the game up) and theoretically help get newbies into the game by providing out of box experience. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the logic apparently.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:52:59


Post by: Daedalus81


-Guardsman- wrote:
Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits


To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:55:43


Post by: Overread


There's a few sides to this I think

1) No model no rules. Lets face it GW in the past had models appear in several codex that never got a model along with weapon options as well. Not everyone can or wants to convert and not everyone knows or wants 3rd parties - and not every "no model" even gets a 3rd party release (much less one popular enough everyone knows about it).

Furthermore its very offputting to a newer gamer to have really cool weapon and model options that they basically can't play. Or as any game to have things you're "waiting for the official one" to appear when they should be just around the corner. Tyranids had several "hero" class units that never manifested as a model, for example.

2) As a company who makes models, having concepts in your rules that don't make it to a consumer product within a sensible span of time (or ever) is clearly a bad idea. You're dividing your user base into those who convert and those who don't; then dividing it further into 3rd party users and not - with the latter being important because anyone gaming in "your" GW stores can't use the 3rd party as an option.
So you're fragmenting and frustrating your customerbase.

3) GW does have to consider that 3rd parties are a "risk" to their income. Perhaps not as bad as it was thought under Kirby, but they are a risk. It's a double risk if GW is releasing things on paper and not as models because then the 3rd parties get a field day with no competition from GW.

Of course this point is contested by the fact that GW still has things ilke finecast aspect warriors for eldar and many "new" models that get a partial release and then nothing for a year or more (see several double box releases for AoS).



5) Posing and design. GW has clearly shifted from fairly static poses with posable parts (which in all truth were never THAT dynamic to start with); into far more dynamic poses, but reduced variety of parts.

6) GW is still one of the few model lines with lots of custom parts in the box. Whilst we almost demand it if GW, most other model companies are 1 model 1 pose and that's it; with some variety within troops, but still totally fixed monopose builds.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:56:22


Post by: Llamahead


What you've never brought a kit for a conversion?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 18:56:51


Post by: Karol


 kodos wrote:
GW still thinks that they are losing money if people buy 3rd party bits to customise GW models to play GW games

So they remove as much as possible so that you don't need to buy from other manufacturers and have more money left to buy from GW

maybe they would lose more money if they invested money in to creating new molds, desiging new options on sprues and not get the returns they expect could be worse then losing some sells to 3ed party creators.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 19:13:49


Post by: Lance845


If GW was at all competent with rules writing a monopose model is static in it's rules. It has a predetermined profile with predetermined options that can be written around and planned for. As long as GW is insisting on TLOS monopose is better for the game.

But they are not. So the rules have nothing to do with this. It's just IP stuff.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 19:18:51


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Cronch wrote:
It does also simplify playtesting (don't have to check if X+Y combo doesn't accidentally blow the game up) and theoretically help get newbies into the game by providing out of box experience. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the logic apparently.


they've already simplify playtesting by farming it out to folks who seem to know the game and basic maths better than them, then ignoring feedback if it doesn't fit someones pet idea (see Ironstone and unmodified 6's)


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 19:24:06


Post by: Xenomancers


For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 19:30:34


Post by: Daedalus81


 Llamahead wrote:
What you've never brought a kit for a conversion?


Literally never. Blue stuff, printed bits, or macguyvered items.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:08:49


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.


Bingo.

Another thing to mention is that resellers are actually..incredibly good and easy customers to deal with.

They buy in bulk, providing reliable sales. They don't complain about dumb stuff like fluff, or rules balance, or whatever.

Honestly, selling to resellers lets GW act something like an MLM corporation: They're selling with basically no markup to someone who is going to markup the product FURTHER and try to make a profit.

It wouldn't surprise me if anti-consumer decisions like Blood of the Pheonix or Reaper Chaincannons/CSM Terminator CHainaxes were designed to cater specifically to this super easy to please market segment.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:26:52


Post by: ERJAK


 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.


How do they make money OF idiots? I can't imagine it being a worthwhile investment to produce an idiots to currency printing press.

Also, it's not idiocy, it's a value calculation. Do I: A. Buy the kit that has the thing I need, even though I don't really need the whole kit. B. Buy 'official' bits off ebay. C. Buy third party bits. Or D. Waste hours of my day, and of my very limited hobby time, playing sculpter to make something that vaguely resembles the parts I need.

B and C are usually the best value in terms of time and dollars, obviously, but sometimes A works out fine. Buying another retributor kit gives me the multimeltas I need, while also letting me finish up my heavy bolter squad AND giving me another chainsword SisSuperior.

Spending less dollars on something doesn't make it inherently a 'better deal'. If you spend hours building cyclic ion cannons that end up looking like crap(like the majority of 'scratchbuilt' or 'sculpted' components do) you could quite possibly come up with an equation of time spent vs quality of output that makes buying a couple of commander kits the better deal.

The true idiot is the guy that hits that point but still brags about how much he 'saved' because he doesn't understand that time isn't free.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:45:26


Post by: Xenomancers


They make money everytime a kit is sold - they don't care what happens after that kit is sold is what I am saying. They are selling lots of kits. Probably more kits because of their evil ways of monoposing and limited options.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:47:28


Post by: -Guardsman-


 Daedalus81 wrote:
To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.

In the past, I've personally bought kits that I otherwise wouldn't have bought, just for kitbashing purposes. Including a Librarian on foot, a GSC Magus, and Melusai Blood Sisters.

There's your 100% feelings-free proof, Mr. Spock. (Unfortunately I haven't kept the receipts, so you'll have to take my word for it.)


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
indeed, its now so petty that basic weapon or head swaps are getting retired (see banshee exarchs, marine biker heroes any DE hq options etc)

But at that point, why do the kits even need so many bits?

The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:48:10


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:
because of their evil ways of monoposing and limited options.






How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:52:52


Post by: BrianDavion


 Llamahead wrote:
What you've never brought a kit for a conversion?


GW kits are too expensive for me to buy entirely for conversion although I definatly do plenty of "bits box diving" the MK3 space marine kit is REAAALLY useful if you need to clip a chain sword to a character's belt


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 20:53:18


Post by: Overread


-Guardsman- wrote:


The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

.


This has everything to do with casting in plastic as opposed to metal or resins. Basically plastic injection moulding can only achieve certain shapes and outside of those shapes and constructs they are impossible. The option is to either simplify the pose with big ball joints; or to slice the part up into smaller segments. At the same time its also clear that GW is doing a lot to actually hide joining lines. A lot of the more modern models have natural cover points or hide up the joining areas. This can result in some creative cutting of the parts as well.

Personally I really like it and its a clear sign that GW has a team/someone working for them who really knows their stuff well (its likely that working with a computer is also helping as it lets them make much more creative angles than slicing up an actual model). An easy one to compare is the shoulders on Mortek Guard compared to the Eldar Wraiths I've been building. Wraiths have no seam protection so the shoulders have a join line right through the middle; the mortek guard on the other hand have a small recess and a cover-over part so that the join, once made, is totally invisible to the viewer.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:03:33


Post by: Wayniac


On one hand I like the idea of having limited options, because then your conversion doesn't matter. Take AOS for example, if a model comes equipped with an Uber Doomsword, then it doesn't matter if my particular model has an axe, or a spear, or a halberd or whatnot. It's an Uber Doomsword.

However, I find the move to what are basically monopose kits with multiple parts to be disheartening. I have fond memories of laying out pieces of a kit and then spending time deciding just how they would go together such that each model told a story. Brother Flavius has an MkV shoulder pad with a MkVI helmet and a bolter with a marksmanship award for his skill, while Brother Remus, the newer member of the squad, wears typical MkVII armor without any particular adornments, etc.

That has slowly been eroded to where the kits now only go together in one way, with very limited choices in how you can assemble them without major conversion work, resulting in squads that look 100% identical if you buy multiple kits. At least before, while you could end up with identical models, there were often subtle differences between them.

Ever since Chapterhouse GW took the wrong idea and feel it's "stealing" from them if you buy 3rd party bits, even if you bought one of their models for the base, so have slowly begun to make it harder and harder for third party bits sellers to make their bits while at the same time giving less and less options, presumably because their idea of getting bits is buying another kit.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:14:33


Post by: -Guardsman-


 Overread wrote:
The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

This has everything to do with casting in plastic as opposed to metal or resins. Basically plastic injection moulding can only achieve certain shapes and outside of those shapes and constructs they are impossible. The option is to either simplify the pose with big ball joints; or to slice the part up into smaller segments.

I guess the technology to mold both legs together in a single bit (as seen on... oh... virtually every plastic model until fairly recently) is a long-lost STC. Hopefully the Adeptus Mechanicus can recover it.


.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:34:42


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?


Someone already said so, but this.

There was a ruling that said that if they don't make a model for it, they don't get to exercise copyright over it. The whole no-model no-rules thing is a direct fallout from that case, because GW needs to do so or risk losing their copyright.
As an additional observation, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:39:57


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.


Asprin. Cellophane. Dry ice. Kerosene. Linoleum. Trampoline. (These are genericized trademarks rather than lost copyrights, but the principles are similar.)

(What trademarks are generic varies by jurisdiction, some of these may not be generic if you don't live in the US.)


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:40:13


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.


They've sold devastators with less than 4 of each heavy weapon since at least as long as I've been playing. The IG rifle squad from like 2002 only has a grenade launcher and a flamer when the squad can take meltaguns and plasmaguns too.

