However, once you actually go away and play any other mini wargame, you realise just how poor the rules of the GW games are. I'm not saying I haven't had fun playing them, it just took GW pushing me away to find much greener grass everywhere else. Although everyone talks of a new 40k v8 next year, I can't see me playing it again, despite having a wardrobe with 16 old GW hardcases of figures. Whatever guise new 40k comes in, it will still revolve around the current trend of massively oversized expensive models - rather than a boss, some troops and a few special models that made the army stand out.
As for one of the things you said several pages ago about a wargame needing our models building from plastic sprues.... I guess the 40k and WHFB I grew up with weren't wargames. We only had metal Citadel Miniatures back then.
You still need to unsprue your metals, de-mold-line, assemble, clean, prime, paint . still a kit to me.
Anyway you are long past liking 40K and to me, that means you're not anywhere close to spending a dime on it.
So when you buy any other game, you're not removing money from the GW pool, you're just spending money somewhere else.
And before you even considered spending money, there wasn't a split second where you considered spending it on GW produce.
To me, that doesn't sound like GW and FFG competed for your game dollar.
At one point, you would spend most your gaming money on GW.
Then you stopped.
And now you spend it on something else.
In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.
I just don't think the old "I don't care for GW anymore" crew can seriously be counted as potential GW customers.
In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.
So does it come down to the purchasers state of mind then? i.e. if I 'hate' GW or not when I go into a shop to buy that box of X-Wing stuff?
Yeah, you don't get to spend that long aggressively attacking the idea that X-Wing could be beating 40K as the premiere miniatures game and then pretend that you were just saying you personally don't like X-Wing. Because no, he was coming up with weird "it feels like a board game so it doesn't count" statements but never saying what about the game mechanics actually support that.
Have you seen an X-Wing starter ?
Have you seen the board game "Blue Mage" ?
We've been talking about wargames and now you're shifting it to "miniatures game".
If we're going to talk about "miniatures games", then, imo, Zombicide is doing a lot better than X-Wing because it's actually being played by non-geeks, a lot of them.
Also, it's a miniatures game.
And a board game.
And it comes in an affordable all-in-one package, just like X-Wing.
Game mechanics are irrelevant in the end.
What positions the product in the market favorably against GW products is not whether it's a board game or miniatures game or war game, it's that it requires zero personal investment beyond cash (like board games) and happens to be fun to play (like any good game), easy to start (like board games) and riding on one of the most successful franchises ever.
And no, I still don't believe that has *anything* in common with 40K, a game which requires major personal investment, is not easy to start and has its own lesser known universe.
The fact of the matter is that the immense majority of X-Wing players would never consider a game where buy-in starts at 300 bucks used, where you have to spend 10 hours on each unit before it's "table ready' and where the rules are vast enough that almost nobody knows them perfectly.
The very criticism you have on 40K is what puts it in an entirely different category from X-Wing, and it makes no sense to state that people buying pre-painted star wars ships would have likely been interested in non-assembled, unpainted space marines.
A market is defined by a demographic, a group of people who are likely to buy products from that market.
I truly believe the market for Zombicide is a lot wider than for X-Wing, and that's a lot wider than the market for 40K, which is still a lot wider than the market for Inquisitor or some other obscure game.
In other words, there's only a tiny fraction of the Zombicide market which overlaps with X-Wing, and the same between X-Wing and 40K.
In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.
So does it come down to the purchasers state of mind then? i.e. if I 'hate' GW or not when I go into a shop to buy that box of X-Wing stuff?
Of course it does.
If somebody comes into a toy store with the mindset: "I hate barbie dolls", that customer does not count in the market share for "barbie dolls" and it wouldn't make any sense to say that when he buys "Lego", that revenue was taken from mattel and given to lego.
In our case, if people hate GW's guts and have sworn an oath never to buy their products again, them buying anything doesn't take any money away from GW, since they already decided to spend 0 on GW.
Just to clarify some of the terms I saw used in this thread :
40k and X-Wing are both scifi miniature wargames according to their own descriptions and to most definitions of the terms.
Both games are indeed in a different subcategory of wargames scifi miniature wargames, for exemple 40k is ground themed with infantry and tanks as the main models while X-wing is space based with small fighter and some bigger ships, but that's not what was discussed here.
Yes you can always select a specific set of conditions to define your group in a different way, but when the discussion started to involve X-Wing, the topic was about 40k being the supposed top dog in *scifi miniature wargaming*, with one of the early post acknowledging this by explicitely ignoring other wargames like FoW because they were not scifi, introducing X-Wing was perfectly valid in this context, and if you want to starts talking about things like painting or modelling, then you are eitheir changing the target, or starting a different discussion altogether.
It's perfectly fine to say that you prefer wargames with a painting and modelling aspect (and note than X-Wing can have both if you want, it's just lest of a requirement), but it's wrong to say that it's not a wargame without those aspects.
When I started Warhammer, I eitheir used cardboard squares of the appropriate size to represent most of the models of my army because I was too young to afford more than a few models, and of thoe models, many where one piece metal or monopose plastic with no assembly required outside of putting them on their slotabase. Does it means that I was not doing wargaming then ? And what about earlier editions of 40k where you might have played a game with a number of models just above what you would expect nowadays in a skirmish game, was 40k not a wargame in thos those early days ?
So when you buy any other game, you're not removing money from the GW pool, you're just spending money somewhere else.
And before you even considered spending money, there wasn't a split second where you considered spending it on GW produce.
To me, that doesn't sound like GW and FFG competed for your game dollar.
You have a certain amount of money you can spend on things you enjoy; some will go on takeaway, films etc... stuff not in the "tabletop hobby" sphere. That money is unlikely to havr been spent on your tabletop hobby, so while they do kind of compete with GW in terms of "this is money that I will spend on things I enjoy", the chances of it being spent on tabletop hobby stuff is low.
You will have a certain amount of money that you will spend on tabletop related things. That is money GW and every other tabletop game company are directly competing over with their products, community, business choices, and customer interactions.
People will be more or less inclined to spend money on certain types of game - I personally am not a huge fan of Star Wars so will be less likely to spend it on X-Wing. People are more inclined to buy into games that are played locally - this means I will probably not be buying any more Dust Tactics as no one else plays it, but I may pick up some drop fleet commander as there are a few people who have it. There are some companies who I do not agree with how they have or are doing things so will be less inclined to buy stuff from them (GW, Dust Tactics, etc).
The point is that even though I may be more or less inclined to spend money with them, they are all selling in the market I am buying from, and I only have a certain amount of money that will be spent in that market. Every pound I spend with company A is money that is not going to companys B-Z.
And in a market where player groups often determine what people buy, if players stop buying and playing your games, you will find it hugely difficult to break back in to that meta. Especially if you are actively pissing off those players...
Of course it does.
If somebody comes into a toy store with the mindset: "I hate barbie dolls", that customer does not count in the market share for "barbie dolls" and it wouldn't make any sense to say that when he buys "Lego", that revenue was taken from mattel and given to lego.
In our case, if people hate GW's guts and have sworn an oath never to buy their products again, them buying anything doesn't take any money away from GW, since they already decided to spend 0 on GW.
You've got to be kidding me. Also, nice false analogy.
I am not a potential customer for Barbie unless I will have a baby girl, but I am a potential customer for GW and not-GW wargame products.
I have no infinite money, so if I spend in GW I do not spend in not-GW, and the other way around. Some people jump ship and do not go back, other go back and forth, but it works this way.
morgoth, what are you doing here is damage control, sorry.
One thing though- I don't think that X-Wing is the de-facto place for ex-GW gamers to go. The hobby and gaming elements are very different, so I can see how some of the (many) other games might appeal more..
I think X-Wing is very much a side game for most people, with a few playing it as their main/only game. It's ideal as a side game because the cost of entry is minimal (can get started for the cost of a GW tank), the rules are really easy to pick up (either from reading the 5 page rules, or playing through a turn), and it plays pretty quickly. So it's very easy to grab a game of X-Wing in a lunch break, or after you've finished your main game, or waiting on people turning up at the games club.
That used to be where things like Blood Bowl sat, and maybe it'll come back, but at the moment can anyone really see Blood Bowl displacing X-Wing?
So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.
jreilly89 wrote: but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,
???????
What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.
jreilly89 wrote: but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,
???????
What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.
In anticipation of the following comments:
But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...
jreilly89 wrote: but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,
???????
What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.
In anticipation of the following comments:
But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...
Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
jreilly89 wrote: but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,
???????
What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.
In anticipation of the following comments:
But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...
Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
In other words, when disgruntled ex-GW customers buy something from another miniature foundry, they are *not* driving revenue away from GW.
When a current GW customer buys one less box of marines to afford a starter X-Wing set, then he *is* driving revenue away from GW and towards FFG.
So does it come down to the purchasers state of mind then? i.e. if I 'hate' GW or not when I go into a shop to buy that box of X-Wing stuff?
Of course it does - and it does not matter what you are buying - if you are in the grocery store say to yourself 'I am buying this oatmeal because I hate GW!'
It will make you feel better, trust me.
The Auld Grump - these socks, I dedicate to my hatred of GW!
I bought every single one of my Christmas gifts this year purely because of my hatred for GW.
None of them were wargaming related of course, but that's no surprise, considering the most important criteria for determining whether something is a wargame product is apparently: "is the product made by GW", or "is this product 40K"
Now that I think about it, since neither X-wing, a loaf of bread or a pair of underwear is wargaming products (as we've learned in this thread), anything I buy, I can choose to buy purely out of spite of GW. It sure feel good to know I hit them where it counts everytime I go out to get some groceries.
jreilly89 wrote: but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,
???????
What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.
In anticipation of the following comments:
But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...
Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.
GWis BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.
Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.
I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).
But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.
It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)
If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.
Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)
The Auld Grump - to repeat, I am actually in the camp that believes that GW is getting better - but with the caveat that 'better' does not necessarily mean 'good'.
Sure- we all have different thresholds for "good" and they certainly have dug themselves a deep hole to climb out of. For some of us, they've pulled themselves up far enough for us to be hopeful for the future, and for others, they still have a long enough ways to go.
I think you're absolutely right about the state of GW. They have offended a lot of older gamers who are plugging for some of the very diverse games out there, while younger gamers are finding other games with which to enter the hobby.
I'm sure a lot of X-Wing sales are to kids who are the age I was when I picked up my Space Crusade set. Back in the day, if you wanted to do minis games, you went with either a GW game or Battletech.
But one last point- a lot of games that aren't in 'direct' competition with 40k are chipping away at its hold. Sure, Kingdom Death has a board, but I find I'm spending most of my hobby time (and money) with it right now.
We're living in an age of the thriving miniatures board game- a lot of people are playing and painting Shadows of Brimstone, Zombicide Black Plague, Arcadia Quest, Super Dungeon Explore, Journey, Blood Rage, Conan and many others. I know I've seen a lot of people pulled away from tabletop wargames because they found these miniatures hobby board games to scratch that itch.
TheAuldGrump wrote: It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.
GWis BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.
Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.
I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).
But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.
It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)
If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.
Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)
The Auld Grump
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.
But one last point- a lot of games that aren't in 'direct' competition with 40k are chipping away at its hold. Sure, Kingdom Death has a board, but I find I'm spending most of my hobby time (and money) with it right now.
We're living in an age of the thriving miniatures board game- a lot of people are playing and painting Shadows of Brimstone, Zombicide Black Plague, Arcadia Quest, Super Dungeon Explore, Journey, Blood Rage, Conan and many others. I know I've seen a lot of people pulled away from tabletop wargames because they found these miniatures hobby board games to scratch that itch.
But the same can be said of Privateer Press or X-Wing. I don't think that's anything really damning of GW, more just a statement of tabletop games as a whole.
Sitting on nearly $1000 of GW models - all of my money has gone to HWG/PP/Mantic in the past few years. These box sets have been great, the Total War PC game, AoS Reboot in my local area is making a killing, and the allure of 30k keeps coming back to me.
I might be a potential customer again in the coming year
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?
jreilly89 wrote: So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.
Prices however will continue to lock kids out because you can't buy anything but a pot of paint for pocket money, prices will continue to keep vets from returning.
I honestly dread 8th edition of 40k after AoS, having left the walled garden and playing good games it made me realize how bad GW's devs are.
Sisters getting plastic sets is nice but it's not fixing the big problem that makes GW the lowest standard the wargaming community has, prices must drop rules must improve the rest is just irrelevant dross that won't long hold the attention of people.
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
jreilly89 wrote: So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.
Prices however will continue to lock kids out because you can't buy anything but a pot of paint for pocket money, prices will continue to keep vets from returning.
On the major kits, sure, but Battle for Vedros addressed exactly that point.
I honestly dread 8th edition of 40k after AoS, having left the walled garden and playing good games it made me realize how bad GW's devs are.
Sisters getting plastic sets is nice but it's not fixing the big problem that makes GW the lowest standard the wargaming community has, prices must drop rules must improve the rest is just irrelevant dross that won't long hold the attention of people.
AoS did improve on the rules, but I get it: nothing GW does will appease you.
jreilly89 wrote:So, now we have plastic Sisters coming.
Do you mean a Sisters of Battle line coming out? If so, I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I don't see anything here but just wish listing and guessing. I know we are having a Celestine coming out in plastic with 2 body guards (they are called Gemini?) To me that is not plastic Sisters coming. That is just building up the hype and might get a lot of people upset for no reason at all.
The very least we should just be saying we are getting a plastic Sister Character unless someone is going to buy like 25 kits to have 50 Sisters of Battles.
Does lotr count as IGOUGO?
Roll of at the start of every turn
Winner does his move
Loser moves
Winner shoots
Loser shoots
Fight phase. Winner chooses order in which fights are resolved.
Repeat until game ends.
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
.
So, essentially what we're saying is all of GW's rulesets are based on what is now largely considered an antiquated turn structure, chiefly because AOS is the only one of the core games that isn't at least almost two decades old, and we don't expect them to depart from that?
Doesn't sound terribly optimistic for the "gotten better" camp if they're in any way interested in the rules playing better.
jreilly89 wrote: Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
GW hadn't previously blown up their entire game world in order to bring space marines into fantasy and nobody expected them to do so but that didn't stop them doing it.
So I don't think "They hadn't done it before" is a valid argument as to why they didn't do it with their brand new game which was meant to completely revitalise their fantasy range.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da krimson barun wrote: Does lotr count as IGOUGO? Roll of at the start of every turn Winner does his move Loser moves Winner shoots Loser shoots Fight phase. Winner chooses order in which fights are resolved. Repeat until game ends.
That would be a kind of alternating activation, I think. It certainly works better than each player doing move-shoot-fight before the opponent gets any opportunity to react, I think.
It prevents a hero like Aragorn charging one goblin out of group of ten nearby, safe in the knowledge that he will most likely murder it whilst his archer buddies can pepper the others with arrows as they just stand there watching Gerry get cut to pieces less than a metre away from them as arrows hit them in the eye.
Instead it goes: Aragorn charges Gerry, whose mates see him in trouble and all pile in to help. Archers don't want to shoot into the swirling mass of bodies in case they hit their king and then Aragorn gets brutally murdered by the howling mob of goblins who are hugely pissed off at him bullying Gerry who is only 2 days away from retirement.
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
.
So, essentially what we're saying is all of GW's rulesets are based on what is now largely considered an antiquated turn structure, chiefly because AOS is the only one of the core games that isn't at least almost two decades old, and we don't expect them to depart from that?
