https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2022/11/warhammer-40k-third-party-miniatures-are-ruining-the-game.html
I almost wonder if they got paid to write this.

Eh its just common sense. Any other brand would do the same thing and heck many other brands already DO ban 3rd party or restrict things at their own official events too. The only difference is GW are way more copied than most others and GW have their own stores to enforce policy, whilst the rest is down to purely local events, local stores and local reps (who in most cases outside of the club nearest to the company's factory/home base; is just volunteers from the community).



So yeah there's nothing really all that surprising in that article.
It's sound basic logic that's been said for ages.

Just a typical clickbait BoLS bad take. Nothing to see here.

Yup, nonsense. I'd almost suspect the OP had an axe to grind. if it weren't for all the evidence...

...confirming it.

(For the peanut gallery, this is about framing a gak take as a paid take, just latching on regardless of merit)

Catulle wrote:
Yup, nonsense. I'd almost suspect the OP had an axe to grind. if it weren't for all the evidence...

...confirming it.

BoLS OP or Dakka OP?

The article is pure hokum. The fact that people are defending it is proof the GW kool aid sinks deep.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Yup, nonsense. I'd almost suspect the OP had an axe to grind. if it weren't for all the evidence...

...confirming it.

BoLS OP or Dakka OP?

The article is pure hokum. The fact that people are defending it is proof the GW kool aid sinks deep.

I expanded a bit on edit, but it's spiralling hokum either way.

That article is basically a nothing burger. The fact that 3rd party models hurt GW and thus GW has tried to minimize them as much as possible with NMNR is just basic logic.

 Tyran wrote:
That article is basically a nothing burger. The fact that 3rd party models hurt GW and thus GW has tried to minimize them as much as possible with NMNR is just basic logic.

Ignoring the fact you can find 3rd party models for codex entries...

So no logic to be found there at all.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2022/11/warhammer-40k-third-party-miniatures-are-ruining-the-game.html
I almost wonder if they got paid to write this.

BOLS is clickbait trash and I doubt they have any genuine opinions on the subject. But the clickbait worked. You got outraged at the headline, clicked on it, and then rage posted it here for more people to click. Just stop acknowledging that BOLS exists and let them scream their nonsense into the void.

The premise of the article falls straight down once you realize that gw has moved beyond "NMNR" into "Yeah, the bits are in the kit, but we decided that you can't use them" for some units while allowing kit bashing in multiple instances in the same codex. There is no logic to what gw does. They just do it.

 Grimtuff wrote:


Ignoring the fact you can find 3rd party models for codex entries...

So no logic to be found there at all.

Those usually end being fought in the courtroom as GW tends to have a higher chance at winning if the 3rd party is blatantly copying a GW model.

But if no GW model exist then GW has no real chance even with lawyers.

The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement. Competition should encourage competitive prices and be a net positive for the people but instead of competing, GW tries to box in what is allowed to be used to maintain their pseudo monopoly.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority. If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires (be it affordability, variety, customization, design, etc). The fact that a smaller scale business can release products that are often similar or even cheaper than what GW sells despite GW having economy of scale on their side speaks volumes to how GW is overcharging for their stuff (or has terrible operational budget efficiency if current pricing is somehow GW being reasonable).

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
That article is basically a nothing burger. The fact that 3rd party models hurt GW and thus GW has tried to minimize them as much as possible with NMNR is just basic logic.

Ignoring the fact you can find 3rd party models for codex entries...

So no logic to be found there at all.

The logic is if GW has no model to sell and no model to market then the 3rd party takes 100% of sales. Furthermore it creates reasons for customers to go searching for 3rd party options. Don't forget at one time Tyranids went through at least 2 full codex editions with new named character models that never had a GW model made. Heck the Parasite only got released this year.

So GW goes "no model no rules" because at least then GW isn't giving customers a reason to go looking at the 3rd party market and can at least compete with their own shiny model on the shelves to sell to customers.

GW are responsible for the lack of rules and options in the codex, because of their reaction to 3rd party providers and other factors.

The important message in the article is about LGS struggling when people turn up with printed models in essence, which is true regardless of what GW do.

Outside of that GW as an entity have been placed in a situation that warranted a reaction from them, due to a loss of (potential) sales. I think they've overreacted in terms of rules writing, having some weapon options or combos not in the box is fine, but I think clamping down on proxy models for full units is a fair response for their own events and removing units that they can't support is also fair game.

Contrary to the title of the post and the initial rage in here I don't think the article is either pro or anti GW in any capacity really, there's a lot of simple business logic and facts, right or wrong.

 Vankraken wrote:
If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires

They know it. They also know that if they deliberately post lies about third-party models people will rage post the link everywhere and generate more clicks and more ad revenue. Stop falling for the BOLS clickbait game.

That site is more like BOWELS at this point

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement. Competition should encourage competitive prices and be a net positive for the people but instead of competing, GW tries to box in what is allowed to be used to maintain their pseudo monopoly.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority. If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires (be it affordability, variety, customization, design, etc). The fact that a smaller scale business can release products that are often similar or even cheaper than what GW sells despite GW having economy of scale on their side speaks volumes to how GW is overcharging for their stuff (or has terrible operational budget efficiency if current pricing is somehow GW being reasonable).

Can people stop comparing GW to abusers, it is vile.

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement.

Hah! That's a hilarious summation, nice one!

Dai wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement. Competition should encourage competitive prices and be a net positive for the people but instead of competing, GW tries to box in what is allowed to be used to maintain their pseudo monopoly.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority. If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires (be it affordability, variety, customization, design, etc). The fact that a smaller scale business can release products that are often similar or even cheaper than what GW sells despite GW having economy of scale on their side speaks volumes to how GW is overcharging for their stuff (or has terrible operational budget efficiency if current pricing is somehow GW being reasonable).

Can people stop comparing GW to abusers, it is vile.

Nah, I'm here for it. It brings the abuses of capitalism into frame.

Not going to give BoLS any clicks they're trash.
Don't need to read the article to disagree with the primes.
Frankly chasing the next new edition is part of the problem GW needs to sell it and the models but we don't have to buy it. GW can decide to add 8.5 percent to the costs game shops pay for their product as well as raising their prices and we're suppose to be ok with that? The minis are nice but not that nice. And my 3rd party IG regiment that I cobbled together and put my time and energy into for my own enjoyment is irrelevant to GW's bottom line. GW can say I can't take them to a GW shop or event and that's fine I don't take this army out of my house. It's not my fault GW doesn't even sell models I feel I have to have, by all means GW keep selling Cadians and good luck with that I am sure some rube will throw lots of money at them. No offence if you really like them, if you do then by all means enjoy. Heck, Gw can't/wont even sell a book now that wont be faq'd with in a month of it being released. Honestly, give me more fan made codex books, army lists and rule sets.
Just my thoughts on the matter, ymmv.
Thought maybe I should add that in the many years I have ben playing I have bought roughly 20 or more armies because of course. Just so no one think all I own is some cobbled together IG regiment made from hard plastic 3rd party minis and green stuff. Anywhoo.

Hecaton wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement. Competition should encourage competitive prices and be a net positive for the people but instead of competing, GW tries to box in what is allowed to be used to maintain their pseudo monopoly.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority. If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires (be it affordability, variety, customization, design, etc). The fact that a smaller scale business can release products that are often similar or even cheaper than what GW sells despite GW having economy of scale on their side speaks volumes to how GW is overcharging for their stuff (or has terrible operational budget efficiency if current pricing is somehow GW being reasonable).

Can people stop comparing GW to abusers, it is vile.

Nah, I'm here for it. It brings the abuses of capitalism into frame.

GW are at worst ripping off some middle class nerds so id say there are far better targets when aiming for that. Unless there are worse atrocities, taking advantage of Chinese workers?

Nevertheless GW does not manipulate or gaslight, they are not abusing their customer base. They are selling a non vital, non addictive product and anyone can walk away anytime.

I stopped taking Bell of Lost Trolls seriously years ago, even with salt they're just... well very internet.

Dai 807817 11459451 wrote:Can people stop comparing GW to abusers, it is vile.

Financial abuse is a thing. Creating a situation where people invest their own money in to a product and then have to repeate the mantra of , maybe next FAQ,CA,Codex,Edition my army will be fun very much sounds like abuse.

Unless there are worse atrocities, taking advantage of Chinese workers?

How about what they do to players outside of western Europe,UK and US ? Being "late" with shipments to stores, making stores sign contracts which make it unable to buy stuff from suppliers from near by countries, but instead being forced to buy from GW directly at a marked up price. Sending two palets of a super popular product for an entire country (indomitus). Forcing stores to buy a product no one wants to buy, if they want to get even a single box of a stuff that does sell. Magicaly being able to supply their own store and being able to sell stuff online to people in specific countries, but not being able to supply the same merch to stores. Which all things cumulate in to FLGS going out of business, because people don't have the models they want to play, so they print/recast and then stop playing and just do that as a side job.

Do I have to go in to the whole rules thing? Where GW anwser to whole factions being bad, a problem they created, because they write the rules, and a problem they did not react for years, is "it is a noob faction".

It doesnt make sense to say that GW expected players to find their own models for the ork battle wagon and then responded to 3rd party models by creating the no model no rules policy.


Having no model for a set of rules was a real pain for me as a kid with no concept of kit bashing let alone 3rd party models and internet.

And why would a GW organised tournament allow 3rd party mini, obviously these tournaments are part of their business model

Dudeface wrote:

Contrary to the title of the post and the initial rage in here I don't think the article is either pro or anti GW in any capacity really, there's a lot of simple business logic and facts, right or wrong.

You have atrocious media literacy, then. Scroll up and tell me the title of the article.

Then tell me even a single arrangement of words in the format of "________ is ruining ________" where the statement isn't anti the first object and pro the second. It may be possible, with some twisted wordplay, so I'd legitimately love to see you achieve it.


LONG LIFE EXPECTANCY is ruining DEATH.

IBUPROFEN is ruining MY HEADACHE.

PAPER TOWEL is ruining THIS MESS.

mrFickle wrote:
It doesnt make sense to say that GW expected players to find their own models for the ork battle wagon and then responded to 3rd party models by creating the no model no rules policy.


Having no model for a set of rules was a real pain for me as a kid with no concept of kit bashing let alone 3rd party models and internet.

