Howard A Treesong wrote:

 MrFlutterPie wrote:
I also want to add that I am worried about the stock review thing. As a sister player that kind of talk worries me.

Perhaps we will be martyred to the Emperor soon after all...

Or

They could get rid the metal models so they didn't have to bother with metal at all and reboot us with new plastics.

Faith...I must have faith...

They won't give any warning though. Just like when they pulled the plug on specialist games and there was a panic as the stock suddenly dried up overnight. The lesson is that if you want something you should get it now and not keep putting it off, as you'll get no warning when it goes. Just another of those 'communication' things GW doesn't do.

With the risk of being squatted hanging over my head I think the last thing I would want to do is to buy more models from that army.

I suspect change is coming down the pipeline in some shape for form and the best way to weather it is to buy nothing. I have a ton painting to catch up on so I can still be busy the next several months as everything pans out.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Marlov wrote:
I am disappointed. They seem to have done ok in 2015 on their 40k releases, and I was hoping, PRAYING that this would be burnout for 40k buyers. I guess enough elder players went to buy scatbikes to pull GW through the year.

Still hoping GW dies and dies fast!

Why?

What have they done to you, personally?

What do you gain if they fail?

If you don't like them, play something else.

I can get not liking a company, but to PRAY that they fail? That's just sick, man.

You just don't understand religion, that's all.

I druther they straighten up and get things back on a friendly footing, but barring that....

I am not sure which is worse, a slow decline and fall that drags out for another decade, or a fast decline that is brutal, but allows another to take over the properties before they lose all value.

I really think that half a quarter of the problems that GW has stem from them seriously overvaluing their IP.

It is not as unique as they feel, nor is it nearly as much of a moat and castle as they have claimed - if the Chapterhouse case proved nothing else, people can legally make compatible products.

The Auld Grump

Think of it like this:

• You have an iron spike that has been driven through your chest in an accident at a train station. The spike is about 2" around, and is 2' long, going through your right chest, right above your lung, and through the muscles of your pectorals and trapezius in the front/back.

It hurts terribly.

The doctors go to remove it, without anesthetic. They can either:

- Quickly drive the spike through you, and then close the wound.
- Slowly pull it through, while stopping every now and then to keep you from trashing around.

• You have an abscessed tooth. But you are on a desert island. You can either:

- Knock the tooth out with an ice-skate that has washed up on shore
- Leave it to fester, hoping you do not die of an infection in the process, or starve to death because you are unable to eat.

• You trapped beneath a rock. The only way to get you out is to amputate your leg. You can either:

- Chop the leg off at one go with a big axe.
- Cut it slowly off with the saw blade from your swiss army knife.


...........................................

I think these are the choices people feel they are facing with GW. While the issue with GW is not nearly as dire as a possibly mortal wound, it can be agonizing just the same, to watch something you love die a slow death (like a pet with cancer, you can either watch it linger, starving to death and suffering, or you can put it quickly and painlessly out of its misery).

What GW are doing is certainly a mystery.

MB

@BeAfraid - how about this analogy?

You work 40-60 hours a week, have a family and a little spare time and extra money. So you go and buy $50-$100 boxes of toys every week or so and gleefully assemble and model them when you can, and then get together with friends and play a game and have a good time.

What GW is doing isn't a mystery at all. It's targeting this described demographic, and believe it or not, there are a lot of people like this. From dentists to mechanics to police officers.

Combine this report and last report they still posted a sales decline of 15.465 million pounds, a sales decline is still a sales decline.

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Combine this report and last report they still posted a sales decline of 15.465 million pounds, a sales decline is still a sales decline.

How do you figure that? This report is for the *whole year* (12 months), and includes the last half-year (6 months) report, so you can't add them together.

In the 12 month period, their sales decline unadjusted for currency is GBP 4.4 million, and at the half-year mark it was closer to 10 million, which means the second half of the year was quite good.

The adjusted currency revenue is 123.1 versus 123.5 million, or GBP 400k -- which is literally not even a rounding error -- it is 0.3%

In terms of operating profit, they're at GBP 16.5m, and that's after investing something like GBP 25m+ on tooling new molds and stuff (I saw someone say that above; I didn't pull it from the statements myself) -- which means TONS of new products in the pipeline for 2015/2016.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
Seems pretty much standard for a UK based business in this climate, It shows nothing to worry about as far as I am concerned.

How do you explain the growth of, well, everyone else in the gaming industry (including Warlord/Perry/Mantic/Renedra who are all local to Nottingham)?

How much have they grown? People say this but since they are private companies, how do we know (a) how much they've grown and (b) how much they sell and (c) how profitable they are?

 Talys wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Combine this report and last report they still posted a sales decline of 15.465 million pounds, a sales decline is still a sales decline.

How do you figure that? This report is for the *whole year* (12 months), and includes the last half-year (6 months) report, so you can't add them together.

In the 12 month period, their sales decline unadjusted for currency is GBP 4.4 million, and at the half-year mark it was closer to 10 million, which means the second half of the year was quite good.

The adjusted currency revenue is 123.1 versus 123.5 million, or GBP 400k -- which is literally not even a rounding error -- it is 0.3%

In terms of operating profit, they're at GBP 16.5m, and that's after investing something like GBP 25m+ on tooling new molds and stuff (I saw someone say that above; I didn't pull it from the statements myself) -- which means TONS of new products in the pipeline for 2015/2016.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
Seems pretty much standard for a UK based business in this climate, It shows nothing to worry about as far as I am concerned.

How do you explain the growth of, well, everyone else in the gaming industry (including Warlord/Perry/Mantic/Renedra who are all local to Nottingham)?

How much have they grown? People say this but since they are private companies, how do we know (a) how much they've grown and (b) how much they sell and (c) how profitable they are?

Why is it so hard for folks to understand, take the FULL YEAR REPORT 2013/14 and ADD IT to the FULL YEAR REPORT 2014/15 and it ADDS UP TO 15.465 Million Pounds SALES DECLINE.

Also there is a difference between sales revenue and operational profit, did you know that.

I'd suggest anyone who is gleefully assembling miniatures from any manufacturer may be suffering some form of mania.

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Why is it so hard for folks to understand, take the FULL YEAR REPORT 2013/14 and ADD IT to the FULL YEAR REPORT 2014/15 and it ADDS UP TO 15.465 Million Pounds SALES DECLINE.

Also there is a difference between sales revenue and operational profit, did you know that.

Because that isn't meaningful.

No more so than if you added up 10 good years and say, 'wow, sales went up 80 million!!!'

Comparing the revenue from 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 is meaningful. Comparing profits or losses and the reasons why is even more meaningful.

Revenues without the context of profit or long term investments is meaningless. Is a $100 million in profit good? Not if the sales are $30 billion. Spectacular if the sales are $200 million. Is $100 million in revenue good? Not if it took $150 million to make. Usually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joyboozer wrote:
I'd suggest anyone who is gleefully assembling miniatures from any manufacturer may be suffering some form of mania.

You may be on the wrong website then The homepage and the pages of miniatures there might have been a giveaway.

Assembling and painting miniatures is perhaps the most gleeful part of my day!

 Azreal13 wrote:
I believe it's now been officially downgraded to a hedge, according to the latest report.

Just a hedge? Not even a hedgerow? (Hmmm, what kind of bustle would there be in Games Workshop's hedgerow? Something to be alarmed about, I'm certain.)

Forge World mail order store. To protect our sales we are building a new Forge World mail order store on the same platform
and hosting environment as our Citadel mail order store and migrating all products and imagery. It is on track with a
scheduled go live date in the summer of 2015. It will cost £1.1 million.

Have a look through the thread but 30 pages is a bit to go through,

Thoughts on this being good solid ground from where all the GW will sell FW through their stores?

On the other hand, just moving it to the same hosting environment to link some things in like accounts etc. and migrating all of it to this platform may be all they mean, Id expect the word integrate if it were getting folded the games workshop website.

Different websites with the same ability to ship to stores / buy at stores. Same payment processing?

Very interested in all this...

Hoping region based gouging doesn't make Forge World even more price prohibitive than it is now.

 Talys wrote:

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Why is it so hard for folks to understand, take the FULL YEAR REPORT 2013/14 and ADD IT to the FULL YEAR REPORT 2014/15 and it ADDS UP TO 15.465 Million Pounds SALES DECLINE.

Also there is a difference between sales revenue and operational profit, did you know that.

Because that isn't meaningful.

No more so than if you added up 10 good years and say, 'wow, sales went up 80 million!!!'

Comparing the revenue from 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 is meaningful. Comparing profits or losses and the reasons why is even more meaningful.

Revenues without the context of profit or long term investments is meaningless. Is a $100 million in profit good? Not if the sales are $30 billion. Spectacular if the sales are $200 million. Is $100 million in revenue good? Not if it took $150 million to make. Usually.

Ok I get where you are coming from, and you are correct.

Cheers

 Eldarain wrote:
Hoping region based gouging doesn't make Forge World even more price prohibitive than it is now.

This is my biggest fear.

RandomNoob wrote:

Forge World mail order store. To protect our sales we are building a new Forge World mail order store on the same platform
and hosting environment as our Citadel mail order store and migrating all products and imagery. It is on track with a
scheduled go live date in the summer of 2015. It will cost £1.1 million.

Have a look through the thread but 30 pages is a bit to go through,

Thoughts on this being good solid ground from where all the GW will sell FW through their stores?

On the other hand, just moving it to the same hosting environment to link some things in like accounts etc. and migrating all of it to this platform may be all they mean, Id expect the word integrate if it were getting folded the games workshop website.

Different websites with the same ability to ship to stores / buy at stores. Same payment processing?

Very interested in all this...

GW doesn't even sell all their own products in stores anymore. I doubt they'll start stocking all of FW's line. They want all their stores to only have commonly sold items, and send people to online ordering for anything else. FW is a niche within a niche.

 argonak wrote:
GW doesn't even sell all their own products in stores anymore. I doubt they'll start stocking all of FW's line. They want all their stores to only have commonly sold items, and send people to online ordering for anything else. FW is a niche within a niche.

The big thing is that you'll be able to order it to a store without paying shipping. You can also look at a kit, and say, "No" or return it physically at a store because you don't like the quality of the cast or whatever.

5 of the 6 people in our group don't buy FW because you must mail order it, the P&P is ridiculously high, and ship time is even longer. That would change, at least to some degree, if it's available locally. Besides, a lot of people all want the same stuff. Sicaran battle tank. Knight Castigator. Imperial Armor. Revenant Titan. etc.

Talys wrote:@BeAfraid - how about this analogy?

You work 40-60 hours a week, have a family and a little spare time and extra money. So you go and buy $50-$100 boxes of toys every week or so and gleefully assemble and model them when you can, and then get together with friends and play a game and have a good time.

What GW is doing isn't a mystery at all. It's targeting this described demographic, and believe it or not, there are a lot of people like this. From dentists to mechanics to police officers.

I believe this is the case and GW is simply failing to reach them at a rate that would return them to growth. Relying on word if mouth and a sparse retail presence is insufficient to reach tthis demographic. If this and 14 year old boys are their ttwo major targets, the 14 year olds have a built in social situation called school for the word of mouth to work while the working adult does not and likely has a much smaller pool of potential peers.

3% price hike + decline in sales = further withering of products sold and number of people sold to. This means less word of mouth advertising and this social factor has been compounding against GW for quite some time. Each year less people buy less product and tell less people about GWs products.

GWs only plan seems to be open more stores and try to sell to stockists even harder! Do more of what hasn't been working.

So I think we'll see sixth months from now an uptick in revenue from AoS (it is an edition launch and those are proven money makers for GW) but the slow grind into irrelevancy will continue as GW continues to segregate itself from the larger hobby gaming industry by shifting more and more revenue onto direct ssales while talking about a plan to boost trade sales that goes nowhere.

In the unfortunate event that some fire completely destroys GW HQ in Nottingham, we'll read Talys here saying it's good news since now they can build a new, shiny and way more structurally efficient HQ building

No hard feelings Talys, it's just that extreme optimism ends up looking a bit like blindness when faced with constant and endless bad news. A drop in sales and revenue can never, ever, be a good thing. Companies are expected to slightly grow in terms of revenue each year just to cope with inflation.

The full year report, although a bit better than what some of us were expecting, says GW keeps shrinking despite all their cost-cutting measures, price hikes and new expensive shiny releases.

@Korinov - I think the way to look at it is that 2H 2014 was a weak half year; and 1H 2015 is a strong half year. They average each other out (and this is not unusual), leaving GW essentially flat with 2013-2014.

Would GW shareholders prefer growth? Of course! But is this terrible news? I don't think so.

If GW can keep up their performance of 1H 2015 for a few more half-years, they'll be on great footing and be headed in the right direction. If they slip back into the pattern of the several half-years before that, they'll need to re-evaluate and make adjustments, and perhaps do things that they don't really want to do.

Either way, it won't be a crowning triumph or an unmitigated disaster, the former because the market is too mature for GW to explode with growth, and the latter because GW has a pretty strong core of dedicated customers.

Is that fair?

 Talys wrote:
@Korinov - I think the way to look at it is that 2H 2014 was a weak half year; and 1H 2015 is a strong half year. They average each other out (and this is not unusual), leaving GW essentially flat with 2013-2014.

Would GW shareholders prefer growth? Of course! But is this terrible news? I don't think so.

If GW can keep up their performance of 1H 2015 for a few more half-years, they'll be on great footing and be headed in the right direction. If they slip back into the pattern of the several half-years before that, they'll need to re-evaluate and make adjustments, and perhaps do things that they don't really want to do.

Either way, it won't be a crowning triumph or an unmitigated disaster, the former because the market is too mature for GW to explode with growth, and the latter because GW has a pretty strong core of dedicated customers.

Is that fair?

GW sales had been growing since its boom year of 2008/09 when it made a whopping 15.4 million pounds increase from the previous year rising each year (except 2010/11) until it reached its zenith in 2012/13 with 134.6 million pounds sales revenue, however
we have seen consecutive sales decline of 11.009 million pounds (2013/14) and a further 4.465 million pounds (for 2014/15) and now it posted 119.1 million pounds. GW is in a state of decline

We will see if AoS is the saving grace GW has its hopes pinned on, we'll see this in the half yearly report of 2015 in November.

@Achaylus72 - Three things worth mentioning.

First, it's only fair to adjust for the LoTR boom, because that has little to do with their core businesses, and was destined to fade with the movies.

Second, it's worth mentioning that when people who don't like GW look at the 2014 results, they like to cite the 12m profits, not taking into account the 4.5m in exceptional charges, as a way to say "look how much GW lost!". Then, when looking at 2015 , they like to look at the 2014 as 16.5m as a measuring stick and say, "look GW made less money!". Either view is fine with me, as long as the reader picks one and sticks with it.

Third, there's only a sales decline when revenues aren't adjusted for currency, and such an adjustment for revenue is a standard practice for comparative purposes when a significant portion of the company's business is not conducted in its home currency. For instance, if I sell $50m in USD in both Year 1 and Year 2, but GBP is worth 2.0USD in year 1 and GBP is worth 1.8USD in year 2, my revenues haven't changed at all for comparative purposes of "did I sell more or less stuff?", despite that on my financial statements, as stated in GBP, will be lower in year 2. It's particularly important in a company like GW's case, because GW doesn't adjust its prices for home currency fluctuation. When GBP is weak, it doesn't charge more in USD for its product, or the reverse when it's strong.

With the currency adjustment, revenues suffer a decline of something like 0.3%, which is not a significant figure (likewise, if it increased by 0.3%, that would also mean revenues were flat). Obviously, the market accepts the company narrative, as GAW has had an uptick since the release of the financials.

In my view, the most important takeaway for GW is that they appear to have at least short term success doing what they want to do. From a personal perspective, I like most of what they do so I'm happy about this: I want them to keep launching lots of new models and books at their current cadence (ie something to look forward to weekly); I like (love) the 2015 40k releases; I like model upgrades; and I like narrative-focused gaming. While I am price sensitive, I'm comfortable with the current prices, and I buy a pretty substantial amount of product. I really enjoy the hobby AND the gaming aspects, though I put a higher emphasis on the quality of the models than the quality of the games.

If Games Workshop is indeed targeting people like me (and my play group), and there are enough people like me to sustain that business, personally, I will be happy.

I would be even happier if Games Workshop could be inclusive, and appeal to other demographics too, as long as it doesn't take away from my fun. So, for example, I'm happy if they write more balanced rules (I wish they would!). But I'll be unhappy if they decide to go to 5 year codex releases. I'm happy if they don't increase the prices of kits; but I'll be unhappy if this means they don't refresh them.

I will go out on a limb and prognosticate: with Space Marines, Age of Sigmar, and potentially 30k and Forge World all crammed into 2H 2015, GW's next half-year will probably be pretty good. The question, really, is if there's lasting power for at least a couple of years after that.

 Talys wrote:
Third, there's only a sales decline when revenues aren't adjusted for currency, and such an adjustment for revenue is a standard practice for comparative purposes when a significant portion of the company's business is not conducted in its home currency. For instance, if I sell $50m in USD in both Year 1 and Year 2, but GBP is worth 2.0USD in year 1 and GBP is worth 1.8USD in year 2, my revenues haven't changed at all for comparative purposes of "did I sell more or less stuff?", despite that on my financial statements, as stated in GBP, will be lower in year 2. It's particularly important in a company like GW's case, because GW doesn't adjust its prices for home currency fluctuation. When GBP is weak, it doesn't charge more in USD for its product, or the reverse when it's strong.

With the currency adjustment, revenues suffer a decline of something like 0.3%, which is not a significant figure (likewise, if it increased by 0.3%, that would also mean revenues were flat). Obviously, the market accepts the company narrative, as GAW has had an uptick since the release of the financials.

Talys, that is the best description of the whole "constant currency thing" I've yet read.

The only financials that really matter to me is that I can no longer afford to be a customer. It was a deliberate business decision on the part of GW to exclude me from their hobby.

I was pushed out some time ago, and now I just keep an eye on things from the sidelines.

I guess if I wanted to I could afford the odd squad or so. But the value is simply not there. There are just too many better ways to drop $50. I think this is the problem they need to address. To convince enough people that their products are worth it.

Or to keep selling to the super fans who will buy everything at any price. Are there enough of them to sustain things?

I have to agree with Talys. Good, objective analysis there dude.

 Talys wrote:
@Korinov - I think the way to look at it is that 2H 2014 was a weak half year; and 1H 2015 is a strong half year. They average each other out (and this is not unusual), leaving GW essentially flat with 2013-2014.

Would GW shareholders prefer growth? Of course! But is this terrible news? I don't think so.

If GW can keep up their performance of 1H 2015 for a few more half-years, they'll be on great footing and be headed in the right direction. If they slip back into the pattern of the several half-years before that, they'll need to re-evaluate and make adjustments, and perhaps do things that they don't really want to do.

Either way, it won't be a crowning triumph or an unmitigated disaster, the former because the market is too mature for GW to explode with growth, and the latter because GW has a pretty strong core of dedicated customers.

Is that fair?

I'm not talking about shareholders' opinion here, just the health of the company.

First half of 2015 has probably been decent in terms of sales, it's allowed them to turn the tide in what seemed to be another highly disappointing fiscal exercise.

However I still don't see how the 2014-15 results can be something for GW to be proud of. Sales keep declining, and we've reached a point where they probably don't have many cost-cutting measures left to implement.

To be fair, I do agree with the notion that GW simply is in no position to grow and at the same time has a core of dedicated customers strong enough to keep surviving - and it's a 'core' because they've already lost the rest, either as a consequence of their management decisions or due to merely pricing them out.

I don't think that's a very promising picture in the context of a growing market. If I had to make a prediction, I believe GW's sales and profit numbers will keep declining slowly during the next years. Not a debacle yeah, just a moderate shrink. I don't even believe the second half of this year is going to be that great, it's true Space Marines are the usual strong sellers but their 6th edition codex (which introduced true new kits to the game, like Centurions) failed to make a big impact in the big scheme of things, so I don't think the 7th edition one will make a big difference. Actually I'd bet something the Mechanicum releases in these past months have probably made a bigger difference than what spess mehreens will do for the first half of 2015-16. The AoS starter set will probably produce good figures, but I don't think the game will go much further than that, the rest of the range has outrageous prices (5 sigmarines for 40€ lol, easily some of the models with the absolute worst price/quality ratio in the whole market) and at the same time they're losing virtually all the sales Fantasy provided them. In fact, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some kind of Fantasy buying spree (get 'em while they last!) has also helped GW to have a good first half of 2015.

In short, come december, I wouldn't be surprised to find another 5% drop in both revenue and profits in the official report.

This pretty simple:

Revenue down 4% - bad
Profit is flat - not good
Cost down 5% - good

GW is still not that far away from breaking even as they are only making 16% margin.

Someone would need to show how many more products were released in 2015 vs. 2014 to see how much of the revenue was due to the fast pace of releases. They released several items that have been sought after for decades and can't really go back to that well again next year.

Talys wrote:First, it's only fair to adjust for the LoTR boom, because that has little to do with their core businesses, and was destined to fade with the movies.

Actually GW was completely caught off guard from the LOTR bubble popping. They even went so far as to sustain their dividend by borrowing money to pay it. They didn't understand the full nature of the shift until after they started losing money. You don't borrow money to sustain a dividend if you think sales are going to continue to drop and you'll have to embark on year after year of endless (and expensive) cost cutting and restructuring. Kirby even went so far as to describe their behavior in the face of this change as having become fat and lazy. They were not on the ball at all in terms of reacting to the decline of LOTR. It was the only loss making time in company history and I think their shock at such a turn of events has lead to their hawkish watching of costs and protection of their margins through high prices.

With the currency adjustment, revenues suffer a decline of something like 0.3%, which is not a significant figure (likewise, if it increased by 0.3%, that would also mean revenues were flat). Obviously, the market accepts the company narrative, as GAW has had an uptick since the release of the financials.

I actually think this is one time where the currency fluctuations have been large enough and quick enough that it should be considered as you have. Prices up with inflation but no revenue growth = shrinking in real terms regardless of currency. Not a huge retraction and more than offset by cost cutting.

In my view, the most important takeaway for GW is that they appear to have at least short term success doing what they want to do.