This isn't new, and isn't new since Chapterhouse, which I want to say was like 2012.

I'd say the Sisters of Battle box with 4ea special weapon is a new thing against the historic trend rather then a new conspiracy to deprive people of enough plasmaguns. Maybe it'll become a trend, hopefully.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:43:36


Post by: Excommunicatus


That's not what the ruling said. That's how GW interpreted and continues to interprets the ruling, 'cause apparently retaining even one competent IP lawyer would be a stretch too far.

Your additional observation is bang-on, though.

It's all terribly sad. I acquired a copy of the 3rd Ed. Witch-Hunters book recently; looking back at the contents really underscores how far GW has fallen.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:45:16


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.


Asprin. Cellophane. Dry ice. Kerosene. Linoleum. Trampoline. (These are genericized trademarks rather than lost copyrights, but the principles are similar.)

(What trademarks are generic varies by jurisdiction, some of these may not be generic if you don't live in the US.)


Yeah that.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
That's not what the ruling said. That's how GW interpreted and continues to interprets the ruling, 'cause apparently retaining even one competent IP lawyer would be a stretch too far.

Your additional observation is bang-on, though.

It's all terribly sad. I acquired a copy of the 3rd Ed. Witch-Hunters book recently; looking back at the contents really underscores how far GW has fallen.


To be fair, it probably pays to be safe with something so important to the company like it's IP rights.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 21:55:01


Post by: Desubot


Wayniac wrote:

However, I find the move to what are basically monopose kits with multiple parts to be disheartening. I have fond memories of laying out pieces of a kit and then spending time deciding just how they would go together such that each model told a story. Brother Flavius has an MkV shoulder pad with a MkVI helmet and a bolter with a marksmanship award for his skill, while Brother Remus, the newer member of the squad, wears typical MkVII armor without any particular adornments, etc.


IMHO i feel even though you have the choices with the older kits to glue them up however you want, 90% of the times they all look the same away as they only ever look right in one orientation anyway. with some exceptions.

no real excuse for lack of full squad options outside of the actual cost of another die with only squad weapons. im sure it wouldn't be that much different if all the body parts are on one sprue and a second spure had all the weapons.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 22:09:58


Post by: Excommunicatus


Even if you want to be super-picky and say that you could only alter the placing/angle of the waist, arms and heads on the old models, that is still three more opportunities than we have on these new monopose travesties and we still have 60 troops with only ten pairs of legs - if you're really lucky - between them.

It is, IMO, a definite loss from the modelling perspective.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 22:15:54


Post by: jeff white


 Daedalus81 wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits


To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.

I bought more kits then than I do now and I would buy more if conversions and especially consistency were a thing... by consistency I mean that i would buy primaris if they were consistent with my existing collection and so on. Then I could mix and match and convert. As it is I will never buy another marine model again.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 23:17:20


Post by: Sim-Life


People who think you can't customise models need to join some Inq28 and Blanchitsu groups on Facebook. They come up with some crazy stuff. Also a bunch of the non-marine troop models (skitarii, tempestus scions, cadians, GSC off the top of my head) parts are all pretty interchangable.

I don't think its that GW discourage it I think its more that people follow instructions too rigidly.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 23:38:35


Post by: Argive


It made sense when if you wanted that extra power sword/weapon on your hero dude, or to have those 2-3 special weapons in your squad you buy two boxes of the unit.

But, why buy another whole box just for 5 parts if you can buy those 5 parts on their own? Its not worth them to make those 5 parts on their own, and they don't want others making a profit they themselves are not choosing to make..

That's probably what GW is thinking. Back when they had the mail order service and you could kit bash to your hearts content people would buy their various bits so it made sense. But now they have seemingly doubled down on the no models no rules approach.The frustrating thing is they are really random with the applicaton of no model no rules approach.. Some untis have options for 5 of the same weapon they only give you 1 of in the box... Also for example prince yriel is the only autarch on foot model, but its a special character so technicaly autarch on foot isint a model they sell yet has rules. But yet its fine to take awaye DE HQ options and SM biker hero options options etc.. Also, consider free relics weapons. Certainly no model no rules does not apply.

Another example is that if I buy a storm guardian upgrade kit I can have up to two fusion in my storm guardian squad but if I buy the kit, I have to have two or end up with only 6 dudes which is not enough to make a squad.

This is certainly all part of a deliberate philosophy.
They could have far more customisation on their units/lords for all of their factions.

If you can make a special cosmetic sprue for all the bazillion SM chapters, making a general upgrade sprue for a faction characters shouldn't be that hard... models like a chaos lord.
Then you could have all of the hob goblin surfboard DE, Sm bikers and Rando necron lords etc..

But that would take initiative and flexibility. Not GW strong suit..


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 23:45:30


Post by: Desubot


There definitely is room for a variety pack or better customizable characters. that is for certain.

normal squads dont really bother me that much.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/03 23:53:17


Post by: The Newman


Even some of GW's newer kits still have a lot of extra bits on them.

Por examplure, despite never buying a FW model an assortment of left-over bits have led to me building Sagitarius Custodes (Assault Bolters from the Inceptor kit) and both Gladius (spare Guardian Sword, Shield from the Keeper of Secrets, spare hand from the Invictor) and Achilles Contemptors (Spear from the KoS kit, power fist and combi-bolters from Cataphracii Terminators).

All the extra bits in those kits led directly to me buying another box of Custodian guard and two Contemptors, none of which I had any need for at all otherwise. The FW models are really nice kits, but the kit-bashes are mine.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 00:28:24


Post by: Desubot


The Newman wrote:
Even some of GW's newer kits still have a lot of extra bits on them.

Por examplure, despite never buying a FW model an assortment of left-over bits have led to me building Sagitarius Custodes (Assault Bolters from the Inceptor kit) and both Gladius (spare Guardian Sword, Shield from the Keeper of Secrets, spare hand from the Invictor) and Achilles Contemptors (Spear from the KoS kit, power fist and combi-bolters from Cataphracii Terminators).

All the extra bits in those kits led directly to me buying another box of Custodian guard and two Contemptors, none of which I had any need for at all otherwise. The FW models are really nice kits, but the kit-bashes are mine.


Yeah there are definitely kits with a lot of extra stuff for kit bashing. i love all the extra stuff in the admec kits. but its not all or nothing for kit bits. for example there is hardly anything in the newer space marine character blisters. it would be arguable for just one off special characters but not so much on a generic chaplain or apothecary.



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 01:26:22


Post by: Kanluwen


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

They've sold devastators with less than 4 of each heavy weapon since at least as long as I've been playing. The IG rifle squad from like 2002 only has a grenade launcher and a flamer when the squad can take meltaguns and plasmaguns too.

And those were sold in a blister of 1 of each for $9 at the time, while the Cadians were a box of 20 for $25ish.

Oh, and Marines got flamers and missile launchers in their box while everything else was a combination plastic+metal kit.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 01:46:07


Post by: Togusa


I think there are two sides to this.

From my perspective as a player, more options means more rules bloat and less balance. It also means more swingy options that will change from edition to edition. Melta is king? Now we're in 8th and it's not anymore, it's all about plasma. In addition I only play, I care nothing for painting or modeling, so having more or less options literally means nothing to me.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 02:07:36


Post by: Argive


 Togusa wrote:
I think there are two sides to this.

From my perspective as a player, more options means more rules bloat and less balance. It also means more swingy options that will change from edition to edition. Melta is king? Now we're in 8th and it's not anymore, it's all about plasma. In addition I only play, I care nothing for painting or modeling, so having more or less options literally means nothing to me.


Surely those options translate to table top options too...?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 02:10:30


Post by: Togusa


 Argive wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
I think there are two sides to this.

From my perspective as a player, more options means more rules bloat and less balance. It also means more swingy options that will change from edition to edition. Melta is king? Now we're in 8th and it's not anymore, it's all about plasma. In addition I only play, I care nothing for painting or modeling, so having more or less options literally means nothing to me.


Surely those options translate to table top options too...?


That's part of my point though, they do translate to more options on the table top. However, I am in the camp that believes the large and highly varied number of options is part of the problem with the balance in the game. So I'd rather see more specialized units with less options in terms of game balance.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 02:21:52


Post by: the_scotsman


 Excommunicatus wrote:
Even if you want to be super-picky and say that you could only alter the placing/angle of the waist, arms and heads on the old models, that is still three more opportunities than we have on these new monopose travesties and we still have 60 troops with only ten pairs of legs - if you're really lucky - between them.

It is, IMO, a definite loss from the modelling perspective.


It depends on what kit you're talking about.

Some kits are monopose. As has always been the case - remember how the majority of the unit options in every codex used to be metal? You know how metal is super monopose?

And some kits are dual-pose, or monopose with the same five poses in every box. Usually elites, the kind that used to come in those two-fer or three-fer clampacks. You know, the metal ones with 2-3 poses.

And some kits, generally the troop kits, are multipose, with swappable arms, heads, etc.

I play drukhari and I play genestealer cults. Drukhari are lauded as the most kitbashable/posable army ever produced and GSC are pretty much brand new. My troop kits from the Drukhari have exactly 1 thing over the GSC kits for poseability and that's the ability to slightly tilt or pivot the waist. That's it.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 02:39:27


Post by: Excommunicatus


Yes, I remember metal monoposes, from twenty FSMdamn years ago.