And why would a GW organised tournament allow 3rd party mini, obviously these tournaments are part of their business model

But it is not a question of tournaments, or just tournaments. GW is changing the rules, as in load outs and access to models, even ones they produced, just to fit what they can sell right now. So if they don't have and don't have a new Yarik model, then it doesn't matter that people have bought the model from them, and have it. They will remove it. And it is not just old models which are in resin. They removed cpt Artemis, a new plastic model, and the stuff they did to the DG line is what we call here as "magical".

 Altruizine wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Contrary to the title of the post and the initial rage in here I don't think the article is either pro or anti GW in any capacity really, there's a lot of simple business logic and facts, right or wrong.

You have atrocious media literacy, then. Scroll up and tell me the title of the article.

I can tell you the name of the article, what I didn't do was differentiate the part where I was referring to the title of the post from BoLS rather than this thread. Since there was a small amount of ambiguity left I'll let that slide.

Then tell me even a single arrangement of words in the format of "________ is ruining ________" where the statement isn't anti the first object and pro the second. It may be possible, with some twisted wordplay, so I'd legitimately love to see you achieve it.


LONG LIFE EXPECTANCY is ruining DEATH.

IBUPROFEN is ruining MY HEADACHE.

PAPER TOWEL is ruining THIS MESS.

Fun experiment, because we've established that I was saying that the content of the BoLS post is able to be separated from the hyperbolic clickbait title, the string "ruin" does not appear in any format in the entire article. Maybe read it before you fire off about other peoples relative levels of literacy.

Dudeface 807817 11459544 wrote:

Fun experiment, because we've established that I was saying that the content of the BoLS post is able to be separated from the hyperbolic clickbait title, the string "ruin" does not appear in any format in the entire article. Maybe read it before you fire off about other peoples relative levels of literacy.

"Due to its success, GW has gotten a lot of copy-cats, some of which make models or bits for 40K itself, which is now hurting the game. "
Like the third or fourth sentance in the article.

Lets see how the word sounds when replacing ruin. Long life expectancy ruins death rates. I would say it is good enough. but my grasp of english isn't the best.


Which is interesting, because it means that the article writer, seemt to wants to say, that GW and the Game are somehow the same thing.

Karol wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
It doesnt make sense to say that GW expected players to find their own models for the ork battle wagon and then responded to 3rd party models by creating the no model no rules policy.


Having no model for a set of rules was a real pain for me as a kid with no concept of kit bashing let alone 3rd party models and internet.

And why would a GW organised tournament allow 3rd party mini, obviously these tournaments are part of their business model

But it is not a question of tournaments, or just tournaments. GW is changing the rules, as in load outs and access to models, even ones they produced, just to fit what they can sell right now. So if they don't have and don't have a new Yarik model, then it doesn't matter that people have bought the model from them, and have it. They will remove it. And it is not just old models which are in resin. They removed cpt Artemis, a new plastic model, and the stuff they did to the DG line is what we call here as "magical".

Aren’t there legends rules for yarrick, as an example?

It also wouldn’t be fair for people to be able to use a model/rules from years ago that new players don’t have access to because it OOP.

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority.

Pretty much this.

The article is not just wrong, it is stupid. Other than that: nothing to see there, moving on.

mrFickle 807817 11459550 wrote:

Aren’t there legends rules for yarrick, as an example?

It also wouldn’t be fair for people to be able to use a model/rules from years ago that new players don’t have access to because it OOP.

I would not bring the aspect of fairness in to a discussion about GW games. They are inherintly unfair. And as I said before, cpt Artemis is not an old model, neither are the Deathguard ETB models.

Dudeface wrote:

Fun experiment, because we've established that I was saying that the content of the BoLS post is able to be separated from the hyperbolic clickbait title, the string "ruin" does not appear in any format in the entire article. Maybe read it before you fire off about other peoples relative levels of literacy.

A headline is part of the content of an article. Perhaps the word you want is body?

The rest of the article goes on to describe how GW (and "the game," whatever that means) is being "hurt" in a manner that's near synonymous with "ruin". The proposed fix for this hurt and ruin at the conclusion of the article is for GW to ban models.

Honestly, I find 40K to be much more welcoming then pretty much any other wargaming community.

Try going to an X-Wing tournament with "I have the rules on my phone, don't like the silly cards" or to an Infinity tournament with "I converted some of my old Marines to be counts-as Adriana", etc..

"The anti-consumer decision making is your fault, and the negativity will continue until the competitors go away" isn't really a very productive position to hold.

Any issues at GW are solely the responsibility of GW, blaming 3rd parties for selling or consumers for buying a compelling product won't change anything at all and self-harming your own product might reduce a consumers desire to buy a 3rd party item, but it will equally reduce desire to buy a GW item, for example:

Chaos Terminators have been blessed with a modern datasheet. A unit of 5 models can take the options from 1 boxset, a unit of precisely 10 models can take the options from 2 boxsets. If you buy 2 boxes and take all the options (all 10 combi-weapons for example), you now cannot field these models as a unit of 6-9 models as they will have an illegal loadout with too many guns. Axing datasheets that have never had models is one thing (Chaos Marines on Steeds of Slaanesh for example), but being able to buy products today, then build them "wrong" and not be able to play them is just rubbish - how many times do you think a player will happily fall into this trap before thinking about just not buying new models?

If GW actually wanted to affect model sales in a positive way with Codex writing, then surely the answer would be to make some pro-consumer decisions - straight off the top of my head:
1. Put some of the HH vehicle datasheets into Chaos and Imperial Codices - existing kits are now more desirable to more people.
2. When making new models, prioritise gaps in the range ahead of Codex filler units. Prime example - we're on course for 4 new cultist sets this year with monopose autopistol dudes, Accursed, Ring Wraith cosplayers and Jakhals. New Raptors, new Bikers and generic Chaos Lord all seem like options worthy of considering ahead of that.
3. If you really really want to limit options, at least be reasonable and go for "whats in the range" over "whats in the box". The new restrictions on Imperial Guard are a bit of a joke - anyone wanting to play Guard has already resigned themselves to buying multiples of the same box set as it's the only way to fill out a playable army. There are no good reasons at all why new units like Shock Troops cannot mix and match left over weapons from multiple kits - the parts exist and you have to buy them to play the army but apparently leaving spare parts on the side is preferable?

 Altruizine wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Fun experiment, because we've established that I was saying that the content of the BoLS post is able to be separated from the hyperbolic clickbait title, the string "ruin" does not appear in any format in the entire article. Maybe read it before you fire off about other peoples relative levels of literacy.

A headline is part of the content of an article. Perhaps the word you want is body?

The rest of the article goes on to describe how GW (and "the game," whatever that means) is being "hurt" in a manner that's near synonymous with "ruin". The proposed fix for this hurt and ruin at the conclusion of the article is for GW to ban models.

The 40k game is being twisted by their policies due to the existence of the 3d printing market, the only thing that article does to make anyone get worked up is by suggesting it's the people producing and buying them causing GW to react, rather than shifting the onus of the decision back to being GWs. I'm in no way saying I like or want the weird ass unit entries we get as a part of this situation, but GW has made up their mind that this is how they're going to tackle the problem and it is as a result of people printing out armies/units and turning up places.

The key bit of the article that is worthwhile is that it does also damage game stores, but that's common sense and over shadowed by the evil 3d printing vs evil GW conversation.

I find threads like this oddly reassuring. In a time of tumult, uncertainty and rising chaos, GW's business practices are the rock upon which I can rely.

Imagine a world where GW commits itself to a single definitive edition of rules, one that is thoroughly playtested with excellent balance and where revisions are only done to improve clarity and streamline game play.

Or that GW decided that it would dominate the miniatures market on the basis of quality and affordability, leveraging its lengthy experience and sophisticated techniques to ensure the best possible value for money.

What the heck would we talk about then?

How many threads could we have saying "Wow, did you see the new low price on Space Marines? It's a sweet deal!"

"Yeah, and the sculpts are outstanding!"

The horror. The horror.

Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time, I accept sometimes things will get missed in proofing but its every single book these days, but eternal churn is (tin foil) part of the design, if everything is constantly in motion the flaws are hard to spot, well apart from the bajillon eyes and math capable forces of the interwebs

As for the mini''s thats on GW again, I get the money reasons for not refreshing ranges but you then can't get a grump if players go elsewhere for things (make Court of the Archon purchasable again !)

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time, I accept sometimes things will get missed in proofing but its every single book these days, but eternal churn is (tin foil) part of the design, if everything is constantly in motion the flaws are hard to spot, well apart from the bajillon eyes and math capable forces of the interwebs

As for the mini''s thats on GW again, I get the money reasons for not refreshing ranges but you then can't get a grump if players go elsewhere for things (make Court of the Archon purchasable again !)

I think there is some evidence that in the 1990s, GW was actually following both business models I outlined. Certainly their fantasy figures were very affordable, which is how I encountered them. They were a great way to bolster D&D collections for when you wanted the party to fight off a gang of orcs or something like that.

In terms of game development, there was also a sense that GW was actually refining and improving its work. If you look at the early development of 40k from Rogue Trader to the Compendium to what we now call 2nd ed., there is a clear effort to streamline and rationalize the rules.

The same is also true with Fantasy, which originally had the feel of a historicals rules set and later became very explicity 'fantastic' in its scope, hence creating Herohammer.

There is evidence that the shift in GW's strategy was not without internal dissent, and these disputes were breathlessly reported on sites like this. There was also close attention paid to who wrote which book and how it stacked up on the power curve. (IIRC, Gav Thorpe was a lightning rod for criticism.)

I'm under no illusions that GW is going to change and like many observers, my predictions of the company's demise are at least a decade overdue (I thought the end of the LotR bubble would wreck them).

All of which is to say, I wasn't being ironic - I really do find threads like this comforting.

I think BOLS and GW underestimate local hobby stores. My local store has seen a marked uptick in the number of people using 3d printed miniatures or, more often, just bits. This obviously hurt the owners bottom line, but being the intrepid individual she is, she went and spoke to all the customers who used 3d printed parts. Where did you get them, what do you need to make them, what other things do you need?