My only concern is that they seem to be planning on shrinking more. Converting more customers to direct to capture more margins, raising prices with each new release and selling less product to make the same amount of money. All their return to growth talk in this report is the same as in previous ones. Just vague statements about doing better selling people on the product in the form of opening more stores and trying to get more trade accounts. Nothing actually changes though.

I will go out on a limb and prognosticate: with Space Marines, Age of Sigmar, and potentially 30k and Forge World all crammed into 2H 2015, GW's next half-year will probably be pretty good. The question, really, is if there's lasting power for at least a couple of years after that.

This matches my predictions as well. AoS and plastic 30k (Warhammer: Age of Heresy?) and the resetting of the product line might mean they have a good future in terms of getting that greater amount of money from a smaller number of customers that they seem to have been concentrating their business on over the last 6 years.

--

Barfolomew wrote:GW is still not that far away from breaking even as they are only making 16% margin.

Someone would need to show how many more products were released in 2015 vs. 2014 to see how much of the revenue was due to the fast pace of releases. They released several items that have been sought after for decades and can't really go back to that well again next year.

A little bizarre Either they are breaking even or making a profit. If they're making a profit, they are doing better than breaking even Unless you mean, revenues stabilizing?

There are many, many more wells for GW to draw on. Sisters of Battle and Inquisition come to mind. The entire 30k line, revamps of many popular kits (for instance on the SM side -- scouts, command, captain, a better standard bike kit). If they fix terminators and sell a new kit with a new weapon (grav terminators! better cyclones!) that will give them a huge sales boost. If they drop aspect warriors in plastic, Eldar players will go crazy.

This is part of the success of 40k -- the line is so broad and deep, and the players who enjoy that are always pining for new models, because GW isn't capable of keeping all bazillion kits up to date with their latest tooling methods concurrently.

frozenwastes wrote:Actually GW was completely caught off guard from the LOTR bubble popping. They even went so far as to sustain their dividend by borrowing money to pay it. They didn't understand the full nature of the shift until after they started losing money. You don't borrow money to sustain a dividend if you think sales are going to continue to drop and you'll have to embark on year after year of endless (and expensive) cost cutting and restructuring. Kirby even went so far as to describe their behavior in the face of this change as having become fat and lazy. They were not on the ball at all in terms of reacting to the decline of LOTR. It was the only loss making time in company history and I think their shock at such a turn of events has lead to their hawkish watching of costs and protection of their margins through high prices.

Sure, but my point was just that there WAS an LoTR bubble, as an explanation for a few incredibly good years.

frozenwastes wrote:My only concern is that they seem to be planning on shrinking more. Converting more customers to direct to capture more margins, raising prices with each new release and selling less product to make the same amount of money. All their return to growth talk in this report is the same as in previous ones. Just vague statements about doing better selling people on the product in the form of opening more stores and trying to get more trade accounts. Nothing actually changes though.
...
This matches my predictions as well. AoS and plastic 30k (Warhammer: Age of Heresy?) and the resetting of the product line might mean they have a good future in terms of getting that greater amount of money from a smaller number of customers that they seem to have been concentrating their business on over the last 6 years.

Right, and I've mentioned (perhaps elsewhere) that this is the most valid criticism of Games Workshop. It's not about them making more or less revenue, nor even profit; the criticism would be that they are willing to sacrifice their playerbase for profits; to reduce the breadth of their ecosystem to please the players who spend the most and who enjoy the hobby most like them. I think that the thought process is something like:

The 20% and 80% are just for argument's sake.
1. Let's look at the purchasing curve of our customers. Wow, 20% buy 80% of the product!
2. What do those 20% want?
3. Ok let's make that 20% really happy. The 80% will be pissed? Oh well, too bad.
4. Well, we gave the 20% what they want, but now that there are fewer players, the 20% will have to pay more, because we don't want to make less.
5. The 80% get even more mad and buy less stuff or quit
6. The 20% buy more stuff because they're happy

It happens that the 20% that are buying a lot of stuff enjoy the hobby in the same way that GW imagines that 100% of their customer base should. That is, models first, fluff second, game third. Large armies, large collections, narrative-based play, fluffy lists, elaborate setups over small games, quick pickup games, list-to-win, rapid setup and competitive play.

Inevitably, some of the 80% will cross over and do things "the GW way"; but a lot more will leave for something that is a better fit. In the long term (decades), this will either lead to a stable core of players that like things the way GW does and attract like-minded players, or it will leave 40k with an insufficient playerbase to attract new players, and the game will lose relevance (or become irrelevant).

Obviously, this is an oversimplification to some degree and just a hypothesis with no basis in fact.

I would be happier if GW were more inclusive, though I do not want to GW to do things that would take away from things I enjoy -- for instance, I love the rapid release cycle, and I'm happy with shorter cycle rules, two things that make a lot of people more casual to 40k angry. I don't mind meta shifts at all, and I want to see fresh new kits, and am willing to pay more for updates to kits, two more things that a lot of casual players don't like. Of course, like everyone else, I'd like cheaper models!

I think you're on to something with that 80/20 split. I think one of the main reasons people are (justifiably) negative towards GW is that they have basically been fired as GW customers and just haven't been explicitly told or realized it for themselves.

While I may think GW is better off embracing a variety of approaches, the management team Kirby has built feels differently. They see a certain utility in intentionally shrinking their customer base to concentrate on the 20% (or whatever it is). Imagine GWs revenue if they get to a point of growth in recruitment and everyone they recruit is one of the 20%.of their former customer base.

They just need to figure out how to get there. I know they've been doing what they can to find people for the one person store manager position and have been expanding trade sales, but with their terrible wwages and freeze on wages, I just don't see them attracting the necessary talent to make growth possible. I'm sure one of the advantages of hiring for attitude rather than skill is they can scrape the bottom of the barrel and get people who are happy with less money than a similar position in another industry. I'm sure the next report will mumble on about new stores and new trade accounts being the way forward just like the last several. At least hiring for attitude is cheaper in the short term so GW will keep its costs down as they flail about for tthe right combination of staff and retail locations.

See, I think that argument makes no sense. You're assuming that only a small fraction of customers make up a majority of profits for a multinational corporation. You're assuming that ostracizing the vast majority of your customers will potentially improve the profitability of that small fraction. You're assuming that the 20% (in this example) are the casual, "I just like to paint and push models around over a beer" crowd, instead of the competitive tournament player that buys an entire new army every tournament season. So many assumptions, with nothing to back them up but a gut feeling.

Also, how many times do we have to repost the "We do not ask the market what it wants" quote from the frikkin chairman of the company before people take them at their word? Even if all of those wildly unsubstantiated claims were true, the whole strategy would still be a coincidence, because GW does no market research. They don't know and don't care what any of their customers want. They've publicly stated so in a legal document.

 Guildsman wrote:
See, I think that argument makes no sense. You're assuming that only a small fraction of customers make up a majority of profits for a multinational corporation. You're assuming that ostracizing the vast majority of your customers will potentially improve the profitability of that small fraction. You're assuming that the 20% (in this example) are the casual, "I just like to paint and push models around over a beer" crowd, instead of the competitive tournament player that buys an entire new army every tournament season. So many assumptions, with nothing to back them up but a gut feeling.

Also, how many times do we have to repost the "We do not ask the market what it wants" quote from the frikkin chairman of the company before people take them at their word? Even if all of those wildly unsubstantiated claims were true, the whole strategy would still be a coincidence, because GW does no market research. They don't know and don't care what any of their customers want. They've publicly stated so in a legal document.

First, I'm not crazy in knowing that there are superfans. It's not the way you characterize it. Out of the 6 in our group that play 40k, 4 are solidly superfans. We buy most Games Workshop releases related to 40k, with one fella buying mountains of Forge World. We take great pride in painting and modelling our armies, and we have a lot of fun playing them.

Most of our games are not competitive games in the sense of "My 1850 vs your 1850, FIGHT!". We construct interesting encounters with *tons* of terrain and fortifications, and create objectives beyond either "kill each other" or "run around and tag stuff for 6 turns". Often, the armies are purposely unbalanced, with other factors or objectives creating the fairness in the encounter. Very often, we rerun a scenario rebalanced after we discover that our theoryhammer was way off, and the game didn't work the way we thought it would. Since we have 3 tables set up in a private basement, we can leave scenarios to the next time we game, or keep stuff the way it s and just lay a poly sheet over it (to keep dust off the models); plus we have the benefit of not having to transport our large models and terrain.

It's not that the game isn't competitive (yes, I try to and want to win!), but the enjoyment comes from playing with cool models in an interesting scenario, and a loss is just as good as a win as long as it was fun.

I am certain we are not the only 6 people lie this in the world; in fact, I know that we aren't even the only 6 like this locally. How many people worldwide would it take to buy GBP 100,000,000 a year in product, if they were spending 5,000 GBP each? Well, that's easy. Only 20,000. That's a TINY number!

With respect to "We do not ask the market what it wants..." -- this is exactly what I was alluding to. My theory (unsubstantiated) is that GW would ideally like the market that is most compatible with its philosophy. It doesn't want to adapt its philosophy to the market. GW feels that the niche of players who fit its model is large enough to keep it in business. I hypothesize that, perhaps correctly, GW estimates that these core customers are willing to pay a higher price as long as they get what they want. That means more kits in the aesthetic that they want, with lots of cool detail and technical upgrades through the years and faster rules refresh cycles that update them to the 'latest and greatest GW idea' (like formations, Decurion, etc).

Again, two things are important here respecting my opinion:

1. It's only my opinion. It's unsubstantiated, though there is logic used to deduce what GW might be thinking, based on what it does and what choices it makes. But I could be 100% wrong; I freely admit that.

2. I'm not saying this is a good idea or a good path for GW. I criticize this all the time and would prefer a more inclusive ecosystem, because I think it's possible to make both the superfans and more average gamer "happy enough". All I'm just saying is: I *think* this is what is going through their heads.

Feel free to think I'm full of **** I take no offense. This is the kind of thing my gaming buddies and I BS about over pizza.

frozenwastes wrote:
I think you're on to something with that 80/20 split. I think one of the main reasons people are (justifiably) negative towards GW is that they have basically been fired as GW customers and just haven't been explicitly told or realized it for themselves.

While I may think GW is better off embracing a variety of approaches, the management team Kirby has built feels differently. They see a certain utility in intentionally shrinking their customer base to concentrate on the 20% (or whatever it is). Imagine GWs revenue if they get to a point of growth in recruitment and everyone they recruit is one of the 20%.of their former customer base.

They just need to figure out how to get there. I know they've been doing what they can to find people for the one person store manager position and have been expanding trade sales, but with their terrible wwages and freeze on wages, I just don't see them attracting the necessary talent to make growth possible. I'm sure one of the advantages of hiring for attitude rather than skill is they can scrape the bottom of the barrel and get people who are happy with less money than a similar position in another industry. I'm sure the next report will mumble on about new stores and new trade accounts being the way forward just like the last several. At least hiring for attitude is cheaper in the short term so GW will keep its costs down as they flail about for tthe right combination of staff and retail locations.

Talys very much is correct

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/empirical-rule.asp?

 Guildsman wrote:
See, I think that argument makes no sense. You're assuming that only a small fraction of customers make up a majority of profits for a multinational corporation.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the majority of GW's customers buy a starter or a couple kits or whatever, some paint and then maybe a kit every now and again and a large minority (*not* a "tiny fraction") buy multiples of that amount.

You're assuming that ostracizing the vast majority of your customers will potentially improve the profitability of that small fraction.

No, I think it was a stupid move and hasn't really worked. Until GW figures out how to reach more of these ideal customers they will continue to shrivel. Fortunately for GW they were correct that a subset of their customers were true believers who would pay a higher price for less to make up for the lost sales, so the shrivelling is largely in volume of products sold and number of customers rather than revenue. Less people are buying less product, but they're paying so much more for it.

You're assuming that the 20% (in this example) are the casual, "I just like to paint and push models around over a beer" crowd, instead of the competitive tournament player that buys an entire new army every tournament season. So many assumptions, with nothing to back them up but a gut feeling.

It's not based on a gut feeling but on observed behavior. Geeky purchases tend to be made shallowly by most customers and then a slmall group go super deep. You'll see it in people's signatures here on Dakka where they list multiple armies at thousands of points. Or people who post "shelfie" pictures of all their gaming books or graphic novel collections. It's also a common thing amount MTG players where you have people who buy packs every now and again and then others preorder entire cases or spend $1100 on a new modern deck that happened to win a tournament.

Also, how many times do we have to repost the "We do not ask the market what it wants" quote from the frikkin chairman of the company before people take them at their word? Even if all of those wildly unsubstantiated claims were true, the whole strategy would still be a coincidence, because GW does no market research. They don't know and don't care what any of their customers want. They've publicly stated so in a legal document.

This isn't the type of thing they'd need to consult the market about because they have the sales data. They know the purchasing behaviour of their customers and I'm guessing a lot of decisions have been made with this information in mind. I bet a quick analysis of purchase totals in GW stores and through Mail Order would bear out something like the 80/20 idea. Just like how GW learned that demand was higher for new products than existing products so they switched from across the board price adjustments and instead starting jacking up the prices on new releases as their means of protecting their margins.

It's also based on comments made in GW financial reports after the LOTR bust. Their plan during the LOTR years was volume, volume, volume. Their earnings per share during the height of the LOTR boom was actually lower than today [not quite]*. Their margins weren't as good and they opened so many stores and expanded their manufacturing as if it would go on forever. They even explicitly described their customer base in some of their reports and they see them as being the truly dedicated purchaser of their products.

This premium pricing approach of margin protection and cost cutting was a direct result of their previous approach endangering the company. They tried the mass volume approach and it left them vulnerable to a sudden downturn in popularity of a movie franchise. Now they are sacrificing volume for higher margins. This opens them up to new vulnerabilities though.

*EDIT: My bad. Earnings per share in 2004 were 40.1. From 2010-2013 they were 48.4, 36.1, 46.8 and 51.5. In 2014 they dipped to 25.2 but now they are up in the same area at 38.3.

It's important to remember that in terms of actual money earned per share in the company, GW had been equaling (or even surpassing) the height of the LOTR boom. During a time of stagnation in volume. This wasn't an accident but a plan born out of the restructuring following the collapse of the LOTR boom. I may happen to think the plan is short sighted, but GW seems to be chugging along year over year finding enough new ideal customers to make their premium price, low volume approach work. I have serious concerns about their lack of marketing and reliance on word of mouth and tiny retail locations with bad hours when it comes to finding their ideal customers in relation to the rate of losing existing customers though.


--

There's a problem though Talys; I know lots of people who play the way you do. Hell, I much prefer to play the way you do and try to whenever I can(hard these days since all my regular Warhammer mates moved away for work/family). But I also know a lot of folk from that group, including myself, who find GW's corporate behaviour alternately confusing, counter-productive or repugnant, and their prices prohibitive. Many to the extent that they've stopped buying from GW or like me have drastically cut spending with them.

So it can't just be "models > fluff > > > game" people they're targeting unless they're doing a pretty gakky job of it. The problem is I can't figure out who else they could be targeting, because no matter which sub-group of gamers comes to mind GW have taken actions that seem tailored to drive them off.

GW stock is up from a couple of days ago.

Revenue is still down. There's no way to make this sound like an achievement.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Revenue is still down. There's no way to make this sound like an achievement.

Largely this. It's volume x price = revenue where revenue is lower. A year over year ceding of market share as less people buy less product for a higher price. Their earnings per share might be around the same as during the LOTR boom, but their customer base is a fraction of the size. Well, I guess the earnings per share should also be adjusted for both changes in outstanding shares as well as inflation. So once you factor that in, the current earnings are actually only about 75-80% of 2004.

 Radiation wrote:
GW stock is up from a couple of days ago.

The expectations were set very low, and almost everyone (me included) expected a weaker earnings report. Then, BOOM. stock price jumps, because the current price was adjusted for a poor 2H showing.

My Econ prof's favorite expression was that it's not useful in the stock market to be right, because lots of people are right. If you want to make money, you have to be right when pretty much everyone else is wrong!

@Yodrhrin - Yep, I fully understand that if my thought process is correct, it leaves some people, who would be an ideal customer in every way other than budget, priced out of the game (which is actually what's happening to some, for sure).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Hoping region based gouging doesn't make Forge World even more price prohibitive than it is now.

This is my biggest fear.

I'd be more worried about the massive FW price rises to bring it into line with GW, if they share a website. There's no way GW will allow FW to produce resin mini's for less than the plastic equivalents cost.

Herzlos wrote:


I'd be more worried about the massive FW price rises to bring it into line with GW, if they share a website. There's no way GW will allow FW to produce resin mini's for less than the plastic equivalents cost.

Good point, looks like Australasia might be about to get shafted some more.

frozenwastes wrote:

 Guildsman wrote:
See, I think that argument makes no sense. You're assuming that only a small fraction of customers make up a majority of profits for a multinational corporation.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the majority of GW's customers buy a starter or a couple kits or whatever, some paint and then maybe a kit every now and again and a large minority (*not* a "tiny fraction") buy multiples of that amount.

--

It's perfectly reasonable to assume a large percentage of the profit comes from a small group of fanatics. Something like 60% of alcohol sales are a result of alcoholics (which constitute a small percentage of alcohol drinkers). Hobbies by their nature are money pits and a fanatic will spend way more than casual customers.

Take myself for example. I've probably spent more money on GW than 500+ of the average customers that spend 100$ on a boxset.

frozenwastes wrote:

This isn't the type of thing they'd need to consult the market about because they have the sales data. They know the purchasing behaviour of their customers and I'm guessing a lot of decisions have been made with this information in mind. I bet a quick analysis of purchase totals in GW stores and through Mail Order would bear out something like the 80/20 idea. Just like how GW learned that demand was higher for new products than existing products so they switched from across the board price adjustments and instead starting jacking up the prices on new releases as their means of protecting their margins.

You might remember this as well, but in Canada they used to take your postal code at the GW stores with a sale, so they were able to track purchases in store as well as online.

If I were GW then I'd cross reference every email address subscribed to their newsletter against email addresses used to purchase from the website in the past 6 months.

Any email address which hasn't bought anything gets invited to take part in a survey to find out why they haven't bought anything. If they complete it they get a £5 online voucher.

Would allow GW to assess how many customers had stopped buying but were possibly still interested in future releases (and so hadn't unsubscribed from the newsletter), let them know why customers had stopped buying and so be in a better position to make products or changes which former fans wanted, and possibly tempt them back in to make a purchase with the voucher.

Considering that there isn't a lot you can buy from GW for £5 they will still make money from those voucher purchases.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Revenue is still down. There's no way to make this sound like an achievement.

Yeap, revenue is down, which is more of a problem when every year has some level of inflation. Based on the Bank of England inflation calculator, the UK has about 3% inflation per year. Inflation means GW needs to show a positive increase in revenue of 3% per year to match inflation, otherwise they are falling behind. If you adjust GWs revenues from 2011 (based on the report for that year) then the numbers look like this when inflation is applied to those numbers:

2011 - 138.2 (122.8 raw)
2012 - 142.9 (130.8 raw)
2013 - 143.9 (135.6 raw)
2014 - 129.7 (125.9 raw)
2015 - 123.1 (123.1 raw)

2011 to 2015 shows about a 11% reduction in revenue when inflation is taken into account (which makes sense as the raw numbers are basically equal). Investors a buying the stock now because it's paying a dividend, but from a long term perspective, having no or retracting growth is a bad thing.

Overall inflation is just an adjusted average of a basket of commodities, and tends not to reflect specific increases in costs.

Revenues
1/2011 $29.0B
1/2012 $29.5B
1/2013 $29.3B
1/2014 $28.3B
1/2015 $24.8B

OMG This company's revenue growth isn't keeping up with inflation. What a POS company that must be totally mismanaged. DEATHS SPIRAL! SELL NAO. Can anyone guess what company it is?

http://www.streetinsider.com/ec_earnings.php?q=IBM

Yeah... IBM.

Games Workshop is the closest thing that this niche (miniature wargaming) has to a blue chip stock. And I don't mean that just because it's the only traded company; GW steadily pays dividends, it's not a growth stock, and its profitability per period has a pretty small variance. It's a large company in its sector and is as likely to plummet as it is to skyrocket (both are highly unlikely). That's why it's comfortable writing those fat dividend checks -- GW doesn't feel any need to horde money, because it knows more cash is coming in, and is extremely confident of that cashflow.

There is a rather significant difference between millions and billions.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
There is a rather significant difference between millions and billions.

Not when you're arguing "Revenue is revenue" and "a company not growing is dying".

You could say that there's a significant difference between a $250m and $25m and $2.5m too, which is likely the difference in sizes between some wargaming companies.

Here's an example of a company that's badly run:

2011 32B
2012 30B
2013 28B
2014 28B
2015 27B

Looks similar, right? The stock is HPQ (Hewlett Packard), a horribly managed company that's destroyed a century's worth of reputation in engineering and innovation in a decade.

My point is, looking at revenues and revenue growth as a sole (or even primary) indicator of a company's success or failure is a great way to lose all your money at the stock market. And also, with a few exceptions (like AAPL) longtime industry leaders in stable markets tend to simply follow (or be a part of defining) the industry trend, rather than significantly outpace it.

I think we are all agree that GW plc is chasing the 'easiest to please.'
The 'super fans' who will buy everything GW plc release, at the price GW set.

Those difficult customers who want rules sets to be proof read and edited professionally , and play tested to arrive at enough balance for random pick up games.
Are far too much hassle for GW plc.

Those people on average wages , who can not keep up with GW plc retail price increases, and bleat about wanting better value for money.
Are not the sort of people GW plc want to sell things to any way.

Since when was it good business practice to shrink your business to fit your 'super fans' , instead of growing your business by appealing to a wider market?

IF you make PLASTIC TOY SOLDIERS that is !
(Before some idiot compares GW to a company in a different market, like Bugatti or Ferrari etc.)

@Lanrak - there's more than one way to look at "chasing the easiest to please". The first question is, can they make the superfans AND the less-super-fans happy at the same time?

I'm not certain.

1. Upgraded kits are more important to superfans. For instance, the new Assault kits, a lot of people didn't care about, but the people that GW identifies with most, *LOVES* them. But those kits cost something to develop and to tool, so GW isn't going to put them up for sale at the same price as the old kits, which haven't had a price increase in quite a while.