I'm not really seeing how you think this is a defence of GW. Like, at all.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 02:57:43


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Whilst GW plastics technology has advanced, the models themselves have gone backwards. They're more akin to their 2nd Ed mono-pose metals than they are to what came after them. And that's a shame.

 Sim-Life wrote:
People who think you can't customise models need to join some Inq28 and Blanchitsu groups on Facebook.
That's not really what people are getting at though. There's a marked difference between the customisation possible with, say, the Tac Marine kit than there is compared to the Intercessor kit. Or the old Chaos Marine kit to the new kit/Havoc kit. Assembling half a box of Sisters drove a friend of mine mad last week with how frickin' fiddly they are.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also a bunch of the non-marine troop models (skitarii, tempestus scions, cadians, GSC off the top of my head) parts are all pretty interchangable.
I'll have to give that a shot when I get to those armies.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I don't think its that GW discourage it I think its more that people follow instructions too rigidly.
Their rules are based around limiting restrictions these days. It's baked into everything they do.



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 03:47:43


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Excommunicatus wrote:Even if you want to be super-picky and say that you could only alter the placing/angle of the waist, arms and heads on the old models, that is still three more opportunities than we have on these new monopose travesties and we still have 60 troops with only ten pairs of legs - if you're really lucky - between them.

It is, IMO, a definite loss from the modelling perspective.


Honestly, i don't think it's super picky to say that Guardsman #98 is basically identical to Guardsman #1. There are only so many ways to assemble a guardsman. I think there are 3 different legs per box and like 6 different lasguns. And they all look the same anyway. When building my Grey Knights, there are three halberd poses and 5 leg poses, which is 15 total permutations for most of my army.

There's a minimum amount of variation to look good, but there doesn't need to be a whole lot. In my opinion, the most annoying monopose things are the models that stand out from their squad, like the Sister with a hand grenade in her teeth or the Infiltrator with the handgun, because they look different and you notice the fact that there's like 4 of them. You don't really notice the fact that 2 of the other three infiltrators in the squad are also repeats.

Kanluwen wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

They've sold devastators with less than 4 of each heavy weapon since at least as long as I've been playing. The IG rifle squad from like 2002 only has a grenade launcher and a flamer when the squad can take meltaguns and plasmaguns too.

And those were sold in a blister of 1 of each for $9 at the time, while the Cadians were a box of 20 for $25ish.

Oh, and Marines got flamers and missile launchers in their box while everything else was a combination plastic+metal kit.


Not Devastators. I think the only old weapons team box that had all assets in it was the IG Heavy Weapons box.

Point is, it's not some conspiracy, nor is the box not having all the weapons a new feature.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 04:30:08


Post by: BrianDavion


Wayniac wrote:

However, I find the move to what are basically monopose kits with multiple parts to be disheartening. I have fond memories of laying out pieces of a kit and then spending time deciding just how they would go together such that each model told a story. Brother Flavius has an MkV shoulder pad with a MkVI helmet and a bolter with a marksmanship award for his skill, while Brother Remus, the newer member of the squad, wears typical MkVII armor without any particular adornments, etc.


bad example as you can pretty much do just that with intercessors still.



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 05:18:02


Post by: ccs


 Overread wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:


The Sisters of Battle plastic kit is utterly ridiculous. You get all the tedium of building minis, but with none of the fun and freedom. E.g., sometimes you've got a foot that comes separately from the leg, even though it fits only one leg at one specific angle. Why make them different bits in the first place? It's almost like they're trying to increase the likelihood of bits getting lost, thus forcing the player to buy more models.

.


This has everything to do with casting in plastic as opposed to metal or resins. Basically plastic injection moulding can only achieve certain shapes and outside of those shapes and constructs they are impossible. The option is to either simplify the pose with big ball joints; or to slice the part up into smaller segments. At the same time its also clear that GW is doing a lot to actually hide joining lines. A lot of the more modern models have natural cover points or hide up the joining areas. This can result in some creative cutting of the parts as well.


What a load of crap.
So you'd have me believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to cast the slightly left canted foot & the leg it connects to of some SoB as one piece? Meanwhile, over in the Corax Cultist kit for AoS (wich I just built last week), you get sprues that look like this: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Slaves-To-Darkness-Corvus-Cabal-2019
Note, those cultist bodies/legs are at differing angles, the feet point different directions, and they're cast as one piece.
But a SoB leg continuing on to the foot.... No, that's impossible!



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 10:01:43


Post by: Pandabeer


ERJAK wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
For every one of you people who aren't willing to buy multiple kits of the same unit to get the options you want or the ones that go to third party - there is a sucker somewhere that is willing to do whatever he has to do to get his hands of some genuine cyclic ion blasters. I think that is the main reason they do cheesy stuff like this. They make a lot of money of idiots.


How do they make money OF idiots? I can't imagine it being a worthwhile investment to produce an idiots to currency printing press.

Also, it's not idiocy, it's a value calculation. Do I: A. Buy the kit that has the thing I need, even though I don't really need the whole kit. B. Buy 'official' bits off ebay. C. Buy third party bits. Or D. Waste hours of my day, and of my very limited hobby time, playing sculpter to make something that vaguely resembles the parts I need.

B and C are usually the best value in terms of time and dollars, obviously, but sometimes A works out fine. Buying another retributor kit gives me the multimeltas I need, while also letting me finish up my heavy bolter squad AND giving me another chainsword SisSuperior.

Spending less dollars on something doesn't make it inherently a 'better deal'. If you spend hours building cyclic ion cannons that end up looking like crap(like the majority of 'scratchbuilt' or 'sculpted' components do) you could quite possibly come up with an equation of time spent vs quality of output that makes buying a couple of commander kits the better deal.

The true idiot is the guy that hits that point but still brags about how much he 'saved' because he doesn't understand that time isn't free.


The true value of option D is whether you had fun doing it and whether or not you're happy with the result. For example, I replaced two Havoc lascannon barrels with two Space Wolf Dreadnaught assault cannon barrels. Now they're two renegade Wolves walking around with gatling lasers (using the chaincannon profile) and to be honest I'm happier with that than I would've been with three standard chaincannon Havocs.

Of course you could say "well, you could've done that even if there were 4 chaincannon bits in the Havocs kit" and while that is of course true I probably never would've thought of making the conversion in the first place if I didn't lack chaincannon bits.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 12:52:58


Post by: the_scotsman


 Excommunicatus wrote:
Yes, I remember metal monoposes, from twenty FSMdamn years ago.

I'm not really seeing how you think this is a defence of GW. Like, at all.


What? 20 years ago? The last time we had armies released with old-style monopose models for their elite units and characters was 20 years ago now? But the whole "metal to finecast" debacle was like...8 years ago.

My point here is that people complaining about how monopose units are "these days" are remembering an imagined golden age of customization. The only thing that's really changed is that GW has cracked down on "no model, no rules" but that's not removing customization from MODELS, that's removing customization from RULES. Almost all of the kits people like to complain about for having only 5 or 10 possible configurations with which to build the models in the kit, there would have been 2 or 3 poses back in what they're remembering as "the good old days." It's a heck of a lot easier to build a varied, interesting looking maximum sized unit of my GSC Aberrants than it is to build that with my DE Grotesques, even with the fact that the kit for the Aberrants is effectively dual-posed (I think 2 models in it have 3 poses and 3 have 2, and you can swap the heads freely)


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 13:12:01


Post by: Excommunicatus


You mentioned metal monopose. I didn't toss that particular non sequitur out there.

I can only speak for myself, but no. I don't believe in any golden age. Instead, you're building a strawman in the gaps of what I've said. I am well aware that monopose models have always been a thing, I haven't ever denied that they were. I have never claimed every mini ever released came in interchangeable parts for ease of customization.

That is very far from the only thing that has changed. Troop boxes containing miniatures that can only be put together one very specific way without major work is a very, very new thing (Death Guard, Primaris, Heretic Astartes and Adepta Sororitas only, so far).

We still have a very limited number of leg sculpts available and now we can't change up the waist, head or arms to try and make them look any different unless we take a knife to crazy-expensive minis, which I don't have the talent, inclination or time to do.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 13:51:26


Post by: the_scotsman


 Excommunicatus wrote:
You mentioned metal monopose. I didn't toss that particular non sequitur out there.

I can only speak for myself, but no. I don't believe in any golden age. Instead, you're building a strawman in the gaps of what I've said. I am well aware that monopose models have always been a thing, I haven't ever denied that they were. I have never claimed every mini ever released came in interchangeable parts for ease of customization.

That is very far from the only thing that has changed. Troop boxes containing miniatures that can only be put together one very specific way without major work is a very, very new thing (Death Guard, Primaris, Heretic Astartes and Adepta Sororitas only, so far).

We still have a very limited number of leg sculpts available and now we can't change up the waist, head or arms to try and make them look any different unless we take a knife to crazy-expensive minis, which I don't have the talent, inclination or time to do.


Are we talking about these sisters of battle? https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Adepta-Sororitas-Battle-Sisters-Squad-2020

I'll admit, I have not bought and built this box yet, but unless I'm grossly misunderstanding how it goes together, the weapons look like they're all attached at the wrist, which would make them if not freely swappable at least as easily swapped as pretty much any kit people consider fully customizable like Kabalite Warriors.

The heads...I mean, I don't know how you can claim those are not freely swappable, GW has been doing ball joint heads for pretty much forever.