A week later, she put 1 foot of shelf space aside for bottles of resin, rolls of plastic wire, and a few other bits and bobs.
After a month, since she now stocked 3d printer goods, people outside of miniature wargaming would come in and buy stuff.
after a couple more months, 1 foot on 1 shelf had turned into 3 feet on 2 shelves, and the original offering of 3-4 different types of resin and plastic has turned into pretty much everything you need outside of the printer itself.

She has gone from potentially losing money from people using 3d printed stuff and not buying boxes of plastic minis, to making more money by being a great place to get everything you need to 3d print. and she has taken the time to learn as much as she can about the entire process so she can talk anyone interested through the process.

She has embraced 3d printing after being really quite stressed about losing business, and is now doing better business than ever. there are also a lot more 3d printed miniatures than ever being used which makes for a much greater variety in what you will see on the table, its pretty fantastic.

yeah, stores and GW need to adapt.

 Altruizine wrote:
PAPER TOWEL is ruining THIS MESS.

OK but legit best thing I have read all month

I love that the argument basically boils down to "GW changes the rules so that I need to buy more models."

Yes. That is the point of GW changing the rules. GW makes money selling models.

"GW doesn't care about it's customers" No, if you're not buying more kits, you're no longer a customer, you're a fan. And GW knows that one of the top ten threads on every GW friendly board/forum/group is "I'm back after 5-20 years!"

I'm repainting guard melta guns so I'll be able to play the army I want, and even trying to think about how to convert praetorians into holding a drum fed autogun. Maybe I'm a simp, but I want to play, so i do it. If you don't, don't.

I would not use printed out pages from BOLS to protect the floor from cat urine.

mrFickle wrote:

Karol wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
It doesnt make sense to say that GW expected players to find their own models for the ork battle wagon and then responded to 3rd party models by creating the no model no rules policy.


Having no model for a set of rules was a real pain for me as a kid with no concept of kit bashing let alone 3rd party models and internet.

And why would a GW organised tournament allow 3rd party mini, obviously these tournaments are part of their business model

But it is not a question of tournaments, or just tournaments. GW is changing the rules, as in load outs and access to models, even ones they produced, just to fit what they can sell right now. So if they don't have and don't have a new Yarik model, then it doesn't matter that people have bought the model from them, and have it. They will remove it. And it is not just old models which are in resin. They removed cpt Artemis, a new plastic model, and the stuff they did to the DG line is what we call here as "magical".

Aren’t there legends rules for yarrick, as an example?

No, not yet. There's a Lord Commissar, but not Yarrick specifically.

 blood reaper wrote:
I would not use printed out pages from BOLS to protect the floor from cat urine.

it's a shame, because for a while it was sort of the standard bearer for fan sites. They created fan rules for the Horus Heresy way back in the mid oughts, and their supplement on the macharian crusade was amazing.

the only way to make a buck on the internet is either patreon or crippling advertising. Shame they went the way they did.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time,

I wouldn't say it was passive. You and I both know that we see it enough on here, if anyone dares question the edicts sent down from GW, then we are "wrong" and just "haters". Trying to get GW fans to hold GW to a higher standard is like pissing into the wind.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time,

I wouldn't say it was passive. You and I both know that we see it enough on here, if anyone dares question the edicts sent down from GW, then we are "wrong" and just "haters". Trying to get GW fans to hold GW to a higher standard is like pissing into the wind.

eh, i think some of it is tribalism more than real love for GW. I don't think I'm a GW white knight or anything, but the never ending crushing criticism of GW is just obnoxious sometimes. GW makes some baffling decisions, but sometimes I just want to enjoy the game I play, not line up to dunk on GW all day, every day.

 Polonius wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Because as always there is no middle ground on the interwebs...

The half baked codex creep is on the players for passively accepting the muddle and make do rut GW have taken, along with sheer bloody mindedness regarding digital, if the players stopped buying hard copies that are valid for about a week maybe that would be a wake up call to GW to try to do better the first time,

I wouldn't say it was passive. You and I both know that we see it enough on here, if anyone dares question the edicts sent down from GW, then we are "wrong" and just "haters". Trying to get GW fans to hold GW to a higher standard is like pissing into the wind.

eh, i think some of it is tribalism more than real love for GW. I don't think I'm a GW white knight or anything, but the never ending crushing criticism of GW is just obnoxious sometimes. GW makes some baffling decisions, but sometimes I just want to enjoy the game I play, not line up to dunk on GW all day, every day.

+1

Also sometimes the whole "holding them to higher standards" is nice and all, but when its the same 10-20 people in a forum just chatting about hobby stuff that is NOT going to change GW's opinion. A some point you have to accept what is, is and then either live with that or move on. Or if you are going to change their mind you've got to do more than keyboard warrior in the forum.

I think what really grates though is how many discussions end up giving up with the topic and end up with insults being slung around with casual terms being used to insult both those who regularly criticise and those who regularly defend or at least justify. Which just turns the whole discussion away from the point and into an ego fight where whoever wins is the one who can insult the most users before the mods shut it down.

Dai wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The classic "competition hurts my bottom line so it's the consumers fault that we are using anti consumer business practices" arguement. Competition should encourage competitive prices and be a net positive for the people but instead of competing, GW tries to box in what is allowed to be used to maintain their pseudo monopoly.

BOLS is a trash website in general but this article is very much defending the abuser and appeal to authority. If they used at least two brain cells, they realize that people wouldn't buy 3rd party models unless GW's products didn't satisfy market desires (be it affordability, variety, customization, design, etc). The fact that a smaller scale business can release products that are often similar or even cheaper than what GW sells despite GW having economy of scale on their side speaks volumes to how GW is overcharging for their stuff (or has terrible operational budget efficiency if current pricing is somehow GW being reasonable).

Can people stop comparing GW to abusers, it is vile.

Nah, I'm here for it. It brings the abuses of capitalism into frame.

GW are at worst ripping off some middle class nerds so id say there are far better targets when aiming for that. Unless there are worse atrocities, taking advantage of Chinese workers?

Nevertheless GW does not manipulate or gaslight, they are not abusing their customer base. They are selling a non vital, non addictive product and anyone can walk away anytime.

The noncompetitive behavior they got sued for in Canada would apply.

In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

Fantastic case study for "give customers what they want not shareholders; results in greater return on investment for shareholders".

Yeah, as much as people mock "nuGW", it's working for them.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Yeah, as much as people mock "nuGW", it's working for them.

That’s kinda just marketing, it works so big company tend to use it.

It also is that if people are buying, then why change for GW. So if players buy massive piles of GW stuff, and complain then buy more.
How would people here respond if they where running the company to that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

"Sweeping price cuts" is not a phrase one should ever associate with GW, no matter what spin you're putting on things.

NMNR and 3rd party models have almost no relation in reality, other than the latter being an easy scapegoat for the former.

A Canoness can't take a hand flamer.
There's no hand flamer in the kit.
A Superior can take a hand flamer.
There's no hand flamer in the Battle Sisters or Retributor kits.
The only hand flamers are in the Seraphim kit, where they can't be taken by the Superior.

There is nothing legally that GW could do to stop a 3rd party selling not-hand flamers compatible with Superiors or the Canoness, so long as they're not direct copies of the existing parts, or infringing on trademarks (Chapterhouse).
Indeed, there are more 3rd party parts available now than ever before.

That article honestly was hard to read. It might be that the formatting doesn't work well on my phone but even then, a modern website shouldn't be that drowned in adds. It's also quite different from what that site used to be like back when I occasionally looked there years ago.

That said, I found the text to be incoherent and not really building up towards something. The basic idea seems to be that there being any kind of competition in the marketplace is bad for GW and therefore for the games they produce. Funnily enough, competition tends to lead to better products because it forces companies to adapt and improve. GW however has such a dominant position because of the game rules that they can basically make the rules for the marketplace. Which, to be fair, I would also do in their position. Or I just wouldn't care that much because all these third party sales are a rounding error compared to GW sales.

That also is why I think that third party models are at best a fig leaf. Arguments like being able to just build any unit from the box hold much more water. That reduces barriers to entry and that generally is a good thing for a company.

These weird rules would also make more sense in a computer based context where a lot of the long lists of what options exist for which models can just be hidden behind an interface. They however out them into physical books where they just look hideous

 Dolnikan wrote:
a modern website shouldn't be that drowned in adds

Yep, that's BOLS. It's a clickbait ad farm with just enough "content" to get you to keep scrolling through more ads. Please stop visiting them and rewarding their clickbait.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

"Sweeping price cuts" is not a phrase one should ever associate with GW, no matter what spin you're putting on things.

Maybe it's because I am looking more from the AoS end than 40k, but bear in mind we went from no start collecting boxes to almost every army having one in a short span. Those were (and still are, where they haven't been killed) game changers for army building. For many it moved the picture from a mess of unguided expense to a lower cost model. And that isn't even touching on reboxes or the pricing of new releases. It was still GW with the $30 single characters and all but it offered a great deal of relief for the core army building experience.

I think it is easy to forget just how BAD late stage Kirby era was. Perhaps such memories are otiose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

Fantastic case study for "give customers what they want not shareholders; results in greater return on investment for shareholders".

Yup. The biggest problem with the corporate shareholder model isn't the function, it's humans screwing it up with ineptitude. People don't think about why the concepts of empathy or customer service exist.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

I think it is easy to forget just how BAD late stage Kirby era was. Perhaps such memories are otiose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

Best stock on the London market that year.

Fantastic case study for "give customers what they want not shareholders; results in greater return on investment for shareholders".

Yup. The biggest problem with the corporate shareholder model isn't the function, it's humans screwing it up with ineptitude. People don't think about why the concepts of empathy or customer service exist.

I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.


The shareholder system can work, but you often have to remember that many of the shareholders are only in it for fast gains and that pandering to their desires will often sink your company because fast profits, high rises and constant increase is often totally unsustainable for most firms. You can chase it, but often as not it will break you in the long run. Which some managers are fine with because they've loaded themselves up on stock and can sell out before the crash (and then pray they don't get caught).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2016 GW made a huge movement towards being customer friendly; they launched the WarCom site (which costs them money without generating any on its own), they resumed doing customer research and collecting data (which costs them money without generating any on its own), and made sweeping price cuts across their ranges via reboxing (some items going down by 30-50%, relatively speaking).

"Sweeping price cuts" is not a phrase one should ever associate with GW, no matter what spin you're putting on things.