So how do you please both crowds?

2. Rapid release cadence of models is really pleasing to superfans. They love the new models, and could care less how it disrupts the meta or the game, because likely, they own the models or are willing (or happy to) buy models to adjust their game. Non-collector gaming types are going to hate this.

3. Rapid release of rules is going to really annoy people who only play the game 10 times a year. I mean, you buy a book, and play it 10 times, then buy a new book? That's crazy. But if you get lots of use out of it, that's a whole different story. So how do you please both?

I believe that GW consciously seeks to please the fans it most identifies with. Knowing this will shrink their customer base and being unwilling to reduce total profits, it has no choice but to increases prices, to make the fans that are getting what they want pay for it.

A reasonable compromise, of course, would be for GW to simply make less profit, and increase the price a little bit instead of a lot. Also, to increase price of products across the board, instead of just new products, which make new releases seem incredibly expensive, especially in comparison to old kits. But again, this shifts to the superfan-focus -- they'll sell a lot more new kits to superfans, and they're not going to sell a lot of old kits to them (because they've already bought a whole bunch).

With respect to "better rules" -- I totally agree that more balanced units in the rules would make everyone happier, and in this, GW has historically done a terrible job, since 1988. To be fair, I also believe that the factions post-2015 (with the exception of the not-really-complete-factions of Harlequins and Assassins) are largely well-balanced to each other.

 Talys wrote:
Revenues
1/2011 $29.0B
1/2012 $29.5B
1/2013 $29.3B
1/2014 $28.3B
1/2015 $24.8B

OMG This company's revenue growth isn't keeping up with inflation. What a POS company that must be totally mismanaged. DEATHS SPIRAL! SELL NAO. Can anyone guess what company it is?

http://www.streetinsider.com/ec_earnings.php?q=IBM

Yeah... IBM.

Games Workshop is the closest thing that this niche (miniature wargaming) has to a blue chip stock. And I don't mean that just because it's the only traded company; GW steadily pays dividends, it's not a growth stock, and its profitability per period has a pretty small variance. It's a large company in its sector and is as likely to plummet as it is to skyrocket (both are highly unlikely). That's why it's comfortable writing those fat dividend checks -- GW doesn't feel any need to horde money, because it knows more cash is coming in, and is extremely confident of that cashflow.

Really big companies are hard to determine year over year revenue without knowing if the company sold off a portion of itself, thus producing more revenue with less cost, even though the revenue is lower than the previous year.

However, GW is very small and we know that it has defiantly not sold off any portion of itself, meaning revenue is still basically flat or declining with the same market and costs.

@Talys.
I agree that GW plc identifies with customers who think that GW products are as premium as GW plc thinks they are.

I will try to address these 'issues' that GW plc can not find solutions for.

1)The upgrade kits the super fans want , are developed specifically for super fans, not the game players.
So the development and production costs should be applied to the upgraded kits.The super fans will pay any price as they are super fans remember.
And continue to sell the old kits at the old price for gamers that are not super fans or can not afford to be super fans.

EG New upgraded kits for super fans with super gribble and super load out options £100 for 5 minatures.(Or £200 for 5 minatures perhaps?)

And the old kits for game players are still sold for £25 for 5 minatures.Because they are just delux playing pieces for gamers.(Gribble free standard options.)
Not the jewel like objects of wonder for super fans.

2)Rapid release of new kits for OLD UNITS does not change the way the rules for random pick up game work.(For gamers with old units using rules for random pick up games.)
But the super fans get FREE to DOWNLOAD (code with every super fan unit ) scenario rules for narrative campaigns!

3) Rapid releases no longer effect the core 'random pick up and play' rules .The super fans get super narrative rules for super scenarios and super campaigns.

This means the average gamer/fan gets to pay average prices for average (good enough) playing pieces for a good enough rule set for random pick up games.
(80% of customers buying 50% of sales, high volume lower profit per sale.)

And the super fans get super kits and super rules, at a super price , because they are so super. (And GW plc thinks they are super special too!))
(20% of customers buying 50% of sales low volume high profit per item.)

So the average gamers /fans get the average game and minatures they want.
And the super fans get all the super stuff they want to pay super prices for .

What is so wrong with that?
Unless GW plc realizes the super fans may not be so super, IF they get the chance to be average fans?

@Lanrak -

There are 2 groups of fans: Group A spends $200-$2,000 each month, with a lifespan measured in decades (perhaps with breaks in there). Group B has a one-time spend of $200-$400, and an annual spend of $100-$300, with a gaming lifespan measured in years. Of course, there are people in between, too.

Games Workshop has determined that it is better to make things optimal golden for Group A, and do nothing at all for Group B, so *everything* is geared towards Group A -- at least, this is how I perceive it.

But to your points:

1) This doesn't work. Everyone wants the new kits, because the new kits have new weapons and new stuff. Case in point: the old devastator kits and Assault Marines, and old Windriders are available at my FLGS at 50% off of the original MSRP. So literally, like $20 boxes. They've sat there since the new kits have come out, and *dozens* of the new kits have moved.

Who is going to buy a devastator box without a grav cannons?

Player A says, "SWEET! GRAV CANNONS! EVISCERATORS!!!" Player B says, "Are you kidding? I gotta play $50 for a 4 Grav cannons?!?!"

I should point out that Player B doesn't want to ever buy a new Assault Marine, because it's just a game piece; while Player A will happily replace all their ASMs every 5-10 years, because it's a cool model AND a game piece. Which do you think GW wants to support?

2) Rapid releases are often of new units. They are meta-changing, often; for example, Imperial Knight, Windrider.

The problem is, player A says, "SWEEET, I get to add 5 Imperial Knights to my collection!" Player B says, "WTF, how am I supposed to beat these Imperial Knights with my existing models?!?!"

Player B wants to build an army of a finite size for a known price, and wants to game with it in a way that is relevant to modern battle forces and useful for a very long time; Player A is going to add a lot of models to their collection anyhow, and loves trying out new stuff.

3) Player A says, "AWESOME. Superformations ROCK. All I need to do is buy another $400 in models." Player B says, "WTF. I don't want to shelve half my army. There's no way I'm going to sink another $400 in a crap game."

It's just 2 sides of the same coin.

But one side, GW thinks, is more profitable, and they want to keep those players at any cost, even if it means pissing off the other. I am not entirely convinced that they can make both sides very happy at the same time; though I am pretty sure there is a better middle ground.

@Talys.

There are 2 groups of fans: Group A spends $200-$2,000 each month, with a lifespan measured in decades (perhaps with breaks in there). Group B has a one-time spend of $200-$400, and an annual spend of $100-$300, with a gaming lifespan measured in years. Of course, there are people in between, too.

I totally agree.

Games Workshop has determined that it is EASIER to make things optimal golden for Group A, and do nothing at all for Group B, so *everything* is geared towards Group A -- at least, this is how I perceive it.

I agree with this slightly changed statement.

1) It does not work if you invalidate the old units like GW plc do.
IF grav cannons are only used in the super narrative super scenarios for super fans. Gamers playing the standard rules for pick up and play games , can buy the new minatures IF they think they are worth the price for cosmetic reasons . OR use the old minatures if they do not.

Gamers are primarily concerned with GAME PLAY. oddly enough.And minatures are to a degree less important to them than collectors.

2)Rapid releases are for super fans who want lots of new shiney minatures to collect.if they have new shiney free scenarios to use them in , NOT affecting the standard game for gamers.Super fans get what they want , and GW plc do not piss off the standard gamers.

3) Forcing everyone to buy the new models because you invalidate the rules for the old models in the standard game.IS JUST pandering to super fans and making normal gamers pay the price too.

Targeting the opposing ends of the spectrum separately means BOTH get what they want and pay for what they want.And the folks in the middle fan pick and choose exactly what they want from a wider spectrum.

Just picking one set of customers at the detriment of all the others is not a good option IMO.

I would add that GW historically has always liked campaigns and noncompetitive play more than tournaments and list-building for advantage. This really has nothing to do with profitability; it's just the way the founders of the company and many in management still feel the game is best enjoyed.

I've always maintained that GW should pick a better middle ground. You can't really expect them to create two environments for one game, though, no more than you could expect PP to make a version of WMH that would suit people who want to play 200 model armies on 8x12 tables, because, after all, that would make a segment of wargamers very happy.

Once upon a time, people who didn't really like GW's rules and style of game put up with it because there was nothing else. Now, it's not like GW's rules are worse, they just are built with the same philosophy as decades past, with the caveat that 30 years adds a lot of models, and people have choice, so some will naturally flock to other games that are a better fit (as it should be!). In other words, it's not like GW's been inconsistent with it's vision; it's just that there are now other choices.

The people I really feel for are the people who philosophically are compatible with GW's playstyle, but are just priced out of the game (like Yodhrin) -- some because it's just actually too expensive, others because they don't want to spend that much on a game. I don't feel bad, for example, for people who just want a small model count skirmisher and aren't happy with 40k, or who want a larger scale game that's perfect for a tournament setting, because never since RT was this what the game was about, though of course, there have been add-on rules both official and fan-based that make these more feasible.

@Talys.
I can remember ages ago when the GW devs used to write stuff that was just for fun and with opponents permission in the WD. And they also provided 'Errators' and 'F.A.Q.s' to correct the worst issues with game play .

And some times they would release 'collectors' edition minatures, Not any thng much to do with the games but just really cool minatures.

So when the game devs were in charge of game development they appealed to both ends of the customer spectrum.

However, when the sales department took over the studio schedule, they were under pressure to maximize sales.

And so they just picked the most profitable lines of return , without understanding thier market properly .

Currently GW sell quality minatures and hobby supplies aimed at collectors.

If they provided good rules and better value for money as well as quality minatures , they could sell to more people, including the collectors who want to , but can not afford to any more....

Talys, once again I feel the need to ask you to look out of your window, and to tell me how many moons you see or whether you inhabit a binary star cluster.

There is a sliding scale between something being a tight, balanced rule system and something akin to an RPG where complete freedom is allowed on behalf of the player and self-moderation on their part. Different wargames occupy different spots along this scale, I would say for some that 'balance' being more of a priority than with others (something like WMH or Infinity for instance), but what is true is that when you are creating a game where victory is predicated on finding tactical advantage, and the analytical thought of players will direct them towards any imbalances and loopholes.

I would argue that 4th and 5th edition of 40k were at least an attempt to make the game more tournament friendly, representing a gradual progression from the RPG with miniatures settings of early WHFB and Rogue Trader, and an evolution of design, a cutting away of the extraneous. The designer of 5th edition, Alessio Cavatore, has said as much about it and tried to make a balanced system. It wasn't perfect by any means (you could say it was impossible considering the release schedule of different armies, written by different authors with different design philosophies) but the tournament scene exploded during that period.

What's happened now, and this is evident both in the way the 40k rules have developed, and in the creation of AoS and dumping of WHFB, is that at some point the design philosophy has switched from 'lets make a game that players can enjoy, and buy our miniatures to use in that game' to 'lets sell miniatures that can also be used in a game'. Or, depending on how cynical you are, you could say 'let's remove any elements of this game that stop people from buying as many of our miniatures as possible'. This is written through and through the design of these games. It's not just me and countless other veteran wargamers saying it, it's the people who made the games themselves and have since left GW. The modern games 'design team' work under a yoke of maximising sales of plastic kits and new releases, at the expense of making a game that has tactical elements (i.e. a 'wargame'), and this is why the force composition rules (which effectively govern how it's possible to have a 'balanced' game in a PUG setting) have effectively destroyed the use of these games in a tournament setting.

This is a very real change that has happened within the company, it is most certainly not, 'how it has always been'. And saying this is an insult to the numerous game designers and developers that made some of the previous, very well designed, games that GW has produced in the past.

Exalt. 'Nuff said.

 Pacific wrote:

This is a very real change that has happened within the company, it is most certainly not, 'how it has always been'. And saying this is an insult to the numerous game designers and developers that made some of the previous, very well designed, games that GW has produced in the past.

Exalted (not that that actually does anything)
Also, We've always been at war with East Asia.
Just like, "GW's never supported tournaments."
Or, "WHFB has never sold well."
Or, "Points were never useful for making armies."

Ok, just going to make broad points rather than address specific quotes.

"Focusing on the 20%" suffers from the same flaw as engineering a virus just to wipe out the bottom 20% of humanity. Sooner or later, we're all in that percentage. Or, not in that percentage in this case. Unless we're making the (fundamentally flawed) assumption that the top 20% love all of the same things equally all of the time, there are inevitably going to be things that sell in greater or lesser amounts, so what do GW then? Start focusing on the things that sold well, making those who liked the things that didn't sell so well feel less included, until GW are ultimately selling to the top 20% of the original 20%?

Trying to sell to a minority of your customer base which is fanatical enough to buy whatever you're putting out anyway is the complete inverse of what any company should be doing. With notable exceptions, selling to the broadest market possible is the way forward, GW are not one of those exceptions. The easiest route to growth is not trying to squeeze ever increasing amounts of money out of an ever decreasing customer base, it lies in looking at the customers who would like to buy, but aren't, and those that are spending a little bit that could be induced to spend a lot, or at least more.

But, of course, only knowing the whats of what sold and not the whys of what sold (or didn't) makes this a near impossible undertaking. Imaging what it would do to their figures if they could just get every customer who purchased a box last year to buy two next year? Whereas getting all of the customers who bought one of everything to buy one of everything again would just keep things level.

I also think that the constant currency thing is a bit of a red herring.

Let's not forget that the justification for regional pricing is supposedly to protect them from currency fluctuations, the current U.S. prices are probably the closest to UK RRP, but at time of writing a £30 box of Sigmarines is priced at $50US. That's a price of £32 GBP. So even with a strong pound, they've still got a built in buffer of over 6%.

2014/15 has seen a 5 year high for the pound, but it has, in the same period, seen a 5 year low.
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=5Y

Now, those peaks and troughs don't necessarily coincide with GW accounting, but I'm fairly confident that we wouldn't be hearing about constant currency if there were notable growth.

Pacific wrote:I would argue that 4th and 5th edition of 40k were at least an attempt to make the game more tournament friendly, representing a gradual progression from the RPG with miniatures settings of early WHFB and Rogue Trader, and an evolution of design, a cutting away of the extraneous. The designer of 5th edition, Alessio Cavatore, has said as much about it and tried to make a balanced system. It wasn't perfect by any means (you could say it was impossible considering the release schedule of different armies, written by different authors with different design philosophies) but the tournament scene exploded during that period.

I'd argue that there were periods in 4th and 5th where the game was much more unbalanced that it is today. Also, I'm not saying that GW doesn't want to have a balanced game in 40k.

What seems to happen is that because the release cycles for the codex system is spread over a period of time, someone gets a bright idea mid-cycle, and GW is willing to adopt that idea, before all the other books are done. For example, lowering the power level was a good idea in 7e codexes. So was Decurion style formations. But doing half one way, and half the other way is terrible for balance.

GW has always been like this: they have no problem in just shifting gears, because they figure that players will be like them, and just make adjustments in their own play groups. I sincerely believe that in their minds, they believe that players would rather have the lastest cool idea, then wait for a fresh new cycle, perhaps 2+ years down the road.

Overall, GW places a much greater emphasis on a narrative, sportsmanship, and being an interesting player over building smart lists more than any tabletop wargame that I know. it's the ONLY tabletop wargame I can think of that, in its core rules, stresses so, prominently, all over the place. Just like AoS is the only game that I know of where the game designers say, "Yeah, the broken auto-win combination is there intentionally: but if you use it, expect to have nobody to play against."

I mean, feel free for disliking GW for eschewing the segment of competitive players who enjoy list-to-win and basically giving them the middle finger. But I think they've wanted to do it for like, 30 years.

Pacific wrote:What's happened now, and this is evident both in the way the 40k rules have developed, and in the creation of AoS and dumping of WHFB, is that at some point the design philosophy has switched from 'lets make a game that players can enjoy, and buy our miniatures to use in that game' to 'lets sell miniatures that can also be used in a game'. Or, depending on how cynical you are, you could say 'let's remove any elements of this game that stop people from buying as many of our miniatures as possible'. This is written through and through the design of these games. It's not just me and countless other veteran wargamers saying it, it's the people who made the games themselves and have since left GW. The modern games 'design team' work under a yoke of maximising sales of plastic kits and new releases, at the expense of making a game that has tactical elements (i.e. a 'wargame'), and this is why the force composition rules (which effectively govern how it's possible to have a 'balanced' game in a PUG setting) have effectively destroyed the use of these games in a tournament setting.

This is a very real change that has happened within the company, it is most certainly not, 'how it has always been'. And saying this is an insult to the numerous game designers and developers that made some of the previous, very well designed, games that GW has produced in the past.

Well, the people who buy everything buy all the models regardless of what the rules are anyhow. "Unbound" style rules simply give them an avenue to play them under official rules. The people who enjoy them would argue that it allows you to put humans and dwarves and elves together in a reasonable way; the people who hate it would argue that it would allow sigmarites and chaos demons to be on the same army. They're both right. GW just doesn't care about the players who would stick sigmarites and demons on the same army anyhow, and expect the former group to just say "no" to them when they want to play a game.

Lanrak wrote:@Talys.
I can remember ages ago when the GW devs used to write stuff that was just for fun and with opponents permission in the WD. And they also provided 'Errators' and 'F.A.Q.s' to correct the worst issues with game play .

Yeah, like I've said many times, a lot of what I post is trying to understand GW's thought process than agreeing with what they're doing. There are many things they could do better, and FAQs and Errata that are meaningful and timely would be greatly appreciated.

From a models perspective, I love what they're doing, and as of very recently (after January 2015) I've liked what they're doing in 40k. It's too early to say that I like what they're doing in 40k as a game, because they haven't finished a cycle yet. I do not like how the 2014 part of the 40k 7e cycle is drastically different from the 2015 part, and I'm curious as to how GW addresses that, if at all.

Lanrak wrote:And so they just picked the most profitable lines of return , without understanding thier market properly .

Currently GW sell quality minatures and hobby supplies aimed at collectors.

If they provided good rules and better value for money as well as quality minatures , they could sell to more people, including the collectors who want to , but can not afford to any more....

I would argue that quality scifi miniatures in 2015 are simply more expensive than quality scifi miniatures in 1985, relative to disposable incomes and inflation. I would further assert that although the size of the wargaming market may be somewhat larger, the size of the wargaming market interested in large scale wargames is smaller. There is a large part of the wargaming market that wants small scale wargames -- a lot of this has to do with more people taking transit (or cycling) instead of driving cars, people having less money, and people having less time. If you took all the terrain and models that we use for one night, you'd have trouble cramming it in the trunk of a car -- I actually have to put down my SUV seats to accommodate my stuff, when we want to take our gaming somewhere, though a lot of that is terrain that's up to 24" tall, and packs very awkwardly.

I think the people who remain interested in wargames with 75-150 models (per side) that are of various sizes and difficult to transport, with terrain that is also hard to transport, are generally less price sensitive than those interested in a lower model-count game. So if you're going to make a game that appeals to that crowd specifically, the price is going to be higher (relative to inflationary forces). Unlike some people, I do not think GW has any obligation to try to make a cheap large scale scifi wargame; as someone who likes large scale miniature scifi, I recognize it's a relatively small niche and I'm willing to pay the premium.

The smart move for Games Workshop would be to make OTHER skirmish level games to appeal to the folks who want smaller scale miniature wargames. Smaller scale games are also MUCH easier to balance -- the more strange, large stuff you take out, the easier that will be. That would also make for better tournament play, assuming GW has any interest in appealing to that niche.

I think that WMH is a good model for GW to look at in terms of a successful skirmish level game. I also think that the prices for WMH models and battle boxes are very fair (and not terribly different from GW's), considering today's market.

Incidentally, GW plastic stuff IS their cheap line of products, with Forge World resin being their expensive line of premium collector models. Just look up how much a squad of ten 30k models costs

 Talys wrote:


Overall, GW places a much greater emphasis on a narrative, sportsmanship, and being an interesting player over building smart lists

Sorry, but that's about as irrational as you can get. It's pure GW kool aid. GW does not give a single dime about narrative, sportsmanship or "interesting" players. If you seriously think that they do, then you're horribly misled and blind to reality. GW is a business and not only do their business practices show that they don't care for their customers at all, they also publicly admit to looking down on their customers and consider them being clichéed jokes. The company that just dumped years over years of fantasy lore cares about narratives? The company that openly admits to hating tournaments which are the epitome of good sportsmanship cares about the latter? The company that actually WANTS its players to INSULT each other and give bonuses to players who do? You have to be kidding me.

If you want to see a really good company, then try one that actively engages with its community, initiates publi betas and incorporates actual player feedback into their rules. A company that not only acknowledges, but also cooperates with its community. If you really want to find one, you will soon discover not only one, but quite a few of those.

GW was one of those companies. Storm of Chaos was absolutely amazing until they turned full slowed and went 180° on everything. That GW, however, is dead and GW has decided to go for a minimum effort-maximum profit approach that only focuses on short-term profits and throws stuff out with minimum effort.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

One of the dangers of intentionally shrinking volume and the size of the customer base is that it increases the damage done each time a customer stops buying. Both in terms of less sales as each customer represents a greater portion of their revenue but also in terms of word of mouth and social momentum for local communities. I know that through the tail end of 7th Ed fantasy, many gaming groups and local communities for that game lost a key individual or reached a network effect tipping point and WHFB gaming in many areas went from a regular, reliable occurrence to a rarity.

40k has had this process occur in some areas. There are places where an active and vibrant 40k community has lost a key person or dwindled to the point of the game being played becoming a rarity. 40k is a lot more popular than WHFB, but when the decline of fantasy accelerated, it faded fast. With GW's abandonment of a broad customer base in favor of superfans, local gaming groups and communities are increasingly vulnerable to a sudden drop off in the popularity of their games.

The loss of a superfan is more than just their revenue. Their excitement can inspire other more casual players to start a new army as people talk during painting night. They'll talk about the fiction and lend people novels and host games and generally give some real momentum to a local scene. When the customer base is wide and varied their loss can be irrelevant, but when it's narrow and concentrated their loss can be devastating to a local community and by extension, GW's sales.

--

@Sigvatr - I will respectfully disagree with you.