And the legs/waists are not swappable. Which I did say was the biggest drop in customizability between the fifth ed era kits and (most of) the 7th-8th ed era kits. Some of them still have pivot waists, most do not.

OK, so Chaos Space Marines. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Chaos-Space-Marines-2019

Is there some voodoo at the shoulder joints I'm not seeing that would keep me from swapping the arms? Because that looks like just another kit where you can swap the heads, arms, weapons and shoulderpads freely while the torsos and legs are fixed.

Primaris marines. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Space-Marines-Primaris-Intercessors I mean..it's a boring kit, but it is space marines. Legs and torsos are fixed, arms, heads, shoulderpads, Destructinator Pattern Standard Fanny Packs and the weapon differentiator bits are swapped. Sure, there's less customization than tactical marines...because they have fewer weapon options...but there's not less customization than other kits with each model holding all the same weapon ala Dire avengers/Necrons/Tau.

And plague marines. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Death-Guard-Plague-Marines-2017 This seems like the one where you're closest to having a point, because the torsos and legs being monosculpted would definitely be a lot more noticeable when they have a giant mouth belly on one. Though I can't tell from looking at it if the fat suit bellies are freely swappable or if they go to one particular torso. I can definitely see this kit being more like a dual-pose kit, where only one particular torso can accept the heavy weapon or something like that. But looking at, for example, the new CSM Havocs, it looks like all the torsos are tilted in the same way, so as long as you built the backpack and arm pair for the particular weapon, you could just put that weapon on any torso.

Where are these models that can only be assembled one way? How do I have to cut these to customize them at all? How are these kits any different from this kit except for the ability to rotate the torso? https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Drukhari-Kabalite-Warriors-2017


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 13:57:02


Post by: Karol


Don't people problem come from the dynamic model, when suddenly every fourth model in your army is standing on top of its had. And the fact that the HQs and unit leaders do not come with the weapon options people need for them. And when GW did start to make the weapon packs, they are chapter specific, so if you want to have a thunder hammer or a fist, but your playing IH or RG then tough luck, your going to have to buy salamander and IF parts. But what probably happens more often you will buy recasts or 3ed party that are cheaper.

I mean with all the Lts and Cpts GW made one could think that they could have a thunder hammer on more then one, and maybe not put the only one on a special character that costs more.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 14:06:13


Post by: mrFickle


I don’t think all the options need to come with the kits, what would be nice are bits kits. I always found it annoying that lots didn’t support all of the unit weapon options that the codex described. There are few upgrade kits no king around but I think larger ones with lots of options and and more unique looking bits would be good for those of us that want to make the effort.

I really loved just the citadel skulls box. And that’s just skulls


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 14:06:23


Post by: Excommunicatus


Ooh, heads and wrists. The options overwhelm me.

Even if they went on freely, which the wrists don't because they're that way so they you can also use the same five or six pairs of legs on your Dominions and Retributors as on your Sisters too, how is any of this a defence?

You're just spiralling down through whataboutisms while conceding ground at every turn, implicitly agreeing with my point that from a modelling perspective things have gotten much, much worse.

Heads and wrists, tho.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 14:14:35


Post by: Wayniac


What bugs me more than the overall lack of customization is the options. They've done it for years but I'm sick of getting like barely any of the options available to a kit. Either remove the ability to take that many, then, or give enough in the kit, or better yet sell an optional kit like the upgrade pack which contains the additional special/heavy/etc. weapons.

It's bs that the expectation is that you buy 2 boxes to equip one squad with identical weapons because the base kit only has one weapon and the squad can take two.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 14:42:47


Post by: the_scotsman


 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ooh, heads and wrists. The options overwhelm me.

Even if they went on freely, which the wrists don't because they're that way so they you can also use the same five or six pairs of legs on your Dominions and Retributors as on your Sisters too, how is any of this a defence?

You're just spiralling down through whataboutisms while conceding ground at every turn, implicitly agreeing with my point that from a modelling perspective things have gotten much, much worse.

Heads and wrists, tho.


This is the most internet argument I've had in ages, lol. Accuse me of a list of logical fallacies next. Oh wait, you've already said strawman, I think I've got Bingo now.

Explain to me two things, please:

1) Worse than what? Worse, compared to what point in the past?

The reason I chose Drukhari as a point of comparison is because (at least from who I've listened to) the drukhari are the best, most customizable range GW ever produced, and the best intersection between the model having modern levels of detail, the bits in the kits being highly varied, the models having good poseability, and the bits between different models in the range being interchangeable. Also, I've built that kit like 5 times so I know it in and out.

If you think they're a bad point of comparison, what is the correct point of comparison?

2) Worse how? you claimed that the arms, heads, and torsos always had to be the same on all those troops kits, which just doesn't seem correct looking at the sprues and instructions.

Here's what you can do with the Kabalite Warriors kit:

-The arms are paired, except of course for the melee/pistol arms. You need to pair Arm A with Gun A, or else you need to either live with Arm B sitting strangely on Gun A or you need to cut at the shoulder to make them fit. Any arm can be placed on any torso.

-With the arms attached, they create a flat join at the center, so you can rotate them approximately 45 degrees until the arm hits the shoulderpad, or the gun hits the torso. This means most torsos can be posed either holding the gun up/firing, or holding the gun down.

-There is one arm in a special pose, where the model is holding the gun in one hand and a knife in the other. You must use the knife as the other hand if you want the model to be legal, since he cannot take any of the sergeant's equipment.

-Heads are on a ball joint, so you can have them facing any direction or tilted slightly for aiming or whatever.

-The legs are all the same with extremely minor variation, like a scrap of cloth or the occasional waistcloth. They are all in the same standing pose. in order to get different poses, you must use kits from other parts of the range.

-Torsos are also on a ball joint, giving you another approximately 90 degree arc of freedom before you start having weird looking models who look all twisted around. There are 2 torsos, boobs or no boobs.

So you've got six degrees of customization. Head position, head choice, waist position, arm choice, arm position, and then miscellaneous gak like the grenade packs/trophy skulls and stuff that never look good because they just look like they're glued to the model's butt.

I look at something like Primaris Intercessors, and I see:

Head position, head choice, arm choice, arm position, miscellaneous gak, shoulderpad choice.

That looks like an identically customizable kit. You trade off being able to rotate the waist for having poses that look like things an actual human standing might do instead of everyone doing a horse riding stance, and also having the ability to make a model walking or standing instead of just standing.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 15:08:28


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wayniac wrote:
What bugs me more than the overall lack of customization is the options. They've done it for years but I'm sick of getting like barely any of the options available to a kit. Either remove the ability to take that many, then, or give enough in the kit, or better yet sell an optional kit like the upgrade pack which contains the additional special/heavy/etc. weapons.

It's bs that the expectation is that you buy 2 boxes to equip one squad with identical weapons because the base kit only has one weapon and the squad can take two.

The Skitarii and Chaos Terminators are easily the worst offenders in my eyes.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 15:12:48


Post by: the_scotsman


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
What bugs me more than the overall lack of customization is the options. They've done it for years but I'm sick of getting like barely any of the options available to a kit. Either remove the ability to take that many, then, or give enough in the kit, or better yet sell an optional kit like the upgrade pack which contains the additional special/heavy/etc. weapons.

It's bs that the expectation is that you buy 2 boxes to equip one squad with identical weapons because the base kit only has one weapon and the squad can take two.

The Skitarii and Chaos Terminators are easily the worst offenders in my eyes.


I mean....better than Guardsmen. 4 out of what...16 special, heavy and melee weapon options in the kit?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 15:13:29


Post by: Excommunicatus


the_scotsman wrote:
 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ooh, heads and wrists. The options overwhelm me.

Even if they went on freely, which the wrists don't because they're that way so they you can also use the same five or six pairs of legs on your Dominions and Retributors as on your Sisters too, how is any of this a defence?

You're just spiralling down through whataboutisms while conceding ground at every turn, implicitly agreeing with my point that from a modelling perspective things have gotten much, much worse.

Heads and wrists, tho.


This is the most internet argument I've had in ages, lol. Accuse me of a list of logical fallacies next. Oh wait, you've already said strawman, I think I've got Bingo now.

Explain to me two things, please:

1) Worse than what? Worse, compared to what point in the past?

The reason I chose Drukhari as a point of comparison is because (at least from who I've listened to) the drukhari are the best, most customizable range GW ever produced, and the best intersection between the model having modern levels of detail, the bits in the kits being highly varied, the models having good poseability, and the bits between different models in the range being interchangeable. Also, I've built that kit like 5 times so I know it in and out.

If you think they're a bad point of comparison, what is the correct point of comparison?

2) Worse how? you claimed that the arms, heads, and torsos always had to be the same on all those troops kits, which just doesn't seem correct looking at the sprues and instructions.

Here's what you can do with the Kabalite Warriors kit:

-The arms are paired, except of course for the melee/pistol arms. You need to pair Arm A with Gun A, or else you need to either live with Arm B sitting strangely on Gun A or you need to cut at the shoulder to make them fit. Any arm can be placed on any torso.

-With the arms attached, they create a flat join at the center, so you can rotate them approximately 45 degrees until the arm hits the shoulderpad, or the gun hits the torso. This means most torsos can be posed either holding the gun up/firing, or holding the gun down.