2016 was a Golden Year for GW. The release of affordable Start Collecting boxes, AoS reboxes , Middle Earth Reboxes (12 to 24 infantry boxes with minimal price increases), etc...

Yeah ok, middle earth boxes were still more expensive than when released in 2001 but still. It was a good change. Sadly it only lasted like 1-2 years before GW started going back on track on everything.

The 2016 NuGW was depressing because it showed just how little GW had to actually improve before people were acting, and still act, like it was a revolution despite largely being setting up a basic "How do you do fellow kids?" social media presence and starting a few discount boxes.

The bar is set so low for them and they still struggle to grasp it.

 Overread wrote:


I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.

Did GW as a whole suffer losses during his tenure? I know that when people chewed over the annual financials, the descriptors for the US were all euphemisms for "not going well," but I got away from the hobby after that and lost track. I don't think they ever had losses in the core UK/European markets.

The shareholder system can work, but you often have to remember that many of the shareholders are only in it for fast gains and that pandering to their desires will often sink your company because fast profits, high rises and constant increase is often totally unsustainable for most firms. You can chase it, but often as not it will break you in the long run. Which some managers are fine with because they've loaded themselves up on stock and can sell out before the crash (and then pray they don't get caught).

You also have problems when the leadership forgets what the company is supposed to be doing. General Motors famously became a benefits plan with a side business of selling cars. Or you get CEOs who want to make the "brand" about trendy causes rather than return on investment.

I think Kirby's exit was an opportunity for the new leadership to make a clean break (always important in a corporate environment) but there's an institutional expectation that GW experience profit growth through price hikes rather than enlarging the customer base.

I use a mix of 3rd party and 1st party minis in my 95th Praetorian Rifles. I don't go to GWs with this army; I play by their rules when I'm in their house. It's only fair. How am I hurting the hobby?

The answer is simple. I'm not.

 Overread wrote:
Eh its just common sense. Any other brand would do the same thing and heck many other brands already DO ban 3rd party or restrict things at their own official events too. The only difference is GW are way more copied than most others and GW have their own stores to enforce policy, whilst the rest is down to purely local events, local stores and local reps (who in most cases outside of the club nearest to the company's factory/home base; is just volunteers from the community).

So yeah there's nothing really all that surprising in that article.
It's sound basic logic that's been said for ages.

Every brand aggressively pursues a 'no model, no rules' policy, shapes their rules to exactly what comes in their kits, and retires model lines that don't lend themselves to tightly-controlled product ecosystems with legally defensible IP?

GW didn't take this tack until after an infamous lawsuit, but once they did, it was sound basic logic that's been said for ages?

I think some people are a little quick to justify GW internal policy. Logical though it may be- at least for the shareholder bottom line- GW's overly zealous attitude towards quashing any possibility of third-party minis isn't a universal thing.

That's the funny thing--whatever logic is used to justify it, the actual reason was GW lost the Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Well they claimed they invented arrows, skulls, Roman numerals and the concept of a "Grenade Launcher", so what did they think was going to happen?

 Arbitrator wrote:
The 2016 NuGW was depressing because it showed just how little GW had to actually improve before people were acting, and still act, like it was a revolution despite largely being setting up a basic "How do you do fellow kids?" social media presence and starting a few discount boxes.

That is a vast understatement of the changes they made. Not because their new state was so awesome, but because the previous state was so poor that going to a decent level of community-friendliness was a dramatic improvement. At the end of the day many people do want to like GW but they are matched if not exceeded by those who want to hate GW, whereas the overwhelming majority simply shrug and adjust purchase practices accordingly.

It is easier to just lay blame around, but it isn't accurate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
The 2016 NuGW was depressing because it showed just how little GW had to actually improve before people were acting, and still act, like it was a revolution despite largely being setting up a basic "How do you do fellow kids?" social media presence and starting a few discount boxes.

That is a vast understatement of the changes they made. Not because their new state was so awesome, but because the previous state was so poor that going to a decent level of community-friendliness was a dramatic improvement. At the end of the day many people do want to like GW but they are matched if not exceeded by those who want to hate GW, whereas the overwhelming majority simply shrug and adjust purchase practices accordingly.

It is easier to just lay blame around, but it isn't accurate.

I'm wondering if it's fair to make the assertion that those who might be doing harm to a local community, which is the memey 3d print 'expert' who has entirely printed 1:1 armies and has to tell everyone, constantly, how much better 3d printing is, how cheap per head their army was, how they're 'sticking it to GW' etc are also likely the ones who fall into that hate category?

To be clear I'm referring to one specific stereotype of communally harmful people, I've no issue with people using bits, proxies, units or even armies if they're well tended and importantly actually different to some degree.

3D printing is its own thing and in some ways, it's a threat to traditional miniature sales. I however don't have printer or the space for one. I also don't have the inclination to learn how to operate one. Compared to the prices of 3D printing (once you actually add in the equipment, STLs, and materials, many manufacturers still come out ahead. So it really isn't for everyone. Or even for large groups of people.

There are some evangelists and I can understand them. They set it all up and are proud of what they've done. I however tend to not 'advertise' other products when I'm in a store that doesn't sell them. That's just basic politeness. Are they in my armies? Sure. Why wouldn't they be? That however doesn't mean shouting from the rooftops about them.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
a modern website shouldn't be that drowned in adds

Yep, that's BOLS. It's a clickbait ad farm with just enough "content" to get you to keep scrolling through more ads. Please stop visiting them and rewarding their clickbait.

This first visit in years has certainly encouraged me to follow that recommendation. Because seriously. That was excessive.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:


I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.

Did GW as a whole suffer losses during his tenure? I know that when people chewed over the annual financials, the descriptors for the US were all euphemisms for "not going well," but I got away from the hobby after that and lost track. I don't think they ever had losses in the core UK/European markets.

If I recall correctly GW had a loss year or two after the LotR bubble that instigated the first round of sweeping changes for the worse at GW (the second one being the Chapterhouse case). GW returned to a small profit after that and maintained a steadily declining profit until the end of Kirby's tenure, although in the year the first Total Warhammer released profitability was only held up by royalties while the core business was in a bad place.

catbarf wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Eh its just common sense. Any other brand would do the same thing and heck many other brands already DO ban 3rd party or restrict things at their own official events too. The only difference is GW are way more copied than most others and GW have their own stores to enforce policy, whilst the rest is down to purely local events, local stores and local reps (who in most cases outside of the club nearest to the company's factory/home base; is just volunteers from the community).

So yeah there's nothing really all that surprising in that article.
It's sound basic logic that's been said for ages.

Every brand aggressively pursues a 'no model, no rules' policy, shapes their rules to exactly what comes in their kits, and retires model lines that don't lend themselves to tightly-controlled product ecosystems with legally defensible IP?

GW didn't take this tack until after an infamous lawsuit, but once they did, it was sound basic logic that's been said for ages?

I think some people are a little quick to justify GW internal policy. Logical though it may be- at least for the shareholder bottom line- GW's overly zealous attitude towards quashing any possibility of third-party minis isn't a universal thing.

Well the "any other brand would and do do the same thing" was talking about the banning/restrictions on 3rd party models at their organised events. Which is something many others do. Not all, heck some openly embrace anything they can get on the tables so long as their game is being played by as many people as possible.
No models no rules is varied - some firms follow that policy, some don't. Warmachine follows it whilst Infinity most certainly doesn't - and heck Infinity is famous for releasing models and then retiring them and releasing an updated version later which has a different weapon.
I think the no models no rules has more impact for GW because many of their models have alternate weapons and builds whilst many other firms often keep things simple - one model one weapon no options. Of course then you've something like Battletech where the options are way wider but the models don't need to feature changes to the physical appearance; or games like Infinity where proxies are commonplace.


There most certainly are different policies with logic behind them.

Geifer wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:


I think late stage Kirby was just showing that not only was Kirby more of a numbers guy than anything else (which to be fair he was an accountant); but that he and his management team were far too isolated and separate from the actual hobby, company and customers. It felt very much like they were the "suits" running the show, but didn't really understand what they were running beyond the numerical breakdown of sales figures. As a result you got a lot of strange choices, baffling ideas, short term focus and basically a whole list of things that were very unpopular with the actual customers; and likely also staff under them. Thing is when that happens at the top it spreads through so it takes ages to weed such thinking out of any firm.

Did GW as a whole suffer losses during his tenure? I know that when people chewed over the annual financials, the descriptors for the US were all euphemisms for "not going well," but I got away from the hobby after that and lost track. I don't think they ever had losses in the core UK/European markets.

If I recall correctly GW had a loss year or two after the LotR bubble that instigated the first round of sweeping changes for the worse at GW (the second one being the Chapterhouse case). GW returned to a small profit after that and maintained a steadily declining profit until the end of Kirby's tenure, although in the year the first Total Warhammer released profitability was only held up by royalties while the core business was in a bad place.

The LotR bubble bursting was more GW's total ignorance of the movie tie-in market since it was something they'd never done before and they were just not prepared nor expecting the massive drop off in sales once the films were done. Companies that typically make movie tie-in toys and merch are very used to that and have their whole production ready to switch over to the next big film and know how to handle the sudden drop off and to anticipate when it will happen. GW were taken by surprise at the scale of the drop.

That said my recollection is that Kirby kept the company healthy and afloat during his tenure. Heck his early days were all about turning around the company finances and improving them. I don't think, outside of the LORT bubble bursting, that GW took serious losses during his time in charge. What I think is key is that GW left money on the table during his time in charge. They took short term choices and made decisions and policies that turned customers away and which reduced their potential to earn money. When Kirby stepped down and GW took some more customer positive choices there was a massive surge in sales and popularity.

Heck during Kirby's time GW was stepping back from running events and the internet at a time when video games and many other geek markets were embracing streaming, paid competitive events and all. It's hard to imagine now with GW doing marketing online every day of the year.

 Overread wrote:
The LotR bubble bursting was more GW's total ignorance of the movie tie-in market since it was something they'd never done before and they were just not prepared nor expecting the massive drop off in sales once the films were done

they were very well aware of the drop that will happen when the hype from the movies is done, but they reacted in the typical GW way and halve the box content while doubling the price to keep the profit up (that joke did not came out of nowhere but GW really did that)
but instead this was the trigger that let the bubble explode instead of just seeing a massive drop in new people

 kodos wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The LotR bubble bursting was more GW's total ignorance of the movie tie-in market since it was something they'd never done before and they were just not prepared nor expecting the massive drop off in sales once the films were done

they were very well aware of the drop that will happen when the hype from the movies is done, but they reacted in the typical GW way and halve the box content while doubling the price to keep the profit up (that joke did not came out of nowhere but GW really did that)
but instead this was the trigger that let the bubble explode instead of just seeing a massive drop in new people

Ahh true we did go through a phase of that with GW. Eldar got it too with at least one set that went from 10 to 5 and increased in price.