End Times, Shield of Baal, the 264 page AoS book, Realmgate Wars -- that's just recently -- are all highly campaign and narrative focused. Crack open 7e brb and check the first page of text, and look at all the grey boxes that indicate how they think the game should be played.

It's ok to think they're nuts because you don't like a game that is played that way. But there ARE people who like tabletop miniatures played in that fashion and could give a rats ass about competitive play, and would sooner never play with someone with a hypercompetitive list.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

Ummm... Because they *TELL* us to "forge the narrative" duhh...

Seriously though, I always had fun scenario games with the Lord of The Rings and Hobbit stuff. Of course, they're dropping those just as they're telling us to forge the narrative sooo... Lol

 Azreal13 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

How about campaign specific rules, sourcebooks and models?
As I mentioned, most recently, the age of sigmar 264 page book, the upcoming Realmgate wars book, the whole End Tines, and Shield of Baal.

Formations and scenarios like those out of Baal, models like Nagash and Karlaen, and sourcebooks that are really good for nothing else.

That there exists a model (and rules) for the God of the freaking undead? Or a manifestation of the God of Blood? These things make as much sense as Hades in a game about Greeks vs Persians -- unless it's narrative based, and the heroes must defeat Hades at the end of a long adventure. It would make no sense to run into the God of the Underworld in EVERY ENCOUNTER.

So yes, you can do whatever you like with your game and miniatures, but GW writes it in a way most enjoyed by the storytelling folks and least enjoyed by the tournament types -- at least, without modification. If you don't think that GW puts a lot of effort into their campaign stuff, it's probably because you don't buy their campaign stuff ;D if they put half as much effort into tournament rules, those would probably be great. But that's not their focus, and no matter how loudly people scream at them for lousy RAW competitive rules, they won't make it their focus.

Oh right, so the GW rules allow for more creative play because they tell you how to be creative?



Have another go.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh right, so the GW rules allow for more creative play because they tell you how to be creative?



Have another go.

Yes, campaign sourcebooks and campaign models direct gameplay, and help those who can't or don't have the time to write them from scratch a way of playing adventures.

If you're really creative, for it... Sculpt your own minis, write your own story, and express your creativity! It's the same reason people buy D&D sourcebooks, man.

You asked for concrete examples of GW doing more for campaign players than other game systems. I gave you End Times, ET models, and Shield of Baal AoS Book (with Shimmerfall) and Realmgate Wars, all produced in the last year, Bd containing models, rules, and background. The Ork campaign too.

So either refute those as not being pro-campaign, or concede that GW likes their campaigns and does stuff for people that like campaigns.

Still doesn't answer the question of what about any game (I used Infinity, feel free to use another example) means there's no way that a player could write their own campaign, or the producers of whatever game you choose couldn't decide to make campaign books in the same manner?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of what about any game (I used Infinity, feel free to use another example) means there's no way that a player could write their own campaign, or the producers of whatever game you choose couldn't decide to make campaign books in the same manner?

Put on the other shoe, Az. There's also no reason that players can't write their own Tournament rules for Age of Sigmar, either (just look at what ITC rules are for 40k).

You don't care about campaign sets, and you think players can write those themselves. Others don't care about tournament/competitive rules, and think that players can write those themselves, too. The thing is, Games Workshop caters to one group, and that happens to not be yours.

Everyone has different priorities, which is all I'm trying to get you to understand, and there are a significant number of players who care about narrative-based, less competitive, more friendly gaming than some people give credit for. That number is certainly not zero, and despite attrition in revenues (That's maybe stabilized a little? We'll see in the next few years.) it is high enough to keep GW as probably the most profitable miniature/wargame company out there.

And even if you were to write your own campaign, 99.999% of gamers could never sculpt a Nagash Or a Dragonfate Dias, Balefule Realmgats, Ophidian Archway, or Numinous Occulum -- all terrain that you can certainly use in your own adventures, but are also campaign features.

It is a lot easier to make a campaign on your own than it is to balance an unbalanced system.

For example, lets say D&D never released any world information (Forgotten Realms, Darksun etc.), just character races and classes in the players handbook, the enemies in the monster manual and basic guidelines about building encounters in a mini DMs guide.

People could take that and easily construct their own campaign worlds using those rules provided. They can easily create encounters tailored to the level of the party and know whether it will be challenging, easy or whatever.

Now, what if DnD released the players handbook, monster manual and DMs guide but none of the monsters in the Guide had levels or XP values.

It is a lot harder for the person creating the campaign to work out what would be a balanced encounter for their players. The DM has to try and work out on their own how much more dangerous a Lich is than a Beholder and whether it is a good idea to throw the 1st level party up against an ancient silver dragon. Or it could be that the Monster Manual had XP values and levels but some monsters were far more effective and dangerous than their XP and level would suggest, which is akin to what we have in 40K with undercosted, overpowered units.

This imbalance could result in unfair encounters and frustration amongst the DM and players, just as it can in 40K.

@ A Town Called Malus - Yes, as I've repeatedly said, I think 40k would be a better game with better balance. I also think that there should be more restrictions on really powerful stuff so that they're not a part of the main game, for those who want to compete.

I'm only specifically replying to the Az's assertion that GW does nothing more for people who like campaigns than any other gaming company. It's just untrue, as GW does *tons* for people who like campaigns -- almost as much as they do for people who just want nice models.

Comparatively, they do almost nothing for people who want to run tournaments or competitions.

It's not a judgment of "better or worse"; it's a statement of observable facts: everything from fortifications to campaign terrain to sourcebooks to rules and premium character models ... to a game where the vast majority of the printed material that isn't artwork or photography screams "campaign".

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of what about any game (I used Infinity, feel free to use another example) means there's no way that a player could write their own campaign, or the producers of whatever game you choose couldn't decide to make campaign books in the same manner?

Put on the other shoe, Az. There's also no reason that players can't write their own Tournament rules for Age of Sigmar, either (just look at what ITC rules are for 40k).

Don't deflect. It's much easier to unbalance something balanced than the reverse. Besides, that still doesn't answer my question.

You don't care about campaign sets

Says who?

, and you think players can write those themselves. Others don't care about tournament/competitive rules, and think that players can write those themselves, too. The thing is, Games Workshop caters to one group, and that happens to not be yours.

Rubbish. There's nothing inherent to campaign/narrative gaming that requires a poorly balanced ruleset.

Everyone has different priorities, which is all I'm trying to get you to understand, and there are a significant number of players who care about narrative-based, less competitive, more friendly gaming than some people give credit for. That number is certainly not zero, and despite attrition in revenues (That's maybe stabilized a little? We'll see in the next few years.) it is high enough to keep GW as probably the most profitable miniature/wargame company out there.

I understand that different people have different priorities (have you got your patronising hat on today?) the issue is that one set of priorities needn't clash with the other, well written, there's room for both approaches.

Still doesn't answer why GW's rules are better at narrative games than anyone else's.

And even if you were to write your own campaign, 99.999% of gamers could never sculpt a Nagash Or a Dragonfate Dias, Balefule Realmgats, Ophidian Archway, or Numinous Occulum -- all terrain that you can certainly use in your own adventures, but are also campaign features.

So? The rules are the topic right now, not the miniatures. There's plenty of miniature agnostic rulesets and rules agnostic minis out there, this is utterly irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm just reposting the original challenge, so while Talys tries to answer another question, the actual question isn't lost..

 Azreal13 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

Also, most of those things you listed as "campaign books" wouldn't really fit the criteria for me. With how they were written, victory in a single battle had no impact on subsequent battles in the "campaign". They're thematically linked (Orks vs Space Wolves in Sotrmclaw, for example) but apart from that the actual battles themselves are disjointed. Grukk could be killed in the first mission of Stormclaw but then still has to turn up at the end if you're playing from the book. It has nothing to take those kinds of events into consideration.

They are just mission books, not campaigns. There is no army progression, no rewards for units who achieve objectives etc.

If you want to see a proper guide for campaign play in 40K then look in the back of the 4th Ed main rulebook, where it gives you examples of different campaign styles (tree, map etc.), units earning XP which can be spent on upgrades if they achieve certain conditions in battles (and also people modelling their units to show off the trophies earned in battle) etc.

Anyone who wants to know what GW thinks of supporting a deep and we'll crafted game experience should take a look at the AoS warscrolls for your favorite 7th or 8th edition WHFB army.

What's important to GW is making as much money as possible while spending as little as possible so they can maximize their earnings per share and their dividend payments. The latest financial report talks about large investments in product production and a coming reset of the 40k product line.

AoS is also a pretty clear demonstration as to what elements GW believes will make a successful product. Expect this approach to be spread to 40k (much of which is already there) as GW believes (and their revenue bears out) that there's enough people willing to pay a premium price for this approach.

I happen to believe they'd be making more money now if they had found a way to be more inclusive of a variety of approaches, but such speculation is theoretical.

The end result is that I, and many others here , are not GW's target audience and even if we don't like their current approach they are finding enough people who do. I believe it will eventually lead them to a catastrophic failure, but not within the predictable future. They're watching their costs too closely and have earnings per share comparable with the LOTR days. Instead, we'll see a continued slide towards irrelevancy as they segregate their market and become more and more direct only, concentrating on finding tthe ttype of customers Talys is talking about.

One way it can work: they actually do end up finding the right combination of staff and locations for their stores and multiply their direct sales by reaching their ttarget audience through their retail operation. Their report indicates they are going this route, but doesn't really ttalk about much of a plan or planned future investment to make it happen. So likely they'll just continue to have flat revenue as they sell less product to more people at a higher price.

--

I'm one of those friendly, campaign loving, fluff playing types. I need stories behind the games I play. Never been to a tournament, don't want to.
However, it was the horrible rules and worse balance that pushed me out of 40k. When my Bad A Zerkers suck in CC, it kind of breaks the narrative for me. I loved my SOB army, but it was mono build. My Penitent Host type army was boarderline useless on the table. And that broke the Narrative for me. I didn't want to get punished just for liking certain armies or styles.
A good rule set isn't just nice to have for a narrative game. It's necessary.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm one of those friendly, campaign loving, fluff playing types. I need stories behind the games I play. Never been to a tournament, don't want to.
However, it was the horrible rules and worse balance that pushed me out of 40k. When my Bad A Zerkers suck in CC, it kind of breaks the narrative for me. I loved my SOB army, but it was mono build. My Penitent Host type army was boarderline useless on the table. And that broke the Narrative for me. I didn't want to get punished just for liking certain armies or styles.
A good rule set isn't just nice to have for a narrative game. It's necessary.

I think GW's idea of narrative gaming is one where you don't care about the quality of the narrative and just enjoy the Michael Bay type experience. Where the narrative iis basically a big joke and the game isn't taken seriously and somehow it's supposed to work because.. Jewel like objects of magic and wonder reasons. Shut off your brain, open your wallet and make yourself believe it was good. The real hobby is purchasing GW's wonderful miniatures and then relying on the sunk cost fallacy to cause people to enjoy it because actually seeing the weak gameplay and total narrative disconnect with the fluff might mean having to face the idea of having wasted both money and years of your life on derivative corporate pablum.

So just keep your eyes on the jewel like objects of magic and wonder and buy every new release because now with unbound you can use it all in the same army.

If that doesn't sound good to you, you are not the droids GW is looking for.

@Azrael - since you're the one who gets sidetracked easily. I'll keep it really short.

1. Premium models ideal for campaign play like the God of the Undead, Nagash
2. Campaigns like Shield of Baal
3. Campaign box sets like Deathstorm
4. Almost all printed material for a game system being campaign related
5. Campaign related terrain, like balefule realmgates
6. A game system that purposely shuns competitive play

All of these things are actions of a company that loves campaigns and goes out of their way to keep away the competitive types. True or false?

Some of these things are designed for campaign play that no other company does, at least not to the degree of GW. True or false?

Personally, I don't care how you play or don't play. I will hapilly play my games, be content with the rules and our modifications where we see fit, and nlbe content that products to my liking will continue to be manufactured for a long time to come.

As I said,there are enough people like me that my gaming pool is larger than I can play with anyhow, and to keep GW in business, which is really all that impacts me.

Ok, so nothing inherent to GW rules?

Cool.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, so nothing inherent to GW rules?

Cool.

You don't consider model rules, formations, scenarios, and special rules for campaign terrain.... Rules?

@MWHistorian - I certain agree that more balanced rules and changes that would make more efficient gameplay would make a better game. I even agree that elements of other game systems are superior to 40k/AoS.

The day a company offers all that GW does PLUS better rules, I'll switch. But for my priorities, Models rank 10/10, fluff ranks 7, and game rules rank 4 or lower. We largely write our own scenarios, but I really enjoy reading them, more so than fiction.

I don't consider them things inherent to GW, no.

You seem confused between things GW do and things only GW could do.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't consider them things inherent to GW, no.

You seem confused between things GW do and things only GW could do.

I'll keep it to two simple questions.

What company makes campaign specific terrain pieces other than GW?

What miniatures war games company writes as much campaign specific material and builds as many campaign specific models as GW?


Edit: sorry, let me add a third ---

What miniatures war game company releases as much campaign related stuff as a ratio of its total releases as GW?


What I'm trying to get at is what I said right from the top: GW loves its campaigns and GW loves its collectors and modellers. GW doesn't love its competitive players, at least not in the same way. So if your priorities are collecting, modelling, and/or campaigns, you'll love GW a lot more than if you're into competitive play.

Let me boil it down even more simply?

What wargaming company couldn't do any of that?

Are you fuzzy on the meaning of inherent?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Let me boil it down even more simply?

What wargaming company couldn't do any of that?

Are you fuzzy on the meaning of inherent?

Who cares what wargaming company COULD do that? What wargaming company DOES do that?

Any wargaming company can do anything at all. It's what they DO that matters, not what thy are able to do.

PP COULD make a large scale multipart plastic game and make me happy. But they don't...
GW COULD give things point values, but they don't...

But the question was "what is inherent to GW's rules that makes them better at narrative wargaming?"

The answer appears "not a lot, but they make some stuff, most of which doesn't really qualify as anything narrative in the way most of us consider it - ie tells a story from game to game where the outcome and events of one game affect the next."

Imperial Assault is a better narrative game than anything GW has on the market right now.

It's inherent to GW's games, including rules, and way of doing business. Truth.

inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

GW's game works like this. "Our story needs the God of Death. Sculptors, go ye forth and make an awesome, giant God of Death model! Writers! Create a storyline for the God of Death! Create a storyline for the Rat-King becoming a God! Rules Writers.... do whatever you want... just make the guy awesome!"

Everyone else's game more or less works like this: "WTF do you mean the God of Death? That would totally wreck game balance. You gotta be kidding!"

It is an essential and characteristic attribute of Games Workshop's games that Cool > Balanced, and Models & Story > Game; it's permanent insofar as it's reigned for 3 decades, longer than the lifespan of almost any other relevant miniature wargaming company. Feel free to be critical of it, or debate its relevancy in today's market, but it doesn't change the facts.

In 6 months, we'll see if going all the way and appealing to campaign players TO THE EXCLUSION of competitive play is good for GW's bottom line or not.

Personally, I don't much care, as AiS is nit my thing, but I think a lot of people are actually afraid of GW being successful at a game so blatantly noncompetitive.

What "facts"? So far you haven't demonstrated why it's inherent to GW's games. I can't say why they're specifically made for narrative gameplay.

 heartserenade wrote:
What "facts"? So far you haven't demonstrated why it's inherent to GW's games. I can't say why they're specifically made for narrative gameplay.

Warhammer 40k isn't specifically for narrative gameplay.

But narrative gameplay is inherent to GW's games, and the way Games Workshop intends for its games to be best enjoyed. Don't believe me? It even says so in the BRB. In lots of places! It talks about forging the narrative, being reasonable with other players, collections of miniatures, like minded hobbyists, and all that stuff that people who just want to be hardcore gamers think is "blah blah blah in grey boxes".

It doesn't make it the ONLY way it can be played. It's just Games Workshop's vision for it, and an explanation of why they do what they do, and why they prioritize what they do (although of course, profits drive this too).

I would argue that Age of Sigmar is pretty much specifically made for narrative gameplay -- though of course, it can be played in other ways. If you don't believe me, flip through the 360 pages of rulebook that have been written so far. It's 4 pages of rules versus 360 pages of narrative, scenarios, background, models, inspirational artwork, and photography.

 Talys wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
What "facts"? So far you haven't demonstrated why it's inherent to GW's games. I can't say why they're specifically made for narrative gameplay.

GW's games aren't made specifically for narrative gameplay.

But narrative gameplay is inherent to GW's games, and the way Games Workshop intends for its games to be best enjoyed. Don't believe me? It even says so in the BRB. In lots of places! It talks about forging the narrative and like minded hobbyists, and all that stuff that people who just want to be hardcore gamers think is "blah blah blah in grey boxes".

It doesn't make it the ONLY way it can be played. It's just Games Workshop's vision for it, and an explanation of why they do what they do, and why they prioritize what they do (although of course, profits drive this too).

Narrative gameplay is not inherent to GWs games. If it were then units would perform on the tabletop as they do in the fluff and GW would have provided guidelines to forming your own narrative campaigns beyond "here are some missions, if you want to make a campaign then play them in order"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Narrative gameplay is not inherent to GWs games. If it were then units would perform on the tabletop as they do in the fluff and GW would have provided guidelines to forming your own narrative campaigns beyond "here are some missions, if you want to make a campaign then play them in order"

I think AoS is as close as anyone has ever come to that in a table top miniature game. I mean, just flip through the 264 page book. And the description of Realmgate Wars.

Gladius, Skyhammer, Decurion, Warhost, First Company, Warlock Conclave, Angel's Fury -- all of these are ways to encourage players to play their models per the fluff, instead of nonfluffy lists. GW's goal, post 2015 (which I love) is to encourage people with huge bonuses for playing models on the tabletop as they are described in fluff.

Talys is right. GW loves their campaigns. They go out of their way to make the fluff bunny crowd happy and piss everyone else off.

But it doesn't change that this is a dumb way to play a wargame. Just my opinion, but if you want to play a campaign go buy Dragon Age or something.

I'll be honest, I hate GW because they care way too much about models and narratives. Just give me a GD game where we all make our armies and then do our best to kill each other. I don't need a story or a reason. Is that so much to ask?

The "forge the narrative" crap is a recent introduction, only one edition ago.

Prior to that, in 4th and 5th edition, GW ran its own sanctioned tournaments, and somewhere out there is a quote from Alessio about how he aimed to eliminate rules bloat and create a tighter, leaner ruleset.

Looking at his other works, wibbly wobbly fuzzy narrative gak isn't something inherent to Rick Priestley's philosophy, we know it isn't Alessio's, Andy Chambers may not be blameless, but when it boils down to it has done good work.

No, the person who was still at GW after everyone else left and who has publicly declared that wish washy bs "be a good sport to let us off the hook" is his approach to gaming is now the one in charge.

Trying to imply that "this is the way it's always been" is ill-informed at best. There's a notable improvement in terms of rules clarity and efficiency edition by edition until 6th, where the wheels start falling off again.

Unless you happen to be a massive Johnson fan

Marlov wrote:
Talys is right. GW loves their campaigns. They go out of their way to make the fluff bunny crowd happy and piss everyone else off.

That must be a new thing, because it used to be that they went out of their way to piss off the fluff bunny crowd, too. Anybody else remember the end to the Storm of Chaos campaign?

Marlov wrote:
Talys is right. GW loves their campaigns. They go out of their way to make the fluff bunny crowd happy and piss everyone else off.

But it doesn't change that this is a dumb way to play a wargame. Just my opinion, but if you want to play a campaign go buy Dragon Age or something.

I'll be honest, I hate GW because they care way too much about models and narratives. Just give me a GD game where we all make our armies and then do our best to kill each other. I don't need a story or a reason. Is that so much to ask?

The other side of that coin is, "if you want a great competitive game, just go buy StarCraft".

I don't think such arguments are really valid, but anyways, I understand that everyone has their thing. Gotta go, BBQ awaits, too much time on this thread. Then, actual playing 40k instead of typing about it on Dakka. We put together an 8x12 table for tonight, some massive terrain pieces, too. 10 hour game incoming.

Peace & out -- good gaming to all. You too, Az, have fun playing whichever game you are enjoying these days.

frozenwastes wrote:


I think GW's idea of narrative gaming is one where you don't care about the quality of the narrative and just enjoy the Michael Bay type experience. Where the narrative iis basically a big joke and the game isn't taken seriously and somehow it's supposed to work because.. Jewel like objects of magic and wonder reasons. Shut off your brain, open your wallet and make yourself believe it was good. The real hobby is purchasing GW's wonderful miniatures and then relying on the sunk cost fallacy to cause people to enjoy it because actually seeing the weak gameplay and total narrative disconnect with the fluff might mean having to face the idea of having wasted both money and years of your life on derivative corporate pablum.

So just keep your eyes on the jewel like objects of magic and wonder and buy every new release because now with unbound you can use it all in the same army.

I happen to really enjoy 40k, although I mostly play 30k now, and I don't play competitively. I also happen to love infinity and it's complexity and strategy. Quotes like this one though, for me are pretty clearly a violation of rule number 1. Frankly speaking, if most of the mods didn't share an anti Gw stance they'd probably you know, moderate them.

The hobby is for everyone to enjoy the way they want to enjoy it. Play a game you like to play. Paint your models or don't. Find people who think like you do. Get on with having fun with your hobby. To imply that anyone who enjoys 40k in its present state is brainwashed, or brain dead is absurd. That you feel one way about a game or system doesn't make you objectively correct. Even if you are correct this is a hobby. Enjoyment to be had.

Do what you enjoy and let everyone else do the same. Don't be that miserable kid on the playground who has nothing better do do than pee in the sandbox to ruin everyone else's afternoon.

Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it offensive.

"Jewel like objects" is a direct quote from Kirby himself, so if you're objecting to that then I suggest you revise your attitude to the whole company.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the hobby being "buying GW miniatures?"

Alan Merret, head of GW IP

While under oath.

Azrael if you were responding to my post, I'm not personally offended. I just find someone saying that the only way 40k can be enjoyed is to turn off your brain and open your wallet and exist in some sort of fantastic state of denial is pretty silly and fairly rude. Clearly that's not the case. It's hip to bash on Gw here, I totally get it. I have several criticisms with how they've run their business. Even if I decided to abandon Gw though I would never imply that anyone who was happy to buy the models or play the games was mentally incapacitated.