Doesn't sound terribly optimistic for the "gotten better" camp if they're in any way interested in the rules playing better.
Whatever man, I get it. Nothing but the absolute holy grail will satisfy those GW had wronged.
jreilly89 wrote: Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
GW hadn't previously blown up their entire game world in order to bring space marines into fantasy and nobody expected them to do so but that didn't stop them doing it.
So I don't think "They hadn't done it before" is a valid argument as to why they didn't do it with their brand new game which was meant to completely revitalise their fantasy range.
Why? It's much more believable they'd change the fluff or lore of a game than they'd make a new ruleset that didn't revolve around IGOUGO. AoS has Hero phase, movement phase, shooting, and combat, which is very similar to the turn structure WHFB had.
The IGOUGO turn sequence is way far down the list of issues with the AoS rules. Just the fact that pretty much not a single person plays the movement or measuring rules as written says quite a lot.
While GW has improved in communication and possibly attitude, I have seen few indication that there has been any improvement in the rules writing. If anything, they've doubled down on all the issues that's made me lose any interest in 40K and AoS is just a bad joke from the start, even if the handbook manage to introduce some kind of balance through a points system.
They'd need to make 40K 8th edition a hard reboot in rules terms to get it back on track. They can release as many supplements and campaign books as they like, but that'll just increase the bloat further.
And I can understand why they'd be reluctant to do serious rule-reboot. It wouldn't be popular among the whales buying hardback rulebooks and supplements for 100's or even 1000's of $ per year to keep up with the recent pace of releases.
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
.
So, essentially what we're saying is all of GW's rulesets are based on what is now largely considered an antiquated turn structure, chiefly because AOS is the only one of the core games that isn't at least almost two decades old, and we don't expect them to depart from that?
Doesn't sound terribly optimistic for the "gotten better" camp if they're in any way interested in the rules playing better.
Whatever man, I get it. Nothing but the absolute holy grail will satisfy those GW had wronged.
If by "holy grail" you mean "address severe playability issues with their core product" then you're correct.
I'd love an excuse to buy some of the new stuff, but if I were to buy most of it "just to paint" then I'd be sacrificing my chance to buy some genuinely extraordinary product from other companies that aren't, at their core, rather chunky and busy (as much of GW proper stuff tends to be, even the good stuff, it's just the good stuff tends to play into those traits.)
But, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I look at some of the lovely stuff coming out (Ahriman = , and my CSM are Emp Children) and think "what am I actually going to do with it?" I've never been a FB player, so AOS was never likely to draw me in, and 40K is still a misshapen lump of unbalanced bloat that doesn't present anything like the engaging gameplay of pretty much every other game I try.
I don't think waiting for/hoping for/expecting a genuine attempt to fix the large effort in vs low enjoyment out problem 40K currently has is the holy grail, I think it's looking for an attempt to fix the foundations rather than just repainting the doors and mowing the lawn.
jreilly89 wrote: but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,
???????
What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.
In anticipation of the following comments:
But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...
Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
Don't forget to insert hack fraud or allude to the "Rountree meme" for safety.
I was putting together a spreadsheet to do some math hammer unit testing, and in doing so got the shock of my life how much going first in 40K affects a single units effectiveness is (I was testing 10-man marine vs. 10-man marine; the unit going first killed 80% more than the unit going second over 5-7 turns). I can imagine how alpha-striking in a IGOUGO game can really skew the probabilities of winning.
And while GW does seem to be trying to swing the boat away from the ice burg its been grinding against, it's been too slow for me. They have priced themselves out of my willingness to buy; on Black Friday I bought the Keilerkopfh APC to run as a Taurox, and I recently had an epiphany to use my Bolt Action germans as IG instead of buying the ugly GW Cadians. Top it all off, I'm not even playing using the 40K rules, and have been instead developing my own system.
So I am one of those folks GW is driving away with their continuing practices; I do really like some of their model lines (Adeptus Mechanicus, Tyranids) - but I'm not willing to pay for the overpriced models - even the SC and battleforce boxes are still ridiculously priced, IMO. And moreso, the rules are bad.
In other areas, I've been keeping up with X-wing; I'll pay their prices because the models are already assembled, painted and the rules are worth a damn.
Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
There couldn't possibly be a middle ground, could there? I mean, this may be madness, but there a whole giant area between 'bloated mess' and 'half step above toy soldiers in the sandbox'.
Maybe I'm going crazy with some sort of reasonable middle ground, but its probably easier to just label everyone as a hater and not have to engage in any critical discussion.
Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
There couldn't possibly be a middle ground, could there? I mean, this may be madness, but there a whole giant area between 'bloated mess' and 'half step above toy soldiers in the sandbox'.
Maybe I'm going crazy with some sort of reasonable middle ground, but its probably easier to just label everyone as a hater and not have to engage in any critical discussion.
Beyond what I've tried? I argued that AoS cleaned up a lot of 40k's mistakes and got back "Yeah, but it's still IGOUGO, so it's bad". Sure there's a middle ground, but there's also people that until GW writes them a check for all the money they spent, they'll never be happy.
Look at the new Sisters' rumor and Traitor Legion rules people are complaining about. Yeah, 40k is still a mess, but they're actively delivering armies/changes people wanted, and people still complain.
Of course there'll be people complaining. But the overall sentiment with the latest release is one of overwhelming positivity.
Having complaints isn't a bad thing, especially if the complaints are valid and explained reasonably. I can praise GW for releasing plastic Sisters and then complain that the game is still a mess. That isn't a bad thing. It certainly beats mindless praise.
If by "holy grail" you mean "address severe playability issues with their core product" then you're correct.
I'd love an excuse to buy some of the new stuff, but if I were to buy most of it "just to paint" then I'd be sacrificing my chance to buy some genuinely extraordinary product from other companies that aren't, at their core, rather chunky and busy (as much of GW proper stuff tends to be, even the good stuff, it's just the good stuff tends to play into those traits.)
But, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I look at some of the lovely stuff coming out (Ahriman = , and my CSM are Emp Children) and think "what am I actually going to do with it?" I've never been a FB player, so AOS was never likely to draw me in, and 40K is still a misshapen lump of unbalanced bloat that doesn't present anything like the engaging gameplay of pretty much every other game I try.
I don't think waiting for/hoping for/expecting a genuine attempt to fix the large effort in vs low enjoyment out problem 40K currently has is the holy grail, I think it's looking for an attempt to fix the foundations rather than just repainting the doors and mowing the lawn.
And you don't think the FAQ's are a sign that they're trying to clear up and fix some of the rules? I'd argue 8th will probably fix a lot of errors, but there will be still mistakes/problems, because 40k is a narrative game (in GW's eyes) and not a competitive one.
So yeah, I think it's still a holy grail that GW will fix every error and win over disgruntled fans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Of course there'll be people complaining. But the overall sentiment with the latest release is one of overwhelming positivity.
That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?
Having complaints isn't a bad thing, especially if the complaints are valid and explained reasonably. I can praise GW for releasing plastic Sisters and then complain that the game is still a mess. That isn't a bad thing. It certainly beats mindless praise.
Having complaints isn't bad, it's the valid/explained reasonably part that I see a lot of people arguing against.
Also, where did I mindlessly praise them? I admitted that 40k was a mess, but I am hopeful/optimistic that the FAQ's and Start Collecting boxes are signs of change.
That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?
You mean random speculation about something no one knows anything about? Sure, let's call that complaining and ignore every post that praised the models for being excellent and lots of hope for future plastic sisters.
Having complaints isn't bad, it's the valid/explained reasonably part that I see a lot of people arguing against.
Also, where did I mindlessly praise them? I admitted that 40k was a mess, but I am hopeful/optimistic that the FAQ's and Start Collecting boxes are signs of change.
I didn't say you did, I was simply stating I'd prefer a lot of complaints over mindless praise in a general sense, not targeted at anyone.
So yeah, I think it's still a holy grail that GW will fix every error and win over disgruntled fans.
Which isn't what I said.
It's much easier to win strawman arguments, but sadly one doesn't get away with it for very long as a rule.
For the record, no, I don't think the FAQs are all that positive. That they made the effort to do them is, but they're inconsistent, erratic and only exist to address a lack of clarity or an unusual interaction, that neither address balance problems or the fact that there's actually nothing to do in a 40K game for half the time, and that what you get to do in your own turn isn't remarkably engaging or challenging.
That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?
You mean random speculation about something no one knows anything about? Sure, let's call that complaining and ignore every post that praised the models for being excellent and lots of hope for future plastic sisters.
Having complaints isn't bad, it's the valid/explained reasonably part that I see a lot of people arguing against.
Also, where did I mindlessly praise them? I admitted that 40k was a mess, but I am hopeful/optimistic that the FAQ's and Start Collecting boxes are signs of change.
I didn't say you did, I was simply stating I'd prefer a lot of complaints over mindless praise in a general sense, not targeted at anyone.
Sure let's ignore the several posts that were critizing the look of the models and every other post complaining about them being used as a sandbag/not going to get gak at all. Any sufficiently large community becomes unpleasable.
That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?
You mean random speculation about something no one knows anything about? Sure, let's call that complaining and ignore every post that praised the models for being excellent and lots of hope for future plastic sisters.
I'm not ignoring the half that praised it, I'm saying for every 1 or 2 praising it, there was another complaining about Celestine getting squatted, no new models coming, the fluff being ruined, etc.
Blacksails wrote: Sounds like you guys are looking for the negativity.
The thread seemed very positive to me and the reception was overall very positive.
I've seen plenty of both. My point is that you won't be able to find that middle ground because no one has an actually clear idea of what it would constitute.
For the record, no, I don't think the FAQs are all that positive. That they made the effort to do them is, but they're inconsistent, erratic and only exist to address a lack of clarity or an unusual interaction, that neither address balance problems or the fact that there's actually nothing to do in a 40K game for half the time, and that what you get to do in your own turn isn't remarkably engaging or challenging.
Then don't play 40k? I mean, is it really that much of a strawman that you'll pretty much never be happy with any 40k release? I doubt they'll ever "fix severe errors with the core product" to your level of satisfaction, either in FAQ or rules updates. And I'm pretty sure the IGOUGO system is here to stay.
Blacksails wrote: Sounds like you guys are looking for the negativity.
The thread seemed very positive to me and the reception was overall very positive.
I've seen plenty of both. My point is that you won't be able to find that middle ground because no one has an actually clear idea of what it would constitute.
For rules? Sure we do. There's a slew of other games on the market that have a strong ruleset that could be adapted in some way to 40k. Further, even a simple re-costing of the point values to appropriate levels would fix most of the obvious balance issues. That alone would be a strong start towards a middle ground.
For the record, no, I don't think the FAQs are all that positive. That they made the effort to do them is, but they're inconsistent, erratic and only exist to address a lack of clarity or an unusual interaction, that neither address balance problems or the fact that there's actually nothing to do in a 40K game for half the time, and that what you get to do in your own turn isn't remarkably engaging or challenging.
Then don't play 40k?
I don't. That doesn't mean my armies have gone up in smoke, I've stopped liking the universe or I'm not keen to see what changes 8th brings.
I mean, is it really that much of a strawman that you'll pretty much never be happy with any 40k release?
Yep. It's a ludicrous assertion that presupposes a complete lack of reason or critical thinking on my part. It's an assumption that I'm impossible to please, when the fact that I've found several games that I enjoy immensely, even if there's valid criticisms to be levelled at those games also, completely discredits that assumption.
I doubt they'll ever "fix severe errors with the core product" to your level of satisfaction, either in FAQ or rules updates. And I'm pretty sure the IGOUGO system is here to stay.
Well, given that 8th is bringing in substantial change, I'm happy to wait and see for now.
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?
Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).
Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.
jreilly89 wrote: So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.
Prices however will continue to lock kids out because you can't buy anything but a pot of paint for pocket money, prices will continue to keep vets from returning.
On the major kits, sure, but Battle for Vedros addressed exactly that point.
I honestly dread 8th edition of 40k after AoS, having left the walled garden and playing good games it made me realize how bad GW's devs are.
Sisters getting plastic sets is nice but it's not fixing the big problem that makes GW the lowest standard the wargaming community has, prices must drop rules must improve the rest is just irrelevant dross that won't long hold the attention of people.
AoS did improve on the rules, but I get it: nothing GW does will appease you.
Dropping prices and improving the rules will appease me I've been super clear on this point.
jreilly89 wrote:Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"
Or go for simple but not simplistic rules and chose a level of complexity appropriate for the amount of miniatures in use. 40k has grown and now looks like Epic but still uses rules that are better suited for a skirmish game. You, for example, simply don't want D&D levels of complexity and book-keeping in a game about hundreds of miniatures. That's just a bad choice for the game. It's not magic but it seems like GW has neither learned from all the editions of their own games (they accidentally solve problems by randomly introducing new ones) nor looked an how game design has overall evolved. At the moment GW is bad at writing good rules, that has been the case for quite some time and all along it has been in their power to change that but instead we got new editions that just piled on another layer of conflicting complexity on top of whatever was there before.
Don't forget to insert hack fraud or allude to the "Rountree meme" for safety.
Mock me does not make a parody of a ruleset good, or GW designers more competent. None of you brought believable arguments.
I strongly suggest to try new things. You could be surprised.
You can write a small ruleset that is functional and efficient, or intead just one that is poor and half assed, that needs patches, specific units rules without coherence, and a point system as an add-on, an aftertought. AoS is the second.
You can write a big ruleset that can be complex, but not complicated and appeals to gamers that want depth. Or you can write a clunky, unbalanced mess. 40k is the second.
Don't forget to insert hack fraud or allude to the "Rountree meme" for safety.
Mock me does not make a parody of a ruleset good, or GW designers more competent. None of you brought believable arguments.
I strongly suggest to try new things. You could be surprised.
You can write a small ruleset that is functional and efficient, or intead just one that is poor and half assed, that needs patches, specific units rules without coherence, and a point system as an add-on, an aftertought. AoS is the second.
You can write a big ruleset that can be complex, but not complicated and appeals to gamers that want depth. Or you can write a clunky, unbalanced mess. 40k is the second.
Mocking you is mocking you for being the website's closest equivalent of the fire and brimstone preacher.
You mean like my neverborn from malifaux? I strongly suggest you don't make assumptions without knowing the data at all. You could be surprised.
AoS' true balance laid on playing scenarios, not only points. Rules' for units were very streamlined. The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.
Mocking you is mocking you for being the website's closest equivalent of the fire and brimstone preacher.
You.. I... I like the definition.
The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.
The only "half-assed" things are basic combat mechanics in a game based on combat.
The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.
The only "half-assed" things are basic combat mechanics in a game based on combat.
Mocking you is mocking you for being the website's closest equivalent of the fire and brimstone preacher.
You.. I... I like the definition.
The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.
The only "half-assed" things are basic combat mechanics in a game based on combat.
I see.
Half assed in quotes. They clearly stated they'll change the ruling to base to base when they get second edition (and actively encourage the use of base to base, as shown in official tournaments they held already).
Shooting I say it's halfassed because it lacks a bit of depth but the thing is that shooting is something minor or even non-esxistant for 90% of the armies and the only half assed part is almost a non-issue that can be solved whenever second edition hits with a single phrase. And even then, the only half assed part is that you can shoot while in combats, it's a scenario that rarely happens in my experience with dealing with shooty units.
Half assed in quotes. They clearly stated they'll change the ruling to base to base when they get second edition (and actively encourage the use of base to base, as shown in official tournaments they held already).