I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

i miss these tutorials, especially for terrain and vehicles. Both ork armies and terrain quality has regressed due to it.

Cyel wrote:

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

Considering the last AoS To4W contained a fully converted army where even the Battleline units used parts from 2-3 kits, pretty sure they're more concerned with points per month than cost per month these days.

I disagree that 3rd party producers are bad for the game. I also think GW is responsible for most of their own "problems". However, it's useful to remember that some things that seem contradictory at first glance can be true at the same time.

BOLS can be a company almost entirely dependent on the fortunes of Games workshop while producing both syncophantic and genuine writing. Sometimes an article might even be both.(though not in this case)

GW removing units and options without models can be both good for their bottom line and good for game bloat and at the same time bad for some 3rd party companies and some gamers with older figures.

3rd party producers can be bad for GW (though how much is debatable) while also being good for gamers.

3rd party producers can hurt FLGSs, while GW policies also hurt them.

I remember now why I gave up on BOLS

Cyel wrote:


When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I remember those articles, and it was all about how yes, you CAN build a decent GW army on a tight budget. Some issues one of the group would hold back for a marquee unit the next.

Then again, that hearkens back to an era where $100 was a good starter army. Cost of entry was low and while the bulk kits weren't things of beauty, they could get you by.

The interesting thing is that by now, GW should have the capital investment to allow them to grossly undercut any would-be competitor outside Chinese slave labor (or is that "labour?).

Anyhow, that was the excuse during the otherwise senseless price increases of the early aughts. It was strange to be able to have unopened blisters of metal marines that cost less than plastic sprues, and I recall apologists saying that once the new machinery was in place, and the procedures nailed down, prices would surely fall.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Cyel wrote:


When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I remember those articles, and it was all about how yes, you CAN build a decent GW army on a tight budget. Some issues one of the group would hold back for a marquee unit the next.

Then again, that hearkens back to an era where $100 was a good starter army. Cost of entry was low and while the bulk kits weren't things of beauty, they could get you by.

The interesting thing is that by now, GW should have the capital investment to allow them to grossly undercut any would-be competitor outside Chinese slave labor (or is that "labour?).

Anyhow, that was the excuse during the otherwise senseless price increases of the early aughts. It was strange to be able to have unopened blisters of metal marines that cost less than plastic sprues, and I recall apologists saying that once the new machinery was in place, and the procedures nailed down, prices would surely fall.

Oh those people didn't get it completely wrong.
Price per model surely fell once the machinery & procedures were in place.
They just naively thought that we, the customers, were going to be the ones bennifitting.

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I recall but cannot now find where GW put out a blanket statement about 3rd party models being perfectly fine to use as Imperial Guardsmen. This was about the time Warzone 2nd edition dropped with something close to 100 infantry models in it. May have been closer to 60 or 80 models but I remember it being a loads and loads of plastic infantry. I want to say this was published in the White Dwarf at the time in around or between 99' and 00'. Sadly I can't even be sure of the issue number all these years later.

 warhead01 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I recall but cannot now find where GW put out a blanket statement about 3rd party models being perfectly fine to use as Imperial Guardsmen. This was about the time Warzone 2nd edition dropped with something close to 100 infantry models in it. May have been closer to 60 or 80 models but I remember it being a loads and loads of plastic infantry. I want to say this was published in the White Dwarf at the time in around or between 99' and 00'. Sadly I can't even be sure of the issue number all these years later.

White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

Dai wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I am probably not the only one to remember non GW models in armies showcased in WD, like George Dellapina's Orks based around certainly-non-GW-design monster trucks. All warmachines in my Orcs&Goblins army were scratch-built and my first 40k vehicles were Wave Serpents build according to the conversion article in WD. I remember terrain articles being about building stuff out of raw materials from your trash bin, about being creative and resourceful.

Now they are all about buying, buying, buying. Don't try to be resourceful, just buy more.

When was the last time the Tale of 4 Warlords participants were given a price limit on their monthly additions and they were describing how to creatively make the most out of it?

I recall but cannot now find where GW put out a blanket statement about 3rd party models being perfectly fine to use as Imperial Guardsmen. This was about the time Warzone 2nd edition dropped with something close to 100 infantry models in it. May have been closer to 60 or 80 models but I remember it being a loads and loads of plastic infantry. I want to say this was published in the White Dwarf at the time in around or between 99' and 00'. Sadly I can't even be sure of the issue number all these years later.

White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

I agree it was super fun back then.
I still have the issues from the massive 3rd war for Armageddon battle report. I think that turned into two or three issues worth of material for them.
Going so corporate has really sucked the soul out of the hobby. Sure a lot of the new models are super slick but I don't feel much excitement in working on a duplicate of the same kit now. Kits being like they are now. I guess the good times are, for the most part, over. In th e future should I want a new army I will buy it second hand/used and save time and energy.

 warhead01 wrote:

Dai wrote:


White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

I agree it was super fun back then.
I still have the issues from the massive 3rd war for Armageddon battle report. I think that turned into two or three issues worth of material for them.
Going so corporate has really sucked the soul out of the hobby. Sure a lot of the new models are super slick but I don't feel much excitement in working on a duplicate of the same kit now. Kits being like they are now. I guess the good times are, for the most part, over. In th e future should I want a new army I will buy it second hand/used and save time and energy.

I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

 Eilif wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

Dai wrote:


White Dwarf used to be a labour of love, i can only imagine how fun it would have been to semi amateuring that publication in the 90s early 00s. I bet each and every piece is read over a dozen times by corporate these days to ensure nothing slips through.

I agree it was super fun back then.
I still have the issues from the massive 3rd war for Armageddon battle report. I think that turned into two or three issues worth of material for them.
Going so corporate has really sucked the soul out of the hobby. Sure a lot of the new models are super slick but I don't feel much excitement in working on a duplicate of the same kit now. Kits being like they are now. I guess the good times are, for the most part, over. In th e future should I want a new army I will buy it second hand/used and save time and energy.

I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

This is of course true, the mid 90s represent a time when i was a bright eyed kid filled with wonder regarding the games and hobby and no doubt i have nostalgia tinted glasses. I do think that it was also an objectively superior publication though. It wasnt free of trying to sell you the latest thing of course but it didnt seem that was its main focus.

I think the style of writing was different, however its also possibly because back then everything was new to us as well.

So every article, every paint job and photo was poured over way more because it was fresh and new and exciting.


Today the internet utterly spoils us - you can in seconds look at thousands of top pro painted work from around the world in a vast array of skills and styles and finishes and all.
Couple to that the fact that a lot of the casual lore and the technical articles are stuff we already know. We've read them from GW 1000 times before so its repeat information not fresh and new.






Now granted some other parts have changed, GW used to do more crafts stuff which they don't now. However at the same time GW also offers us way way more stuff than they used too. Plus back then the craft articles were still selling GW stuff - GW PVA glue, GW flock, GW hobby tools etc... We just perhaps didn't see it because we weren't looking for it, we just remember that they used a cheap coke can.



Getting adult means that sometimes you see the article for what it is in terms of marketing. We can see the company pushing us to buy their product. I don't feel bad about that, but it clearly annoys some when the wool is pulled away and they can see marketing for marketing.
Of course there's also styles of writing, engagement and such which can make this more "on the nose" than not. Sometimes you really do get an article that feels so much "this is our new thing we want you to buy, buy it" that you can't ignore it. A child or teen might not see it, an adult might just through experience and having seen it so many times.



So the WD has changed, but so too has GW as a company and what they offer and so too have we the readers.
The complaint that the magazine isn't as good for long term fans is pretty common in magazine circles though. Pick up a photography magazine for a year and the next year you'll see a LOT of the same article themes. Hit winter and you get a bunch of "how to take photos in the snow" and "creative macro with snow flakes" just like "last year". Get to easter and its all eggs and bunnies and a cute one on how to take a photo of your pet

I agree that the lack of crafting is a real difference. GW published two different "How to make Wargaming Terrain": books that were quite brilliant. I have both and still read them occasionally. It's been nearly 20 years since the last one was released.

That does say something about the company, though it also says something about their customers. Would GW's core customer base be satisfied with home-made terrain in a world filled with GW kits and 3d printed terrain?

In terms of repetitiveness, maybe those of us who are still into crafting aren't that different in our own way. WD and photography magazines may repeat themselves, but I keep going back to the same old Necromundicon web pages for inspiration.

There are still conversion articles and the such, it's just based on GW products rather than recycling cans and straws.
Could it be better? Yeah, it definitely could but at the same time, there is a limit to the number of conversion articles that could be done without it becoming repetitive and boring. How much could WD do that hasn't already been done to death? A million articles on converting Space Marines aren't going to go down well and a lot of other concepts like making Feral Orks using AoS/Fantasy parts have been done for years. The huge model range has also done wonders for the ease of access to concepts that in the past were just kitbashed and converted such as Traitor Guard, Skitarii, or even Squats.
It's the double-edged sword of there being more model kits than ever before giving people easy ways of building armies that used to be in the niche of Forge World, second-hand markets, or heavy conversions and that previous core of heavy duty kitbashing and converting slowly dying out.

Also lets not forget whilst GW is focusing on their thing and their products, there are LOADS of tutorials and guides out there now. From youtube videos, to twitch streams to websites, to forums to books covering a whole wealth of topics.

So yes its a shame GW isn't doing some things, but at the same time they are covering their corner and anyone with a passing interest has a huge wealth of potential informatoin they can easily tap into. Heck last time I was at the supermarket there were 5 or 6 hobby railway magazines on sale so even if you just take a tiny step outside of wargames you can find other resources other than WD on the highstreet.



So yeah GW have changed and they've focused more on the diverse product line that they sell; but other areas have come up in a big way so you're not without resources.