He was incorporating several well known quotes from senior managers, like I say, if you find the content of that post in any way offensive, you need to reconsider where you direct your ire. I'm not sure it's bashing Gw when it is their own words that are a matter of public record being used.

The first two words I quoted were "I think". I'm not sure why you're caught up on the magical wonder. I just think that any discussion of why someone likes or hates a game should be confined to the game itself. Or the company.. Not so much the mental capacity of someone based on their choice of amusement. I don't really do the Internet argue thing. I Just felt like a civil reminder about that might help the discussion.

But you chronically misinterpreted the tone of the post because you were unaware of the references it contained.

References which make if very hard not to draw the conclusions about GW management's attitude towards their customers that frozenwastes did.

To paraphrase an oft cited quote "don't hate the player, hate the company that makes the game."

Just want positivity for everyone man.

Feels like for some people Gw was the first girlfriend. You loved her, she was your first time. You spent all this money on her and showed her off to all your friends. Then she left you for some rich guy. Now she's showing off all her fancy new stuff and you're on her facebook posting stuff like "it'll never last it's doomed to fail".

All the while there's a lot of other lovely ladies out there. Just find one you love and be happy man. It's all good.

Well, to counter one tired old cliche with another one, if you want positivity, post positively, don't post criticising other people.

Infinity put out a large campaign book full of great stuff. Campaign Pardiso.
Also, they have third parties make their scenery, faction specific scenery.
I say that Infinity is inherently a better narative game due to the more personal nature of the smaller forces and also the mission. The missions aren't just "Hold this random spot." They're "hack this terminal in this locked room." Now that's the kind of stuff you build a narrative around.

I think Talys is off in much of his theory about what is happening with the game. Sure there are a lot of pieces that fit his theory that GW is targeting the superfan, garage fan or whatever you want to call it, but I don't think that is really what is going on. I think that with almost anything GW does, so long as it doesn't stop developing stuff the superfan is going to be happy. Good rules, they're happy. No balance. They're happy because they self regulate well. Quick releases, they're happy with all the new shiny. Slower releases, they're happy with the chance to explore the nuances in what they have. Kits that aren't WYSIWIG, cool we can convert. Kits that are WYSIWYG, cool I can make one of every option and/or magnetize. Rules for 14 different marine chapters, cool I can make 14 different marine armies. Rules for one marine chapter, cool I can make 14 different armies.... Basically no matter what, there is something they can like. So GW is heading in their direction no matter which direction it is going. It looks like they are the target when the reality is, GW is blindly stumbling all over trying to find all the other fans that are getting increasingly frustrated and walking away.

I don't mean this as a critique of super fans. I sort of see myself as being like them with food. I am not super picky and prefer variety to a single dish executed with perfect tecnique. I'd prefer to go to a buffet and get to try a bunch of decent stuff than to go to a slightly better restaurant and have a more limited selection.

What I think GW is doing is using rules to try to push sales knowing that people will buy stuff that is effective on the tabletop. So we see whole army concepts that work great in one edition be mostly invalidated by the next only to be resurrected in a third (after the models have been sold off or otherwise discarded). Superfan garage guy probably didn't just have assault when it ruled and just shooting when shooting ruled and when editions change only needs to add a unit or two to his huge army to adjust to the new paradigm. Meanwhile WAAC tournament guy has to replace his entire army. Then formations come out and make all those underpowered units nobody likes awesome. Guess what? Superfan already has them and doesn't need to buy any more units. You know who does? WAAC tournament guy who didn't have all that stuff because it wasn't very good. Basically these changes that are being pitched as targeting superfan are in my more cynical mind aimed at forcing tournament players to keep buying whole new armies.

Here's what makes no sense to me. Superfan garage guy and his cool group of friends who aren't WAAC and who self regulate, need GW to tell them it is ok to take LOW, superheavies, flyers, allies, unbound and what have you in a standard game? The rulebook says it is just a guideline, do what you want and have fun. Or they need GW to make a fluffy formation so they can take fluffy lists? Wait, I thought that taking fluffy lists is what these guys did by default, so how is anything being added?

Wouldn't an solid, balanced core ruleset benefit superfan, tournament guy and everyone in between? GW was close with 5th. Couldn't GW have used 6th, and 7th to further refine and used expansion books to target superfan with all the cool shinies they will tirelessly scoop up, while keeping tournament guy engaged as well. Imagine instead of flyers becoming part of the core game, coming out with the flyers supplement book giving all the rules to add flyers and countermeasures to your game. Superfan gobbles that up along with all the units. Some others do as well. The core game isn't dramatically altered in a way that ticks off some fans. Then psychic supplement book. Now you can add a fourth phase in your 40k games, new rules, powers and units for every faction. Same as with flyers supplement. Then the titans supplement. Then the mobile war supplement (all vehicles, no infantry, special new vehicle rules, units and formations for every army). Then the formations supplement. On and on and on. Balance isn't as important in all these supplements because they are targeted at superfan who doesn't really want or need balance. The core game being solid balanced keeps the rest fairly happy. Tournaments can be as broad or as narrow incorporating these supplements as they want. How is superfan not engaged and happy with this scenario which has the benefit of keeping a much larger client base happy as well?

By the way, if you have a large base of customers who are happy with the game giving it good advertising by word of mouth, doesn't that increase the chances of new superfans being drawn in by people who aren't quite at their level? Sure the thousands of guys that only spend 50$ a month may not give GW as much profit as a single superfan, but if just one of those thousands introduces a superfan to the game, doesn't GW benefit? Basically GW has advertisers that pay for the privilege of advertising. Why throw that away? Are superfans only recruited by other superfans? Does GW have special recruiters on staff that know where to find new superfans?

--

Regarding new kits coming out replacing old ones at higher prices. I get how that can be frustrating when you are on a budget and went through that personally when the new warwalker and wraithlord kits came out. Much, much better than the old kits and I really wanted them, but had too tight a budget to get as much as I would like. Had to mix and match old and new in my army. The athstetic wasn't as nice as I would like, but I had to make due. It was still better to have a new model and an old one compared to two old ones. The new kit brought new excitement and opportunities and was much, much better. I can't see how upgrading kits, thereby making others sort of obsolete (sort of because you can still use them, they just aren't quite as fun and shiny as they were before getting outclassed by the new kits) could be a major problem for a significant part of GWs audience. If you are too broke for the new stuff you can still enjoy the little you can get. At least that was my experience. That is not a problem with what GW is doing. They have plenty of kits they need to update like many of the aspect warrior kits.

--

I could see a superfan making huge purchases in a given month here and there, but am having a hard time figuring out how some of the numbers being tossed around make much sense every month. I mean how could you assemble, paint and play with all that stuff? Even if you are commissioning it all, I don't see the time. Once you have 10 of everything, is GW putting out enough new product, resculpts, ect to keep dropping $5,000 a month or whatever?

--

Wow, that seems very ranty. I really don't want to attack superfans. I think it is awesome that they have the time, money, attitude and cameraderie to enjoy the game as much as they apparently do. I think that no other game company offers a combination of asthetic, quality, creativity (yes it is derivative, but the sum of it all is unique and facinating to me), and scale quite like GW so I get how they can be so immersed in the product.

 Talys wrote:
I think AoS is as close as anyone has ever come to that in a table top miniature game. I mean, just flip through the 264 page book. And the description of Realmgate Wars.

Only if you ignore the entire genre of historics, and anything in existing settings like Star Wars.

Sure AoS is going to be the first one to spoon feed scenarios to gamers, but campaign gaming has existed since before GW,

With a little bit of imagination it's pretty easy to make up campaigns as well, but they aren't so good for selling minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

I'll keep it to two simple questions.

What company makes campaign specific terrain pieces other than GW?

What miniatures war games company writes as much campaign specific material and builds as many campaign specific models as GW?

Firstly, why would companies want to make campaign specific material, rather than, say, generic material that can be used a campaign?

Secondly, he's asking you about narrative gaming, not campaigns.

Since GW is all about "forging the narrative"; what makes it better at forging said narrative than, say, Bolt Action or Infinity? Why does that conflict with clarity and tournament play?

I was trying to capture some of the veiled contempt that GW expresses for their customers from time to time as well as what they've said about their own product and who they see buying them.

Here's another test to see if you're who GW is looking for in a customer. Finish this sentence:

At its core, the miniatures hobby is about

A) painting or building miniatures, terrain, etc.,.
B) playing games with your miniatures
C) building a large collection

GW wants customers who pick C. As Alan Merrit pointed out, the hobby is buying their miniatures.

I think there are some cool elements left over in 40k and the old world from when the studio had a by gamers, for gamers approach. But as the one time managing director and owner of GW pointed out, the studio has become the promotional department of a toy company. Fortunately they've been somewhat slow in excising the original good ideas and replacing them with ideas born entirely out of commercial priorities. Well, I guess they did ditch the Old World so they could revamp WHFB so it could be about selling space marines for fantasy.

--

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm one of those friendly, campaign loving, fluff playing types. I need stories behind the games I play. Never been to a tournament, don't want to.
However, it was the horrible rules and worse balance that pushed me out of 40k. When my Bad A Zerkers suck in CC, it kind of breaks the narrative for me. I loved my SOB army, but it was mono build. My Penitent Host type army was boarderline useless on the table. And that broke the Narrative for me. I didn't want to get punished just for liking certain armies or styles.
A good rule set isn't just nice to have for a narrative game. It's necessary.

This is exactly where I'm coming from which is why it gives me an aneurysm when people act like friendly/fluffy/narrative gaming is somehow disconnected. I enjoy playing campaigns which actually build on themselves, I enjoy fielding an army that fits a certain fluffy style, I have absolutely no interest in tournaments and never have.

The problem is I set up a fluffy army for a fluffy game and the rules fall flat on their face when the fluffy units fall flat on their face. The very basic narrative of "Two similarly matched armies face off in a drawn out gruelling arm wrestle". That should form the basis of a good game, narrative or competitive it doesn't matter. After that you can start thinking about narratives like "this deadly close combat unit is actually occasionally deadly in close combat" and "this general doesn't get hit on the head and invent a new specialisation each battle"

Personally I'd say with Maelstrorm of War missions, random warlord traits, unbound and generally poor balance 40k is one of the worst narrative games out there.

You can't theme a battle around any kind of objective.
Your commander of your ambush based Raven Guard style army might roll up being a siege expert.
Were before it wasn't hard to just bend the rules a bit and bring some space marines with your imperial guard, now there is no reason nid and Ultramarines can't team up.
And a super elite Dark Angels 1st company, made entirely of terminators, some of the most powerful units in the setting, is going to lose every game.


I really feel like GW is very uncreative, or they expect their fans to be uncreative. A narrative game should play out like an RPG, that means giving players the choices to make to build an army and a leader the way they want, allowing people to pick a leader with certain talents and an army that fits a role, then act in that role.
GW's design philosophy seems to be to make everything random so people don't need creativity, it is replaced with a d6. Instead of being imaginative and creating a scenario where the highly elite army is outnumbered massively but strike suddenly at the heart of the enemy to try and kill the opposing warlord, using the terrain to their advantage and attacking with surprise you roll a dice. The dice says it is a pitched battle. Next the dice tell you your elite team need to capture an X at location Y. They the dice tell you to go to location Z. Then kill target A, even though you might not have weapons capable of doing that, or your enemy didn't bring one, or even use a psyker power despite the fact your race doesn't have psykers.

It feels to me like putting the cart before the horse. You are rolling dice, seeing the results and then building a story off the results. Creativity to me has alway been the opposite in narrative gaming, you write a chapter of the story, then roll for the results, then write the next chapter with the result effecting it.

I absolutely agree Infinity is better at this than 40k (maybe not age of sigmar since at least the players are choosing the sudden death conditions) since their missions have a single, coherent story to them and the campaign book they have done has one battle affect the next rather than just playing 6 battles in a row.
Hell, the theme lists in Warmachine are nice and fluffy and they do have (often ignored entirely) rules for forming bonds with warjacks if they survive a number of battles in campaign play.


The fact that both Corvus Belli and PP both produce and advertise RPGS (well, CB is still working on theirs) is enough imo to put GW behind them in terms of narrative gaming. GW licenced out their RPG line ages ago but I have seen more advertising for the Infinity RP than I have ever seen for the 40k line from GW themselves.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The fact that both Corvus Belli and PP both produce and advertise RPGS (well, CB is still working on theirs) is enough imo to put GW behind them in terms of narrative gaming. GW licenced out their RPG line ages ago but I have seen more advertising for the Infinity RP than I have ever seen for the 40k line from GW themselves.

Devils Advocate - Corvus Belli aren't making the RPG. They're actively giving input and producing miniatures for it, but it's being developed by Modiphius.

 -Loki- wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
The fact that both Corvus Belli and PP both produce and advertise RPGS (well, CB is still working on theirs) is enough imo to put GW behind them in terms of narrative gaming. GW licenced out their RPG line ages ago but I have seen more advertising for the Infinity RP than I have ever seen for the 40k line from GW themselves.

Devils Advocate - Corvus Belli aren't making the RPG. They're actively giving input and producing miniatures for it, but it's being developed by Modiphius.

Sorry that's correct. Forgot about that. Making models for it is still quite a bit of support were GW seem content to ignore the things they license out.

frozenwastes wrote:

Here's another test to see if you're who GW is looking for in a customer. Finish this sentence:

At its core, the miniatures hobby is about

A) painting or building miniatures, terrain, etc.,.
B) playing games with your miniatures
C) building a large collection

GW wants customers who pick C. As Alan Merrit pointed out, the hobby is buying their miniatures.

You're almost there.

GW wants customers who believe that, at its core, the miniatures hobby is about building and painting large collections of miniatures. They believe that the miniature gaming is about giving a social context for gatherings of people who own such collections.

Of course, they'll take customers who just buy stuff and stick it in the closet -- but then again, let's be real, who wouldn't? the sports memorabilia guy wouldn't care if I bought $100,000 of hockey jerseys and just hung them in a closet. But their ideal customer is one who buys stuff, spend thousands of hours working on them, and hangs out with friends who also spend thousands of hours on their large collections of miniatures. And hopefully encourage others to build and paint large collections of miniatures.

In this context, you can see why I don't have contempt for GW, as you put it. I believe that at its core, the miniatures hobby is about building, painting, and socializing about large collections of miniatures. To me, 40k is just that -- a modelling hobby with quasi-competitive, nerd social interaction that is a sharp contrast with the rest of my life.

I like (love) competitive games, but not on the tabletop -- I far prefer them on the PC; as I've said a bazillion times before, because I rather play competitively with matchmaking, to ensure similarly skilled players, and also because I don't feel bad about destroying a stranger in the same way I would a real person 5 ft from me.

I don't believe they care if the models are built or painted.

They probably care about selling you the idea of building and painting them, so you buy glue and paint, but I don't see any real benefit to them to encourage you to do it, so long as you keep buying.

"The GW hobby is buying miniatures from GW."

I think the idea of network marketing is probably dead now, there's too many dead and broken links in that chain to be effective these days.

@Az - I disagree. On the surface, Warhammer World, Warhammer Visions, 'Eavy Metal stuff, Golden Demons, all that. They have tournaments for painted models, but not for games.

Or, just paint a nice miniature, email it to GW, and you might be surprised at how much back-and-forth and modelling/painting chatter they engage in. In my conversations with people at GW (and I don't mean retail staff), it's pretty clear to me that folks at HQ really love miniatures, well modelled miniatures, and interesting painting techniques.

But, of course, you're entitled to think differently.

And if they put any effort into the game, they'd have the gamers in their pockets as well. Seems kind of blind or ignorant of them.

 MWHistorian wrote:
And if they put any effort into the game, they'd have the gamers in their pockets as well. Seems kind of blind or ignorant of them.

No disagreement there.

They have competitions for painting, magazines for painted models, tips for painting, and tips for assembly, right down to stuff like how to match parts once you've de-sprued them (and lost their marking numbers), types of heraldry to paint, what era armor comes from, and so on. Yet, there are never tips on how to get a better game going, how to improve your game, build an army or anything like that. There are no longer any meaningful battle reports (model A runs to model B on an open table and dies in 3 turns doesn't count...). They are clearly pro-modelling/painting/collecting, IMO.

GW cares more about how good mark II bits look against Mark V bits, or making a new shoulder pad that's ridged but fits under a jump pack, than they do whether either finished model is even worth taking in the game. They'll make a ton of alternatives for a model that is essentially unplayable if you want to win, and say, "Isn't that cool?". If they put a fraction of the effort into the gaming aspect of it, they would do much better with those who put a higher emphasis on playing the game.

 Talys wrote:
GW wants customers who believe that, at its core, the miniatures hobby is about building and painting large collections of miniatures. They believe that the miniature gaming is about giving a social context for gatherings of people who own such collections.

The games and the idea of painting the miniatures so they look awesome are an aspirational tool used to sell miniatures. Here are miniatures you can buy! Aren't they awesome? That's not reason enough for you to buy them? Check out what you might do with them. Pretty cool eh?

As for the definitions possible for the miniatures hobby, I can't arrive at a single conclusion because too many people want too many different things. GW though, wants it to be one thing. The collecting of their product inspired by the idea of what you might do with it.

In this context, you can see why I don't have contempt for GW, as you put it.

Oh no, I said the opposite. That GW has some level of contempt for you. That you'll plunk down your money regardless of price and will see whatever they do as wonderful even if it is the most derivative, lazy, callously commercial, over the top, or juviniele product they've ever made.

Murderfang with Murderclaws! Oh, he's also the mayor of Murdertown. Space Marines are popular, but fantasy sales have faded. I bet our remaining customers would lap it up if we revamp it so it too can be about selling space marines. Oh, and we'll have this big End Times thing where we sell fans of the Old World expensive books and kits so they can pay to participate in the destruction of the game they love. We may as well get as much cash as we can from the last gasp of WHFB before we take it out back and put two in its head.

I happen to think they are right and there are enough super fans who just eat it all up that if GW can get the right store locations in place, they can have a stable and even growing business. As well, a truly reset product line might actually be made as a viable product line for trade sales and those sales too could potentially return to growth.

--

My fear is that AOS will lower the standards of wargaming, that people will come to expect this kind of game, a simplistic and shallow one with no subtly or depth to the lore.

 MWHistorian wrote:
My fear is that AOS will lower the standards of wargaming, that people will come to expect this kind of game, a simplistic and shallow one with no subtly or depth to the lore.

The standards of wargaming rules in general is improving at a huge rate though, so I think for most people GW will be left behind.

I do worry that such a poor set of rules as an introduction will put off a lot of new blood that'd otherwise really enjoy the hobby. It's hard enough trying to get people to break the GW mindset when they get into the larger pool of options (IGOUGO, mini's being tied to the rules, to hit/to wound/to save, the terrible balance, and those prices).

Herzlos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
My fear is that AOS will lower the standards of wargaming, that people will come to expect this kind of game, a simplistic and shallow one with no subtly or depth to the lore.

The standards of wargaming rules in general is improving at a huge rate though, so I think for most people GW will be left behind.

I do worry that such a poor set of rules as an introduction will put off a lot of new blood that'd otherwise really enjoy the hobby. It's hard enough trying to get people to break the GW mindset when they get into the larger pool of options (IGOUGO, mini's being tied to the rules, to hit/to wound/to save, the terrible balance, and those prices).

Agreed. I failed to mention the 'intro to gaming' part of my worries. I don't want little Timmy to get AOS and think that's the be all end all of gaming and then look at other games as "complicated" and prefer the mindless dice rolling of AOS.

Let's get back to the topic of this thread please - GW financials!

Please take further discussion of AoS / gameplay / rules to the other appropriate threads in this section... thanks

 RiTides wrote:
Let's get back to the topic of this thread please - GW financials!

Please take further discussion of AoS / gameplay / rules to the other appropriate threads in this section... thanks

AOS is divisive and has split the remaining fanbase even further. This will impact GW's financials in a negative way. Even if AOS sells more fantasy kits, I doubt it will balance out with the players they've lost and are curently pushing away.
I see them giving 40k the same treatment and this will be detrimental to their finances. At this day and age, GW can't afford to lose more players and maintain their current position.
They lost revenue in spite of more and bigger releases than before. I don't see AOS or any future release stopping this decline until they work to repair their player base...which they wont.

AoS is also important because it gives us a look at what GW sees as the priorities of their target audience. WHFB was a game that met the priorities of their former customers and when those sales dropped off for long enough, it was only natural they'd replace it with something they thought would appeal to what GW imagines to be their target audience.

The real question is: will we see a new edition revenue bounce? Although to be fair, the last time they updated 40k to a new edition, it didn't do that much for them.

--

 Talys wrote:
@Az - I disagree. On the surface, Warhammer World, Warhammer Visions, 'Eavy Metal stuff, Golden Demons, all that. They have tournaments for painted models, but not for games.

Or, just paint a nice miniature, email it to GW, and you might be surprised at how much back-and-forth and modelling/painting chatter they engage in. In my conversations with people at GW (and I don't mean retail staff), it's pretty clear to me that folks at HQ really love miniatures, well modelled miniatures, and interesting painting techniques.

But, of course, you're entitled to think differently.

You're confusing specific examples for general points (again.)

I've no doubt that the sort of people who you email pictures to (do you really do that?!) that spend their days painting, modelling and designing miniatures love what they're doing and respond enthusiastically?

Have you tried emailing Kirby, or the head of accounts?

Pretty much every tournament has a three colour minimum, including the WHW gaming tournaments, and certainly the likes of visions and GD which encourages people who like to paint to buy models to paint aren't going to hurt sales, but I still maintain they simply need to sell an idea of something to do with the models you buy, and GD etc neatly appeal to the people who don't game, but whether you do or not is totally irrelevant to their approach.

There's an old saying in sales "sell the sizzle, not the sausage" and GW selling you the idea of painting a GD winning model is exactly the same concept as selling you the idea of an all conquering army that sweeps all before it on the table while your opponent tears up at the sheer awesomeness of your painting.

Whether you do this or not means nothing, GW just needs you to believe you can long enough to hand over your cash.

@Az - What you like to do is say, "this company doesn't do this at all!" Then when cited examples, you say, "but anyone can do that!" or " That's just general!"

So really, I have no idea what you're talking about.