-There is one arm in a special pose, where the model is holding the gun in one hand and a knife in the other. You must use the knife as the other hand if you want the model to be legal, since he cannot take any of the sergeant's equipment.

-Heads are on a ball joint, so you can have them facing any direction or tilted slightly for aiming or whatever.

-The legs are all the same with extremely minor variation, like a scrap of cloth or the occasional waistcloth. They are all in the same standing pose. in order to get different poses, you must use kits from other parts of the range.

-Torsos are also on a ball joint, giving you another approximately 90 degree arc of freedom before you start having weird looking models who look all twisted around. There are 2 torsos, boobs or no boobs.

So you've got six degrees of customization. Head position, head choice, waist position, arm choice, arm position, and then miscellaneous gak like the grenade packs/trophy skulls and stuff that never look good because they just look like they're glued to the model's butt.

I look at something like Primaris Intercessors, and I see:

Head position, head choice, arm choice, arm position, miscellaneous gak, shoulderpad choice.

That looks like an identically customizable kit. You trade off being able to rotate the waist for having poses that look like things an actual human standing might do instead of everyone doing a horse riding stance, and also having the ability to make a model walking or standing instead of just standing.


You also trade off being able to trade in a different torso on the Heretic Astartes. And you get a choice of Bolter, or Pistol and Chainsword, which both also only go on one way unless you take the knife to it.

Yes, the Kabalite Warrior kit exactly. Separate legs, heads, arms and a torso that doesn't mandate the specific position you put the arms in. The new kits are much worse compared to those kits. You know, how all of the Troop boxes used to be.

How long is it going to take you to realize that you don't have a point?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 15:32:42


Post by: vipoid


 Sim-Life wrote:
People who think you can't customise models need to join some Inq28 and Blanchitsu groups on Facebook. They come up with some crazy stuff. Also a bunch of the non-marine troop models (skitarii, tempestus scions, cadians, GSC off the top of my head) parts are all pretty interchangable.

I don't think its that GW discourage it I think its more that people follow instructions too rigidly.


I think the issue is less that you can't customise GW models but rather that, if you do so, there's often no way to actually represent them mechanically. Because any options or wargear that would once have represented them has long since been axed due to their godawful 'no mode, no rules' policy.

As an example, I converted these models not too long ago:

Spoiler:







The first one was intended as an unusual Corsair Prince... the rules for which were deleted in their entirety.

The other two are models I'd like to use in my DE army... except that there isn't a single HQ able to take wings (or a Jetbike or a Skyboard or literally any other movement ability).


Now, it's entirely possible that I'm not the norm, but when I convert a model I don't just want it to sit on a shelf. I want to be able to actually use it on the field in a way that makes the conversion aspect more than pointless tassels. For example, I have no objection to saying that the scythe on the second model above is a unusually-shaped Djin Blade or that wings actually represent a Jetpack or Skyboard. The issue is when there is no longer anything to represent them because those options have been removed from the codex.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 15:58:21


Post by: the_scotsman


 Excommunicatus wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ooh, heads and wrists. The options overwhelm me.

Even if they went on freely, which the wrists don't because they're that way so they you can also use the same five or six pairs of legs on your Dominions and Retributors as on your Sisters too, how is any of this a defence?

You're just spiralling down through whataboutisms while conceding ground at every turn, implicitly agreeing with my point that from a modelling perspective things have gotten much, much worse.

Heads and wrists, tho.


This is the most internet argument I've had in ages, lol. Accuse me of a list of logical fallacies next. Oh wait, you've already said strawman, I think I've got Bingo now.

Explain to me two things, please:

1) Worse than what? Worse, compared to what point in the past?

The reason I chose Drukhari as a point of comparison is because (at least from who I've listened to) the drukhari are the best, most customizable range GW ever produced, and the best intersection between the model having modern levels of detail, the bits in the kits being highly varied, the models having good poseability, and the bits between different models in the range being interchangeable. Also, I've built that kit like 5 times so I know it in and out.

If you think they're a bad point of comparison, what is the correct point of comparison?

2) Worse how? you claimed that the arms, heads, and torsos always had to be the same on all those troops kits, which just doesn't seem correct looking at the sprues and instructions.

Here's what you can do with the Kabalite Warriors kit:

-The arms are paired, except of course for the melee/pistol arms. You need to pair Arm A with Gun A, or else you need to either live with Arm B sitting strangely on Gun A or you need to cut at the shoulder to make them fit. Any arm can be placed on any torso.

-With the arms attached, they create a flat join at the center, so you can rotate them approximately 45 degrees until the arm hits the shoulderpad, or the gun hits the torso. This means most torsos can be posed either holding the gun up/firing, or holding the gun down.

-There is one arm in a special pose, where the model is holding the gun in one hand and a knife in the other. You must use the knife as the other hand if you want the model to be legal, since he cannot take any of the sergeant's equipment.

-Heads are on a ball joint, so you can have them facing any direction or tilted slightly for aiming or whatever.

-The legs are all the same with extremely minor variation, like a scrap of cloth or the occasional waistcloth. They are all in the same standing pose. in order to get different poses, you must use kits from other parts of the range.

-Torsos are also on a ball joint, giving you another approximately 90 degree arc of freedom before you start having weird looking models who look all twisted around. There are 2 torsos, boobs or no boobs.

So you've got six degrees of customization. Head position, head choice, waist position, arm choice, arm position, and then miscellaneous gak like the grenade packs/trophy skulls and stuff that never look good because they just look like they're glued to the model's butt.

I look at something like Primaris Intercessors, and I see:

Head position, head choice, arm choice, arm position, miscellaneous gak, shoulderpad choice.

That looks like an identically customizable kit. You trade off being able to rotate the waist for having poses that look like things an actual human standing might do instead of everyone doing a horse riding stance, and also having the ability to make a model walking or standing instead of just standing.


You also trade off being able to trade in a different torso on the Heretic Astartes. And you get a choice of Bolter, or Pistol and Chainsword, which both also only go on one way unless you take the knife to it.

Yes, the Kabalite Warrior kit exactly. Separate legs, heads, arms and a torso that doesn't mandate the specific position you put the arms in. The new kits are much worse compared to those kits. You know, how all of the Troop boxes used to be.

How long is it going to take you to realize that you don't have a point?


I don't know, long enough for you to provide any actual evidence showing the difference between the kits we're talking about? https://imgur.com/a/zeMR6aG This is what I'm looking at for CSMs.

Being able to swap the torso only matters if the actual torsos are sculpted differently. There are effectively only two torsos available in the kabalite warrior kit, boob torso and no boob torso. The number of spikes on the shoulderpads varies, but we're comparing to the CSM kit which has swappable shoulderpads. The CSM kit forces you to assemble the legs and torso together, but you end up with models walking, running, standing, leaning in different directions, versus the Kabalite kit where every single model will end up standing.

You can call that worse customizability. I would call that more customizability. If I have a particular pose I want one of my chaos space marines in, I have much, MUCH, MUCH less work to do or extra kits to buy than if I have a pose I want for one of my Kabalites. For the kabalites if I want legs in anything but a "standing" flavor, I gotta buy a Raider, or a wych kit to get those legs, and then I have to do extra work to cut and customize the wych running legs so they look like kabalite legs.

And I'm still not understanding why the arms in the two kits are distinct. Kabalite warrior arms and guns are paired, unless you want to cut them. And they create a flat join in the center where you get to decide if the gun points up or down in a fixed direction.

Chaos Space Marine arms appear to be identical. It looks like I can take parts 74, 73, and 75, assemble the plasma gun with arms, and then put it on any torso, then choose whether its tilted up in an aiming position or down in a resting position. It shows it being assembled with the 63/64 torso, but it definitely does not appear to be mandatory. Are the torsos different widths or something? What am I not seeing?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 16:14:36


Post by: ccs


 vipoid wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
People who think you can't customise models need to join some Inq28 and Blanchitsu groups on Facebook. They come up with some crazy stuff. Also a bunch of the non-marine troop models (skitarii, tempestus scions, cadians, GSC off the top of my head) parts are all pretty interchangable.

I don't think its that GW discourage it I think its more that people follow instructions too rigidly.


I think the issue is less that you can't customise GW models but rather that, if you do so, there's often no way to actually represent them mechanically. Because any options or wargear that would once have represented them has long since been axed due to their godawful 'no mode, no rules' policy.

As an example, I converted these models not too long ago:

Spoiler:







The first one was intended as an unusual Corsair Prince... the rules for which were deleted in their entirety.

The other two are models I'd like to use in my DE army... except that there isn't a single HQ able to take wings (or a Jetbike or a Skyboard or literally any other movement ability).


Now, it's entirely possible that I'm not the norm, but when I convert a model I don't just want it to sit on a shelf. I want to be able to actually use it on the field in a way that makes the conversion aspect more than pointless tassels. For example, I have no objection to saying that the scythe on the second model above is a unusually-shaped Djin Blade or that wings actually represent a Jetpack or Skyboard. The issue is when there is no longer anything to represent them because those options have been removed from the codex.


Those look like perfect Scourge leaders to me.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 16:40:53


Post by: vipoid


ccs wrote:
Those look like perfect Scourge leaders to me.


I fear making elaborate character models but only being able to use them to represent Sergeant First-To-Die simply doesn't appeal to me.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 17:08:44


Post by: the_scotsman


 vipoid wrote:
ccs wrote:
Those look like perfect Scourge leaders to me.