Shooting I say it's halfassed because it lacks a bit of depth but the thing is that shooting is something minor or even non-esxistant for 90% of the armies and the only half assed part is almost a non-issue that can be solved whenever second edition hits with a single phrase. And even then, the only half assed part is that you can shoot while in combats, it's a scenario that rarely happens in my experience with dealing with shooty units.
The justification for such rules is... it will be fixed next edition.
Half assed in quotes. They clearly stated they'll change the ruling to base to base when they get second edition (and actively encourage the use of base to base, as shown in official tournaments they held already).
Shooting I say it's halfassed because it lacks a bit of depth but the thing is that shooting is something minor or even non-esxistant for 90% of the armies and the only half assed part is almost a non-issue that can be solved whenever second edition hits with a single phrase. And even then, the only half assed part is that you can shoot while in combats, it's a scenario that rarely happens in my experience with dealing with shooty units.
The justification for such rules is... it will be fixed next edition.
Or next FAQ. Considering they had fixed the issue of the sylvaneth wyldwoods that started popping by novemenber this month, I'd not be surprised they'd just release a FAQ (actually I think measuring got FAQed as being b2b again). Though I won't hold my breath on shooting as they seem adamant on keeping it as it is. Then again, most shooting heavy armies are papier mache.
But to be honest the ruleset does improve with GHB/it's limitations. I mean, to begin with you save yourself the bs that is daemons bringing a 3000pts army to a 2000pts game. That's a plus. And there's no kill-them-all victory condition, so tabling doesn't count at all for victory purposes, meaning you need to play tactical or go home.
Herzlos wrote: Does it result in a more tactical game than, say, Malifaux or Flames Of War?
Mayhaps, depends on who you're playing . Some players will shove their armies up your ass and devolve this into a slapfest if you let them and, once they finish, take the points and try to snag a win. Others, the majority do a lot of maneuvering and tactics: slaaneshi armies are excellent for board control and I've seen a few nifty tricks here and there. The base is very tactic in matched play: you need to surpass your oponent in points, and for that you need to ensure board control while meeting the criteria (which vary from mission to mission but 83% require having more boots on the ground) and deployment restrictions. Just killing stuff won't cut it, but at the same time you need to deny points for the enemy so you need to strike a balance between objectives. Mobility is key to ensure early dominance in certain missions while there's 2 at least which would require you to muscle your way... as long as the enemy doesn't make a rearguard attack.
TheAuldGrump wrote: It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.
GWis BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.
Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.
I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).
But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.
It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)
If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.
Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)
The Auld Grump
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.
Seriously, yes - I did.
And it seriously sucked! I might even say crappy!
Do you really want me to repeat a four page rant I made on the subject of how and why it sucked in a thread on how GW is getting better - because I have made exactly such a rant - from the (then) lack of points values, to the 'figure touching figure' rule, to measuring as you see fit, to inane 'funny' rules on the war scrolls.
Believe it or not, when most people say that the rules are crappy, what they really mean is that the rules are crappy!
Then add a supplement that amounts to paid errata for a free rules set.
And the changes to the setting that made the entire game a steaming pile.
TheAuldGrump wrote: It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.
GWis BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.
Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.
I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).
But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.
It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)
If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.
Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)
The Auld Grump
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.
Seriously, yes - I did.
And it seriously sucked! I might even say crappy!
Do you really want me to repeat a four page rant I made on the subject of how and why it sucked in a thread on how GW is getting better - because I have made exactly such a rant - from the (then) lack of points values, to the 'figure touching figure' rule, to measuring as you see fit, to inane 'funny' rules on the war scrolls.
Believe it or not, when most people say that the rules are crappy, what they really mean is that the rules are crappy!
Then add a supplement that amounts to paid errata for a free rules set.
And the changes to the setting that made the entire game a steaming pile.
So, yeah, seriously. Crappy.
The Auld Grump
You're still going to get asked to clarify, and if any negative words are what you REALLY meant, because they are strong words, and followed up with what will essentially amount to "play it until you like it." I sincerely expect they mumble "one of us... one of us..." while they type.
TheAuldGrump wrote: It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.
GWis BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.
Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.
I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).
But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.
It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)
If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.
Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)
The Auld Grump
Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.
If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.
Seriously, yes - I did.
And it seriously sucked! I might even say crappy!
Do you really want me to repeat a four page rant I made on the subject of how and why it sucked in a thread on how GW is getting better - because I have made exactly such a rant - from the (then) lack of points values, to the 'figure touching figure' rule, to measuring as you see fit, to inane 'funny' rules on the war scrolls.
Believe it or not, when most people say that the rules are crappy, what they really mean is that the rules are crappy!
Then add a supplement that amounts to paid errata for a free rules set.
And the changes to the setting that made the entire game a steaming pile.
So, yeah, seriously. Crappy.
The Auld Grump
You're still going to get asked to clarify, and if any negative words are what you REALLY meant, because they are strong words, and followed up with what will essentially amount to "play it until you like it." I sincerely expect they mumble "one of us... one of us..." while they type.
Okay - let us start with the 'Funny' rules - that I can get a bonus for such deep and meaningful actions as 'pretending to drink a mug of beer' to 'twirling my mustache' to 'pretending to ride a horse'. These are all things that showed up in the only two sets of war scrolls that I even bothered looking at - The pseudo-Empire and the pseudo-Dwarfs. (No, I am not going to us the new 'funny' names that they have given the factions.) I am sure that there are dozens that I have missed.
Oh boy! Let us put the game on hold so that I can play a game of Let's Pretend.
Verdict - Crappy. (Quite possibly the most annoying part of the short rules for the game - and that is saying something.)
The model must be touching the model that it is attacking - not the base, the model. And since there are models that you cannot reach with your model without moving ypur miniature physically onto the base of the enemy model - with, oh, let us say a spearman that is carrying his spear upright - and so is assumed to never, you know, point it at the enemy! that means that some models never get to attack certain other models.
Verdict - Crappy.
Measurement is made from any point of the base, regardless of which way the model is facing, so if my model has a long tail, I can charge backwards into the enemy to attack with my teeth!
Verdict - Crappy.
Then we have the whole 'Bring whatever models you want' rule - so if Bob over there wants his High Elves, his Chaos Daemons, and his Vampire counts (Again - I am avoiding the pseudo-names that they have decided was such a great idea) then he can!
Verdict - Crappy.
And then there is the number one point that people bring up, for very good reason - no attempt made in the original version of the game to impose any sort of game balance at all. Not even the poorly balanced point system that had been in the previous incarnations of Warhammer.
Verdict - Crappy.
These were all problems that should have been caught long before the game was released.
Now, I gather that the folks at GW have started to address many of these points - but the fact remains that when the game was pooped onto an unsuspecting audience these problems were integral to the game.
And I also gather that some of the rules that were not repaired in General's Handbook will be addressed in version 2 - which makes how many revisions in how short a time? And folks used to complain that Warhammer Fantasy Battle had revisions too often? (On the flip side, I think that it is fair to say that what I am describing as problems has now been recognized as problems, so just trying to wave them away no longer works - going back and fixing those problems is an admission that they were problems.)
The game holds together about as well as the plot of The Lego Movie - and with just about as much structure. But without the actual humor that allowed the Lego Movie to work as a movie. (I actually liked the Lego Movie - and there was an in movie reason for why the plot was so disjointed.)
Then add in the orphaned armies - Tomb Kings and Brettonians - one had rules on the GW site for a time, but last I heard they had been taken down when they put the Tomb Kings on Buy It Now. The other never even poked its nose around the corner.
I am glad that GW has started addressing most of those problems - but it remains that they released the rules in a state that made them useless for anything more involved than Advanced Let's Pretend. I wrote better rules when I was twelve years old, and wanted my cheap plastic dinosaurs to fight my cheap plastic toy soldiers. (I wanted it to be an even fight - one bag of cheap toy soldiers vs. one bag of cheap toy dinosaurs.)
It is not the simplicity of the rules that are the problem - I like simple rules - the core rules for Kings of War is hardly any longer than the core rules of Age of Sigmar - so it is not the short length of the rules that caused the problems. The basic core of AoS might be salvageable, there is nothing wrong with the base mechanics - it was in the implementation of those mechanics that GW fell down.
The central problem was that the rules they had for the game, at initial release, were poorly considered, and quite likely untested before release.
The 'funny' rules just added insult to injury.
Then add that AoS is replacing a ranked combat game with a free-for-all skirmish game, and you get some seriously disgruntled players.
I have said it before, and I will say it again - AoS was enough of a departure from the older game that there would have been room for both games - and if they had handed out the AoS rules for an independent playtest before release then it might also have been a worthwhile game, or at least a decent introductory game.
Instead, they seem to have decided that all of there players were thirteen years old, and would jump after the 'cool' of twirling an imaginary mustache. (I had better taste when I was thirteen.)
So, my final verdict of the rules - Crappy. It is to WHFB what Dreadfleet* was to Man O'War.
I also disliked the aesthetics of the figures - but I will not argue about whether they are good or bad - my personal thought, when I saw the daemon with skull zits was 'wow, that looks like crap' - but I am sure that there are people that like the cartoony nature of the new style. But me, I preferred the warts and all look of the older figures, even if the technical skill of the modellers has been noticeably improved. I want a touch more realism, or at least verisimilitude, both in the models and the rules. I have not much liked most of the models for the AoS range.
The setting irritates me - So, like Sigmar got drunk after the world was destroyed, and had, like this crazy dream, man! So all we have now are, like, these dream bubbles that float around!
There is no solid aspect of the game that I like.
The Auld Grump
* Again, the technical aspects of the models in Dreadfleet were miles above those of Man O'War - there were some jaw droppingly gorgeous models in the box - but they had been stapled to rules that were worse than Age of Sigmar's.
*EDIT* I find it ironic that as far as I was concerned, the important part of my original post was that I was considering getting the reissue of the figures from Island of Blood - not that the AoS rules are crappy. That I was seeing improvement in the company, if not in their current games.
I believe the current line is 'since the generals handbook, it's gotten a lot better'.
Anecdotally, I mentioned this at my FLGS a couple of days ago in front of a guy who is pretty system agnostic and doesn't seem to have any real dislike for Games Workshop other than the usual Australian prices - I'm pretty sure he plays everything possible - and an old GW vet who plays 40k still, and played Fantasy for multiple editions.
Both said it's still terrible. The generals handbook added points, but at its core the game is still that 4 pages of pretty poor rules written on a napkin while having a brew one afternoon at Bugmans. There's just, plain and simple, better games out right now.
Just Tony wrote: @TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.
Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.
You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.
Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.
And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.
If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)
And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....
The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....
Just Tony wrote: @TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.
Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.
You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.
Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.
And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.
If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)
And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....
The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.
Just Tony wrote: @TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.
Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.
You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.
Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.
And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.
If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)
And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....
The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.
I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.
You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)
I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,
The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)
So, I find AoS dull.
*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.
Just Tony wrote: @TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.
Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.
You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.
Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.
And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.
If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)
And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....
The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.
I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.
You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)
I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,
The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)
So, I find AoS dull.
*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.
The Auld Grump
Nah, not really. I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig. I've never been a particular fan of beer and pretzels games as i like to think about what i'm doing. Makes me wonder why i stuck with WFB for so long quite frankly. It sure as hell didn't have any depth. Or no meaningful depth anyway. But i'm not sure where you keep getting this "silly" thing from. The rules you seem to take offense too haven't been used since it started. They just seemed like a funny change over, but haven't been used since.
I think blowing up the setting was necessary at this point. It may not have been generic 20 odd years ago, but now there is nothing too WFB you can't find in a 1001 other settings these days. There was nothing unique there to draw new blood. If i was new, there would be nothing there to draw me in. At least with AOS it's going in a new direction (maybe too flashy perhaps, but that's the world we live in right now. adapt or die as they say).
I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig
That's still sounding dangerously close to "play it til you like it."
I can't honestly say I've appreciated the full depth of every game I've ever played, but I have at least been able to see the depth, even if I didn't grasp it, within a game or so, a couple of turns in some cases.
But, as I'm largely ignorant of the inner workings of AOS, perhaps you could outline what you consider to be depth within the gameplay? Because that's likely relative to each player's own experience, someone who's only played GW is unlikely to view "depth" as the same thing as someone who's played many other systems, so it would be useful to have a comparative baseline.
I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig
That's still sounding dangerously close to "play it til you like it."
I can't honestly say I've appreciated the full depth of every game I've ever played, but I have at least been able to see the depth, even if I didn't grasp it, within a game or so, a couple of turns in some cases.
But, as I'm largely ignorant of the inner workings of AOS, perhaps you could outline what you consider to be depth within the gameplay? Because that's likely relative to each player's own experience, someone who's only played GW is unlikely to view "depth" as the same thing as someone who's played many other systems, so it would be useful to have a comparative baseline.
Perhaps. But isn't the point of a game to play and enjoy it? Like i said above, i gave KOW a good two dozen attempts before i realized it wasn't for me.
For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy. As you play more, you can see clear strategies forming between units and how they interact. Kind of like older Eldar for 40k (forgive my memory, but i haven't played 40k for ages, but i think around 4th or 5th they were like that)? Now i haven't played all armies, just Death and Sylvaneth mostly, but if most other armies are like that, (and general word that i have heard is they are) there is a subtle cleverness in the system that i hope isn't lost.
As a side note with the GHB coming out yearly and updating ALL armies at the same time, i think the game has got an outstanding chance of becoming extremely balanced.
The concept of investing more in something you don't like confuses the hell out of me honestly, if I go for a meal someplace and its bad I won't eat there again but if I dislike a free game I'm supposed to pay for scenarios and a points system.
hobojebus wrote: The concept of investing more in something you don't like confuses the hell out of me honestly, if I go for a meal someplace and its bad I won't eat there again but if I dislike a free game I'm supposed to pay for scenarios and a points system.
Sorry but no that's just crazy talk to my mind.
Was that aimed at me?
If it was, please read below:
Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance. I didn't invest into AOS. I had a few sizable armies from WFB to try out the Free rules with and enjoyed it., so i picked up the GHB and enjoyed it even more. I never spend unnecessary money and won't unless i know i will get enjoyment out of it.
The more I read pro AoS posts, the more I'm convinced AoS is some kind of pyramid scheme, and you get some kind of benefit the more people you get to join.
Try, just try it, oh you didn't like it, well, there's been a change, try it now, you still didn't like it? Are you sure you actually tried it? It's been a few minutes, you're a bit older and with age comes wisdom, try it now.
Has anyone ever posted "oh you didn't like AoS, yes well it's not to everyone's liking."?
Joyboozer wrote: The more I read pro AoS posts, the more I'm convinced AoS is some kind of pyramid scheme, and you get some kind of benefit the more people you get to join.
Try, just try it, oh you didn't like it, well, there's been a change, try it now, you still didn't like it? Are you sure you actually tried it? It's been a few minutes, you're a bit older and with age comes wisdom, try it now.
Has anyone ever posted "oh you didn't like AoS, yes well it's not to everyone's liking."?
Frequently. But it tends to get drowned out through the usual vitriol that comes with that sort of post. People seem to have an excessively hard time moving on for some reason. Despite the myriad of claims there are better games out there. And there are, no arguing that. But as ever, it's all down to personal taste and what you want from a game.
Isn't that the average theme for any hobbyists, though?
AoS- the new book changed things so give it another chance.
KoW- that was the old KoW, the newest version makes things alot more fun and tactical.