While I wasn't playing 40K back in those days and didn't see WDs from that time I collected some Codizes and campaign books from 3rd-5th edition. They are different in that they feature painting and terrain guides right in the codex and that they use a lot of Designer's Commentary. While it breaks the "4th wall" every time it also "connects" you with GW as fellow hobbyists if you know what I mean. You aren't just a consumer of their IP but they talk to you (which today they do through WarCom of course) even in their rulebooks.

Btw. they still do this in Lotr books, where they explain their thoughts behind scenarios and how to adjust them to book/ movie versions.

I’ll disagree with the post. As long as the figures have similar base size and looks that don’t make it hard to know what it is, then it’s not an issue. Just like d&d figures, there are many types out there. However I do agree with GW rules for sanctioned events to enforce their miniatures. I think it’s great that people can use other models that add uniqueness. Since it’s very hard to convert a model drastically.

Count me among those who finds GWs utter sacrifice of the conversion sphere tragic. I feel they are losing out; it is a great way to build community. While advertising obviously has an impact, it is ultimately the community that sells the wargame. GW corporate seems to fundamentally not understand that more community = more sales, even if that community is build on using parts from other companies! Because you know what people use those parts to convert? GW miniatures.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Count me among those who finds GWs utter sacrifice of the conversion sphere tragic. I feel they are losing out; it is a great way to build community. While advertising obviously has an impact, it is ultimately the community that sells the wargame. GW corporate seems to fundamentally not understand that more community = more sales, even if that community is build on using parts from other companies! Because you know what people use those parts to convert? GW miniatures.

There's also the aspect that many conversions are 100% GW bits - just using ones from different factions or mixing AoS and 40k.

It's sad that they seem to hold such an adversarial view on the matter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
GW corporate seems to fundamentally not understand that more community = more sales, even if that community is build on using parts from other companies! Because you know what people use those parts to convert? GW miniatures.

The one bit I disagree with from a "business" perspective is this bit. GW should 100% be encouraging conversion work and Codexes should have examples of this like the 4th Ed Ork Codex that had a page dedicated to it or the examples found in the 8th Ed Guard Codex. WD articles are good but not enough.
That being said, featuring conversions using parts from other companies, competitors if we are being accurate, isn't smart business. Advertising other companies doesn't net GW customers and money, and like it or not, that's what the people running the company have to do. If customers find out that there are other options very early on then there is a chance they won't buy from GW.
There's a reason the EE shop in a shopping centre didn't tell me to go to a local phone repair shop after they quoted £300 to fix a broken screen. Same thing applies to GW.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
GW corporate seems to fundamentally not understand that more community = more sales, even if that community is build on using parts from other companies! Because you know what people use those parts to convert? GW miniatures.

this they definitely understand
but they also know that more community means that they cannot cover the demand without expanding, so more sales don't mean more profit as this just covers the cost of the investment in doing so

keeping the community at a stable size, with new players cover the amount that drops out and selling them a new game (in form of a new Edition) every few years to re-start everything is much more save than a larger growing community that might leave the GW bubble faster

GW also understands - more strongly than many other brands - how important young fans are.

GW knows that if they sit back and relax with a large and active adult community that eventually that community moves on/retires/dies off. GW is very active in making darn sure they get teens in the door to be the next generation.



Lego does the very same thing, its why they've paired up to do loads of these movie-tie-in releases; did Bionics and loads of other things.

These firms understand how important the youth are to retain.

 Eilif wrote:


I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

As part of my effort to recreate 2nd edition in its entirety, I've collected many of the WDs of that era and what stands out is the creativity of the company. They were willing to try one-off games and make forays into supporting sub-games within their genres.

There was also a sense that GW's design team actually wanted to perfect their rules. The expectation that the next editions of Fantasy and 40k would be definitive had some basis in fact. Indeed, the way 6th ed. WHFB corrected the excesses of 5th offered a great deal of hope for the future.

No one believes that now. The new editions are part of a product replacement cycle. It's the gaming equivalent of planned obsolescence.

But once, long ago, we thought differently...

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There was also a sense that GW's design team actually wanted to perfect their rules.

There was also a sense that the design teams wanted to play their rules.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

As part of my effort to recreate 2nd edition in its entirety, I've collected many of the WDs of that era and what stands out is the creativity of the company. They were willing to try one-off games and make forays into supporting sub-games within their genres.

There was also a sense that GW's design team actually wanted to perfect their rules. The expectation that the next editions of Fantasy and 40k would be definitive had some basis in fact. Indeed, the way 6th ed. WHFB corrected the excesses of 5th offered a great deal of hope for the future.

No one believes that now. The new editions are part of a product replacement cycle. It's the gaming equivalent of planned obsolescence.

But once, long ago, we thought differently...

It's like the beginning of MGS4 "Endless war is now the normal" except it's the search for endless profit.

Bell of Lost Souls really went down hill. I remember reading it around 4th or 5th edition.

 vipoid wrote:
There was also a sense that the design teams wanted to play their rules.

The 'wanting to play their rules' is part of the problem, though. The reason why Phil Kelly made every Eldar book more broken than the last one (ditto for Tau 'math is too complicated for me' dude) is because it's his pet army he plays during breaks. It really shows because every other army he wrote had mostly trash rules as he wasn't excited to play it (or worse, didn't want to give his colleagues who wanted to play it advantage).

 vipoid wrote:
It's sad that they seem to hold such an adversarial view on the matter.

So adversarial WC only runs showcases of converted minis 1-2 times per week (and even ads for new armies, most recently for WE, feature converted models). I feel the problem is not in adversarial views, but someone completely and utterly inept high in rule writing team going off the rails to sabotage armies he doesn't like (such as Deathwatch with completely imbecilic nerf to special ammo that doesn't make any sense whatsoever using lack of switch buttons on weapons as an excuse or the whole primaris saga with comically stupid limits on their frakking melee weapons DESPITE BITS FOR SAID WEAPONS BEING RIGHT IN THE BOX!)

AoS doesn't have this problem because they have separate rule writer team and it looks like it's much more competent one than 40K clowns...

 Gert wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
GW corporate seems to fundamentally not understand that more community = more sales, even if that community is build on using parts from other companies! Because you know what people use those parts to convert? GW miniatures.

The one bit I disagree with from a "business" perspective is this bit. GW should 100% be encouraging conversion work and Codexes should have examples of this like the 4th Ed Ork Codex that had a page dedicated to it or the examples found in the 8th Ed Guard Codex. WD articles are good but not enough.
That being said, featuring conversions using parts from other companies, competitors if we are being accurate, isn't smart business. Advertising other companies doesn't net GW customers and money, and like it or not, that's what the people running the company have to do. If customers find out that there are other options very early on then there is a chance they won't buy from GW.
There's a reason the EE shop in a shopping centre didn't tell me to go to a local phone repair shop after they quoted £300 to fix a broken screen. Same thing applies to GW.

I absolutely agree that they shouldn't be featuring or advertising third party products, but they absolutely should be advertising and encouraging conversions using solely their own. In the meantime they also don't benefit from spending money to be actively antagonistic to 3rd parties--a marine army with 3d printed shoulder pads at a tournament is going to sell far more GW plastic than anything else.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

Sure, stagflation is the low-hanging fruit that no one remembers fondly. But there are still those who get nostalgic about disco. It's shown up in some recent-ish films.
I have a lot of nostalgia for the 70's. I was a kid. I didn't know about stagflation. I knew about Star Wars, Space 1999, Kiss, Sabbath, Van Halen...

 Arschbombe wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

Sure, stagflation is the low-hanging fruit that no one remembers fondly. But there are still those who get nostalgic about disco. It's shown up in some recent-ish films.
I have a lot of nostalgia for the 70's. I was a kid. I didn't know about stagflation. I knew about Star Wars, Space 1999, Kiss, Sabbath, Van Halen...

70's muscle cars....

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
GW corporate seems to fundamentally not understand that more community = more sales, even if that community is build on using parts from other companies! Because you know what people use those parts to convert? GW miniatures.

The one bit I disagree with from a "business" perspective is this bit. GW should 100% be encouraging conversion work and Codexes should have examples of this like the 4th Ed Ork Codex that had a page dedicated to it or the examples found in the 8th Ed Guard Codex. WD articles are good but not enough.
That being said, featuring conversions using parts from other companies, competitors if we are being accurate, isn't smart business. Advertising other companies doesn't net GW customers and money, and like it or not, that's what the people running the company have to do. If customers find out that there are other options very early on then there is a chance they won't buy from GW.
There's a reason the EE shop in a shopping centre didn't tell me to go to a local phone repair shop after they quoted £300 to fix a broken screen. Same thing applies to GW.

I absolutely agree that they shouldn't be featuring or advertising third party products, but they absolutely should be advertising and encouraging conversions using solely their own. In the meantime they also don't benefit from spending money to be actively antagonistic to 3rd parties--a marine army with 3d printed shoulder pads at a tournament is going to sell far more GW plastic than anything else.

The new WD contains an extensive article detailing fairly complex conversions representing characters in their new videogame. Not sure how common this is as I only bought the recent WD for the free games and don't usually buy it, but judging by what I also see on WarCom, I think they're doing exactly what you're saying they should.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I absolutely agree that they shouldn't be featuring or advertising third party products, but they absolutely should be advertising and encouraging conversions using solely their own. In the meantime they also don't benefit from spending money to be actively antagonistic to 3rd parties--a marine army with 3d printed shoulder pads at a tournament is going to sell far more GW plastic than anything else.

Advertising 3d printed products doesn't net GW money. Why buy GW Ultramarine or Night Lord's upgrades when you can buy double the number of 3d printed versions for roughly the same price?
The only place GW doesn't advertise conversions currently is in some Codexes and even then there are certain books that feature conversions, even if they are just with official GW upgrade kits or minimal kitbashing.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

As part of my effort to recreate 2nd edition in its entirety, I've collected many of the WDs of that era and what stands out is the creativity of the company. They were willing to try one-off games and make forays into supporting sub-games within their genres.

Others have already addressed some of the things in the 70's that folks do look back on with nostalgia, but I'll simply say that pointing out (and rightfully so) the things that were bad about an era in no way dampens the nostalgia for things people did like. Nostalgia is by it's very nature a cloudy, rose-colored view of the past.