GW does everything it possibly can for people who model and paint their miniatures. Think of it, and they do it. They have TONS of free videos on how to paint your model. They have books and books and books of painting guides with gigantic blowpup pictures and step by steps. Almost every magazine features painted miniatures, how to paint miniatures, and miniatures painted by readers. They have painting competitions. They do Parade Grounds. There are local events to show off your models. There is a specific, $10 / month picture book that serves no purpose other than to show off painted models by their studio and their readers.

So put on the other shoe: tell me, what does any other company do for their miniature painters? Who else has a painting competition that is anything close to the Golden Daemon? What other company supports its painters with the sheer volume of painting tutorials that GW does?

In the GW world, a winning model IS an awesomely painted model. There is no prize for being the best player. There are many prizes n many categories for being the best painter.

There are zero videos on "how to play imperial guard", but lots of videos on "how to paint scions" or "how to paint taurox prime". There are zero books that describe space marine strategy, yet endless books on how to model and paint yoru space marines. In all of the hundreds of videos on Warhammer TV, there isn't ONE that shows a game table, with an actual GAME. Not one! But hundreds of hours of dioramas and of explanations of how to go from plastic to beautiful diorama.

On a separate note, yes, sure I email pictures to the GW guys. I mean, why not? They're nice people, they are like-minded as me, and they enjoy chatting. Sometimes you get a model put in a publication, which is cool too -- I have a model that will soon appear as a Reader's Model of the Week

Just the other day, I emailed a photo of a Sanguinor, and the model has a defect (strangely warped backpack). Shortly thereafter I got a phone call asking for my address so that they could send me a replacement model. They opened a new web account for me (the one I already have uses a different, personal email), added my details, and sent out a whole new model by FedEx (my email signature has my work phone number). Here it is -- check out the right side of the backpack.


So yes, they do a lot for people who love their minis. They most certainly go the extra mile, in a way that they don't for gamers.

No, I haven't emailed Kirby. I haven't emailed Bill Gates, or Satya Nadella either. Or Tim Cook. Or Mark Mondragon. I assume these are pretty busy people who have better things to do than to shoot emails back and forth with me, and I wouldn't expect a reply if I sent an email to them.

Sure, a company's direction is controlled by its management, not its frontline staff. But a company's management dictates the company's culture, and this trickles down right from the top down. They hire people who have similar values as them.

If GW wanted to truly be a "Games Company" instead of a "Miniatures Company", all they'd have to do is put the same effort into writing a great game, that they currently put out for the painting & modelling folks.

Imagine if all the Wahammer TV videos were of strategy and gameplay. If instead of painting guides, they were tactica volumes and detailed battle reports. If instead of campaign books, they were complex scenarios. It would be a different company. One that would appeal to different people.

How can one use Golden Daemon as an argument that GW cares about the painting/modeling aspect of the hobby when they more or less eviscerated that part last year to save some money (what's left of about five to seven yearly Golden Daemon competitions?). If they really thought it is such an important part of the hobby then they would keep spending the money and use it as an investment to engage this part of their customer-base.

On the other hand the idea of focusing on the super fans is also kinda dubious. From all the descriptions these people are the ones who spend a lot of money and really like most of GW's work and seem to be less discerning about some parts of the hobby because they are so invested in it that they forgive or ignore some things that other people (who spend less) are not willing to compromise on. Wouldn't it be financially even better if GW were to try to create something that non-super-fans would like (if we assume a similar cost structure) to get some of that business as the super fans will just buy it anyways.

I don't think I have ever heard somebody complain about too solid rules, way too transparent release announcements, prices not rising, GW not lashing out with legal attacks, or GW taking a little more care of their lore. All these things have made people leave while super fans stuck with GW despite stuff getting worse in some way (because super fans were interested in some other part and that kept them going). Wouldn't improvements in this regard be financially sensible instead of GW kinda going for the boiling frog approach of shedding fans. In this case the super fans can be seen as the boiling frog as long as GW doesn't change whatever keeps the super fans happy.

Would any of the above mentioned things (solid rules, less price increases, transparent communication, less lawyers, less murderfang) make super fans stop buying? I don't think so and I also think that these things could be improved without costing the company too much money (smaller companies manage to do it after all). How is this focus on super fans financially optimal or better than trying to get more people into buying their stuff? To me it seems that at some point (when they survive on super fans only) they will end up like some very specially evolved organism in a very special environment where the smallest disturbance in the eco system dooms them because they can't adapt (figuratively speaking, I'm not saying GW is some unique bird that evolved in isolation and that will face extinction because someone imported some other critter to an island).

 Talys wrote:

GW does everything it possibly can for people who model and paint their miniatures. Think of it, and they do it.

Painting competitions. I can't make it to the UK for Golden Demon and there isn't one in Australia. Nor have I ever seen a white dwarf one. Because I live near a GW store I can enter unofficial ones every month which are lucky to get 6 entrants. If I didn't live near a store there would not even be unofficial 'GW' events.

 Talys wrote:
So put on the other shoe: tell me, what does any other company do for their miniature painters? Who else has a painting competition that is anything close to the Golden Daemon? What other company supports its painters with the sheer volume of painting tutorials that GW does?

Privateer Press.
They do OFFICIAL comps in their magazine every issue. They do more in depth painting guides than I see in white dwarf these days, as well as conversion guides for things like making your allies fit in more thematically with your army. They do painting competitions at conventions with massive prize support and a lot more than 20 entries (apparently GWs last 'mini games day' was a total bust with 45 entrats and only 20 in the single category golden demon).

PP does not do nearly as much to help people get into the hobby of painting and modelling miniatures -- just go on GW's site, look at the number of books and eBooks published on the subject, go to WarhammerTV and look on the number of super-high-quality videos on the subject, and compare with PP.

PP's DVD, Core Techniques (which I own and have watched), frankly, is junk. The equivalent Citadel DVD featuring Duncan Rhodes is like, 1000x better.

Golden Demon is by far the most prestigious (and recognized) miniature competition. Winning one will actually up your value as a painter (for commissions), if that's your thing. Local painting contests are generally horrible, because this is a pretty niche hobby, and the same people (and very small number of people) generally have the best models every time.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that PP doesn't do stuff for its modellers. I'm just saying GW has published, and continues to publish (both for free and as paid items) a lot more.

Golden Demon WAS the most prestigious once.

That was not joking or hyperbole about 20 people entering the last one, which had only one single category.

 Talys wrote:
@Az - What you like to do is say, "this company doesn't do this at all!" Then when cited examples, you say, "but anyone can do that!" or " That's just general!"

So really, I have no idea what you're talking about.

No, you really don't do you?

The fact that most everyone else seems to, means that I'm probably doing all I can at this end.

GW does everything it possibly can for people who model and paint their miniatures. Think of it, and they do it. They have TONS of free videos on how to paint your model. They have books and books and books of painting guides with gigantic blowpup pictures and step by steps. Almost every magazine features painted miniatures, how to paint miniatures, and miniatures painted by readers. They have painting competitions. They do Parade Grounds. There are local events to show off your models. There is a specific, $10 / month picture book that serves no purpose other than to show off painted models by their studio and their readers.

So put on the other shoe: tell me, what does any other company do for their miniature painters? Who else has a painting competition that is anything close to the Golden Daemon? What other company supports its painters with the sheer volume of painting tutorials that GW does?

What other company needs to?

There's a million resources out there freely available, only GW is so keen to control the exposure of their customers that they feel compelled to try and prevent them looking outside of their ecosystem.

In the GW world, a winning model IS an awesomely painted model. There is no prize for being the best player.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/events-hall/gaming-events/throne-of-skulls/

There are zero videos on "how to play imperial guard", but lots of videos on "how to paint scions" or "how to paint taurox prime". There are zero books that describe space marine strategy, yet endless books on how to model and paint yoru space marines. In all of the hundreds of videos on Warhammer TV, there isn't ONE that shows a game table, with an actual GAME. Not one! But hundreds of hours of dioramas and of explanations of how to go from plastic to beautiful diorama.

You know why? Because an actual game looks nothing like the sizzle they're selling. A real game has dice and tape measures and templates, a real game has units in sub optimal visual positions.

Battle reports won't win any prizes for cinematography, and I guess we're glossing over the many many dozens that were featured in WD?

Besides, modern GW doesn't want to tell us how to play with our toy soldiers, that's too proscriptive.

On a separate note, yes, sure I email pictures to the GW guys. I mean, why not? They're nice people, they are like-minded as me, and they enjoy chatting. Sometimes you get a model put in a publication, which is cool too -- I have a model that will soon appear as a Reader's Model of the Week

I mean, of course you should do what you like, but it just seems at odds with your stated belief that you don't care about what GW thinks of you or what it gets up to etc etc from previous threads as long as they're making models you love to then find out you actively solicit endorsement from them.

Just the other day, I emailed a photo of a Sanguinor, and the model has a defect (strangely warped backpack). Shortly thereafter I got a phone call asking for my address so that they could send me a replacement model. They opened a new web account for me (the one I already have uses a different, personal email), added my details, and sent out a whole new model by FedEx (my email signature has my work phone number). Here it is -- check out the right side of the backpack.

Spoiler:

So yes, they do a lot for people who love their minis. They most certainly go the extra mile, in a way that they don't for gamers.

Finecast is poor and customer services are decent, not really news?

No, I haven't emailed Kirby. I haven't emailed Bill Gates, or Satya Nadella either. Or Tim Cook. Or Mark Mondragon. I assume these are pretty busy people who have better things to do than to shoot emails back and forth with me, and I wouldn't expect a reply if I sent an email to them.

So, essentially you've emailed other hobbyists who just happen to work for GW? I'd be surprised if you hadn't got the sort of reaction you did.

Sure, a company's direction is controlled by its management, not its frontline staff. But a company's management dictates the company's culture, and this trickles down right from the top down. They hire people who have similar values as them.

Certainly not for skills, eh?

Given the wider perception of GW amongst some people, I'm not sure that made the point you were going for.

If GW wanted to truly be a "Games Company" instead of a "Miniatures Company", all they'd have to do is put the same effort into writing a great game, that they currently put out for the painting & modelling folks.

Imagine if all the Wahammer TV videos were of strategy and gameplay. If instead of painting guides, they were tactica volumes and detailed battle reports. If instead of campaign books, they were complex scenarios. It would be a different company. One that would appeal to different people.

Again, if you take GW at their word, they want you to find your own way of playing. Painting is very much a matter of learned technique and practiced skill. Besides, I'm pretty sure I've seen writing in WD around new releases discussing how they can be incorporated into existing armies, just because there's no videos doesn't mean they don't address it.

Personally, I think it's because the game lacks any real depth and there's insufficient material to do those sorts of things without exposing that flaw.

They don't do campaign books, they do scenario compilations, Warhammer is very scenario heavy in both incarnations, but it lacks any real narrative component to call it campaign.

Az, you just don't understand.

Some of us like the cinematography, the sizzle, the awesomeness models and collections, and just don't care about all the stuff that you care about, or at least, not as much. One day, maybe you'll realize that your priorities are not universally shared and that there is value in recognizing other points of view.

Enough people share this perspective to give GW a quarter billion US dollars last year, give or take, more than any other miniature wargaming company, so either we're a pretty big group, or we all spend a lot of money. It's not because we're forced to, or uninformed; it's because we feel that GW products and GW as a company happen to be the best fit for us.

I do see your point of view. I understand it, and simply do not share it, because I have different priorities than you.

So I will hang out with people who are like-minded with me, and enjoy our collections of cool miniatures, play games that are made for these collections, and you can go find and play games that are more amusing to you.

I bid thee well.

You don't even know what my priorities are.

You don't know what I spend my gaming time doing, you just assume because I'm not some unquestioning fanboy and I'm critical of GW that you do.

But hey, the opposing poster doing a half arsed attempt at some sort of last word post before declaring to be leaving the thread is the closest it gets to a win on an Internet forum, so I'll take it.

 Talys wrote:
One day, maybe you'll realize that your priorities are not universally shared and that there is value in recognizing other points of view.

I think this fairly sums up GW's diminishing sales and the growth of other miniature companies.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You don't even know what my priorities are.

You don't know what I spend my gaming time doing, you just assume because I'm not some unquestioning fanboy and I'm critical of GW that you do.

But hey, the opposing poster doing a half arsed attempt at some sort of last word post before declaring to be leaving the thread is the closest it gets to a win on an Internet forum, so I'll take it.

Feel free to have the last word, man. Your priorities and your opinions are no less important or valid as mine.

To take it back to the original topic of this thread (GW financials), I only point out that nearly (or a little more than?) quarter billion dollars in the last year went to GW last year from people who like GW enough to give them money, so we're not totally irrelevant, and I'm not some sort weird outlier. It seems odd that you'd say I'm unquestioningly critical of GW, as I criticize them all the time.

But feel free to take the Internet win -- whatever that means. It literally means less to me than winning a game of 40k (and lost to with BA to Tyranids not once, but TWICE last night, ARRRGH!). All I was trying to do is to share with you my perspective, which we clearly don't share (and this doesn't bother me), whatever your priorities may be.

You Win!

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
One day, maybe you'll realize that your priorities are not universally shared and that there is value in recognizing other points of view.

I think this fairly sums up GW's diminishing sales and the growth of other miniature companies.

Yep.
Hell I am much more of a painter than a gamer these days but with rules as bad as GWs the games aren't fun enough for me to want am army, I only grab a box here and there to paint, but with other games I'll empty my wallet to get an army I can enjoy painting then take to a tourney and spend a day with other hobby enthusiasts.

I feel like I would be GWs target customer with the amount I spend on the hobby each month but nope, they seem happy to push me away rather than listen to and criticism at all.

 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is divisive and has split the remaining fanbase even further.

We don't know that yet, and, assuming that you are correct, we don't know if incoming new customers has made up for that loss (assuming there is a loss).

 MWHistorian wrote:
This will impact GW's financials in a negative way.

Again, we don't know that yet. We have no financial data to back that up (yet) and thus must wait 'til the next report.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Even if AOS sells more fantasy kits, I doubt it will balance out with the players they've lost and are curently pushing away.

We shall see, but it's too early (and we lack enough information) to make those calls yet.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I see them giving 40k the same treatment and this will be detrimental to their finances. At this day and age, GW can't afford to lose more players and maintain their current position.

They lost revenue in spite of more and bigger releases than before. I don't see AOS or any future release stopping this decline until they work to repair their player base...which they wont.

I don't disagree here. Measures are needed. AoS'ing 40K is not the answer.

 Talys wrote:
Feel free to have the last word, man. Your priorities and your opinions are no less important or valid as mine.

He said, trying to get the last word.

 Talys wrote:
PP does not do nearly as much to help people get into the hobby of painting and modelling miniatures -- just go on GW's site, look at the number of books and eBooks published on the subject, go to WarhammerTV and look on the number of super-high-quality videos on the subject, and compare with PP.

PP's DVD, Core Techniques (which I own and have watched), frankly, is junk. The equivalent Citadel DVD featuring Duncan Rhodes is like, 1000x better.

Golden Demon is by far the most prestigious (and recognized) miniature competition. Winning one will actually up your value as a painter (for commissions), if that's your thing. Local painting contests are generally horrible, because this is a pretty niche hobby, and the same people (and very small number of people) generally have the best models every time.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that PP doesn't do stuff for its modellers. I'm just saying GW has published, and continues to publish (both for free and as paid items) a lot more.

Talys take of those GW pink glasses for a sec. PP magazine has lots of info on conversion, painting, background, RPG campaigns, new models with rules, painting competitions, tournaments, you know the things that white dwarf used to have before it became a catalog for this weeks new releases.

Recent golden demons have been less than during GW heyday. Last Golden demon was more a sales day than a golden demon.

I wonder what your opinion on this is

off course not a good as GW but still

@Jehan-reznor - of course, this is beautiful Angel's work is awesome.

I occasionally buy No Quarter, but I find the amount of model photography in it only a tiny fraction of what's in GW publications (Visions, and 4 weeks of White Dwarf). Most of it doesn't really inspire me to go out and paint something cool.

Of course, part of the problem is just that I don't like WMH models as much as 40k models (that's just a personal preference; I'm not making a dig at PP).

Infinity models are great. But there aren't many models for any faction and there aren't vehicles and such (which I love). I also love plastic. But... what is that robot thing? It is very cool, and I have not seen it for sale before.

I do stand by what I say though. Go to youtube, hit WarhammerTV, and look at how many free videos there are of extremely high production value. Sure, they're not going to get you anything an award winning, but it's achievable by any painter with a little patience, and the results are very nice. It's also totally free.

My point really wasn't that nobody else does anything for painters but GW (the comparatives got thrown in there in the heat of the argument). What I trying to say, undiluted, was:

"GW does lots for painters & modellers and comparatively very little for competitive players."

I don't know why anyone wants to argue that point, as I think it couldn't possibly be plainer. The conclusion I draw from that is that GW *cares* about the modellers and painters a lot more than competitive players. Maybe that has something to do with profit, but I'm pretty sure it's deeper than that. It just feels like (to me) a company that is into models and collections and isn't into competitive gaming, so it sets those priorities accordingly.

Talys.

If GW truly became a miniature making and selling company and ditched their game rules completely would you still purchase?

I think you may.

What if without the game rules there was a drop in the production of fiction 'fluff'?

What if they produced some technically excellent models that had no background or reason to exist other than that it could be made?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Pretty much every tournament has a three colour minimum, including the WHW gaming tournaments, and certainly the likes of visions and GD which encourages people who like to paint to buy models to paint aren't going to hurt sales, but I still maintain they simply need to sell an idea of something to do with the models you buy, and GD etc neatly appeal to the people who don't game, but whether you do or not is totally irrelevant to their approach.

There's an old saying in sales "sell the sizzle, not the sausage" and GW selling you the idea of painting a GD winning model is exactly the same concept as selling you the idea of an all conquering army that sweeps all before it on the table while your opponent tears up at the sheer awesomeness of your painting.

This is exactly it; I start up whole armies on a regular basis based on the idea of painting them (this week I've bought 12mm Orcs, 15mm Samurai, 1/600th scale biplanes, Frostgrave), and in reality about 75% of the stuff I buy gets sold on unpainted after a few years.

Even as someone who paints more than games, I've long gone off GW, as I can get more interesting things to paint, for less. I had to restrain myself from spending $100's on reaper metals at the weekend, settling for a single barbarian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

"GW does lots for painters & modellers and comparatively very little for competitive players."

I'll agree on that point, GW does make a big thing about painting, but they are not the only (or even best) example of a pro-painting company. Nothing they produce for free (or for money) is any better than that available elsewhere.

It's just they really seem to dislike competitive players. Maybe they just don't buy enough, or keep moaning about vague rules.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Talys.

If GW truly became a miniature making and selling company and ditched their game rules completely would you still purchase?

I think you may.

What if without the game rules there was a drop in the production of fiction 'fluff'?

What if they produced some technically excellent models that had no background or reason to exist other than that it could be made?

If GW ceased writing the rules, I wouldn't have friends to play the game with, and my interest would most certainly wane.

I would buy some models, but an infinitely smaller number of them, because I would not be building an army anymore. For example, the reason I'm building 60 tacticals is to be able to build a full company (with squads of 10). I'm built 3 stormravens to be able to deploy angel's fury. I'm building 9 drop pods and 6 razorbacks so that I can take advantage of those formation benefits. Et cetera. The whole thing will be at about 250 models and 18 months, and then I'll move to another army and return in 10-15 years.

Then I'll leave them for another army and come back to them in 10-15 years when GW has added a whole lot more meat to the Blood Angels soup again.

GW actually does produce technically excellent models that I buy for no reason other than the models (because I totally ignore their fluff). For example, Nagash and Treeman Ancient.

Privateer Press produces many models that I like and purchase, even though I don't follow their fluff at all, and have maybe played 7 games in my life. I buy almost every infinity model my store brings in, and I don't follow that at all, nor have I convinced anyone to play with me. And I buy and paint random Reaper Bones minis just for fun, because they're cheap and some are cool.

But let's put it this way... my 40k spend is about 10 times everything else put together, because I enjoy modelling and playing 40k armies.

 Talys wrote:
.
I occasionally buy No Quarter, but I find the amount of model photography in it only a tiny fraction of what's in GW publications (Visions, and 4 weeks of White Dwarf). Most of it doesn't really inspire me to go out and paint something cool.

so what? No quarter has actual content. Guts n gears. Gavin Kyle files. New releases. Pros and cons. (As in high level players, and conventions), painting tutorials, conversion tutorials, fiction, puzzles, interesting battle reports, and a wealth of information for their rpg. It's about more than just painting toy soldiers.

Or are you saying that white dwarf is so void of content that all they can do is fill it with pictures?

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:
.
I occasionally buy No Quarter, but I find the amount of model photography in it only a tiny fraction of what's in GW publications (Visions, and 4 weeks of White Dwarf). Most of it doesn't really inspire me to go out and paint something cool.

so what? No quarter has actual content. Guts n gears. Gavin Kyle files. New releases. Pros and cons. (As in high level players, and conventions), painting tutorials, conversion tutorials, fiction, puzzles, interesting battle reports, and a wealth of information for their rpg. It's about more than just painting toy soldiers.

Or are you saying that white dwarf is so void of content that all they can do is fill it with pictures?

I'm just saying that White Dwarf contains stuff I'm interested in, in almost every issue. No Quarter contains less stuff that I'm interested in. I didn't say it was a bad magazine. Different strokes, man. Buy what you like.

But anyways, the #1 thing I'm looking for in a miniature gaming magazine is photos of nice miniatures, and the #2 thing is the context in which those models might be useful. I happen to be a person who is excited for each issue of Warhammer Visions, which effectively has nothing in it *but* photos of models.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:
.
I occasionally buy No Quarter, but I find the amount of model photography in it only a tiny fraction of what's in GW publications (Visions, and 4 weeks of White Dwarf). Most of it doesn't really inspire me to go out and paint something cool.

so what? No quarter has actual content. Guts n gears. Gavin Kyle files. New releases. Pros and cons. (As in high level players, and conventions), painting tutorials, conversion tutorials, fiction, puzzles, interesting battle reports, and a wealth of information for their rpg. It's about more than just painting toy soldiers.

Or are you saying that white dwarf is so void of content that all they can do is fill it with pictures?