I fear making elaborate character models but only being able to use them to represent Sergeant First-To-Die simply doesn't appeal to me.


But again, nothing has changed here with the models. Your custom Archon with wings not being able to be represented in the rules has nothing to do with the metal archon with huskblade getting replaced with a plastic archon with huskblade, it has to do with the rules for archons with wings (did they ever have wings? I forget) getting removed as an option from the codex.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 17:09:50


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


And you're excusing that why?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 17:17:23


Post by: the_scotsman


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you're excusing that why?


I'm not? at all? IMO it's the actual problem here. My disagreement with people in this thread has been that I don't agree that kits have gotten significantly less customizable since the "good old days" of fifth ed era kits.

People see all these monopose or dual-pose kits and complain that they're not customizable, when we are moving from a place where half the units in a given army were monopose metal/finecast options.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 17:40:29


Post by: Togusa


the_scotsman wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you're excusing that why?


I'm not? at all? IMO it's the actual problem here. My disagreement with people in this thread has been that I don't agree that kits have gotten significantly less customizable since the "good old days" of fifth ed era kits.

People see all these monopose or dual-pose kits and complain that they're not customizable, when we are moving from a place where half the units in a given army were monopose metal/finecast options.


At least on the SM side, I've not see much to stop the customization either. A lot of our local guys dig right in with a scalpel and produce some fantabular looking stuff.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 17:54:43


Post by: vipoid


the_scotsman wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
ccs wrote:
Those look like perfect Scourge leaders to me.


I fear making elaborate character models but only being able to use them to represent Sergeant First-To-Die simply doesn't appeal to me.


But again, nothing has changed here with the models. Your custom Archon with wings not being able to be represented in the rules has nothing to do with the metal archon with huskblade getting replaced with a plastic archon with huskblade, it has to do with the rules for archons with wings (did they ever have wings? I forget) getting removed as an option from the codex.


Well, yeah, that was my entire point.

I literally said that removing options removes the ability of players to represent their conversions on the tabletop.

(And since you ask, no, Archons didn't used to have an option for wings but they did have options for both Skyboards and Jetbikes - either of which would suit me just fine.)


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/04 22:13:43


Post by: H.B.M.C.


the_scotsman wrote:
My disagreement with people in this thread has been that I don't agree that kits have gotten significantly less customizable since the "good old days" of fifth ed era kits.
You are objectively wrong.

Ever put the new Havoc kit together?


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/05 00:52:08


Post by: 123ply


Cronch wrote:
It does also simplify playtesting (don't have to check if X+Y combo doesn't accidentally blow the game up) and theoretically help get newbies into the game by providing out of box experience. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the logic apparently.


And its dumb because the idea if being able to buy another kit and equip a model with those weapons was something I found awesome as a kid, when I first got into 40k. Its still something awesome now but you never see it anymore. Kitbashing is becoming something that is purely aesthetic, and even then, the primaris range look like theyre not ment to be kitbashed at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Excommunicatus wrote:
Even if you want to be super-picky and say that you could only alter the placing/angle of the waist, arms and heads on the old models, that is still three more opportunities than we have on these new monopose travesties and we still have 60 troops with only ten pairs of legs - if you're really lucky - between them.

It is, IMO, a definite loss from the modelling perspective.


It depends on what kit you're talking about.

Some kits are monopose. As has always been the case - remember how the majority of the unit options in every codex used to be metal? You know how metal is super monopose?

And some kits are dual-pose, or monopose with the same five poses in every box. Usually elites, the kind that used to come in those two-fer or three-fer clampacks. You know, the metal ones with 2-3 poses.

And some kits, generally the troop kits, are multipose, with swappable arms, heads, etc.

I play drukhari and I play genestealer cults. Drukhari are lauded as the most kitbashable/posable army ever produced and GSC are pretty much brand new. My troop kits from the Drukhari have exactly 1 thing over the GSC kits for poseability and that's the ability to slightly tilt or pivot the waist. That's it.


I dont know about that...
I collect mostly every army and Dark Eldar are the only ones that I had to sell off. Thats because I found them super boring to build. Meanwhile, my main army is Cadian followed by Dark Angels (then Custodes) but my favourite factions to build are CSM and Orks. Putting together Nobz or the old Chaos Marines was really an awesome thing. I cant say weather the updated Chaos kits are the same as I dont have any, but the old CSM kit was perfect. It had bits to customize the champion and icon bearer to represent any of the 4 gods or undivided.

So yeah, I think Orks are actually known as the most kit-bashable army, with CSM probably in second


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/05 03:49:38


Post by: the_scotsman


...but you know if I actually compared old csm or ork boyz to a newer kit people would cry foul, because im comparing a 3rd ed kit to a cad designed kit.

5th ed seems to be what people most often recall as the golden age, which makes sense given the average person on here is like 30-40 and that hits the nostalgia window.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
My disagreement with people in this thread has been that I don't agree that kits have gotten significantly less customizable since the "good old days" of fifth ed era kits.
You are objectively wrong.

Ever put the new Havoc kit together?


No, but I have the assembly instructions here. Somewhat of a disappointment since the new Devastator kit was nice and included 2 of every heavy weapon, but that's the exception rather than the norm for one of these "tons of weapon options" special infantry kits. They almost always have 1 of every weapon in them.

And the marine heavy weapons have always had paired arms+dedicated backpack, since they've got the wires and whatnot leading to the backpack. The champ being restricted to bringing a flamer or whatever is fething asinine, but that's a no model no rules issue.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/05 06:34:54


Post by: Agamemnon2


There are few things in this hobby that are as galling as having a major conversion or entire variant army invalidated. The first conversion I ever did was making my own biker Chaplain for my Eternity Wardens, and that model still exists in my collection in its original paint scheme circa 1998. When rules for it were removed from the game entirely, a part of me died, as a gamer at least.

The encouraging of an "all matched play with tournament restrictions, all the time" playstyle has also meant there's less space than ever for house rules or even using GW's own ironically-named "Legends" addendums.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/05 06:45:47


Post by: John Prins


123ply wrote:
Cronch wrote:
It does also simplify playtesting (don't have to check if X+Y combo doesn't accidentally blow the game up) and theoretically help get newbies into the game by providing out of box experience. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the logic apparently.


And its dumb because the idea if being able to buy another kit and equip a model with those weapons was something I found awesome as a kid, when I first got into 40k. Its still something awesome now but you never see it anymore. Kitbashing is becoming something that is purely aesthetic, and even then, the primaris range look like theyre not ment to be kitbashed at all.


They kitbash just fine.



Primaris Apothecary kitbashed from Reiver grapple gun, Gravis Captain ammo feed and Skitarri bits.



Primaris Chaplain kitbashed from Reiver helmet, Gravis Captain Iron Halo and Betrayal at Calth Crosius and bolter.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 00:40:16


Post by: Lanceradvanced


 Daedalus81 wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits


To answer your question you must prove this statement. Then you'll find your answer. Otherwise this is just an assertion based on feelings.


https://www.facebook.com/ian.williams.9022/posts/2936630219681586

When you get done looking at that post, you can look at the rest of my gallery...


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 01:35:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits
To answer your question you must prove this statement.
Ok.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 15:37:47


Post by: Vulcan


I think the reason GW is focusing on monopose figures and no conversion is because, despite recent reforms, GW is STILL focused on selling to pre-teens who will dump a c-note or two, piddle around with it for a couple weeks, and then move on. Maximum profit with minimum ongoing support.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 16:13:28


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


I believe that this has less to do with dissuading conversions and kitbashes, and more to do with providing better details, better posing, and all round more realistic looking and better scaled models. kitbashing helps the hobby, and if GW thought otherwise and sought to stamp it out, they would be fools of the highest order. If you doubt this, visit any bits selling website and witness how many parts are sold out. I buy tons from bits sellers and its a nightmare to get hold of the items you want.

as a modeller I prefer the newer models.. their details are better, the larger scale is better. Sure, it takes a little more skill to cut them up and shape them into conversions, but so what? get better at kitbashing. the extra details also make them harder to paint, but I dont see anyone complaining about that.

I'd rather have a realistic hand holding something at an angle with fingers placed individually, than a bunch of generic arms with U shaped bolter holding hands that are no use to man nor beast in conversions, to provide an example.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 17:11:14


Post by: the_scotsman


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I believe that this has less to do with dissuading conversions and kitbashes, and more to do with providing better details, better posing, and all round more realistic looking and better scaled models. kitbashing helps the hobby, and if GW thought otherwise and sought to stamp it out, they would be fools of the highest order. If you doubt this, visit any bits selling website and witness how many parts are sold out. I buy tons from bits sellers and its a nightmare to get hold of the items you want.

as a modeller I prefer the newer models.. their details are better, the larger scale is better. Sure, it takes a little more skill to cut them up and shape them into conversions, but so what? get better at kitbashing. the extra details also make them harder to paint, but I dont see anyone complaining about that.

I'd rather have a realistic hand holding something at an angle with fingers placed individually, than a bunch of generic arms with U shaped bolter holding hands that are no use to man nor beast in conversions, to provide an example.


You don't like all your miniatures posed taking a standing dump?

And come on, those ball joint U-hands were INFINITELY USEFUL! You could have the model holding a grenade by his fingertips! A model holding a knife or pistol reverse cripps killshot gangster style! A model holding a gun as intended! The possibilities were LITERALLY those three things! I mean endless!