As for Second Edition 40k. I have some thoughts on that. It's when I entered the game and I do have every codex and a nearly complete set of WD's from the era. I love the design, fluff, look, etc. Though my 40k armies do spill into 4th and a bit of 5th, I realized recently that there's almost nothing in them that isn't in 2nd edition codices. And yet I have zero nostalgia for the 2nd rules except as they exist in classic Necromunda which I think (in it's NCE form) is the pinnacle of the RT/2ndEd rulesets and proof that the 40k system is really best for very small-scope games.

But I digress... Second edition 40k was an improvement over RT and perhaps it's better than what we've got now (I can't comment as I abandoned 40k rules a few editions ago), but as a game it was an overdone mess of cards, tables, overpowered heroes, and unnecessarily granular rules. I understand why folks return to it the same way they return to certain early versions of WHFB, but having gone back myself a few years ago for a revisit of 2nd edition I have zero interest in doing so again.

 Eilif wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


I'm not disagreeing entirely, but it is a bit humorous to see nostalgia for white dwarf of the 00s. Folks always look back to "better days". One wonders what it will be like when players look back with fondness to the early 2020s...

Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

As part of my effort to recreate 2nd edition in its entirety, I've collected many of the WDs of that era and what stands out is the creativity of the company. They were willing to try one-off games and make forays into supporting sub-games within their genres.

Others have already addressed some of the things in the 70's that folks do look back on with nostalgia, but I'll simply say that pointing out (and rightfully so) the things that were bad about an era in no way dampens the nostalgia for things people did like. Nostalgia is by it's very nature a cloudy, rose-colored view of the past.

As for Second Edition 40k. I have some thoughts on that. It's when I entered the game and I do have every codex and a nearly complete set of WD's from the era. I love the design, fluff, look, etc. Though my 40k armies do spill into 4th and a bit of 5th, I realized recently that there's almost nothing in them that isn't in 2nd edition codices. And yet I have zero nostalgia for the 2nd rules except as they exist in classic Necromunda which I think (in it's NCE form) is the pinnacle of the RT/2ndEd rulesets and proof that the 40k system is really best for very small-scope games.

But I digress... Second edition 40k was an improvement over RT and perhaps it's better than what we've got now (I can't comment as I abandoned 40k rules a few editions ago), but as a game it was an overdone mess of cards, tables, overpowered heroes, and unnecessarily granular rules. I understand why folks return to it the same way they return to certain early versions of WHFB, but having gone back myself a few years ago for a revisit of 2nd edition I have zero interest in doing so again.

I love the internet when it is this civil

Im a huge 2nd edition fan and agree with all you said. Nevertheless its a mess I love. You do need an empty day to get a game in i find though

2nd is still my favorite, probably why I love Necromunda so much.

OG Necromunda with Outlanders might be my fave GW game. Still trying to source the books and that style of terrain though

ccs wrote:


70's muscle cars....

Which came with the AMC Pacer. British Leyland.

I mean, seriously. I have school photos where the entire class has collars that reach beyond their shoulder blades. It was awful.

Near the end things seemed to improve, but on the whole, not so good. Space 1999...don't get me started.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:


70's muscle cars....

Which came with the AMC Pacer.

So? The existence of the Pacer has nothing to do with my love of 70s muscle cars.

Dai wrote:
OG Necromunda with Outlanders might be my fave GW game. Still trying to source the books and that style of terrain though

I highly recommend the "Necromunda Community Edition" as assembled by Yaktribe. It's a fairly subtle tweaking of the game by a fan community that did alot of playtesting. Shaves a few of the rough edges and balances some things, but makes no attempt to modernize or drastically change anything so it feels just like you remember. It's based off of the last community edition that (a version of "Underhive" rulebook) that GW released and incorporates the Outlanders stuff. We played a mini-campaign with NCE a few years back and really enjoyed it.

As for terrain there are some good MDF kits available in that style, including some that seem to mirror almsot exactly the contents of the original boxed set. However, building multi-level necro-style terrain from junk toys (very "Necromundicon"-ish) has been a labor of love for me over the years that I've quite enjoyed. Much of which can be viewed here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:


I love the internet when it is this civil

I'm a huge 2nd edition fan and agree with all you said. Nevertheless its a mess I love. You do need an empty day to get a game in i find though

Thanks!
It is a glorious mess. I think that if I had a long afternoon set aside and an opponent who was really excited about 2nd edition, and familiar enough with the rules to help me along, I'd give it a go again. Ideally a smaller scope game though, maybe a platoon or so per side and an interesting scenario.

In the meantime, I'm having a ton of fun playing big quick "40k" games with my son using Grimdark Future and even those sometimes have to be split between days because family/kids/work/life/etc....

If anyone is interest, here's my thoughts on when I briefly revisited 2nd edition.
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2011/11/vintage-warhammer-40k-2nd-edition/
I'm mildly embarassed that what I thought was "a few years ago" is actually over a decade past. Time flies....

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Counterpoint: the 1970s. No one looks back on disco and stagflation with nostalgia. No one.

Star Wars? Empire Strikes Back? Alien? Stalker? CEot3K? Solaris? Zardoz?

On the book side too - Ringworld, Lathe of Heaven, Rama, Forever War, Mote in God's Eye, Dragonriders of Pern, Lem, Bolo, 70s was glorious time for Sci Fi. And pretty much the last decade that offered some hope for progress in the future before Raeganism/Thatcherism up everything...

ccs wrote:


So? The existence of the Pacer has nothing to do with my love of 70s muscle cars.

The emissions controls imposed on the auto industry made them less cool than they are now. That and the gas lines.

What a lot of people are doing is taking the cream of the decade - the happy parts we love and celebrate - and ignoring the absolute horror that they were in real time. Yeah, Star Wars was great, and it stood out because there was so much that was awful. Same with disco - we only play the best of it.

Everything was really, really ugly back then. Who thought green shag carpet was a good idea?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
.

What a lot of people are doing is taking the cream of the decade - the happy parts we love and celebrate - and ignoring the absolute horror that they were in real time. .
?

Of course that's what we're doing. That's what nostalgia is. I'm not sure why you seem surprised by that.

Those pointing out the gems of the era and/or not sharing quite as bleak a recollection of the era as you are neither completely disagreeing nor remotely impressed by you pointing it out repeatedly.

 Eilif wrote:


Of course that's what we're doing. That's what nostalgia is. I'm not sure why you seem surprised by that.

Those pointing out the gems of the era and/or not sharing quite as bleak a recollection of the era as you are neither completely disagreeing nor remotely impressed by you pointing it out repeatedly.

And my point is that I wonder how many people were actually there, because while I like Star Wars, I hated the 70s.

I mean, I love vintage movies from the 1930s, but the Great Depression was, you know, pretty depressing.

Anyway, I think we're as off topic as it is possible to be.

I'll take 70's cinema over the current field any day.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'll take 70's cinema over the current field any day.

That goes without saying.

 Irbis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
There was also a sense that the design teams wanted to play their rules.

The 'wanting to play their rules' is part of the problem, though. The reason why Phil Kelly made every Eldar book more broken than the last one (ditto for Tau 'math is too complicated for me' dude) is because it's his pet army he plays during breaks. It really shows because every other army he wrote had mostly trash rules as he wasn't excited to play it (or worse, didn't want to give his colleagues who wanted to play it advantage).

Yeah, it's why you really need to have more than one person look at each codex, so that favouritism doesn't creep in.

That said, I'd still take the old issues over the boilerplate trash we have now.

"How do we represent-"
"Reroll 1s"
"Okay, so what about-"
"Reroll 1s."
"So how about this completely different-"
"Reroll 1s."
"But now we need to represent-"
"Reroll 1s."
etc.

 Irbis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
It's sad that they seem to hold such an adversarial view on the matter.

So adversarial WC only runs showcases of converted minis 1-2 times per week (and even ads for new armies, most recently for WE, feature converted models). I feel the problem is not in adversarial views, but someone completely and utterly inept high in rule writing team going off the rails to sabotage armies he doesn't like (such as Deathwatch with completely imbecilic nerf to special ammo that doesn't make any sense whatsoever using lack of switch buttons on weapons as an excuse or the whole primaris saga with comically stupid limits on their frakking melee weapons DESPITE BITS FOR SAID WEAPONS BEING RIGHT IN THE BOX!)

That's fair. Though, if GW wants to encourage and promote conversions, you might expect someone would have given the rule writers a slap by this point.

 Irbis wrote:
AoS doesn't have this problem because they have separate rule writer team and it looks like it's much more competent one than 40K clowns...

I thought AoS didn't have this problem because it didn't have options.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:


So? The existence of the Pacer has nothing to do with my love of 70s muscle cars.

The emissions controls imposed on the auto industry made them less cool than they are now. That and the gas lines.

What a lot of people are doing is taking the cream of the decade - the happy parts we love and celebrate - and ignoring the absolute horror that they were in real time. Yeah, Star Wars was great, and it stood out because there was so much that was awful. Same with disco - we only play the best of it.

Emissions controls & gas lines were not a factor to my 70s child self.
As a child i never experienced a 70s gas line. My parents did, but I wasn't with them as they did.
And it'd be many years before I had to deal with the emissions controls on various models (but just like doing conversion work on GW minis, there's not much you can't fix with the right tools & skills )

So, like the existence of the Pacer neither changes my love of certain cars.....


As for your 2nd point? Uh, congratulations?? You just defined nostalgia.

 Eilif wrote:

Dai wrote:
OG Necromunda with Outlanders might be my fave GW game. Still trying to source the books and that style of terrain though

I highly recommend the "Necromunda Community Edition" as assembled by Yaktribe. It's a fairly subtle tweaking of the game by a fan community that did alot of playtesting. Shaves a few of the rough edges and balances some things, but makes no attempt to modernize or drastically change anything so it feels just like you remember. It's based off of the last community edition that (a version of "Underhive" rulebook) that GW released and incorporates the Outlanders stuff. We played a mini-campaign with NCE a few years back and really enjoyed it.

As for terrain there are some good MDF kits available in that style, including some that seem to mirror almsot exactly the contents of the original boxed set. However, building multi-level necro-style terrain from junk toys (very "Necromundicon"-ish) has been a labor of love for me over the years that I've quite enjoyed. Much of which can be viewed here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:


I love the internet when it is this civil

I'm a huge 2nd edition fan and agree with all you said. Nevertheless its a mess I love. You do need an empty day to get a game in i find though

Thanks!
It is a glorious mess. I think that if I had a long afternoon set aside and an opponent who was really excited about 2nd edition, and familiar enough with the rules to help me along, I'd give it a go again. Ideally a smaller scope game though, maybe a platoon or so per side and an interesting scenario.