9th age- Oh that was the last update, the new update addressed alot of issues so give it another go.
40k- it's bloated and unbalanced yeah but look at this new stuff coming out!
In the end it's all just a hobby that you choose to spend money and time on to get full enjoyment out of. So if it doesn't suit you go find something else that does. Pretty simple in my opinion.
Also, anyone else find it funny how the Anti-AoS crowd forgets about all the unique warscrolls when saying GW made the 4 rule pages because they were lazy and didn't care but remember them immediately when they want to point out it's just as overcomplicated as Wfb was?
Just Tony wrote: @TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.
Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.
You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.
Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.
And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.
If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)
And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....
The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.
I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.
You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)
I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,
The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)
So, I find AoS dull.
*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.
The Auld Grump
Nah, not really. I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig. I've never been a particular fan of beer and pretzels games as i like to think about what i'm doing. Makes me wonder why i stuck with WFB for so long quite frankly. It sure as hell didn't have any depth. Or no meaningful depth anyway. But i'm not sure where you keep getting this "silly" thing from. The rules you seem to take offense too haven't been used since it started. They just seemed like a funny change over, but haven't been used since.
I think blowing up the setting was necessary at this point. It may not have been generic 20 odd years ago, but now there is nothing too WFB you can't find in a 1001 other settings these days. There was nothing unique there to draw new blood. If i was new, there would be nothing there to draw me in. At least with AOS it's going in a new direction (maybe too flashy perhaps, but that's the world we live in right now. adapt or die as they say).
I have heard that every pile of manure has a golden treasure if you dig enough!
But I don't believe that, either, so I will leave both the piles of manure and AoS steaming in the winter air.
The Auld Grump - actually, the manure is a better choice - if you have a garden.
Then add in the orphaned armies - Tomb Kings and Brettonians - one had rules on the GW site for a time, but last I heard they had been taken down when they put the Tomb Kings on Buy It Now. The other never even poked its nose around the corner.
Not here to go round the houses this time, Grump, but wanted to point out the above isn't true. Both factions got rules on release. Both factions rules are still there. And both got full points in the General's Handbook.
Also the General's Handbook addresses everyone of your qualms above (except for the funny rules which had already been largely addressed), so I would urge you to give it another chance.
Merry Christmas Auld :-)
This does not change that they are problems that should not have been problems if GW had bothered doing an even halfway decent playtest - GW didn't bother, and so those problems were there.
I will be honest that I don't know about whether or not Brettonians or Tomb Kings are on their site - I had no interest in either for WHFB, and no interest left for AoS, either. I am repeating what I had heard, so am not all that surprised to be wrong.
It is ironic - I am actually interested more in Tomb Kings and Brettonians, both, for Kings of War than I was for WHFB. If GW still had the battalion box for Tomb Kings I would likely have bought one. I would almost certainly have bought a box of serpent surfers. (The heart of comedy is the timing.)
But to end on a positive(ish) note - I do find it encouraging that GWdid put out the GH - though I feel that it should have taken the form of free errata, but instead takes the form of a paid supplement for a free set of rules. (If they were free, I likely still would not have bothered - I really was not impressed with AoS.)
And I also find it encouraging that many of those complaints are going to be addressed in 2.0 - but, again, they should never have found their way into a published work by one of the primary companies in the industry.
So, I see GW moving from Worse to just Bad, with a hope that if/when they do a new Mordheim then it will be something that I find worth purchasing.
The Auld Grump - AoS is nowhere near the worst set of rules that I have seen, but they were far worse than they should have been.
Just Tony wrote: @TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.
Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.
You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.
Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.
And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.
If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)
And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....
The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.
I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.
You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)
I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,
The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)
So, I find AoS dull.
*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.
The Auld Grump
Nah, not really. I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig. I've never been a particular fan of beer and pretzels games as i like to think about what i'm doing. Makes me wonder why i stuck with WFB for so long quite frankly. It sure as hell didn't have any depth. Or no meaningful depth anyway. But i'm not sure where you keep getting this "silly" thing from. The rules you seem to take offense too haven't been used since it started. They just seemed like a funny change over, but haven't been used since.
I think blowing up the setting was necessary at this point. It may not have been generic 20 odd years ago, but now there is nothing too WFB you can't find in a 1001 other settings these days. There was nothing unique there to draw new blood. If i was new, there would be nothing there to draw me in. At least with AOS it's going in a new direction (maybe too flashy perhaps, but that's the world we live in right now. adapt or die as they say).
I have heard that every pile of manure has a golden treasure if you dig enough!
But I don't believe that, either, so I will leave both the piles of manure and AoS steaming in the winter air.
The Auld Grump - actually, the manure is a better choice - if you have a garden.
You're of course free to believe what you wish. You're in a free country (for the moment at least).
It's just a shame you have such a closed mind about things.
But as i say, you have your opinion and do yourself credit for sticking too it.
Joyboozer wrote:The more I read pro AoS posts, the more I'm convinced AoS is some kind of pyramid scheme, and you get some kind of benefit the more people you get to join.
Try, just try it, oh you didn't like it, well, there's been a change, try it now, you still didn't like it? Are you sure you actually tried it? It's been a few minutes, you're a bit older and with age comes wisdom, try it now.
Has anyone ever posted "oh you didn't like AoS, yes well it's not to everyone's liking."?
When people keep saying they don't like something over and over again, of course someone new will come in and say "try it, it has changed". There is no scheme to get more people playing especially when in most case you will never see these people to play with.
Maybe if people stop saying how bad Age of Sigmar is, then people will stop trying to defend something they like. It's called respecting people's opinion. When the person who doesn't like AoS but claims it "sucks" as "fact" that upsets people who like it when in "fact" to them it doesn't suck. So maybe in stead of people talking as "fact" they start talking in "opinion" and then there will be less "defending" or as you say "scheming" going on.
How is it respecting people's opinion only when it's what you agree with?
It's respecting someone's opinion to say tough luck you liked warhammer but sales were bad because the game was terrible?
Then add in the orphaned armies - Tomb Kings and Brettonians - one had rules on the GW site for a time, but last I heard they had been taken down when they put the Tomb Kings on Buy It Now. The other never even poked its nose around the corner.
Not here to go round the houses this time, Grump, but wanted to point out the above isn't true. Both factions got rules on release. Both factions rules are still there. And both got full points in the General's Handbook.
Also the General's Handbook addresses everyone of your qualms above (except for the funny rules which had already been largely addressed), so I would urge you to give it another chance.
Merry Christmas Auld :-)
And this is how you say "play it til you like it" without coming right out and saying it. I remember when someone told me that I couldn't critique Beast Wars without watching it in its entirety, so I bought a boxed set of the series and watched it all the way through. I still didn't like the show, and the recommendation was "Well, maybe you should rewatch it since you don't see what's good about it." I didn't go for that then, and I won't go for it with AOS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joyboozer wrote: How is it respecting people's opinion only when it's what you agree with?
It's respecting someone's opinion to say tough luck you liked warhammer but sales were bad because the game was terrible?
Cult of "new shiny version", also known as Applepostle-ism.
So after ignoring the player base for over a decade , GW plc has lost over half its sales volumes focusing just on loyal customers who just collect but dont play or care about the rules.
So now GW are in full panic mode, and desperately trying to win back PLAYERS.
Unfortunately for GW plc, multiple other companies are on the scene now, and lots of these companies focus on game play.
This means GW plc will have to equal or beat the quality of the rules set of other companies before many will be enticed back.
GW plc make the minatures I like, at a price I can afford, but obviously just treat me like a walking wallet .
Has Changed to..
GW plc make the minatures I like, at a price I can afford.
So some could say it is an improvement.
When its Games Workshop , are producing quality rule sets to use with the minatures I like and can afford.
You would see a much more positive reaction from the community in general.
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years)
Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance.
For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy.
Observations...
You played WFB for 15+ years AND needed to proxy to try KoW out? What?
Every army I owned for WFB fits into KoW except a few special units. Usually I just have to lower the unit size to a respectable amount and everything fits KoW.
As for the synergy comment? That just sounds to me like "I can find a winning combo so know I can win before I even start playing the game against you".
The more games you try outside of GW, the more, you realise GW is trying to be "The Church of GWology".
Peregrine wrote: Expecting prices for a whole 40k army to come down to the same level as a whole army in a skirmish-scale game is simply not reasonable, at all. 40k is never going to be that cheap because it has a much higher model count.
I don't think anyone expects that, however their proces are still ludicrous for the amount of models they expect you to buy.
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years)
Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance.
For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy.
Observations...
You played WFB for 15+ years AND needed to proxy to try KoW out? What?
Every army I owned for WFB fits into KoW except a few special units. Usually I just have to lower the unit size to a respectable amount and everything fits KoW.
As for the synergy comment? That just sounds to me like "I can find a winning combo so know I can win before I even start playing the game against you".
The more games you try outside of GW, the more, you realise GW is trying to be "The Church of GWology".
Well yeah, proxy. I'm not forking out money for a new army unless i know i'm going to enjoy the game. Plus the only minis of Mantic's worth having are the zombies. If i wanted to play the game, i would have bought a new army from them, not proxied my old ones.
Hardly. That's called learning the army and how the units interact together. I've never played to win and don't try and judge me as someone who does thanks. I like discovering how the armies work and how they interact. That's a big part of the fun for me.
I have played a number of games outside of GW.
Personally i'm looking forward to trying that new rank and file one from Fantasy Flight (who's name escapes me right now) could be fun.
From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years)
Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance.
For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy.
Observations...
You played WFB for 15+ years AND needed to proxy to try KoW out? What? Every army I owned for WFB fits into KoW except a few special units. Usually I just have to lower the unit size to a respectable amount and everything fits KoW.
As for the synergy comment? That just sounds to me like "I can find a winning combo so know I can win before I even start playing the game against you".
The more games you try outside of GW, the more, you realise GW is trying to be "The Church of GWology".
Well yeah, proxy. I'm not forking out money for a new army unless i know i'm going to enjoy the game. Plus the only minis of Mantic's worth having are the zombies. If i wanted to play the game, i would have bought a new army from them, not proxied my old ones.
The greatest trick GW ever pulled is convincing the gamer they can only use their models for their systems...
Sigh..not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but i just said if i liked KOW i would have bought at least some of the models for it. If i'm playing a game i like, i will support the parent company.
Well yeah, proxy. I'm not forking out money for a new army unless i know i'm going to enjoy the game. Plus the only minis of Mantic's worth having are the zombies. If i wanted to play the game, i would have bought a new army from them, not proxied my old ones.
So if for example you were a Dwarf player, you wouldn't have been happy using a block of your 20 GW dwarfs with shields to proxy as, say, a block of 20 Mantic dwarfs with shields? You see models by brand rather than what the model is?
I was so happy to break free from that mentality. My KoW armies have figures from all sorts of ranges. I love that I can use the figures I like the look of best from whichever manufacturer.
The original topic here is "So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?". I think we can all agree they are just as good at convincing people you can only use their products in their games as they've been for decades.
As I have said before, and likely will continue to say, GW is good at putting up the illusion they've gotten better. Have things improved? In a way, but there have also been a good share of not-so-good things.
AOS came out, and people slagged it because they wanted points and the fun rules for legacy armies came off as making fun and not lightherted. General's Handbook came out and it was good, but now Matched Play has killed off the other styles so it may as well have started at page 98.
40k has tons of releases while the core stays bloated and unwieldy (I have yet to see a 40k game at my GW store that didn't abruptly end by Turn 3... because it was closing time for the shop and it had gone on for about 6 hours already), yet there's a constant flux of new models that gets everyone to forget about that and rush out to buy. Hopefully 8th edition fixes this.
Blood Bowl came back, but support is stretched out so there's little point in getting into it just yet when there are still lots of things yet to be released.
Start Collecting and Battleforces were great with good savings, but the Battleforces were severely limited and only for a small handful of already-popular armies, while other armies get ignored still so stay less used.
AOS releases slowed down but Order is getting the lion's share as well as being shoved down everyone's throats in the fluff books demolishing Chaos basically every chance they get and making those factions look weak in comparison.
New White Dwarf was great, very little complaints about that.
Prices are still nuts and every new box is always a little bit more than what was before it for no reason.
Community involvement was good, as good as you can expect them to do. Warhammer-Community is nice and they've even started previewing things instead of relying on "What new thing did GW come out with this week that I need to buy?" mindset. Them having FAQs are good but they continue to show that they barely think about what is being asked and many of the answers are either nonsensical, contradict what they previously said, or are just vague.
So again, they have improved a bit, but a lot of it I feel is illusionary so people will ignore all the bad stuff they have done/continue to do by pointing out "But they did X! They are listening!" when they really aren't
Kaiyanwang wrote: Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.
What's incompetent / dishonest about that book ?
The stated or suggested validity of the list compared to the old books of inquisition and sisters.
Stated or suggested? Which is it? This isn't the SoB fans getting all hyped up and reading things into nothing again, is it? They should try and stop doing that.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Meanwhile, the 40k News and Rumors is discussing the imperial agents again, due the complete incompetence and dishonesty of GW.
What's incompetent / dishonest about that book ?
The stated or suggested validity of the list compared to the old books of inquisition and sisters.
Stated or suggested? Which is it? This isn't the SoB fans getting all hyped up and reading things into nothing again, is it? They should try and stop doing that.
Pretty sure it is. Someone over in the Codex: Inquisition thread made a good point:
Its just a book that pulls many basic options from their respective codex and presents them in printed book so people can use them without pulling out several different books or e-books with the trade off being you don't all the options and characters available if you had used said army's actual codex.
GW is probably operating under the assumption that a person who buys C:IA doesn't have Codex: Inquisiton, Sisters of Battle, Grey knights, officio assassinorium, or any others I missed and would like to have access to some their units without having to buy several different books and haul them around or constantly pages through their mobile device. There was a another possibly that I had considered but I forgot it while navigating the ridiculous late holiday shopping crowds while picking up ingredients.
Either way, even a quick flip through the book it's obvious that its not meant to replace any codex but just condenses several options into one source and throws in some new formations in the process (something GW themselves with their new sovial presence, have confirmed it's intention was), a very practical idea that due to classic GW unclear wording (and perhaps abit of demagoguery from others) has been taken for something else.
I honestly don't see what there is to get so bent out of shape about.
Well if true, then yes GW is getting better in trying to give people what they want, be able to play with units instead of buying all those books.
Thing is what I don't understand, why do this when a new edition is coming out and it can be invalidated so quickly. I thought new GW would not do this, but old GW would do this.
Why not just come out and give a road map what they plan on instead of trying to "squeeze" every penny they can and have good will showing they really care instead of just being a business.
Davor wrote: Well if true, then yes GW is getting better in trying to give people what they want, be able to play with units instead of buying all those books.
Thing is what I don't understand, why do this when a new edition is coming out and it can be invalidated so quickly. I thought new GW would not do this, but old GW would do this.
Why not just come out and give a road map what they plan on instead of trying to "squeeze" every penny they can and have good will showing they really care instead of just being a business.
Well, if they just released a new 8th edition main rulebook and cleaned up the rules, a lot of the existing codices could still be used in a cleaner rule set.
Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.
Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.
Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.
Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: True Jreilly89 but then we have codex creep and we are back to square one. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to see this again.
I rather see an overhaul.
So you don't want old books invalidated, but you don't want codex creep? It's one or the other, man. Either they release a new rulebook, all new codices, and invalidate all the 7th books, or they only release the main rulebook at first and we have to deal with codex creep until they update each codex.
Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.
Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.
Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.
I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was drawing an equivalency to AOS, not referring to it in the context of what you were saying. Maybe spend a little more time comprehending and a little less getting unnecessarily defensive?
Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.
Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.
Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.
I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was drawing an equivalency to AOS, not referring to it in the context of what you were saying. Maybe spend a little more time comprehending and a little less getting unnecessarily defensive?
Like I said, until we see some screenshots, nothing shows that 8th edition will automatically invalidate 7th edition books. Heck, Eldar rocked their 6th edition codex for almost a year until their 7th edition codex was dropped. Please let me know when you have some real proof that Armageddon is coming.
Besides, AOS is an outlier. 40k is selling well, unlike WHFB was when they AOSed it.
Because Sad Panda says that there's that sort of change happening, not to the same extreme, but that suggests we could at least be looking at something which makes existing stats and rules partially or totally redundant.
Pretty sure I said 8th edition, so obviously not referencing AOS. But nice snide remark.
Also, I like Sad Panda, but until I see some screenshots I'm not believing the sky is falling.
I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was drawing an equivalency to AOS, not referring to it in the context of what you were saying. Maybe spend a little more time comprehending and a little less getting unnecessarily defensive?
Like I said, until we see some screenshots, nothing shows that 8th edition will automatically invalidate 7th edition books. Heck, Eldar rocked their 6th edition codex for almost a year until their 7th edition codex was dropped. Please let me know when you have some real proof that Armageddon is coming.
Besides, AOS is an outlier. 40k is selling well, unlike WHFB was when they AOSed it.
You really didn't understand any of my post at all, did you?
I didn't say "Armageddon was coming," neither was 6-7th in anyway a significant change for any codex, Eldar or otherwise. I'm talking a 2nd-3rd style transition, where stats were recalibrated or even invalidated. No 2nd edition codex was usable from day 1 of 3rd.
In fact a root and branch rewrite of the game is likely the only way it can get away from the rules bloat that's the net result of 3 decades of bolting things on to a ruleset that was repurposed from its original intent in the first place.
Far from Armageddon, it'd be a welcome new beginning, and I'm quite happy to accept the word of someone who's proven time and again that they have access to information well ahead of time as "proof." In fact, to deny anything they state outright at this point seems wilfully obtuse, but then I'm not heavily invested in anything GW enough these days for it to be so important either way.
GW is sorta like a person going through rehab/ therapy, they hit a all time low, but are getting better. They have made some good progress in getting back into the spirit of warhammer and back to their root of making cool minis for a table top game, and not trying to make it more then it actually is.
This is seen through things like their battle box sets, getting started which are a great deal, shout outs to fans bringing back much loved armies (Waiting for squats). But they still have dipped into their old ways here and there, but seem to be learning.
They biggest fopa in my opinion was the nuking of warhammer fantasy, the game itself is alright, but they alienated a large group of players when they destroyed rank and file. Their outragious prices on AoS models is another example, but again, i feel like they are learning from it and taking steps in being a good company again.
They recent swaths of boxed games have been a HUGE hit, namely silver tower which is hands down one of the best games they put out, in my humble opinion.
In short, GW has come a long way from being the money grabbing company it was that was on the quest for every single dollar on the planet, and they still have a lot of ground to cover, but its looking good.
Im hoping they will address the issue regarding their pricing, especially when it comes to single models like heros and HQs, sorry but 20 bucks for a single mini is whats driving people to buy recast for a 5th of the cost.
But only time will tell, they stopped the ship from sinking, now they just need stop the sails from burning.
Just for future reference, 'faux pas' is the word you're looking for, not 'fopa'. Literally translated into 'wrong step'.
I agree with you that they basically hit about as low as they could go, and are making some steps to re-enter the modern gaming industry. The internet presence is actually well done for a company that's been ignoring it for as long as they have, and I'm hoping the trend continues.
I just hope 8th brings a positive significant change to the rules, which are still a major sticking point for many people. I want to say it can't get much worse than 7th, but GW has proven me wrong before, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
Blacksails wrote: Just for future reference, 'faux pas' is the word you're looking for, not 'fopa'. Literally translated into 'wrong step'.
I agree with you that they basically hit about as low as they could go, and are making some steps to re-enter the modern gaming industry. The internet presence is actually well done for a company that's been ignoring it for as long as they have, and I'm hoping the trend continues.
I just hope 8th brings a positive significant change to the rules, which are still a major sticking point for many people. I want to say it can't get much worse than 7th, but GW has proven me wrong before, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
And bring back fething BFG.
OMG right?!
I feel like so many people are nervously eyeing BFG and twitching waiting for it to come back. I agree 7th is pretty bad, but hey its GW, they can take a bad idea and make it worse. AoS has some ups and downs, but i think some of its mechanics can be pulled out and very nicely applied to 40k to solve some issues.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Aye, it would for me, I like the AoS rules for what they are, more laid back, less strat just pile in goodness.
I think 40k could take a few nice things from AoS, mainly wound allocation, and an adaptation of the rend system. But for the most part i like 40k being the more rule heavy of the two.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Citation needed.
Like, a really really good one...
GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Citation needed.
Like, a really really good one...
GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?
Bottle wrote: I think GW's FY runs from June, so it's gonna include GHB, Sylvaneth, Genestealer Cults, Deathwatch and BoP in those 6 months. All were heavy hitters from my understanding (Genestealer Cult especially).
If thats the case then 1000 sons, and Prospero both fell into November and they sold like hot cakes, so that could be a boost there.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Citation needed.
Like, a really really good one...
GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?
For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Citation needed.
Like, a really really good one...
GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?
For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.
Oh yeah, i gotcha there, I think it would be more accurate or plausible to say that AoS sales would be down, But again, thats unknown until we saw actual sales figures weather they are down, or just 40k sales were kicking ass.
Which we won't likely ever see, as GW doesn't report by product line.
The most we'll likely get is some vague reference to its performance in the Chairman or CEO report, that doesn't contain enough hard info to draw an meaningful conclusions.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Citation needed.
Like, a really really good one...
GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?
For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.
Brexit increased sales when the pound dropped dramatically making it cheaper for other countries to buy there's zero evidence to date that AoS has blown up, in fact I popped into the stoke store today and although it was busy there were no games of AoS being played only 30k.
When an independent report on sales such as icv2 comes out and shows AoS is charting well then you can say it's improved, but currently the last chart had AoS no where in sight.
As for citations about AoS supressing 40k sales look no further than dakka where multiple people have attested to exactly that, myself included.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Citation needed.
Like, a really really good one...
GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?
For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.
Brexit increased sales when the pound dropped dramatically making it cheaper for other countries to buy
Over the first half we have seen strong sales and profit growth in constant currency terms. Sales and profits have further benefitted from the favourable impact of a weaker pound. Royalty income is also expected to be ahead of the prior year.
there's zero evidence to date that AoS has blown up, in fact I popped into the stoke store today and although it was busy there were no games of AoS being played only 30k.
Other than Bottle already calling you on the AOS scene in Stoke, this is purely anecdotal and has zero value as an assessment of global sales of anything.
When an independent report on sales such as icv2 comes out and shows AoS is charting well then you can say it's improved, but currently the last chart had AoS no where in sight.
You get that icv2 isn't some sort of sales bible? It's subject to a vast array of factors which can impact on its accuracy, and, most crucially to this discussion, doesn't include any sales made through GW via any channel?
As for citations about AoS supressing 40k sales look no further than dakka where multiple people have attested to exactly that, myself included.
Again, anecdotes are meaningless. Sales will be up, this is a fact no matter how hard you might wish it away, and for every person you're citing, I'm seeing probably a dozen more hard bitten GW critics that have broken down and bought one of the recent big releases.
Davor wrote: True Jreilly89 but then we have codex creep and we are back to square one. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to see this again.
I rather see an overhaul.
So you don't want old books invalidated, but you don't want codex creep? It's one or the other, man. Either they release a new rulebook, all new codices, and invalidate all the 7th books, or they only release the main rulebook at first and we have to deal with codex creep until they update each codex.
Yeah it's really a catch 22 here. In my opinion 40K needs a reboot much like they did from second edition to third edition. Thing is the codices can still be legal and all that has to be done is update ALL the units just like they did for Age of Sigar, so like a Major FAQ for point costs and add stats if they are going to a movement stat again. It can be done to do both. Just takes time and work. This being the new GW, did they do that? Time will tell. 6 months and counting.
hobojebus wrote:
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.
Yes many folds will leave. Thing is, many folks will come back. Question is, will it bring in new people and fresh blood instead of relying on current people and people who left to come back. GW needs to bring in fresh blood or more blood (old and new I mean) instead of just relying on who is left.
Backspacehacker wrote:
But for the most part i like 40k being the more rule heavy of the two.
Thing is, being more rules heavy doesn't make it a better game. I am not saying you are wrong, just saying my opinion. I believe Age of Sigmar has more rules but they are all spread out in Warscrolls. I think where 40K fails now is we need to know how to move, but that is covered in different sections of the book that make it awkward in trying to figure out how any mini moves at any time for example.. So instead of multiple ways of doing something you just need to worry what your mini does not worrying about reading how everything works. I find that simpler and easier to learn and memorize instead of the tomb of the 40K you need to know in order to play.
I say 40K and AoS is in the same depth just done differently. Again my opinion. It may not be correct either but just how it applies to me.
Baron Klatz wrote: Oh, AoS has definitely brought in alot of fresh blood. (Cough-praise Khorne-cough)
I see alot of "just started AoS" (easily over a dozen a week) threads on Reddit and half of those are new to the tabletop.
Simple start-up rules, fun game that grows in complexity at a reasonable pace, growing story and lore, good army deals, amazing looking models.
If that didn't work to attract new(and old) players I don't know what would.
There's a difference between simple and good rules, and they're not mutually exclusive. AoS's are the former, not the latter. While it attracted new people - how many will stick with Games Workshop? The only other full game to move to is a bloated mess.
True but right now GW has to walk that fine line. AoS right now has some ok rules, I would not say good rules yet but they are getting better and to the point of the op it shows games workshop is trying to make the game better.
Granted AoShad a really!! Bad start that left a really bad taste in a lot of players mouths and had put up a solid barrier between many people and AoS for good reasons.
Imo the bloating and cumbersome rules from 40k stems from many rules that either override each other or are just duplicates. For example relentless and slow and purposeful.
Now personally I love the level of complexity.
Another component that would be nice to see is the load out system of AoS. Just a base line cost for a model then equip as you want/need.
@-Loki-, Well I'm not sure why they even need to "move on" to another system if they like AoS. As I said, it has alot going for it that can continually interest players who keep playing and investing more into it.
With how the game continues to grow with rule updates, board games and story progression it can very much keep people from jumping to another game.
Of course it's inevitable not all will stick with it as their interests wander to other systems but the fact is they're in the hobby now and even if they're not playing GW's games they'll still take a look at what great models they might use for other games.
jreilly89 wrote: Besides, AOS is an outlier. 40k is selling well, unlike WHFB was when they AOSed it.
When they made the decision it was top-3 selling game in the world(non-GW games included). Not that bad selling. Problem is it didn't sell as much as marines. GW thought everything can sell as well so unless FB sells as well as marines without losses on 40k sales(ie not FB sales eating 40k sales) something is wrong and must be changed.
Selling good is not enough. Especially for old GW for whom exceeding own sales expectations by _400%_ is not enough to keep game alive. I mean one would have to assume if they give greenlight to product they at least expects it to sell enough? So exceeding those by 400% would by any definition HAVE to mean pretty damn good sales? Yet not enough to keep game alive...
Now albeit I'm just simple guy with little inside knowledge of business so guess it's possible GW gives greenlight for game they expect to tank in sales so badly that even 400% exceeding means bad sales but...Dunno. For my logic that sounds awful business strategy. Not greenlight the game in the first place if your sale expectations are THAT bad.
Bottle wrote: As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.
He Bottle, we know your opinion.
A simplification of 40k is a great need. Here maelstrom games take about 5 hours these days. Thats not really funny.
We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.
Brexit (yes it's helped local producers, like me too
Local producers maybe, but for global ones like GW there could be some hidrances (with no free access to the European market) next time.
I would really doubt that. GWs main market is to English speaking nations which all sit outside the EU. Both the US and Australia will be markets GW will be really excited about as currently they are massively hampered by trade tariffs. GW should do really well from brexit if the opportunities are properly exploited.
Bottle wrote: Lol, you live in Stoke Hobo? Well that's the last time I take your "AoS is dead in my area" to be anything more than hot air.
Nope I was visiting a friend and he needed some memphiston red so we popped in, it was packed but like I said no AoS being played.
Sorry no gotcha moment for you.
I don't know about GW Stoke, is that the only place you game? Within 45mins drive you have the biggest AoS club in the world (Derbywargames society) and you've had 2 major tournaments since GHB (Alliance and Blood & Glory) increase that radius to an hour and 2 even bigger events fall into place Warlords in Nottingham and Facehammer GT in Stockport. You're basically right slap bang in the middle of the biggest AoS scene in the UK - I would love to have that many massive events near where I live. (Fortunately I live near Bristol and Cardiff so still get my fair share).
I haven't played at stoke since 2004 when the manager Tim ended vets night and destroyed our group as we had zero warning and didn't have everyone's contact details.
Only went in because the friend I was visiting wanted to.
I would really doubt that. GWs main market is to English speaking nations which all sit outside the EU. Both the US and Australia will be markets GW will be really excited about as currently they are massively hampered by trade tariffs. GW should do really well from brexit if the opportunities are properly exploited.
wuestenfux wrote:We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.
Exactly. This doesn't make a bad rules as someone just try to say a few posts ago. Was going to quote him but this explains it so much better. This would be perfect for the other thread of "complexity in games".
So yes, GW has gotten better in that part but still toeing the line of not "fixing" right away what is broken or not working. So on one hand GW is better in that regards but still same old GW in taking their time to fix a product that is not working properly. A lot of times when something is still "broken" or "not working" and it's not being addressed or even acknowledged it seems GW hasn't changed at all.
auticus wrote: GW won't get any credit until the following things occur:
* the price for a standard sized army (standard being whatever the community's default tournament size is) is roughly $250 or so.
* GW actively starts fixing their very bad balanced points.
* GW's new edition of 40k is more conducive of a static tournament game and less a narrative random dice roll game.
* GW continues to actively support tournaments (this has begun again)
Those are the things that I read pretty much on a regular basis.
Out of curiosity what is this "perfect: game you obviously play now?! I don't know of any game (that's not of a skirmish size) that you can comfortably play tournament size armies for 250. There might be something out there but that's certainly not the norm and its pointless to dream that it is.
wuestenfux wrote:We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.
Exactly. This doesn't make a bad rules as someone just try to say a few posts ago. Was going to quote him but this explains it so much better. This would be perfect for the other thread of "complexity in games".
So yes, GW has gotten better in that part but still toeing the line of not "fixing" right away what is broken or not working. So on one hand GW is better in that regards but still same old GW in taking their time to fix a product that is not working properly. A lot of times when something is still "broken" or "not working" and it's not being addressed or even acknowledged it seems GW hasn't changed at all.
I think that can be attributed to the fact that GW is to prideful to admit they screwed up *cough* WfB lore nuke *cough*
So instead of trying to fix a problem say, riptides, they just try to shift your attention to something else, by don't look at those OP units forget them check out this cool unit that is designed to take that unit out.