No Quarter is a great magazine, but that does not make Visions a bad magazine...
they are two different beasts, and both have their place...
personally, i buy both, as well as Ravage, and used to buy (when they were still being published) Harbinger, Game Forces, and Cry Havoc...
all of those were, and are, purchased for the pictures of painted models...
nothing wrong with a little diversity, but at the end of the day, for me, it is ALL about painting toy soldiers...
the stories, illustrations, battle reports, and background articles in the magazines are part of what inspires the desire to paint, but it's the pictures of painted models that really give the most inspiration...
while it is sad that the White Dwarf that i knew and loved since 1984 is dead and gone, i can still enjoy the beautiful eye candy of Visions...

one does not have to have a myopic view in order to be a GW fan...
it is possible to be happy with the quality of the GW art, fiction, and models even while being aware of, and buying, the products of other miniature wargames companies...
i really don't get why people seem to assume that if you are a supporter of GW, then you must be blind to all of the better things that are available in the industry...
yes, i did say better...
i would never claim that anything GW produces is the end all, be all, or the best thing produced in the industry...
i have always said, though, that it is the company who's miniatures i enjoy painting the most, with the settings that i have enjoyed, and been inspired by, the most...

as long as GW continues to produce great models, then they will continue to get my money...
that doesn't mean that i can't enjoy the products for WarmaHordes, Infinity, Freebooter's Fate, Confrontation (RIP), Helldorado, Dark-Age, or the random minis from Studio McVey, Andrea, Pegaso, Nuts Planet, Scale 75, Knight Models, or anyone else...
the more the merrier, really...
it is simply the fact that i gravitate more towards the look of GW's aesthetic combined with the 'Eavy Metal painting style (when it is at its best) that sees GW getting 75% of my hobby money, while the other's get the rest...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

No Quarter is a great magazine, but that does not make Visions a bad magazine...

No, Visions is a pretty bad magazine in it's own right. Duplicate pictures, poor framing/placement (cutting out detail in the centrefolds), essentially no actual written content. It's objectively worse than every other gaming magazine in production in every measure other than "pictures of GW mini's". It's certainly not ahead in terms of cost, reading time, tutorials, inspiration. I can't read an issue of WI or WS&S without wanting to start a new project, Visions just leaves me wondering why I bothered.

Sure, it has pretty pictures of GW mini's, but they are often rehashed and usually available on the website.

I guess someone has to like Visions though, if it's still on the go.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:
.
I occasionally buy No Quarter, but I find the amount of model photography in it only a tiny fraction of what's in GW publications (Visions, and 4 weeks of White Dwarf). Most of it doesn't really inspire me to go out and paint something cool.

so what? No quarter has actual content. Guts n gears. Gavin Kyle files. New releases. Pros and cons. (As in high level players, and conventions), painting tutorials, conversion tutorials, fiction, puzzles, interesting battle reports, and a wealth of information for their rpg. It's about more than just painting toy soldiers.

Or are you saying that white dwarf is so void of content that all they can do is fill it with pictures?

Yeah.... gotta agree there. If you're measure of quality is 'how many pictures of painted models' that's great, but I think you're in the minority compared to people who want actual, you know, content.

*Edit*
Trying to make that sound a little better and maybe a little more relevant to the topic, sitting down and being able to read an in universe report from the Iron Kingdom's top spy on one of my favourite characters and get a wealth of fluff relating to her childhood, training, early career and a deeper look into where her loyalties really lay is amazing. It is an enthralling read. It makes it feel like a lot of effort went into making the magazine. That makes it well worth the price imo.
White Dwarf, and this may well be a symptom of being weekly, feels to me very much like the minimal amount of effort was put in to slap together some pictures of studio painted minis that I can see on GWs website, and have seen before, and a bunch of advertizing the latest thing. It makes it feel cheap, and not worth the (actually rather small) asking price.
I can find better painted minis online, with a much wider variety too, just by checking my facebook feed.

 Talys wrote:


But anyways, the #1 thing I'm looking for in a miniature gaming magazine is photos of nice miniatures, and the #2 thing is the context in which those models might be useful. I happen to be a person who is excited for each issue of Warhammer Visions, which effectively has nothing in it *but* photos of models.

Except, it's not actually a miniature gaming magazine you're looking for, then, but a miniature catalog.

Maybe the reason GW has so much stuff for painters is that they've mastered the techniques and because what works always works. With the game always changing it is necessary to constantly generate new content and ideas, and those could easily be open to ridicule since they could be shown to be wrong when analyzed. So keep showing painting techniques. That is easy safe and proven. And there they've had enough sense to refine what works instead of jumping wildly from one direction to the next.

 Azreal13 wrote:

If GW wanted to truly be a "Games Company" instead of a "Miniatures Company", all they'd have to do is put the same effort into writing a great game, that they currently put out for the painting & modelling folks.

Imagine if all the Wahammer TV videos were of strategy and gameplay. If instead of painting guides, they were tactica volumes and detailed battle reports. If instead of campaign books, they were complex scenarios. It would be a different company. One that would appeal to different people.

Again, if you take GW at their word, they want you to find your own way of playing. Painting is very much a matter of learned technique and practiced skill. Besides, I'm pretty sure I've seen writing in WD around new releases discussing how they can be incorporated into existing armies, just because there's no videos doesn't mean they don't address it.

Personally, I think it's because the game lacks any real depth and there's insufficient material to do those sorts of things without exposing that flaw.

They don't do campaign books, they do scenario compilations, Warhammer is very scenario heavy in both incarnations, but it lacks any real narrative component to call it campaign.

Truth - painting is a lot easier to teach with videos than strategy and tactics are.

When my group plays games we try to have two or three games going at the same time - because most people want to play, not watch others play. (I am an exception - but that is also why I win more often than anyone else in my group... I consider watching the others play as akin to sending scouts to gather intelligence.)

White Dwarf used to have some solid articles on tactics - right into 3rd edition WH40K.

The thing to compere is not videos of how to play an army, it is to watch Battle Reports - where the folks explain what and why they are doing what they do.

As for 'forging the narrative'....

There have been decent narrative campaigns for Fantasy - some of the old, long out of print, scenario packs were awesomely fun. (The last that I remember was the one about a Vampire Count - sadly nowhere near as memorable as Lichemaster or MacDeath.)

Allowing people to bring what they want, and field as much as they want, with no means of balancing the scenario... is not forging the narrative. It is the game devolving into a kid playing with a bag of cheap toy soldiers with another kid that has a bag of cheap plastic dinosaurs.

The Auld Grump - I really enjoyed playing US Marines vs. the Invasion of the Cheap Plastic Dinosaurs... but that does not mean that it forged a strong narrative....

*EDIT* Much snipping.... On topic, or, more accurately, stating the matter that I kind of skirted - AoS, as it is now, creates no more tactical game than two bags of cheap plastic toys - which is how I got started, if I want to be honest.... (I can even remember the rules that eight year old Grump used.... You didn't want to be a US Marine in close combat with a dino....)

What it isn't is a rewarding experience for somebody that enjoys playing out full battles....

In my view it is since GW gave up the pretence of balanced games in favour of forging a narrative (WHFB 8th, 40K 6th) that their revenues have gone into continuing decline.

To be fair I think the massive increase in price of the rules and army books was the major factor.

At lest AoS gets around that problem.

To go back to the actual financial statements, the fact is that GW's revenue declined again. However the constant currency conversion may show that unit sales declined less than previously.

If Germans spent 10 million Euros buying stuff in 2013-14, and the same in 2014-15, the revenue will have declined due to the weaker Euro to GBP conversion rate, but the 10 million Euros represents nearly the same number of boxes shifted.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Talys wrote:


But anyways, the #1 thing I'm looking for in a miniature gaming magazine is photos of nice miniatures, and the #2 thing is the context in which those models might be useful. I happen to be a person who is excited for each issue of Warhammer Visions, which effectively has nothing in it *but* photos of models.

Except, it's not actually a miniature gaming magazine you're looking for, then, but a miniature catalog.

No, because I don't want to see box art (except for stuff that hasn't come out, yet). I want to see other people's original, creative renditions. Perhaps be inspired to try something.

The game, as I've said, is still important to me, because it gives a context for building the army, and a purpose for the army after it's built. So I like to see and hear about changes to the game; I just don't care much one way or the other how the tweak it or about balance, because we balance 40k "the AoS way" anyhow, where if something looks wrong, we just fix it before we start. I mean, I know it sounds radical and all, but if you know those Dark Eldar are gonna lose against the Necron.... just adjust what's in the Decurion so that it evens up a bit, or toss the Dark Eldar a bone.

So to put it another way, what bothers me is when they take out Vect; what doesn't bother me is when they nerf Wyches.

One may argue that with Internet resources, painting guides in books and videos are "not necessary, because better stuff is all out there". Yes, there are awesome resources on the Internet, but it takes a lot of work to find stuff, and a great deal of it is contradictory. On forums it gets downright argumentative. As someone who has helped more than a hundred people start out with their miniatures or improve their painting, and who regularly PMs folks and gets PMs from folks on Dakka (sometimes, I just want to avoid the "this paint is better than that paint" debate, which is a total waste of time), there isn't a better "how to get started" guide than Duncan Rhodes' video that comes with the Citadel book. It's cohesive, easy to understand, and something that anyone who is getting started can follow; and if you follow it, with a little practice, the models you paint will easily be within the top 20 percentile of the gaming tabletop universe.

Compare it for example to MiniWargaming, which has a brick ton of videos (I've seen, or at least listened to, a lot of them) -- if someone is starting out, it's not nearly as useful a resource, and you can get lost in a maze of some decent stuff, versus a lot of just watching a paintbrush in speed mode.

To take it back to GW's financials, GW caters to one group of customers nearly to the exclusion of another group. Is this good? Will it work? I'm a more inclusive type of guy, so my natural instinct is to build products that make more people happy, not fewer.

However, if a company were to decide to make only ONE group happier, which group spends more money? The group that prioritizes paints, models, and collects, or the group that prioritizes gaming? I don't know, but I actually suspect that it doesn't matter. Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

 Talys wrote:
Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this statement everybody.

 Talys wrote:


However, if a company were to decide to make only ONE group happier, which group spends more money? The group that prioritizes paints, models, and collects, or the group that prioritizes gaming? I don't know, but I actually suspect that it doesn't matter. Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Are they mutually exclusive?

Of course not, which is why GW pandered successfully to both miniature collectors and gamers (of all varieties) for many, many years.

About the last point, I have no doubt that GW's creative department is still crewed by gamers and hobbyists like many of us. But, we have read quotes from several ex-studio workers (some of whom effectively helped build the company into what it is today, and were responsible for most of its IP) who have all said the same thing; all of the new releases, the direction in which the company travels with everything, are directed and filtered by the sales team. You can make any statements you like about 'feeling' things, this is straight from the horse's mouth. The horse that fething made 40k, amongst others

If this means that these releases are good for you? Well that's great, you're lucky, congratulations. But you must, must look up the word 'subjective', and realise that GW effectively saying 'nope, sorry you're not catered for' is possibly not the most customer-pleasing route to take when you consider that they did cater to those customer sub-sects for the vast majority of their history. Producing games that could be regarded as actual 'miniature wargames', not 'my wallet is bigger than yours', was one of those areas.

By the way, I don't think they're TOTALLY ignoring profits, Az -- not to take it the wrong way -- but their support for the painting / modelling / collecting crowd is not just, "well, these guys spend more money".

Whether anyone thinks they do a good or bad job of it, they obviously like that crowd more, and I don't think it's only because they've got deeper pockets (which might not even be so, anyways).

@Pacific - Of course it shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive. That's why in the paragraph before, I said if it were up to me, I'd be more inclusive

Obviously, things must at some point to filtered by the sales team, because, like, they do have to stay in business. But that doesn't drive *why* the do things the way they do, and even with the constraints placed by the sales department, they have some freedom.

 Pacific wrote:

If this means that these releases are good for you? Well that's great, you're lucky, congratulations. But you must, must look up the word 'subjective', and realise that GW effectively saying 'nope, sorry you're not catered for' is possibly not the most customer-pleasing route to take when you consider that they did cater to those customer sub-sects for the vast majority of their history. Producing games that could be regarded as actual 'miniature wargames', not 'my wallet is bigger than yours', was one of those areas.

I agree. And I'm not saying pissing off a large portion of your customer base is a great idea -- though I do think their games ARE miniature wargames, and that they are fun, too. And more fun than their competitors' -- though on Dakka I'm probably in the minority, I'm certainly not alone in this preference.

Herzlos wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

No Quarter is a great magazine, but that does not make Visions a bad magazine...

No, Visions is a pretty bad magazine in it's own right. Duplicate pictures, poor framing/placement (cutting out detail in the centrefolds), essentially no actual written content. It's objectively worse than every other gaming magazine in production in every measure other than "pictures of GW mini's". It's certainly not ahead in terms of cost, reading time, tutorials, inspiration. I can't read an issue of WI or WS&S without wanting to start a new project, Visions just leaves me wondering why I bothered.

Sure, it has pretty pictures of GW mini's, but they are often rehashed and usually available on the website.

I guess someone has to like Visions though, if it's still on the go.

no, Visions is a pretty bad magazine for you, and anyone else who doesn't like it...
as someone who lives abroad, a thousand miles from the nearest GW retailer, i still get excited each month when it is time for a new issue to download on the iPad...
the iPad layout is flawless, so i have not seen what you mean with duplicate pictures and poor framing, aside from one photo someone shared of an Empire cannon in the print version...

i buy Visions because i want to see the 2/3 of the mag that is not just new releases...
there is Army of the Month, with nicely photographed hobbyists' armies presented on GW's beautiful tables...
there is Parade Ground, with various competition minis from around the world...
there is Kitbash, with great conversions...
there is Blanchitsu, with many different people's take on Inq28...
many of these "pictures of GW minis" are ones that i had not seen online before...
i would say that at least half of the content is stuff that i would not have seen otherwise...

i get that you may not like it, but it is worth the price for me...
i don't need actual wargaming content, nor do i need tutorials...
i do want to see competition quality minis, cool Inq28 minis, and great conversions...
sure i can find some of those things online, but Visions shows my plenty of stuff that i have not stumbled across on the internet...

@Tannhauser: with 2/3 of the content being user submitted, i think that it is really unfair for people to just dismiss Visions as a catalog...
why wouldn't you be stoked that fellow hobbyists have a chance to be published in a showcase magazine???
why be so dismissive???
i get that it is not a proper "wargames magazine", but it is a lot more than just a catalog...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

No Quarter is a great magazine, but that does not make Visions a bad magazine...

No, Visions is a pretty bad magazine in it's own right. Duplicate pictures, poor framing/placement (cutting out detail in the centrefolds), essentially no actual written content. It's objectively worse than every other gaming magazine in production in every measure other than "pictures of GW mini's". It's certainly not ahead in terms of cost, reading time, tutorials, inspiration. I can't read an issue of WI or WS&S without wanting to start a new project, Visions just leaves me wondering why I bothered.

Sure, it has pretty pictures of GW mini's, but they are often rehashed and usually available on the website.

I guess someone has to like Visions though, if it's still on the go.

no, Visions is a pretty bad magazine for you, and anyone else who doesn't like it...

cheers
jah

Which seems to be the majority - my local bookstores dropped it two issues in.

The obvious reason being that the magazine did not sell. (Obvious on all levels - since I saw what stock they had, and what they ended with....)

If a magazine does not interest the intended audience, then it is a bad magazine.

Visions is one such bad magazine.

The Auld Grump

@TheAuldGrump: we could go around and around all day...
i like the mag, so obviously, it is not a bad magazine to me...
how am i not a part of the intended audience???

as this is the financials thread, i am just trying to explain why 75% of my hobby spending goes to GW, not get into arguments about why people dislike anything...
how you spend your hobby money is your prerogative...

GW minis, books, and mags happen to be the products on the market that i enjoy the most...
what floats your boat may be different, for completely personal reasons, which is totally understandable...
if i am in the minority of fans, that doesn't make my likes wrong, just different to yours and many others...

to me, there is great value in all of my purchases...
i don't regret a single penny i have ever spent on GW products, and am even able to make a living off of my time spent enjoying their settings and models...

cheers
jah

To be fair to Talys's point that maybe GW like painters not gamers, GW have spent the past 15 years gradually reducing the number of game systems they publish from dozens to three, only one of which actually has been published in the past 15 years. It isn't a production schedule you would expect from a games company.

Osprey is currently putting out a new rulebook every two months.

Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

@Knockagh - yeah, this is what I have said before. Most CEOs would give their left nut to have a company that generates 16% NET profits on GW's revenue numbers, especially when this is after more than that is reinvested into future product.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: we could go around and around all day...
i like the mag, so obviously, it is not a bad magazine to me...
how am i not a part of the intended audience???

as this is the financials thread, i am just trying to explain why 75% of my hobby spending goes to GW, not get into arguments about why people dislike anything...
how you spend your hobby money is your prerogative...
cheers
jah

It is here because this is a Financials thread.

If the magazine is not selling, and evidence supports that it is not selling, then financially it is a BAD MAGAZINE.

Because bookstores have dropped the thing it is a BAD MAGAZINE.

Get it now?

I did not say 'pretty pictures bad!'

I said 'It does not sell'.

Personally, I really do not like the magazine, but that would be okay if it was selling in spite of my dislike. I had stopped reading White Dwarf years before it disappeared from the shelves - but it was still on those shelves until Visions took its place.

And that is why Visions is a BAD MAGAZINE - it replaced something that was at least selling well enough that it was kept on the bookstore shelves.

It decreased the exposure of the company.

And that is financially a bad thing.

The magazine market is pretty miserable to begin with - if you have ever hear Lisa Stevens of Paizo talking about 'the evil, organized crime controlled, magazine industry' then you know why. (If you haven't, then go looking for Auntie Lisa's Story Hour - from PaizoCon and GenCon. They are fun to listen to.)

Mind you, I also think that Visions is a bad magazine in the sense that I have no urge to read it, and it does not have enough pages to hang on the nail in an outhouse.

But the reason I felt it worth mentioning is that it is not selling.

And so, financially, is a BAD MAGAZINE.

So, if you want to 'go round and round on this', bear in mind that what I am saying is based purely on the circulation - which has dropped.

Not on the fact that I have no interest in the damned thing.

The Auld Grump

Honestly, I think the magazine, like a lot of GW, is kind of financial mill they're using to hide numbers that are worse than it appears.

Just think about how every time they have a new release, or this magazine, a lot of store are obliged or even required to buy them. That's a whole lot of pre-sold items on top of the die hards picking things up at random before reviews.

Knockagh wrote:
Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

A 99% margin means nothing if you're not selling any product.

I know my view on this differs from those in the US and the UK but GW is as good as dead here.

@theAuldGrump: i get why you think it is financially a bad magazine...
i just disagree with you...

you are making assumptions that Visions is not reaching its intended audience...
you are also making assumptions that your local area is representative of the whole world...
you also seem to be leaving out the switch to digital magazines by the customers...

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

i happen to think it is a very nice magazine, and and am happy give them my money for it...
things that i consider to be bad don't get my money, so there must be some good in the mag, if a portion of the community are still buying it...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

GW changing the format, which I believe happened recently, has historically always been a reaction to their magazine(s) not selling well enough.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

A 99% margin means nothing if you're not selling any product.

I know my view on this differs from those in the US and the UK but GW is as good as dead here.

I agree. But GBP 120m isn't "not selling any product". I don't know where you live, as it shows a little American flag


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

GW changing the format, which I believe happened recently, has historically always been a reaction to their magazine(s) not selling well enough.

The new format (in printed form) is WAY better than the old one. It was also about a year old, and due for a review. It isn't the best selling magazine in the world for sure, but for people interested in photographs of miniatures (a very specific niche), it's great.

I think it gives me a US flag when I'm on my phone, I'm in Australia.

Where we have heard from multiple sources that FLGSs GW sales are drying up and in more than a couple fell from 50%~ to 10-15% of their revenue. Not sales, revenue. In a country where single character blisters have broken the $60 mark. The Combat Company, which prides itself on being the largest FLGS in the southern hemisphere (I have no way to verify that, but they are large enough to have their own con) said when 7th ed 40k came out Dystonian Wars 2nd ed, released within a week of it, was outselling 40k 7 to 1.
They normally enjoy showing off the PALLETS of stock they get for new things like the recently releas Halo fleet battle game. They didn't make one mention of Age of Sigmar anywhere, not even the newsletter they sent out shortly after it was released that told us all about the new stuff they just got in and are getting. That is the biggest red flag for AoS locally imo.


Anyway, I ranted enough. Point it in Australia GW gaming is really drying up in a lot of places.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think it gives me a US flag when I'm on my phone, I'm in Australia.

Where we have heard from multiple sources that FLGSs GW sales are drying up and in more than a couple fell from 50%~ to 10-15% of their revenue. Not sales, revenue. In a country where single character blisters have broken the $60 mark. The Combat Company, which prides itself on being the largest FLGS in the southern hemisphere (I have no way to verify that, but they are large enough to have their own con) said when 7th ed 40k came out Dystonian Wars 2nd ed, released within a week of it, was outselling 40k 7 to 1.
They normally enjoy showing off the PALLETS of stock they get for new things like the recently releas Halo fleet battle game. They didn't make one mention of Age of Sigmar anywhere, not even the newsletter they sent out shortly after it was released that told us all about the new stuff they just got in and are getting. That is the biggest red flag for AoS locally imo.


Anyway, I ranted enough. Point it in Australia GW gaming is really drying up in a lot of places.

Ahhhh, okay. Yeah, I totally get that GW's pricing in Australia sucks in the worst way.

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

Unless by "sales" versus "revenue" you mean unit sales, rather than dollars sold -- which would be true in all regions. I think we all agree that GW sold fewer models and books, generally speaking, at a higher price -- without any specific information to break that down.

Since I don't think it's because an Australian peed on Tom Kirby's shoe, I am really curious as to why the cost of doing business in Australia is so much more expensive than every other region.

We have high expenses and cost of living, but in today's retail world you still need to be able to compete with online retailers.
The part that stings is that they have made it against the rules for retailers outside of Australia to sell to us so we can't just pay American prices + shipping and get things still at 2/3rds the price (we could do that for a while and it was great).