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 17:13:29


Post by: Vulcan


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
kitbashing helps the hobby, and if GW thought otherwise and sought to stamp it out, they would be fools of the highest order. If you doubt this, visit any bits selling website and witness how many parts are sold out. I buy tons from bits sellers and its a nightmare to get hold of the items you want.


Ever wonder WHY those parts are sold out, and have been for months? It's because GW has enacted a draconian policy aimed at stopping bitz dealers from selling bitz. They want you to come to THEM and buy the whole kit for that one bit.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 18:09:31


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


 Vulcan wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
kitbashing helps the hobby, and if GW thought otherwise and sought to stamp it out, they would be fools of the highest order. If you doubt this, visit any bits selling website and witness how many parts are sold out. I buy tons from bits sellers and its a nightmare to get hold of the items you want.


Ever wonder WHY those parts are sold out, and have been for months? It's because GW has enacted a draconian policy aimed at stopping bitz dealers from selling bitz. They want you to come to THEM and buy the whole kit for that one bit.



Can you elaborate? As far as I'm aware the only issue is the resellers selling out of the parts very quickly, and how fast they can restock..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:


You don't like all your miniatures posed taking a standing dump?

And come on, those ball joint U-hands were INFINITELY USEFUL! You could have the model holding a grenade by his fingertips! A model holding a knife or pistol reverse cripps killshot gangster style! A model holding a gun as intended! The possibilities were LITERALLY those three things! I mean endless!


Excatly! The old space marine set sucked for kitbashing.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 18:22:59


Post by: Azreal13


IIRC about 5 years ago GW altered their sales contract to prohibit the sale of their kits by third parties if they were splitting them for bits.

Consequently any bits seller was left either buying kits at retail or seriously risking any of their business that involved selling GW product. So a lot of small players and side businesses just stopped doing it, and those that continued had a massive jump in overhead. Demand hasn't really gone anywhere but up, while the quantity of the choice bits (which are often only a small number per box Vs a huge number of irrelevant tat that'll barely ever sell anyway) has, if anything, reduced.

So we find ourselves where the desirable stuff is hardly ever available, because in order to stock it the seller has to buy a box and face adding another million bolters (or whatever) that won't shift, but won't be able to recoup the cost of the box on the few choice bits that'll sell out as soon as they're made available.

There's obviously some people making it work, but it isn't the same market as it used to be.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 19:06:41


Post by: the_scotsman


 Azreal13 wrote:
IIRC about 5 years ago GW altered their sales contract to prohibit the sale of their kits by third parties if they were splitting them for bits.

Consequently any bits seller was left either buying kits at retail or seriously risking any of their business that involved selling GW product. So a lot of small players and side businesses just stopped doing it, and those that continued had a massive jump in overhead. Demand hasn't really gone anywhere but up, while the quantity of the choice bits (which are often only a small number per box Vs a huge number of irrelevant tat that'll barely ever sell anyway) has, if anything, reduced.

So we find ourselves where the desirable stuff is hardly ever available, because in order to stock it the seller has to buy a box and face adding another million bolters (or whatever) that won't shift, but won't be able to recoup the cost of the box on the few choice bits that'll sell out as soon as they're made available.

There's obviously some people making it work, but it isn't the same market as it used to be.


yeah, they want to sell to bitz sellers like MLMs selling to their "sellers". Basically, at retail, make whatever profit you can eke out.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 20:32:22


Post by: TwilightSparkles


Simple.

Most gamers don't customise much, if at all. Those who do are a minority. The current kits largely remove the need to think about posing and are easier for the average gamer to assemble.

If every GW mini were like the space marine hero range , push fit and pushable off the sprue, they'd clean up. I can't help think the ultimate objective is to have a Gundam style setup where its all largely base colour plastic and snap/push fit whilst allowing hobbyists room to go a lot further if they want.

It's like the argument about why so many marine kits. They sell, and whether vocal parts of Internet forums like it or not, the product range shows that.

3rd parties were leaching off GW's work and that was always inevitably going to end badly.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 20:38:39


Post by: ScarletRose


Short answer: because we live in age where people have become so shortsighted that it's not enough to succeed, but to have others fail

Long answer: because the Chapterhouse thing scared GW and now they feel a need to push their perspective that they're the Apple of gaming. They want the same legions of drooling fans who'll pay premium prices for a name when other products exist for less, they want that ironfisted control over who uses their products and how.

And it looks like they have some success:
3rd parties were leaching off GW's work and that was always inevitably going to end badly.




How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 20:45:30


Post by: Azreal13




3rd parties were leaching off GW's work and that was always inevitably going to end badly.


No.

Any third party selling modification parts necessarily required a whole GW kit to be purchased alongside them to function at all.

Any third party selling "not" sculpts or kits in entirety isn't affected in the least by the construction of the original.

There's nothing going to end inevitably badly about the former, third party modification parts and models have been a feature of modelling since before GW's inception, in fact GW was founded in part on providing stuff for someone else's games. It should only end badly in the case of the latter if they're so blatantly ripping off the concept that it stands up in court.

The reason the whole situation went bad was thanks to GW trying to leverage their greater financial and legal clout in a hopelessly naive and aggressive manner, when what would have been better is leveraging their superior technical and creative ability to simply out compete the little guys. But they decided to act like the corporate equivalents of a petulant toddler and here we are.



Long answer: because the Chapterhouse thing scared GW and now they feel a need to push their perspective that they're the Apple of gaming. They want the same legions of drooling fans who'll pay premium prices for a name when other products exist for less, they want that ironfisted control over who uses their products and how.


In fairness, Kirby was already alluding to Apple in his preambles before CHS. That attitude wasn't a consequence of the CHS thing so much as vice versa.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 21:06:18


Post by: Albino Squirrel


-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?


In what way to they discourage customization? They do the exact opposite. There are articles in every white dwarf and all over the community site about customization.

Why they are making more single pose models is a different question. Probably because they can make better looking models that way.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 21:19:10


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


 Azreal13 wrote:
IIRC about 5 years ago GW altered their sales contract to prohibit the sale of their kits by third parties if they were splitting them for bits.

Consequently any bits seller was left either buying kits at retail or seriously risking any of their business that involved selling GW product. So a lot of small players and side businesses just stopped doing it, and those that continued had a massive jump in overhead. Demand hasn't really gone anywhere but up, while the quantity of the choice bits (which are often only a small number per box Vs a huge number of irrelevant tat that'll barely ever sell anyway) has, if anything, reduced.

So we find ourselves where the desirable stuff is hardly ever available, because in order to stock it the seller has to buy a box and face adding another million bolters (or whatever) that won't shift, but won't be able to recoup the cost of the box on the few choice bits that'll sell out as soon as they're made available.

There's obviously some people making it work, but it isn't the same market as it used to be.


True. But they must do OK because they always have tons of stuff sold. The one I use sends me emails every 2-3 weeks saying they've restocked this or that, or about getting the newest stuff in. Converters (like myself) are generally happy to pay good money for decent parts. I guess they have a way of dealing with the extra generic bits.. The site I use offers bulk random bags which I assume take most of the chaff.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 22:54:21


Post by: Jimbobbyish


Did anybody mention the Talonmaster yet? It's a unit that exists not because it has a model, but because there is a Ravenwing Accessory Pack you can add onto a regular landspeeder! I think GW should make more unique units that are based off existing models and sell upgrade packs to create them. I am aware of some existing upgrade packs like for the land raider crusader, but that land raider also comes in a box set.

Let me make an example just for clarification. imagine that GW comes out with a data sheet for a new space wolf ancient on a thunderwolf. They could simple come out with a upgrade spur with the flag and some extra bits. I think this would be faster to get to customers then going through the whole process of making a new model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think more unique upgrade spurs would help both satisfy modeling enthusiasts and GW can sell more stuff


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/06 23:47:37


Post by: Desubot


Jimbobbyish wrote:
Did anybody mention the Talonmaster yet? It's a unit that exists not because it has a model, but because there is a Ravenwing Accessory Pack you can add onto a regular landspeeder! I think GW should make more unique units that are based off existing models and sell upgrade packs to create them. I am aware of some existing upgrade packs like for the land raider crusader, but that land raider also comes in a box set.

Let me make an example just for clarification. imagine that GW comes out with a data sheet for a new space wolf ancient on a thunderwolf. They could simple come out with a upgrade spur with the flag and some extra bits. I think this would be faster to get to customers then going through the whole process of making a new model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think more unique upgrade spurs would help both satisfy modeling enthusiasts and GW can sell more stuff


While we are at that, i REALLY wish GW would move away from power swords only thing. im getting tired of power swords only


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/07 13:50:39


Post by: Grimtuff


Jimbobbyish wrote:
Did anybody mention the Talonmaster yet? It's a unit that exists not because it has a model, but because there is a Ravenwing Accessory Pack you can add onto a regular landspeeder! I think GW should make more unique units that are based off existing models and sell upgrade packs to create them. I am aware of some existing upgrade packs like for the land raider crusader, but that land raider also comes in a box set.