The releases this year like Magnus, Wulfen and Genestealer Cult show that GW is making more and more powerful models, units and armies. I guess the same will happen to SoB.
The point is that those new releases should be bought and this will only be the case if the customer sees some value in it (in terms of modeling, painting, game play and competition).
auticus wrote: GW won't get any credit until the following things occur:
* the price for a standard sized army (standard being whatever the community's default tournament size is) is roughly $250 or so.
* GW actively starts fixing their very bad balanced points.
* GW's new edition of 40k is more conducive of a static tournament game and less a narrative random dice roll game.
* GW continues to actively support tournaments (this has begun again)
Those are the things that I read pretty much on a regular basis.
Out of curiosity what is this "perfect: game you obviously play now?! I don't know of any game (that's not of a skirmish size) that you can comfortably play tournament size armies for 250. There might be something out there but that's certainly not the norm and its pointless to dream that it is.
Kings of War.
Flames of War.
Dropzone Commander.
Pretty much any 15mm historical war game.
Many 25mm historical wargames. (Including, but not limited to, Kings of War Historical - using figures from Perry Brothers and others.)
Just out of curiosity - have you played any non GW wargames? Because getting under $250 for tournament play is not all that uncommon.
Icelord wrote: Oh ok you meant games with relatively hideous models.
Hideous models all right, from Perry's and others
Not at all like these jewel like objects of wonder
I take it the answer to Auld Grump's question is no then. No games played outside the GW bubble. Historicals are often sold in 28mm scale. It's GW, War machine etc that has gone far beyond that scale with their rampant scale creep. Having models be slightly larger is in no-way a reason to have higher prices BTW. The increased material cost is negligible and miniscule compared to the costs of sculpting, manufacturing, shipping, storage etc. So you're obviously just looking for excuses here.
Hahah I didn't say all of Gw's are perfect but they are arguably one of the best on the market. You used mantic as an example and the quality of them is pretty bad. (Getting better)
They don't do nearly the scale gw does either. Hard to compare any company to the giant of GW. It's like Walmart to your local store.
Also there is no serious tournament scene for any perry game that I know. Yes you could play them as an event but you and I know it's not the same. Warmahordes is easily over 250 and they are a tournament game. Last I checked flames largest event got about 70 people this year. GTs get hundreds.
Only people thoroughly insulated in the GW bubble believe a game must be played only with a series of official models from the same company publishing the rules.
Scale of models mean little to nothing for the cost of the end product.
Icelord wrote: Hahah I didn't say all of Gw's are perfect but they are arguably one of the best on the market. You used mantic as an example and the quality of them is pretty bad. (Getting better)
They don't do nearly the scale gw does either. Hard to compare any company to the giant of GW. It's like Walmart to your local store.
Also there is no serious tournament scene for any perry game that I know. Yes you could play them as an event but you and I know it's not the same. Warmahordes is easily over 250 and they are a tournament game. Last I checked flames largest event got about 70 people this year. GTs get hundreds.
You have done a better job of proving my point than your own.
You have grabbed the goal post, carried it into the parking lot, loaded it into a trailer, and headed for the high chaparral.
The question that you asked was - Are there any games where $250 is enough for tournament play?
The answer was - Yes, there are many games where $250 is a reasonable price.
My question was whether you had played any non-GW games, and your reply pretty much gave up that point. You are looking at only GW games, using GW figures, and probably rolling GW dice.
I actually like Mantic's style better than the one that GW currently uses. (While preferring older GW styles over Mantic's, in many cases. GW's current style is too cluttered and wildly over the top for my tastes. But I have a boatload of their older plastics and metals.) I consider many of the current GW figures to be 'hideous'.
So, if we throw out hideous miniatures, then GW is gone too. Because that is a matter of opinion, and there are folks that dislike very different things.
Then you shifted to 'GW has more players!!!1!' - which is true, that is kind of what being the leader in the market means.
And why GW started to work on improving tournament play for AoS - the game was being dropped from tournaments and conventions in the US. Which meant that the games that were getting exposure at tourneys in the US were not the games from GW. Last year it was easier to find Kings of War tournaments at conventions than AoS tournaments - the largest organizer of fantasy gaming tournaments in the US had switched to KoW, and abandoned GW.
Historical games, even at tournaments, generally do not much care where the miniatures come from. If you pop open the rulebook for Kings of War Historical, as an example that I have to hand, you will find miniatures by at least eight different companies - not just figures by Mantic, but from Gripping Beast, Warlord, the Perry Brothers, and others.
Mantic has carried that same PoV into fantasy wargaming tournaments - they went so far as to create armies to allow folks that had WHFB armies to port their armies over to KoW, in spite of not producing similar miniatures themselves.
Many companies play nicely with others, unlike GW which has never met a competitor that they did not wish that they could sue. (Honest! We own Roman numerals!!1! Oh, and grenade launchers!)
Many 25mm historical wargames. (Including, but not limited to, Kings of War Historical - using figures from Perry Brothers and others.)
Just out of curiosity - have you played any non GW wargames? Because getting under $250 for tournament play is not all that uncommon.
The Auld Grump
I'd argue that out of that list only Kings of war really fits as a comparison scale and size wise to GW games. I'd also point out that there are zero headlining events for any of those games in the US other than KoW (could be different in Europe & ROW). Additionally only KoW is 28mm. The rest are 10-15mm which I would expect to be able to pick up in that price range. And I'm not sure KoW is less than $250 for a "decent" tournament army. They have their "army" boxes but most of those aren't solid tournament armies.
All of this supposes there are even tournaments for the above game systems. One of my favorite games in 28-32mm is Wrath of Kings. Excellent game. I can play with a couple of buddies but tournaments simply don't exist. Certainly not on the scale of GW tournaments or even Warmahordes. DZC & FoW are parts of larger conventions and I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure they don't have events on the scale of even some of the smaller weekend 40k events.
So comparable scale and model size games come down to;
Warmahordes (not quite on the same scale but if you actually take 2 different lists to tournaments then comparable) Kings of War
40k costs more than both if you want to be reasonably competitive (though I'm not sure that much more if you do it smart and aren't going transport heavy) and AoS is likely honestly cheaper for quite a few competitive builds. Heck, at retail you can get a fairly competitive Sylvaneth army right now for $255 for 1500pts. You could have with Flesheaters at one point and you can with Ironjawz and Stormcast right now as well. And that's at retail. Shopping smart it's even less.
Is it across the board on pricing like that? Nope. But it is for a fair few armies.
This next part is going to make me sound super duper pro GW but meh.
I play quite a few games and dabble in more. But I have a family and young kids so my time is severly limited. I mainly play tournaments because I can take a day or two off a month and the most bang for my buck is tournaments where I can lock in 3-4 games in a day. Currently the only company which has a game that does that is GW. Add in decently sized national events going on regularly that friends of mine from all over the country converge at a few times of year and the decision makes itself. X-wing do too (I'm in X-wing/Armada home turf here in MN being 45 minutes from the FFG Event Center) but X-wing isn't my style of gaming though Armada comes very close.
GW is still very much the biggest toy soldier game on the block and the most prevalent. Other games are good and offer more specific tastes for sure but oddly I've noticed that without something like GW, and Warmahordes to a lesser extent, the gaming community has a tendency to fracture and without people with time and energy to drive through new games and help it reach critical mass it kinda just disappears. All of which makes me glad to see GW making positive changes this year. GW may not be the best game or have individually the best models or the best pricing. But it is consistent, it's there, and it's a sort of glue that allows a fair few number of people to dabble in new games because they can always fall back on the GW community.
My personal feelings above were further reinforced when AoS came out and the WFB community (in areas I'm familiar with) dove head first into KoW. Attempting to grow the game to the same level now that "GW had gotten out of the way" and while it briefly felt it was going to happen it foundered fairly hard. And that was with good dedicated people showing up and trying to pull people in. Then the GHB comes out and we start to see fantasy events again and people playing again. For the months between the foundering and GHB everyone had split into tiny cells of KoW, AoS, Wrath of Kings, and 9th Age. No events, no tournaments, no game nights, and a night a month if you were lucky dedicated to one of them from a local gaming group.
To summarize: I play lots of games. GW games are what I can play the most of due to my situation. I think GW has gotten better in the last year. Everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong
Many 25mm historical wargames. (Including, but not limited to, Kings of War Historical - using figures from Perry Brothers and others.)
Just out of curiosity - have you played any non GW wargames? Because getting under $250 for tournament play is not all that uncommon.
The Auld Grump
I'd argue that out of that list only Kings of war really fits as a comparison scale and size wise to GW games. I'd also point out that there are zero headlining events for any of those games in the US other than KoW (could be different in Europe & ROW). Additionally only KoW is 28mm. The rest are 10-15mm which I would expect to be able to pick up in that price range. And I'm not sure KoW is less than $250 for a "decent" tournament army. They have their "army" boxes but most of those aren't solid tournament armies.
All of this supposes there are even tournaments for the above game systems. One of my favorite games in 28-32mm is Wrath of Kings. Excellent game. I can play with a couple of buddies but tournaments simply don't exist. Certainly not on the scale of GW tournaments or even Warmahordes. DZC & FoW are parts of larger conventions and I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure they don't have events on the scale of even some of the smaller weekend 40k events.
So comparable scale and model size games come down to;
Warmahordes (not quite on the same scale but if you actually take 2 different lists to tournaments then comparable)
Kings of War
40k costs more than both if you want to be reasonably competitive (though I'm not sure that much more if you do it smart and aren't going transport heavy) and AoS is likely honestly cheaper for quite a few competitive builds. Heck, at retail you can get a fairly competitive Sylvaneth army right now for $255 for 1500pts. You could have with Flesheaters at one point and you can with Ironjawz and Stormcast right now as well. And that's at retail. Shopping smart it's even less.
Is it across the board on pricing like that? Nope. But it is for a fair few armies.
This next part is going to make me sound super duper pro GW but meh.
I play quite a few games and dabble in more. But I have a family and young kids so my time is severly limited. I mainly play tournaments because I can take a day or two off a month and the most bang for my buck is tournaments where I can lock in 3-4 games in a day. Currently the only company which has a game that does that is GW. Add in decently sized national events going on regularly that friends of mine from all over the country converge at a few times of year and the decision makes itself. X-wing do too (I'm in X-wing/Armada home turf here in MN being 45 minutes from the FFG Event Center) but X-wing isn't my style of gaming though Armada comes very close.
GW is still very much the biggest toy soldier game on the block and the most prevalent. Other games are good and offer more specific tastes for sure but oddly I've noticed that without something like GW, and Warmahordes to a lesser extent, the gaming community has a tendency to fracture and without people with time and energy to drive through new games and help it reach critical mass it kinda just disappears. All of which makes me glad to see GW making positive changes this year. GW may not be the best game or have individually the best models or the best pricing. But it is consistent, it's there, and it's a sort of glue that allows a fair few number of people to dabble in new games because they can always fall back on the GW community.
My personal feelings above were further reinforced when AoS came out and the WFB community (in areas I'm familiar with) dove head first into KoW. Attempting to grow the game to the same level now that "GW had gotten out of the way" and while it briefly felt it was going to happen it foundered fairly hard. And that was with good dedicated people showing up and trying to pull people in. Then the GHB comes out and we start to see fantasy events again and people playing again. For the months between the foundering and GHB everyone had split into tiny cells of KoW, AoS, Wrath of Kings, and 9th Age. No events, no tournaments, no game nights, and a night a month if you were lucky dedicated to one of them from a local gaming group.
To summarize: I play lots of games. GW games are what I can play the most of due to my situation. I think GW has gotten better in the last year. Everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong
No, you aren't coming across as 'super duper pro-GW' - you at least acknowledge the existence of other games.
Though I will point out that scale was not part of the question that I was answering in my reply. The only thing barred was 'skirmish' - which in no way describes any of the games I used as examples.
Another point of disagreement - I have actually played in tournaments with Mantic army boxes - and won.
Not the 'Mega-Armies', but the smaller boxed armies, putting together an army using two boxes and a few characters. The boxes are meat and potato armies, and provide a backbone, what they aren't is tailored for any single strategy - that takes tinkering, and why I favor the smaller army boxes over the Mega-Armies. I generally start with two army boxes, then add Reaper Bones characters to add some Inspiring characters or spellcasters (undead need their spellcasters.)
Even adding in the Reaper Bones, it comes to quite a bit less than $250*.
Ironically, the cheapest army at one tournament was the one that beat the snot out of me - he used a bunch of Reaper Bones to make a Night Stalker army - and my army is high in Inspiring leaders.... I think that he spent something like $100, getting the pieces during the Bones Kickstarter. (And his stomping me inspired Jon, another player in my group to get Night Stalkers.)
Last I heard, if you added the AoS games at conventions and the KoW games at conventions together, you still ended up with fewer players than for Warhammer 7th edition. (For the record, I was not a fan of 7th edition, either - but it had a lot of players.)
GW had hurt the market, not just their own brand.
I still have an easier time finding KoW than AoS - but that is quite possibly regional.
Locally, it seems that AoS is still very much being ignored if not openly disparaged. (There are a lot of folks that still harbor anger at GW over the game as it was initially released.)
BUT -The largest and most active game store in the area is putting a lot of work into promoting AoS - last that I heard (on this very thread, I think) they had a tournament with twelve players for AoS, which was a huge increase over the one AoS tournament that I had witnessed there before. (Which had CANCELLED as the number of players .) 7th edition WHFB at that same store often saw more than thirty players. Twelve, while an improvement over CANCELLED is a distinct drop from 7th edition. 6th had more than 7th - the population has been dropping for a while.
My local group of Kings of War players are mostly playing at home - but Crossroad Games, which has AoS games, is one of the nicest and most robust game stores that I have ever encountered in Maine.
Yes, I am plugging a store that is promoting a game I don't like - they are good folks.
Our not playing there is completely a matter of convenience, not snubbery in the shrubbery. (If I had the time and energy, I would try setting up a KoW league there - and I don't have any higher praise than that.)
My own play group is, in point of fact, a mix of grognards and folks introduced to the hobby by said grognards. (One of the players has been in my gaming circle since her age was in the single digits. She was one of my students at a summer program for several years.) There are a bit more than two dozen of us, mostly folks that also play RPGs.
The Auld Grump
* Remember - using non-Mantic figures is tournament legal for KoW.
**EDIT** I will also admit that my opinion of AoS was pretty thoroughly poisoned by my experience with the original release - the game, with its 'funny' war scrolls was, well, crap. On a crap cracker. With a side order of extra crap. We played with the starter box, then tried it with downloaded 'classic' units that had been given war scrolls. Which only made it worse. (Quite literally adding insult - what the holy heck were the game designers thinking?!) On the other hand, the main reason Chris had bought the AoS starter was to use the Sigmarines in his Blood Angels army. So like the game that the figures were made for was secondary to his purposes.
The old saying that you only get one chance to make a good impression holds true - and AoS did not give a good first impression.
auticus wrote: GW won't get any credit until the following things occur:
* the price for a standard sized army (standard being whatever the community's default tournament size is) is roughly $250 or so.
* GW actively starts fixing their very bad balanced points.
* GW's new edition of 40k is more conducive of a static tournament game and less a narrative random dice roll game.
* GW continues to actively support tournaments (this has begun again)
Those are the things that I read pretty much on a regular basis.