Opening more stores down here doesn't surprise me, it seems that because it worked in the UK GW believes more stores = more money.
Anecdotally a friend in Sydney had a really great FLGS, then a GW store opened literally across the road. No idea if that GW is still open but by all accounts it was just sad seeing it totally empty while the FLGS continued to see tons of customers.


Funny thing is we are a county with an excess of space, it is probably the ideal country for GW to drop a battle bunker in every major city and hit that market saturation they have in the UK. As it is one man stores are just sad when every FLGS is capable of hosting 30 person events easily while the local GW needs to close to host an 8 man event.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this statement everybody.

I'm at work and I'm afraid that if I ponder it too much people might start looking at me weirdly when I fall off my chair in a fit of hysterical laughter.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Anecdotally a friend in Sydney had a really great FLGS, then a GW store opened literally across the road. No idea if that GW is still open but by all accounts it was just sad seeing it totally empty while the FLGS continued to see tons of customers.

Parramatta's the same deal. AoS launch weekend, I think they may have had a few tumbleweeds in the store, but no customers. Meanwhile, the gaming store right above it, packed to the rafters with people hoarding the new Magic expansion.

GW that was 5 mins up the road from me? Couldn't make enough to pay the rent. Ditto for the one in North Sydney. Ditto for the one in Chatswood, but that one's still open... on the other side of Chatswood, in the part of that suburb where all the store signs are in Korean, and near where the old Video Ezy used to be (a complete dead zone!).

GW in Australia? It's on fething life support!

Maybe us Aussies should all pool our vast amounts of excess wealth that we have due to our higher minimum wage and invent a machine that allows us to cross into alternate realities. We can visit Talys then, and see what it's like to live in a world where GW is awesome.

 Talys wrote:

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

IIRC, they had a small surge in sales when the regional trading rules went up. I think they expected that blocking people from buying overseas would push all of those sales back into Oz. What happened instead is that people eventually either found ways around it or gave up and started looking for alternative games.

I would be very surprised if that store count continues to increase for anything other than the short term.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Honestly, I think the magazine, like a lot of GW, is kind of financial mill they're using to hide numbers that are worse than it appears.

Just think about how every time they have a new release, or this magazine, a lot of store are obliged or even required to buy them. That's a whole lot of pre-sold items on top of the die hards picking things up at random before reviews.

Visions is not a required stocking item. White Dwarf is autoship (you tell them how many, it comes every week); Visions stores have to explicitly order. I know this because my store misses it sometimes, and then I have to go to a different store to grab one >.<


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe us Aussies should all pool our vast amounts of excess wealth that we have due to our higher minimum wage and invent a machine that allows us to cross into alternate realities. We can visit Talys then, and see what it's like to live in a world where GW is awesome.

All you need is an aerospace transport vehicle, the first of which was invented slightly more than a century ago. They now have these really large versions and it's pretty cheap. And mostly safe. But don't use Malaysian. Or set waypoints over warzones. Just purchase transport the alternate reality of Kan-A-Da

Hey, just for kicks, let me demonstrate how much better us Canucks have it.

Age of Sigmar boxed set is CAD $150. I purchased 2 copies at 33% on launch day (25% is not hard to get) -- CAD $99. In USD, that's $74.25.
In Australia, the box set is AUD $200. That's around $150 USD, and I understand significant discounts are uncommon.

See? ALTERNATE REALITY. (To be fair, the best price most people can normally get it for now is CAD $112.50 -- or about $84 USD, which is 25% off)

If you really wanted to build your 10,000 point army, it would be a lot cheaper to buy a ticket, fly to Vancouver, book a 5-star hotel suite for a night, buy your stuff, and fly back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

IIRC, they had a small surge in sales when the regional trading rules went up. I think they expected that blocking people from buying overseas would push all of those sales back into Oz. What happened instead is that people eventually either found ways around it or gave up and started looking for alternative games.

I would be very surprised if that store count continues to increase for anything other than the short term.

I see. That makes sense! I wonder why they would have popped more stores.

Were I in Oz, I probably would not buy GW models either. The price difference just seems way too huge, and I'd feel discriminated against.. Mind you, I recall a buddy in Australia bought a game console (can't recall, XB1 I think, but might have been PS4), and was complaining that he overpaid, too.

 jah-joshua wrote:
you are making assumptions that Visions is not reaching its intended audience...

What is it's intended audience? Because I genuinely don't know.

What I do know is that I barely see anywhere stocking it, and even my FLGS (largest GW reseller in the country by quite a margin) only sells maybe 1 or 2 of them a month. The 3 copies sit in the local chain newsagent here whilst the stacks of WI, WS&S and MW whittle down, it's no longer in the smaller newsagents. They even admitted in the annual report that the sales were disappointing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

This is a bit contrary to GW's numbers, though -- GW has 43 stores in 2015 in Oz up from 40 the year prior (though the number of 1-man stores went up from 29 to 36). The retail and trade sales are up slightly, though essentially flat.

It's not really contrary. The increase of 15 one-man stores means that they likely closed 12 stores in expensive areas and moved them to backwaters, with a 3 additional backwater stores. That's not a growth by any stretch, and is just a massive cost saving measure that hurts growth. In real terms it means a reduction in staff (by at least 12) and most likely a reduction in total rent/liabilities as well.

@Herzlos: i would think that the intended audience for Visions are people like me, who are unapologetic fans of GW's miniatures and settings, and who put a higher priority on converting and painting of those miniatures than the gaming aspect of the hobby...
people who want a magazine dedicated to what fellow hobbyists and HQ staff are doing with their GW models, without space having to be dedicated to rules, other companies' games or minis...

all of the alternative magazines mentioned here will have a lot of things that i am not interested in, or only have a very passing interest in...
take Ravage for example, it will have an article on Infinity background that i am into, a Jen Haley painting article that is interesting (simply for a chance to read a different perspective on painting, which i enjoy doing), an X-wing article which i am mildly interested in reading, a Dark-Age battle report which is fun, a Zombicide article which i have Zero interest in, some boardgame blurbs that tell me about a game i will never buy, and a set of Sedition Wars scenarios that i have zero interest in...
for $5, i am happy to buy it for some bog reading each month...

for $3 more (less with a subscription), i get Visions, filled from back to front with things that i am 100% interested in...
i get to see pictures of the new releases that are presented differently to the online store pics, the same with the Forge World pics...
i get to read about the army of the month, and a little battle report with the that month's studio releases...
i get to check out some cool conversions by the staff, with nice paintjobs...
i get Blanchitsu, with the great Inq28 collections, and i get to pour over beautiful Golden Demon minis, that make me say, "how did he do that effect, or build that base, and how would i do it differently???", which inspires me to progress my skills...

even better, i get all of that on my iPad, a thousand miles and a border away from my local shop, and can access it on the day it is available, and have it at my fingertips even when i don't have internet access...
when living in the Third World, especially during hurricane season, the power goes out a few times a week, and having Visions downloaded on my iPad has saved me from complete boredom on many a hot sweaty night...

keep in mind, i did not say the mag is selling as well as it should, just that i don't find it to be a bad magazine at all...

cheers
jah

Fair enough, but the seemingly awful sales of Visions seems to imply that few people share your exact set of requirements in a magazine.

Personally, I tend to gloss over the painting sections unless it's something I'm particularly interested in and spend most of my time reading the game reviews, scenarios and history. To me Visions is useless, and WD:W is little better.

I got bored of Blanchitsu almost immediately, as far as I can tell it's the same mini's all the time.

Though in defence of WD:W and WH:V; maybe the in-store sale are so poor because all the superfans are buying it a table? But if so, why doesn't the same apply to the rest of the industry?

Herzlos wrote:
Fair enough, but the seemingly awful sales of Visions seems to imply that few people share your exact set of requirements in a magazine.

It doesn't really matter. What matters is if it sells well enough for GW customers as GW define them.

For example, AoS is a game made for collectors, IMHO - so that they can easily play with their favorite GW models when they feel like it. If you like game systems for themselves, that's not really a good rule system - because everything is about the model, even if it is not really relevant for game purpose.

The true question is to know if that will be sufficient to sell enough products on the long term. We shall see in the next financial report, that should be very interesting.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Contrary to the CW here, I don't think GW is doing it for the money; they're doing it because this is what they like, and they're supporting hobbyists that are like them.

Let's all take a moment to ponder this statement everybody.

It is a Zen Kōan, no?

Visions......... Shiver trickle down my spine at the mention.... It's great that people like it but it annoys me no end that I can't get white dwarf anywhere but GW. I used to be able to pick it up in a few places including super markets along side the house hold food shop. Now I'm expected to subscribe or get in the car drive 25 minutes out of my way pay £4 to park my car and try and buy WD on a Saturday. But more times than enough it's sold out and I have wasted my trip. So now I've given up. I no longer get the magazine I loved for years and I have no interest in visions. But this thread is about finances folks....

 Talys wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
Guys GW are very healthy. Who ever wrote that a 16% margin is just about breaking even isn't in the real world! I work in agriculture, I put food on your table, it's a massively high cash flow business with margins around 2 to 3 %. And we survive and some years we actually do pretty good we just have to do a lot of it! I would and many business's would cut their limbs off for the type of figures GW show. Yes sometimes they make bad decisions but so does everyone, sometimes they will leave you scratching your head but sometimes I look back on decisions I made in my business and wonder what I was at. That's life business and all in between. I just bought that realm gate wars novel and I'm heading to bed thinking I must be mad.....I don't even know who wrote the flippin thing.

A 99% margin means nothing if you're not selling any product.

I know my view on this differs from those in the US and the UK but GW is as good as dead here.

I agree. But GBP 120m isn't "not selling any product". I don't know where you live, as it shows a little American flag


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

a magazine that is not selling as well as it could does not equate to not selling at all...
a magazine that is still considered valuable enough for GW to publish every month would indicate that they don't agree with your assessment of it being a bad magazine...

GW changing the format, which I believe happened recently, has historically always been a reaction to their magazine(s) not selling well enough.

The new format (in printed form) is WAY better than the old one. It was also about a year old, and due for a review. It isn't the best selling magazine in the world for sure, but for people interested in photographs of miniatures (a very specific niche), it's great.

But the change in format also happened too late to help circulation - it is not on local bookstore shelves - White Dwarf was.

While I was not buying White Dwarf other folks were, enough that the bookstore kept ordering the magazine.

Folks did not buy Visions.

So the bookstores dropped it - removing some of GW's positive exposure.

As far as exposure is concerned, neither subscriptions nor GW stores matter - the folks that go into GW stores already know about GW, as do folks getting a subscription.

So the majority of current circulation neither affects nor effects exposure.*

The initial two issues to hit the shelves - and the only two issues to hit the shelves locally - acted as a deterrent not an attraction.

I think that GW simply classifies exposure as one of those things like market research and advertising... something to be avoided.

The Auld Grump

* For what it is worth, Commodore Business Machines made a similar decision, and only advertised the Amiga in Amiga targeted magazines... again, people that already knew about the product that they were advertising.

Commodore has been out of business for quite some time now, but used to be bigger than GW is now....

Does Visions actually have any conversions in it?

From everything I've seen of GWs current approach they appear to view conversions as something to be avoided.

Blanchitsu is nothing but bizarre (and cool) conversions and JB has hinted at being aware of Inq28's existence a few times.

They aren't as conversion happy as they were before.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Does Visions actually have any conversions in it?

From everything I've seen of GWs current approach they appear to view conversions as something to be avoided.

I'm sure they are more than happy with conversions if it means buying an extra $50 box of models to get the 1 arm you need to make the conversion

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Does Visions actually have any conversions in it?

From everything I've seen of GWs current approach they appear to view conversions as something to be avoided.

Yes, there are conversions in Visions.

They had a full pager on someone who created some humongous (bigger than Thunderhawk) monstrosity out of every flyer kit that GW makes Many of the models would be impractical for gaming, most of the dioramas are not representative of any game. There are also many terrain conversions, like Battlefield Gorgantum or whatever it was called (about 3 issues ago), which look really cool but would be impossible to game in. There are things like hacked up skyshields to make giant balconies, or skyshields on 24" towers, Malefactorums extended into vertical structures, tall multilevel buildings... things that would just be impossible to actually put models on for anything other than a diorama.

Kitbashes are very common in Visions.

I'm not sure why you would say GW discourages conversions.

Because basically every special character without an official model has been removed from their respective codex?

Go and say that GW encourages conversions to the Dark Eldar players who had converted their own Baron, Duke, Vect, Malys, etc.?

Also, all of those conversions you mentioned are just combinations of GW kits. Do they give any limelight to scratchbuilt models?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Does Visions actually have any conversions in it?

From everything I've seen of GWs current approach they appear to view conversions as something to be avoided.

The've moved to kitbashing - adding bits from one kit to a model from another, and moved away from actual conversions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

I'm not sure why you would say GW discourages conversions.

Because none of that is converting in the conventional sense, it's just buying half a dozen scenery kits and assembling a giant structure from it. There's no plasticard, or green stuff, or anything beyond gluing something from GW to something else from GW.

@Herzlos: i'm not sure why you would interpret me saying what i like about Visions as being my exact set of requirements...
i didn't see a need for White Dwarf to change, but it did, and i have adapted...
since i gave examples of five other mags that i have collected as well, it is clear that i don't have an exact set of requirements...
what i do have, is a greater passion for GW's minis, books, and magazines than any other company's...
that doesn't mean that i expect anyone else to share my preference, though i do hope that there are enough like-minded people out there to keep GW profitable...

as for the definition of conversions, i have always called a kitbash a conversion...
taking a Marauder Horseman's head, and gluing it to a SW Scout is a conversion in my book...
scratch-building is its own beast...
it makes sense for a company to promote the use of their kits for conversion purposes, as that would equate to the sale of two boxes of models...

the current state of affairs is upsetting to people because things used to be different, which i completely understand...
when change happens, some people will decry the loss of how things were in the good old days, and maybe stop buying GW products, or adapt and continue to enjoy themselves...
i am more than happy to adapt, because the books, minis, and magazines still inspire me...

cheers
jah

Compare the 2nd Ed Chaos Codex with the modern 'Buy all our playsets and toys!' mentality and it's unsurprising that conversions are a thing of the past in official GW material.

Wouldn't want to publish a picture of something that someone can't just buy! They might give ideas to those evil third party bitz makers who keep stealing all of GW's totally-original-created-in-a-vacuum concepts, such as arrows and skulls.

For another glimpse into how it has changed compare the 4th Ed Ork Codex with the current one.

In one of them you'll find pictures of awesome scratch-built Battlewagons, Dreadnoughts, orky buildings and the massive Black Toof river display with a scratch-built Gargant and Squiggoth.

In the other you will find generic Ork kits, exactly the same as on their page on the website.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Compare the 2nd Ed Chaos Codex with the modern 'Buy all our playsets and toys!' mentality and it's unsurprising that conversions are a thing of the past in official GW material.

I still remember Andy Chambers heavily converted Iron warriors playtest army alongside whatever mess that John Blanche had knocked out for the same reason being heavily featured in a WD when the 2nd ed codex was released.

 Talys wrote:

I'm not sure why you would say GW discourages conversions.

They don't specifically discourage them (although the old website had a comment on their legal page that claimed that conversions are technically an IP violation) but they've also stopped encouraging them. As others have pointed out, there are very, very few conversions shown in rulebooks or codexes now, and since the Chapterhouse case they started removing any unit that didn't have a model from the codexes.

These days, it's all just about buying the appropriate kit, rather than creating stuff. Which is ironic, given them modelling potential opened up by the current army building system...

Herzlos wrote:

Because none of that is converting in the conventional sense, it's just buying half a dozen scenery kits and assembling a giant structure from it. There's no plasticard, or green stuff, or anything beyond gluing something from GW to something else from GW.

I'd suggest that you look into an issue of Visions before you say that, because it just isn't true

Sure, there are a lot of models and terrain that are kitbashes (I happen to think these are cool), but there are also many, many models that have been augmented with GS and such. Some are spectacular.

I mean, nobody's asking you to buy it, but if you just randomly open an issue and flip through it, you'll see plenty of stuff that doesn't come from boxes and bits -- whether it's a catachan holding a coffee cup by a tank or a Chaos lord on a gruesome throne.

My favorite model in the last couple of issues was "Howling Banshee" by Steve Party, which has a very unique-looking howling banshee with a custom facemask/hair, unique pose & weapons, and sculpted wraithbone terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:

I'm not sure why you would say GW discourages conversions.

They don't specifically discourage them (although the old website had a comment on their legal page that claimed that conversions are technically an IP violation) but they've also stopped encouraging them. As others have pointed out, there are very, very few conversions shown in rulebooks or codexes now, and since the Chapterhouse case they started removing any unit that didn't have a model from the codexes.

These days, it's all just about buying the appropriate kit, rather than creating stuff. Which is ironic, given them modelling potential opened up by the current army building system...

Well, I understand the codex perspective, because from a gaming point of view, they want to showcase stuff that you can buy, assemble, and play (relatively easily), right? The GW thing to do if they add something new is to just sell you an updated kit, anyhow, and it drives people crazy if there's some game option that's not in the kit (like grav guns for bikes). I suppose they could show you customized models of stuff that has no game function, but then if it were cool, people would want it, and then they'd just monetize it and release it as a plastic kit

Unlike a lot of other gaming/modeling systems, the GW kits give you tons of creative potential without having to resort to sculpting (or requiring only minimal sculpting), which is a pretty big attraction to a lot of folks -- and that's just because of the sheer size of their sprue/bits library.

 Talys wrote:
I suppose they could show you customized models of stuff that has no game function, but then if it were cool, people would want it, and then they'd just monetize it and release it as a plastic kit

Or they could do what they used to do, and show you how to make it and sell you a bundle that included the kits you needed for it.

Having all of a unit's options in the kit doesn't preclude conversions. Not in the slightest... because a lot of the draw of a hobby like this is seeing the unique ways that people come up with to personalise their armies.

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I suppose they could show you customized models of stuff that has no game function, but then if it were cool, people would want it, and then they'd just monetize it and release it as a plastic kit

Or they could do what they used to do, and show you how to make it and sell you a bundle that included the kits you needed for it.

Having all of a unit's options in the kit doesn't preclude conversions. Not in the slightest... because a lot of the draw of a hobby like this is seeing the unique ways that people come up with to personalise their armies.

In the context of kitbashes, they do this once in a while in WD -- there was a recent one on how to combine SM kits, and of course the issues the upgrade kits, for example. They tell you exactly what kits the pieces come from (the column is sprues and glue, usually). You won't find it in visions, because a lot of the models are not built by GW, and the magazine is almost entirely devoted to photography.

There aren't ever tutorials on greenstuff sculpting and building custom terrain anymore, and that would be cool, I agree.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Because basically every special character without an official model has been removed from their respective codex?

Go and say that GW encourages conversions to the Dark Eldar players who had converted their own Baron, Duke, Vect, Malys, etc.?

Also, all of those conversions you mentioned are just combinations of GW kits. Do they give any limelight to scratchbuilt models?

Looks at awesome converted Duke model... weeps into palms...

Yeah, GW have been shifting away from conversions to kitbashes for a while now, I think it really started in the 4th edition Chaos dex (the really bad one with no flavor, all generic bland crap) There was only one "conversion" in the book and it was a kitbash Slaaneshi marine, (go figure)

The Golden Demon competition allows you to scratch build a model that is set in the 40k universe, so why wouldn't they feature such a model, if it were really awesome?

If you flip through a Visions, there is LOTS of stuff, especially peripheral to the model, that's not from a kit. A lot of what's modeled is dioramas and models on intricate bases, where only the basic model is a GW model. In many cases, those models are also modified, with GS, sculpted bits, etc.

Here are two that I really enjoyed. By Julian Bayliss, "Warlord of the Norscan Giants" from issue 19:



And by Steve Party, "Howling Banshee" in issue 18:



To me, it is a real treat to flip through a magazine that has lots of models like that, and I'll happily shell out $10 for a magazine with pictures like that, that's around 180 pages. It's certainly not a catalog. If it is, tell me where I can buy that model unpainted, and I'm there!

 Talys wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Because none of that is converting in the conventional sense, it's just buying half a dozen scenery kits and assembling a giant structure from it. There's no plasticard, or green stuff, or anything beyond gluing something from GW to something else from GW.

I'd suggest that you look into an issue of Visions before you say that, because it just isn't true

I've seen enough of it online to be put off entirely.

I mean, nobody's asking you to buy it, but if you just randomly open an issue and flip through it, you'll see plenty of stuff that doesn't come from boxes and bits -- whether it's a catachan holding a coffee cup by a tank or a Chaos lord on a gruesome throne.

I can't, it's in a sealed bag so my only option is to buy it, and I just can't bring myself to do that.

My favorite model in the last couple of issues was "Howling Banshee" by Steve Party, which has a very unique-looking howling banshee with a custom facemask/hair, unique pose & weapons, and sculpted wraithbone terrain.

Did they explain that stuff to you, along with how to do it? Or do you just know that's what's done because you're familiar with the models and technique?

Well, I understand the codex perspective, because from a gaming point of view, they want to showcase stuff that you can buy, assemble, and play (relatively easily), right? The GW thing to do if they add something new is to just sell you an updated kit, anyhow, and it drives people crazy if there's some game option that's not in the kit (like grav guns for bikes). I suppose they could show you customized models of stuff that has no game function, but then if it were cool, people would want it, and then they'd just monetize it and release it as a plastic kit

They didn't used to be like that though, they were all for you augmenting your GW stuff with whatever you wanted. Hell, WD used to contain patterns to make vehicles out of cereal packets! Now the emphasis seems to be on buying GW.

They used to have a guy who just did terrain, Nigel Stillman IIRC. Dude just made terrain. Big landing pad, spiked trees, crashed shuttle, bunkers galore, you name it he made it.

Now? Only GW terrain on that Godawful imagination-stiffling Realm of Battle boards.

It was a guy called Owen who did the terrain including the landing pad, I can't remember his surname right now though.

Dave Andrews is (still, I think) the primary terrain / table design person.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They used to have a guy who just did terrain, Nigel Stillman IIRC. Dude just made terrain. Big landing pad, spiked trees, crashed shuttle, bunkers galore, you name it he made it.

Now? Only GW terrain on that Godawful imagination-stiffling Realm of Battle boards.

What, having every battle on the same skull filled hill doesn't inspire you to forge narrative after narrative?