The Talonmaster exists simply because the MOTRW once upon a time could take a Land Speeder equipped with twin assault cannons and heavy bolters. AFAIK that option no longer exists so the TM was made to fill the void as the “model” was technically still available.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/07 15:51:47


Post by: Vulcan


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

True. But they must do OK because they always have tons of stuff sold. The one I use sends me emails every 2-3 weeks saying they've restocked this or that, or about getting the newest stuff in. Converters (like myself) are generally happy to pay good money for decent parts. I guess they have a way of dealing with the extra generic bits.. The site I use offers bulk random bags which I assume take most of the chaff.


If you don't mind, who do you use? My old suppliers have dried up due to the GW policies. They only deal in 3rd party bitz now, and some of the stuff I want they won't carry anymore.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/07 16:27:59


Post by: Talizvar


It is pretty clear with GW they would like you to come to them for all things of "the hobby", they have always been a great supporter or ANYTHING that fills a niche UNTIL they begin selling it.

I think of one good reason to discourage customization: What you make is a marketing tool for GW, it needs to match what they sell out of the box.
I could see how a conversation would go: "Cool model! where can I buy it?", " You can't, I made it!" or "I bought it as an add-on from XYZ company."

It makes perfect sense of "Why support something someone else is making when GW is selling it?!?"

They have, brushes, paint, clippers, a scraper, holders, painting stations, model carry cases, dice, tape measures... it is rather impressive when you look at it.

They were a great source for terrain building ideas, until they started selling prefab terrain.


I am waiting for the new videos on how to airbrush to dry-up and be redone when they go to sell their own airbrush.
I was told this was a primer only brush so it does not count as much:


Wayyyyy back I remember the deodorant container how-to make a tank, because they did not have much way back then:


It is a long held pattern with them so it makes a kind of sense.



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/08 08:55:39


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


That goes along with the culture somewhat too, with our technology, its ability to produce, and our increased consumerism, (aswell as some more negative facets like potentially shorter attention spans) has definitely made us more likely to just want something good to go straight from the box as it were, and less likely than we were back in the day to be intuitive and make things ourselves. (obviously not true for everyone, there are plenty of folks using their initiative and creativity to make things) but in general the demand is for more and more products that are ready to go right away, and the supply develops in the way it does due to this.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/08 09:03:53


Post by: craggy


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?


Someone already said so, but this.

There was a ruling that said that if they don't make a model for it, they don't get to exercise copyright over it. The whole no-model no-rules thing is a direct fallout from that case, because GW needs to do so or risk losing their copyright.
As an additional observation, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.


I wonder if a better option than wiping loads of stuff out of the rules would have been to adapt the wording of some of their kits and expand their additional options?

Take all the Space Marine Biker characters for example: If they did the base SM Biker kit as a bundle with the Command Squad box, or even just the SM Commander on foot kit, wouldn't that account for most of the options? I'm still lost as to how some kitbashes are bad, but some are required, how they eliminate some options from rules because the kits don't come with them, then keep rules for units that don't have kits, or can't possibly make from the official kits.

As to selling us more kits for kitbashing preferred options? I've absolutely done this. I have a squad of Sternguard still on the sprue because it made more sense to buy the whole kit than a few of the bits I wanted for one model at a time. I'd be willing to bet there are even some kits that sell as much for the basis of making into something else than keeping as they are.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/08 09:36:27


Post by: kodos


craggy wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?


Someone already said so, but this.

There was a ruling that said that if they don't make a model for it, they don't get to exercise copyright over it. The whole no-model no-rules thing is a direct fallout from that case, because GW needs to do so or risk losing their copyright.
As an additional observation, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm lead to believe that if you don't make efforts to protect your copyright [read: sue users using it without permission] you can end up losing the copyright too.


I wonder if a better option than wiping loads of stuff out of the rules would have been to adapt the wording of some of their kits and expand their additional options?

Take all the Space Marine Biker characters for example: If they did the base SM Biker kit as a bundle with the Command Squad box, or even just the SM Commander on foot kit, wouldn't that account for most of the options?


This was not the problem, it was all about models with only Artworks available and GW thought with the Artwork in the book no one else is allowed to make a model for it.

A SM on Bike with different weapons, without a dedicated kit but available from the kit was not an issue

This is just the usual GW reaction to anything that is not like they assumed.
We had the same with Fan-Fiction years before that, as GW was surprised by the fact that UK Copyright is not the same as German Copyright and people writing fan-fiction own it (as it is their work) and not GW.
The reaction was to remove and forbid all fan made content to protect their IP.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 01:27:15


Post by: Argive


 Albino Squirrel wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't understand it at all. Greater customization would likely make people buy MORE kits, in order to get the bits that would help them make their miniatures truly unique. Instead, GW is hellbent on making nothing but single-pose models from now on.

Is it a matter of protecting their intellectual property, or something like that? Do they feel that customized models undermine their brand? Are they afraid of mediocre kitbashes giving a wrong impression to customers?


In what way to they discourage customization? They do the exact opposite. There are articles in every white dwarf and all over the community site about customization.

Why they are making more single pose models is a different question. Probably because they can make better looking models that way.


I would have to disagree with regards to community website.Since I have returned to the hobby over a year and a bit ago, the only thing I see on community website is stock GW painted models being showcased, very rarely get guests present alternative paint DYI paint schemes. I do not recall seeing a single "how to kitbash" article. Maybe I have selective memory but I have been a regular on the community website and unless I'm doing it wrong, I have not seen a single article on how to convert anything..

I cannot speak for the WD as I don't buy because the content seems to me to precisely lack this.. Mainly pages of "showcase" armies painted in GW style.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 02:49:23


Post by: silent25


 Argive wrote:


I would have to disagree with regards to community website.Since I have returned to the hobby over a year and a bit ago, the only thing I see on community website is stock GW painted models being showcased, very rarely get guests present alternative paint DYI paint schemes. I do not recall seeing a single "how to kitbash" article. Maybe I have selective memory but I have been a regular on the community website and unless I'm doing it wrong, I have not seen a single article on how to convert anything..

I cannot speak for the WD as I don't buy because the content seems to me to precisely lack this.. Mainly pages of "showcase" armies painted in GW style.


Just a quick glance shows an article literally called kitbash:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/29/inquisitorial-kitbashgw-homepage-post-2/



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 04:06:11


Post by: Argive


I did a search for Conversion, conversions, kit bash, and kitbash on the community website and didn't get any results..

However you are right, doing a google search revealed another article from April 2019 regarding the new chaos space marine conversions and another one for AOS cities of sigmar in OCt 2019.
So I guess that's 2-3 articles a year on the community website? Lets be generous and say they do 4 a year.

I do recall the AOS one now and almost falling off my chair with GW advertising customizing their kits..



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 04:13:22


Post by: silent25


 Argive wrote:
I did a search for Conversion, conversions, kit bash, and kitbash on the community website and didn't get any results..

However you are right, doing a google search revealed another article from April 2019 regarding the new chaos space marine conversions and another one for AOS cities of sigmar in OCt 2019.
So I guess that's 2-3 articles a year on the community website? Lets be generous and say they do 4 a year.

I do recall the AOS one now and almost falling off my chair with GW advertising customizing their kits..



There are just two from last month.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/01/16/from-the-mind-of-mengel-nurgle-chaos-warriors/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/01/14/robin-lundkvists-gargantous-bonehostgw-homepage-post-4/

edit. Three

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/01/15/build-your-own-bounty-huntergw-homepage-post-3fw-homepage-post-4/



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 06:32:43


Post by: Argive


damn, my search fu is weak! When I type in any of the keywords into the search thing on the community I didn't get anything.. weird.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 13:05:07


Post by: Kanluwen


 Argive wrote:
damn, my search fu is weak! When I type in any of the keywords into the search thing on the community I didn't get anything.. weird.

I'm having the same issue, to be honest. Driving me nuts when I'm trying to find some older articles I reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Talizvar wrote:

I am waiting for the new videos on how to airbrush to dry-up and be redone when they go to sell their own airbrush.
I was told this was a primer only brush so it does not count as much:

It was a rebadged Badger spraybrush, which is (from my understanding) considered to be a different thing to an airbrush.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/10 17:25:23


Post by: Argive


@ silent25 how did you find those btw ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Argive wrote:
damn, my search fu is weak! When I type in any of the keywords into the search thing on the community I didn't get anything.. weird.

I'm having the same issue, to be honest. Driving me nuts when I'm trying to find some older articles I reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Talizvar wrote:

I am waiting for the new videos on how to airbrush to dry-up and be redone when they go to sell their own airbrush.
I was told this was a primer only brush so it does not count as much:

It was a rebadged Badger spraybrush, which is (from my understanding) considered to be a different thing to an airbrush.


Pretty sure its a syphon feed spray gun and that's a different thing to an airbrush.


How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/11 02:53:42


Post by: silent25


 Argive wrote:
@ silent25 how did you find those btw ?



No Google-fu, just basic checking back at the last month or so of entries. A bit easier on a computer than a smartphone. I check it regularly and when you said there weren't any articles, I felt that wasn't right.

But White Dwarf has a lot of conversion articles/highlights. Blanchitsu is the best example of this. John Blanche's stuff is crazy and inspirational. Check out the Inquisitor28 section of the AmmoBunker forum just to see how crazy the stuff is. Blanche posts stuff there along with a number of other amazing converters. GW has photographed a lot of the conversion the guys made in those forums and put them in White Dwarf.



How does it make business sense for GW to discourage customization? @ 2020/02/11 03:42:30


Post by: Argive


I see so you actually scrolled through he article history. And here I was trying to use a search :p

Thank you I will check them out.