Out of curiosity what is this "perfect: game you obviously play now?! I don't know of any game (that's not of a skirmish size) that you can comfortably play tournament size armies for 250. There might be something out there but that's certainly not the norm and its pointless to dream that it is.
Auticus is basically trying to quote everyone he disagrees with in one generalized post, he's not saying that is HIS perfect game. In fact, if you look at his post history, he's pretty much anti everything on that list except price, which I hope any sane human being wouldn't disagree with that point.
I'm actually very much against GW's horrible balanced points, its one reason that I don't like playing much unless I know who I'm playing against and why I would never play a pick up game. AOS is several leagues in front of 40k at the moment in terms of balance but it has its own issues that any competitive meta will exploit and bleed into the casual or narrative games as well.
I'm also not against tournament games, I'm against games where the community ONLY promotes tournament mentalities. I would love to get back into tournament play, but won't do so until the balance of the games is brought back into line and is not so grotesquely out of whack as it is today.
As to the question on the $250, that is a figure that is about the average of anyone that posts a wish list on pricing. I prefer army games over skirmish games as well, but kings of war and historical models are pretty much dirt cheap which feeds fuel on the fire of the people wanting warhammer and 40k to be $250 or less. "Because mantic and the perry's can do it, GW should do it too".
Also XWing is probably the hottest tournament game in my region right now, and you can get two tournament forces for less than $250. Yes apples and oranges, but tournament gamers I find don't care so much about the game genre as much as they care about a tight competitive game in general, so if it has some models and you roll dice and you kill the other side, warhammer, 40k, and xwing are all comparable.
On thread topic I think that they have come a long way since 2015 and I'm a fan in general. I dumped a ton of money into new thousand sons models bcause that was the legion that got me into 40k long long long ago and I'm feebly banking on 40k getting a modification like fantasy did that will change some things for the better and at least even out the power level's bell curve a tad.
Bottle wrote: As a side, I don't really get what's so unique about Mantic "allowing" non-Mantic miniatures. They don't have any stores to run events in. Independent AoS events allow non-GW miniatures too and you'll find lots of Meirce miniatures at those events in particular.
I played in a (admittedly poorly attended) KoW tournament, with prize support from Mantic, with a GW Dwarf army. I recall there being some wording in the first KoW book (not sure about the second) about using models you already have with the rules, just make sure it's clear what is what with your opponent before playing.
I mean, Ronnie is hardly running around in a g-string and pasties screaming 'Don't buy our miniatures!' (the generally bad sculpts do that on their own, unfortunately,) but they're fairly pro-third party compared to other companies.
Mantic is also actively trying to court the angry sour salty former GW crowd by doing everything GW is not as a sales pitch.
Its easier to do that when you're company is a handful of dudes with little to no overhead.
Privateer also once did the "everything you hate about GW we don't do" sales pitch until they got bigger. And lo... they started doing the same things.
And in PP tournaments you could NEVER run anything that was not an official model or even convert the damn thing, and no one batted an eye over that. Hell I knew guys that would rant and rave that you couldn't bring non-gw miniatures to a gw event, but were perfectly fine when you had to only use PP models at PP events.
auticus wrote: Mantic is also actively trying to court the angry sour salty former GW crowd by doing everything GW is not as a sales pitch.
Its easier to do that when you're company is a handful of dudes with little to no overhead.
Privateer also once did the "everything you hate about GW we don't do" sales pitch until they got bigger. And lo... they started doing the same things.
And in PP tournaments you could NEVER run anything that was not an official model or even convert the damn thing, and no one batted an eye over that. Hell I knew guys that would rant and rave that you couldn't bring non-gw miniatures to a gw event, but were perfectly fine when you had to only use PP models at PP events.
Don't forget you can't even convert something that has rules if the physical model is not out for general purchase. So this has resulted in things having rules for a year-and-a-half but no model so nobody could actually play in tournaments, and then by the time the model came out the tournament scene had passed it by and it was considered useless, without ever even seeing Play in a competitive environment. In fact there were several models at the end of the prior edition of War Machine that never got to actually be played in tournaments in that Edition because their models didn't come out until this newest edition.
But seriously there are only a handful of games where you are expected to buy everything from only one company. Most games seem to not care it is just a shame that most areas gravitate to Warhammer or Warmachine and that is it. There is a store by me that stocks a lot of Mantic products but I have never seen anybody play which is a shame because I am interested in Kings of war and dead zone but I will not buy it if there are not anyone who plays it.
I have also never seen anyone play flames of war or any sort of historical game which is a shame because I am interested in those games but as far as I could tell nobody within like a 50-mile radius gives a damn about anything that isn't Warhammer or Warmachine with some smattering of X-Wing and supposedly Kings of War somewhere
The fact that a game is trying by all means to attract new gamers, including by saying you can use any miniatures, offering free rules etc. does not make the game better.
It just reflects on the fact that the company selling that game is aware that they have to claim a lot more market share before they start cashing in.
A lot of people seem to conflate rules and miniatures. If you've been exposed to historics, where companies rarely did rules & miniatures until recently, then it's a bit baffling.
I can understand the strict wysiwyg approach from the mega competitive warmachine, and only one company doing figures for a range, but I'm baffled that people think it's unacceptable to use one set of, say, 28mm dwarves in a different game requiring 28mm dwarves. I don't know how GW managed to generate or target that mindset but it's the best move they ever made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: The fact that a game is trying by all means to attract new gamers, including by saying you can use any miniatures, offering free rules etc. does not make the game better.
Correct. It's the rules that make it a better game.
That you can get them free and proxy the miniatures means you have no excuse not to try it
Herzlos wrote: A lot of people seem to conflate rules and miniatures. If you've been exposed to historics, where companies rarely did rules & miniatures until recently, then it's a bit baffling.
I can understand the strict wysiwyg approach from the mega competitive warmachine, and only one company doing figures for a range, but I'm baffled that people think it's unacceptable to use one set of, say, 28mm dwarves in a different game requiring 28mm dwarves. I don't know how GW managed to generate or target that mindset but it's the best move they ever made.
I agree. GW seems to be the first to have this "buy everything from one company, accept no substitutions!" approach, while most other wargames (now of course you have like PP and X-Wing and the like doing it because they were trying to follow in GW's footsteps) didn't care what models you used, and in the case of historicals you rarely if ever had a company doing rules AND figures (a few have tried lately though). But I almost always see the counter to "Mantic is doing X" with "Oh but their figuges are terrible" which is a greatly exaggerated statement and often boils down to "It doesn't look like a GW figure" in 99% of the critiques I've seen, and completely ignores the fact that Mantic figures are IMHO correctly priced and something GW should easily be able to do, but refuses to do.
It's the most common criticism of kings of war and frustrates me no end because it's so irrelevant. If you don't like Mantics figures for whatever reason then use different figs.
There is not a single inexpensive hobby that involves collecting in some capacity.
Having played MTG for many years, starting when it was young (I have quite a few mint power 9 which I got for basically nothing), if you want to start collecting and actually keep up in Magic it's far more expensive than Warhammer, unless you play type 2.0, in which case you're effectively throwing money away every new edition...
Firstly, that there's not a single inexpensive collecting hobby is just flat out wrong. I have a friend who collects interesting glass and stones from the beach, how much do you think that costs her? In fact, she occasionally crafts and sells items made or decorated with her finds, so her hobby actually makes her money.
Secondly, cost =\= value. Nobody could argue that many GW items aren't a relatively small amount of money, objectively speaking, to the sort of customer that GW goes after. GW's issue, in the main, is people have increasingly found what was offered to be poor value for the asking price.
Then you have the issues with other countries where the prices are some 150% over what they should be by the exchange rate...
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
Compare that to other forms of entertainment, its par the course, i mean a movie after tickets and drinks and pop corn are gonna run you about 18 bucks for 2 hours. Suppose it boils down to what you determine is a fair price to hours of entertainment.
But I do think that GW charging 40 bucks for a box models that are from a mold thats how old now? and still charging that much because its in a new fancy AoS box is a bit shady. GW has more then made up the cost to produce the mold.
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
aside from the fact that i collect PP, Infinity, Knight Models, Guildball, Nuts Planet, and a bunch of other manufacturers' minis... not to mention, Genestealer Cult, Ad. Mech., Guard, Eldar, Orks, Orcs, Dark Elves, Chaos, and Dwarfs, along with whatever other kit catches my fancy... yeah, "I like Space Marines, and nothing else will do." is a load of rubbish... i like miniatures, and nothing else will do, not action figures, scale models, Legos, or plushies... miniatures
if i want miniatures, from any manufacturer, i am not bothered by how much they cost... if i am lukewarm on a mini, then price definitely becomes a major factor... if i don't like a miniature, then it doesn't matter how cheap it is, i'm not buying... see the logic, AZ???
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
Huh? What does Jah have anything to do with this?
That said, what you quoted stands. If someone likes GW products the price is worth it for them. Buying Privateer Press while being a little cheaper would be worthless to them if they don't like the rules/minis/setting or what ever. So not sure what your point is. Of course competing products are just as valid like you said, only if said person likes them or wants them.
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
But that too is flawed argument, because we are trying to put a quantitative value on something subjective, the enjoyment from a model. No one can say they are right for buying a model at some price, or they are wrong for not buying it, because its entirely subjective to them. The enjoyment I might get out of a model from GW, might be justifiable for me, but then for someone else it might not be. For example, we can look at the Varanguard, at my current level i cant justify the pricing of them. They are 100 bucks, and i dont see me being able to get 100 bucks worth of entertainment out of building painting, or playing with them. But some one else might, does that make me wrong or them right? No. Now that opinion of mine is subject to change, say i get to golden demon level painting where i can then get 100 bucks worth of entertainment and joy from paining them, then yeah, I can justify it.
Now, GW as a whole, are their models on the expensive side for what they actually cost to make? Yeah, absolutely, but does it mean that if someone thinks they are priced fine because they can get their monies worth of entertainment and joy out of them while others cant is wrong? No, just means they place a different value on their entertainment.
Where my issue comes into play is that GW is either raising or not reducing the prices of model that have not changed in years, like warriors of chaos for example, they just slap a new box on it and say its NEW! when its really not. Like thats really shady.
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
Huh? What does Jah have anything to do with this?
That said, what you quoted stands. If someone likes GW products the price is worth it for them. Buying Privateer Press while being a little cheaper would be worthless to them if they don't like the rules/minis/setting or what ever. So not sure what your point is. Of course competing products are just as valid like you said, only if said person likes them or wants them.
He's usually one of those people who, granted is always respectful about it, tend to come into anything talking about GW's problems to say how he finds everything is great, the prices are fine, he doesn't like XYZ model because they don't have the right aesthetics. In fact, the fact he even collects other models as he said is news to me because most of his posts seem to be the "GW has the best miniatures ever, and because of that I'll pay any price for them" variety, and has always come off as seeing no problem at all with anything GW does and I can recall a few times when he's basically said that such-and-such cheaper alternative to GW isn't as good looking.
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
Huh? What does Jah have anything to do with this?
That said, what you quoted stands. If someone likes GW products the price is worth it for them. Buying Privateer Press while being a little cheaper would be worthless to them if they don't like the rules/minis/setting or what ever. So not sure what your point is. Of course competing products are just as valid like you said, only if said person likes them or wants them.
He's usually one of those people who, granted is always respectful about it, tend to come into anything talking about GW's problems to say how he finds everything is great, the prices are fine, he doesn't like XYZ model because they don't have the right aesthetics. In fact, the fact he even collects other models as he said is news to me because most of his posts seem to be the "GW has the best miniatures ever, and because of that I'll pay any price for them" variety, and has always come off as seeing no problem at all with anything GW does and I can recall a few times when he's basically said that such-and-such cheaper alternative to GW isn't as good looking.
it is true, i do prefer the heroic-scale minis over the true-scale...
Infinity is one of the few true-scale style ranges that i am happy to buy, and paint, just because their kind of sci-fi is so beautiful....
given the choice between Wyrd's true-scale HIPS versus a PP heroic-scale HIPS kit, i'll take PP every time...
we all have an aesthetic that we prefer over another, Wayne...
i see it in every thread about models...
one group loves it, and the other says it is horrible...
it's not really strange to have favorites, is it???
why wouldn't i big-up GW when they produce products that i like???
i've said it many times, i don't like Finecast at all, and have not spent any of my money on that horrible material...
aside from making miniatures that i wanted in a material that i won't buy, i don't have a problem with GW, and why should i???
i enjoy the art, the fiction, and the models...
i use P3 paints, rather than Citadel...
there are plenty of things i like about other companies, and i happily support them...
what i don't do, is go around in the Mantic, Wyrd, Mierce, or any other company's thread, and talk about how much i dislike their minis, and don't buy them...
i don't have any desire to talk trash (i do that with my friends, where it is easy to tell i'm joking)...
i'm here to enjoy the beautiful miniatures that make me happy, not be negative...
Eh, honestly, when you break down cost per hour of entertainment for GW models, its actually a pretty good deal, I can spend 60 bucks, and spend a good probably 16 hours of assembling, painting and basing, not counting play time, which is another set of endless hours.
But the flaw with this argument is that you can get the same amount of hours for less or more hours for the same amount of money by buying competing products.
Before we get Jah jumping in with the latest installment in his ongoing series of "I like Space Marines and nothing else will do" I will reference that if you desire GW minis specifically, this will increase the value proposition of GW product, but if your criteria is a slightly more open "models that I like" then GW will often be sharply priced relative to many other options.
Huh? What does Jah have anything to do with this?
That said, what you quoted stands. If someone likes GW products the price is worth it for them. Buying Privateer Press while being a little cheaper would be worthless to them if they don't like the rules/minis/setting or what ever. So not sure what your point is. Of course competing products are just as valid like you said, only if said person likes them or wants them.
I'm sure they exist, but someone who has decent knowledge of other ranges, and yet likes only GW to the exclusion of all else, all the time, is going to be a fairly rare individual, and those that think that way because they're exclusively confined to the GW ecosystem aren't a valid example.
Regardless, I see plenty of posts in GW release threads on an almost weekly basis where people say they like the product but the price is too much, so not even "liking" the product is sufficient to make it "worth it" in every instance. There's clearly a relationship between preference and price that GW pricing moves outside of pretty regularly, especially in the ROW area (i.e. Not UK, EU or NA.)
Answering the OP, I'll say that I like the direction GW is heading. I started an Oldhammer project earlier this year (having completed a shocking amount of it). This was not driven in any way by GW's current practices...but I can't complain on the model side of things. There are still vast inconsistencies with pricing, and GW still prices almost everything higher than I'm willing to spend (and thus, don't). 90% of my army is refurbished models from eBay. I also have zero interest in current 40K - that's not likely to change. I don't "blame" GW for that...we've just gone our separate ways.
Things I have liked:
+Warhammer TV is great. Enjoy the painting tips, the tongue-in-cheek humor etc.
+Seeing an increase in bundled products, the only way GW will ever put anything on sale
+Boxed games presenting an extremely reasonable value (particularly when combined w/ third party retailers --- $122 for Burning of Prospero or Betrayal? Extremely reasonable prices for what you get)
+A hint at genuinely moving the 40K storyline forward
+Attention being paid to Specialist games, even if they murdered my beloved Warhammer Quest
+Warhammer Community (nice to see articles and some tie-ins for fringe games)
Things I still don't like:
-Some pricing is absurd. Fans or not, $30+ for a single plastic miniature is beyond reasonable. (particularly when compared to some of the stellar deals above). All of their books, novels and eBooks are priced at levels almost no one else could fathom attempting - I suppose good on them for getting people to buy them.