In the meantime, I'm having a ton of fun playing big quick "40k" games with my son using Grimdark Future and even those sometimes have to be split between days because family/kids/work/life/etc....

If anyone is interest, here's my thoughts on when I briefly revisited 2nd edition.
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2011/11/vintage-warhammer-40k-2nd-edition/
I'm mildly embarassed that what I thought was "a few years ago" is actually over a decade past. Time flies....

Apologies for the late reply here have been super busy, that time of year but just wanted to thank you. All of these resources are incredibly useful and I'll be sure to let you know how I am getting on when I get back to gaming in the new year.
Serious gratitude for you taking the time out there

Dai wrote:


Apologies for the late reply here have been super busy, that time of year but just wanted to thank you. All of these resources are incredibly useful and I'll be sure to let you know how I am getting on when I get back to gaming in the new year.
Serious gratitude for you taking the time out there

Your very welcome! Glad you found them useful.
Good luck getting back into vintage 40k-ness in the new year.

 Eilif wrote:

If anyone is interest, here's my thoughts on when I briefly revisited 2nd edition.
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2011/11/vintage-warhammer-40k-2nd-edition/
I'm mildly embarassed that what I thought was "a few years ago" is actually over a decade past. Time flies....

I got so lost in 70s anti-nostalgia that I missed this. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...

Two hours for 750 points is a lot of time, and you can cut that down considerably by eliminating fussy things like eliminating scatter for jump packs, rolling for persistent weapon effects, and so on.

The link is of course in my sig, but basically what 2nd needed was some streamlining. When it came out, the designers weren't sure of it was a game of squads or platoons. As the edition developed, the model count was clearly meant to increase, but fiddly things like rolling for individual models on fire to run around the board slowed things down.

I think there is room for both: if you love the detail of watching plasma balls linger, snuff out or burst, those rules are there.

But if you want to bring more troops on the board, that sort of extra detail is easy to sweep aside. I've also come up with a less dice-intensive way to do close combat that retains the essential elements of the stat lines.

Re-rolling for parries I can live without, but I love hitting vehicles and blowing the turrets off and seeing where they land.

This article was hilarious.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Two hours for 750 points is a lot of time, and you can cut that down considerably by eliminating fussy things like eliminating scatter for jump packs, rolling for persistent weapon effects, and so on.

If you don't play the full game, it'll take less time than if you play the full game - good to know.

 Dysartes wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Two hours for 750 points is a lot of time, and you can cut that down considerably by eliminating fussy things like eliminating scatter for jump packs, rolling for persistent weapon effects, and so on.

If you don't play the full game, it'll take less time than if you play the full game - good to know.

I'm just here to help!

Seriously, is scatter for jump packs really that crucial to the overall design? Is it a core feature of the system that a wide shot with a plasma missile should be monitored each turn for its condition?

Similarly, the re-roll of parries is a spectacularly inefficient way to generate probability shifts. I know of several games where players came up with "hacks" to speech up play simply by using less time-consuming mechanics.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Seriously, is scatter for jump packs really that crucial to the overall design? Is it a core feature of the system that a wide shot with a plasma missile should be monitored each turn for its condition?

Similarly, the re-roll of parries is a spectacularly inefficient way to generate probability shifts. I know of several games where players came up with "hacks" to speech up play simply by using less time-consuming mechanics.

I think the more pertinent question is how much do you simplify? It's not just scattering jumps and parries, all aspects of 2nd edition are rife with these sorts of extraneous mechanics. Vehicle rules/cards, wargear, Psychic powers, etc....

Trimming out things here and there for preference is fine, but I would suggest that if you want to play 2nd edition you just have to be ok with alot of kooky flavorful rules and time-consuming mechanics. 2nd edition will just never be a streamlined ruleset, so it's best to either embrace that or find another ruleset.

 Eilif wrote:


I think the more pertinent question is how much do you simplify? It's not just scattering jumps and parries, all aspects of 2nd edition are rife with these sorts of extraneous mechanics. Vehicle rules/cards, wargear, Psychic powers, etc....

Trimming out things here and there for preference is fine, but I would suggest that if you want to play 2nd edition you just have to be ok with alot of kooky flavorful rules and time-consuming mechanics. 2nd edition will just never be a streamlined ruleset, so it's best to either embrace that or find another ruleset.

I think there is a clear difference between core concepts of a game and the way in which those concepts are implemented. I played the game "as written" for many years and I liked it. However, when I came back to it, I realized that one could preserve the same feel (and tactics) while speeding up game play by eliminating some of the kludge.

Thus, my streamlined close combat system. Rolling two dice one time is a lot faster than rolling lots of dice and then doing re-rolls. The percentages are same, though because of the fumble mechanic, GW actually makes having high numbers of attack dice a liability, which strikes me as an unintentional design flaw (why should five attacks be statistically better than 10?).

Streamlining physical mechanics is just good game design. I remember years ago a Civil War boardgaming system required lots of dice-rolling and this was done sequentially. Then a player clued them in that you could just roll all the dice at once if they were different colors. Huge time-saver, and the designers included this in updates.

The same is true of jump packs' scatter. The scatter is d3" but they move 4", so unless they are jumping onto a ledge, it doesn't matter.

It is also important to consider that things like jump pack scatter, warhead expansion, etc. are not core rules, but rather rules that apply to specific pieces of gear, which may not appear at all in many games. Coming up with a way to make the wargear/weapons easier to use in no way challenges the integrity of 2nd edition's rules.

 Eilif wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Seriously, is scatter for jump packs really that crucial to the overall design? Is it a core feature of the system that a wide shot with a plasma missile should be monitored each turn for its condition?

Similarly, the re-roll of parries is a spectacularly inefficient way to generate probability shifts. I know of several games where players came up with "hacks" to speech up play simply by using less time-consuming mechanics.

I think the more pertinent question is how much do you simplify? It's not just scattering jumps and parries, all aspects of 2nd edition are rife with these sorts of extraneous mechanics. Vehicle rules/cards, wargear, Psychic powers, etc....

Trimming out things here and there for preference is fine, but I would suggest that if you want to play 2nd edition you just have to be ok with alot of kooky flavorful rules and time-consuming mechanics. 2nd edition will just never be a streamlined ruleset, so it's best to either embrace that or find another ruleset.

Ah yes the black and white only this and no other attitude. Always useless as usual.

One could direct your comments regarding 9e for gw as well. Once rule written can't change period. 8e army books obviously shouldn't have been updated either.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes the black and white only this and no other attitude. Always useless as usual.

One could direct your comments regarding 9e for gw as well. Once rule written can't change period. 8e army books obviously shouldn't have been updated either.

I took it as more of a purity test - that the "true" 2nd edition can't be modified.

Except that it was, often. The Black Codex yielded to books, the main rules had psykers that were superseded by Dark Millennium, articles in White Dwarf introduced additional changes and unit types, etc. I guess you could say the final form was when 3rd came out and it became obsolete, but it wasn't "finished" so much as "abandoned." There was clearly work still to be done.

For example, are psykers required? Clearly, no. If there are no psykers present, there is no psychic phase. At least around here, most people didn't use them because they didn't add much to the army's effectiveness and they slowed the game down.

I think the strength of 2nd is that it can be played both ways - one can do the fiddly bits and have a near-Necromunda level of detail. Alternatively, one can simplify various tertiary rules mechanics and have the fun of fielding larger forces while reducing playing time. What I think is interesting is how many players hit on the exact same "fixes," which is pretty remarkable given the often fractious debates about 40k rules.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Seriously, is scatter for jump packs really that crucial to the overall design? Is it a core feature of the system that a wide shot with a plasma missile should be monitored each turn for its condition?

Similarly, the re-roll of parries is a spectacularly inefficient way to generate probability shifts. I know of several games where players came up with "hacks" to speech up play simply by using less time-consuming mechanics.

I think the more pertinent question is how much do you simplify? It's not just scattering jumps and parries, all aspects of 2nd edition are rife with these sorts of extraneous mechanics. Vehicle rules/cards, wargear, Psychic powers, etc....

Trimming out things here and there for preference is fine, but I would suggest that if you want to play 2nd edition you just have to be ok with alot of kooky flavorful rules and time-consuming mechanics. 2nd edition will just never be a streamlined ruleset, so it's best to either embrace that or find another ruleset.

Ah yes the black and white only this and no other attitude. Always useless as usual.

One could direct your comments regarding 9e for gw as well. Once rule written can't change period. 8e army books obviously shouldn't have been updated either.

I think perhaps you misread my intent and we may actually be in agreement here. Probably my fault for not being more clear. I encourage players to play the games they like and change wherever rules they want. I certainly houserule often myself.

My contention is that with a game like 2nd Ed 40k you would have to change an awful lot of rules to modify the character of the game. For a player like Commissar T who already enjoys the system, a little tweaking around the edges gives him the game he really enjoys and that's great. For myself -while I'm open to trying it again someday - I currently think the sort of changes listed here would still provide -for me- an unsatisfying experience similar to the one I linked too. Especially if the game was bigger than platoon size and involved vehicles and psychics. My bias is toward streamlined rules like Grimdark Future but if 8th/9th is your jam rock that in good health.

All this to say, play the rules you like and flavor to taste, just don't expect the overall character of those rules to change.

 Eilif wrote:


My contention is that with a game like 2nd Ed 40k you would have to change an awful lot of rules to modify the character of the game. For a player like Commissar T who already enjoys the system, a little tweaking around the edges gives him the game he really enjoys and that's great. For myself -while I'm open to trying it again someday - I currently think the sort of changes listed here would still provide -for me- an unsatisfying experience similar to the one I linked too.

Thanks for the additional clarification.

You are correct in the sense that 2nd stands apart from the later editions in its use of vehicles and most of all, in its emphasis on fire combat over melee. It is a very unforgiving game if you leave troops out in the open. Even terminators have a limited life expectancy advancing over open ground.

Cutting out the clutter allows people who like that type of game to boost army sizes while keeping the playing time reasonably short. Using just two dice for HTH, for example, is huge in terms of speeding up the mechanics of the thing.