-Books and supplements are still terribly expensive (a huge barrier to entry I think for future sales)
-Forgeworld, while having nice designs still produces some of the worst resin stuff I've seen (using out-dated tech)
-The rules for 7th edition still appear to be a gigantic mess.
All in all, I'd say a net positive for the year. My only exposure is forums, a number of podcasts and the occasional YouTube reviews or battle reports. I'll be sticking to the Oldhammer stuff for the foreseeable future. Short of Necromunda etc., I don't see ever going back to being a current customer for GW.
I'm with Jah in the aesthetic camp, there's something about GW stuff I just don't get from other manufacturers, (no not the skulls! Not Stormcast though, they're rubbish).
I do own the odd mini from a lot of other companies, but nothing like my collection of GW stuff.
I have curbed my GW spending though, ever since they decided to crush imports, refuse to supply independents and based their AU pricing model on a Drangonball z meme, its over 9000!
Whoever is in charge of pricing AU is a real fething dick, and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up. This continues without Kirby.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dick, dick, dick!
Well, I think that the standard or troop units in 40k should be cheaper than they are now, like 20 to 25 Euro instead of 30 to 35 Euro.
This would also induce much more impulse buys.
Joyboozer wrote: I'm with Jah in the aesthetic camp, there's something about GW stuff I just don't get from other manufacturers, (no not the skulls! Not Stormcast though, they're rubbish).
I do own the odd mini from a lot of other companies, but nothing like my collection of GW stuff.
I have curbed my GW spending though, ever since they decided to crush imports, refuse to supply independents and based their AU pricing model on a Drangonball z meme, its over 9000!
Whoever is in charge of pricing AU is a real fething dick, and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up. This continues without Kirby.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dick, dick, dick!
You want the special GW something, you gotta pay for it. And they know it.
Wayniac wrote: But I almost always see the counter to "Mantic is doing X" with "Oh but their figuges are terrible" which is a greatly exaggerated statement and often boils down to "It doesn't look like a GW figure" in 99% of the critiques I've seen, and completely ignores the fact that Mantic figures are IMHO correctly priced and something GW should easily be able to do, but refuses to do.
They are terrible if you have good eyesight and actually care about miniatures.
If I could repeat some facts to indicate why GW plc have not got better...
The last time I looked GW plc reported all costs excluding logistic and retail was 24% of turn over.
And people I know confirmed GW plc logistc costs ran at about 10%.
So when you buy £100 of minatures from GW .
£2 covers the cost of plastic manufacture
£6 covers all the remaining overheads for manufacture and packaging etc
£16 covers ALL the overheads of GWHQ etc.
£10 covers the cost of shipping and storage.
Thats £34 total to cover all costs to produce and deliver the product to a store for you to buy .
GW get about £15 profit from each £100 they sell.
Thats £49,
But wait, where does all the other money go?
Over half the retail cost of GW product goes on maintaining their chain of B&M retail stores.
The 1990s are asking for their retail strategy back, and GW plc is not listening.
IF GW plc want to run hobby centers for recruitment, that fine.But they should be self financing from the people that actually use them .Like good LFGS are.
So GW plc are charging DOUBLE because they are not efficient at marketing. That is why GW plc has not got any better.
Also GW plc has found its target demographic is diminishing faster than they can adjust prices for.So now they are pretending to care about the 'dedicated fans'.
By slowly engaging with them in the cheapest and least committed way.
But they will have to do a lot more to win back customers from companies that have had much more in the way of positive relations with their customers during GW plc 'Kirby years'.IMO.
Joyboozer wrote: I'm with Jah in the aesthetic camp, there's something about GW stuff I just don't get from other manufacturers, (no not the skulls! Not Stormcast though, they're rubbish).
I do own the odd mini from a lot of other companies, but nothing like my collection of GW stuff.
I have curbed my GW spending though, ever since they decided to crush imports, refuse to supply independents and based their AU pricing model on a Drangonball z meme, its over 9000!
Whoever is in charge of pricing AU is a real fething dick, and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up. This continues without Kirby.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dick, dick, dick!
You want the special GW something, you gotta pay for it. And they know it.
From the post you quoted...
"I have curbed my GW spending though"
"...and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up."
People don't seem to want the special GW something as much as GW think they want it.
Joyboozer wrote: I'm with Jah in the aesthetic camp, there's something about GW stuff I just don't get from other manufacturers, (no not the skulls! Not Stormcast though, they're rubbish).
I do own the odd mini from a lot of other companies, but nothing like my collection of GW stuff.
I have curbed my GW spending though, ever since they decided to crush imports, refuse to supply independents and based their AU pricing model on a Drangonball z meme, its over 9000!
Whoever is in charge of pricing AU is a real fething dick, and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up. This continues without Kirby.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dick, dick, dick!
You want the special GW something, you gotta pay for it. And they know it.
From the post you quoted...
"I have curbed my GW spending though"
"...and directly responsible for everyone I know quitting the hobby, refusing to take up the hobby, or in the case of store owners just giving up."
People don't seem to want the special GW something as much as GW think they want it.
Nevertheless, if people want it then they have to pay what GW considers its worth to be. Don't it get marine fandom, personally (I think they are daft looking and the background is pretty dire) but there's no question it grips people into fanaticism.
I won't play games that have crappy looking models no matter how cheap those models are.
However, when Mantic and other low quality model manufacturers created their low quality and low priced models, to many people that low price became the new baseline for what all models should cost.
I play wargames today for three reasons:
1) the aesthetic
2) social time spent doing some minor to moderate tactical thinking
3) to tell a narrative of some type / storytelling
If models look bad to me, I won't play the game even if it costs me $50 to field a regimental sized force.
If models look great to me, I will collect them and play with them because they are appealing my reason #1.
Models aesthetic have no bearing for me on #2 and #3 but play a huge role in #1.
Herzlos wrote: Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?
Quality and designs. Their minis don't hold up to abuse as well (own several of their guys for D&D use, the spears/swords are super flimsy) and the amount of detail. Yeah, they're detailed, but nowhere near the level GW/PP do.
When people stop paying it, GW will fail or adjust policies/practices/prices. As a company you'd be daft not to charge the most you can find people are willing to pay. I don't follow GW sales numbers, so they're either making profit or not. It's not evil, it's just a decision made by the people running the company.
I don't buy current GW products for the most part - but I don't hate the company. I vote with my wallet. I probably (like most folks) spend a couple thousand dollars a year in hobbying. Very little of that goes to GW. That is the nature of our relationship. I'm not entitled to lower price GW products, but I reserve the right to refuse to buy something I think is not worth the money.
GW has a very strong and popular IP in 40K and they know it. They benefit (at least temporarily) from having one of the most popular miniature wargames on the market. They can arbitrarily charged Australians 25% more than similar markets...because it's their product. They could charge 200% prices in Germany if they felt like it. Consumers will purchase it or not. GW doesn't have to answer to anyone except the shareholders.
Mantic and other companies likely price their products at the level they think they can achieve the necessary sales for growth and profit. If you're new to a market you need to be either cheaper, or better (and very rarely - both). Or you need to be completely unique in a market you think is sustainable. If Mantic suddenly became vastly more popular it's entirely possible prices would go up as well - right up to the point where people stopped purchasing them.
Some companies are more prone to do this than others. At the end of the day, gaming products are a simple "want" and not a need. GW, and other companies will continue to act as the market allows. I'd imagine that for ever person like myself, who may balk at a $35 dollar plastic figure, there are a dozen who'll gladly step up and purchase it. Therefore, GW would be crazy to change or drop the price.
I think we're seeing a move though toward some "deals" hidden in combination boxes. Maybe GW is feeling a little bit of a squeeze. Again, I don't follow the business success of the company.
Herzlos wrote: Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?
No massive chain of shops that needs feeding and forces the prices up?
The shops don't really drive up prices all that much*** as they only make a small loss on stores, so the stores mostly pay for themselves.
The main reasons I think are *possibly* GW spend more on machining their moulds to maintain such a highly detailed and huge range and also that GW choose to have a business model that revolves around squeezing as much out of customers before they quit rather than shifting a lot of product.
The nature of plastic kits is that once you've cast 1, it doesn't really cost much more to cast 10, so other companies (like Mantic, Perry, Warlord) try and use that to sell large unit sizes that are cheap per model but not necessarily cheap per box. It doesn't really matter what the price per model is from a profit stand point, it's more about how many $$$ worth of boxes you shift.
***I think you can make more of an argument for stores driving up the wholesale price in Australia specifically, but not so much globally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: As a company you'd be daft not to charge the most you can find people are willing to pay.
There's always someone stupid enough to pay the price no matter how high you raise it Your target price shouldn't be "there are still some whales out there willing to pay it" it should be "what will make us the most profit" (which in the context of plastic models isn't far off "what will make us the most revenue") while still being on the positive side of "most of our customers and potential customers are happy".
I don't think anyone would be silly enough to argue their prices are too high but no one is buying it, obviously some people are buying it, but the argument is if they lowered prices they may actually be able to make more money and have a more diverse customer base (which is a safer position to be in than relying on a handful of whales to prop them up).
Herzlos wrote: Aesthetics aside, why can Mantic produce minis for a fraction of the price, in smaller numbers, whilst outsourcing everything?
Quality and designs. Their minis don't hold up to abuse as well (own several of their guys for D&D use, the spears/swords are super flimsy) and the amount of detail. Yeah, they're detailed, but nowhere near the level GW/PP do.
Neither of which inherently saves money. Sure, it takes extra time to sculpt details, but GW design staff are on salary, so it isn't like GW are paying massively more in commission fees. Even if one made the argument that Mantic also had salaried designers, and were paying less salary than GW and attracting less talented people, the averaged out cost per mini sold would still be tiny.
Equally, bendy weaponry is an easy thing to address, and likely stems more from a certain naivety as Mantic go through a learning process like most companies do when developing a product. It isn't something that's going to make a massive saving in production by shaving a few microns off the thickness of a sword blade.
One could make the argument that the issues you mention means Mantic couldn't possibly ask a higher price for their models, it doesn't answer the question of how they can sell for the price they do and still make money.
Then you have companies like the Perrys who surely must be deemed GW quality, as former GW sculptors manufacturing in a material essentially the same as GW.
It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.
The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.
GW's overhead is why mantic can afford to sell models for cheap and GW cannot. Mantic is a handful of guys in a tiny office with little to no overhead.
I agree...there is obviously a very large balancing act behind making that decision. There are a lot of companies who could do with expanding their market by lowering prices - it's just up to them whether or not they do that. You increase sales and profit, but then people complain about diminishing the value of your product etc. That's an entire book in itself. I think GW could massively increase its profits with some well made pricing decisions...but they're not required to do so. As long as they feel they're making a comfortable profit that they're happy with - I guess they'll keep on keepin' on.
Funnily enough I like the look of a lot of the mantic figures. There are a few, the Basileans for example that had major problems (gg manufacturing in China) but not much worse than GW's Empire Troops (who, while the individual sculpts might be crisper, also look just as bad). Their Deadzone stuff is pretty spot on though, very good quality from what I've seen. So that too is subjective.
I agree...there is obviously a very large balancing act behind making that decision. There are a lot of companies who could do with expanding their market by lowering prices - it's just up to them whether or not they do that. You increase sales and profit, but then people complain about diminishing the value of your product etc. That's an entire book in itself. I think GW could massively increase its profits with some well made pricing decisions...but they're not required to do so. As long as they feel they're making a comfortable profit that they're happy with - I guess they'll keep on keepin' on.
They aren't required to do so, but if they don't they do need to live with people complaining about them being overpriced
I think the bundles are a good compromise for lowering prices because having high prices on base kits creates a higher perceived value and then the bundles make it feel like you're getting a great deal (even though in reality it probably only brings them closer to the competition).
But still I think they have a long way to go with them. If they start offering more flexible bundles that still offer savings it'll go a long way to stopping people complaining about pricing (except in Australia where they've gone full stupid on pricing ).
It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.
The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.
In one of the podcast interviews with Rick Priestly, think it was 40K Raido, he made the comment that one of the drivers of GW miniature prices was the increase in size and complexity. Mantic and Perry figures, from the ones I worked with, are two to three piece models. A single marine can have a dozen pieces on him. A bigger model requires a bigger sprue. More pieces and bigger pieces require more machine time which is a huge driver. It can be the difference between a mold costing $1,000 and $100,000. Renedra who has done work for Mantic and the Perrys still relies on 3:1 scale models to physically transfer to metal molds. A less detailed method compared to the 3D modeling of companies like GW.
GW:
- Have chosen to increase the complexity of their models, if this has driven the price past the optimum volume-margin sweet spot then it was a bad choice.
- own their own machines and all other tech from design to manufacture, and aren't funding another company's existence for the purpose of making the product.
- are significantly more expensive than equivalent models with greater detail (but one has to look outside wargaming models and that inevitably leads to the conversation getting bogged down in the pedantry of how it isn't a fair comparison cause reasons.)
- have a production cost of ~23% and yet a net profit of 10% from their core business (as per last report.) The remaining 67% of their revenue is spent on costs outside the design and production of models.
- also make relatively simple models with a few pieces (the lesser daemons, zombies, skeletons etc) yet still charge substantially more for them.
There just isn't a compelling argument that any perceived or actual difference in the models in any way justifies the degree of price difference. I'm not even arguing that GW minis don't justify a premium, it's just the magnitude of the premium is disproportionate based solely on product.
Neither of which inherently saves money. Sure, it takes extra time to sculpt details, but GW design staff are on salary, so it isn't like GW are paying massively more in commission fees. Even if one made the argument that Mantic also had salaried designers, and were paying less salary than GW and attracting less talented people, the averaged out cost per mini sold would still be tiny.
Equally, bendy weaponry is an easy thing to address, and likely stems more from a certain naivety as Mantic go through a learning process like most companies do when developing a product. It isn't something that's going to make a massive saving in production by shaving a few microns off the thickness of a sword blade.
One could make the argument that the issues you mention means Mantic couldn't possibly ask a higher price for their models, it doesn't answer the question of how they can sell for the price they do and still make money.
Then you have companies like the Perrys who surely must be deemed GW quality, as former GW sculptors manufacturing in a material essentially the same as GW.
It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.
The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.
Right, and you're not at all biased. I get it man, GW done you wrong. They are literal Satan, their minis are only worth $5.
It's almost impossible to justify the price difference on any technical difference between GW and others, any greater expense on GW's part must at least partially be offset by economies in other areas, and when averaged out in a cost per mini basis (which, given the greater volume GW shifts will require much greater costs to have the same impact than the smaller companies) will barely be measurable.
The answer is simply what's already been touched on, GW are painted into a corner, overhead wise, and simply cannot afford to cut prices at a stroke. What we are seeing from nuGW going forward is a gradual drive to increase volume by offering bundles etc on some product (mostly those that have had their first flush and recouped their development costs.) Greater volume gives more stability and relieves the pressure on the need to generate ever greater returns from ever fewer people, but doesn't change the reality that a huge percentage of GW's revenue is spent on non-production expenses, and while that remains, they will be obligated to charge more than competitors who are financially leaner and more nimble.
In one of the podcast interviews with Rick Priestly, think it was 40K Raido, he made the comment that one of the drivers of GW miniature prices was the increase in size and complexity. Mantic and Perry figures, from the ones I worked with, are two to three piece models. A single marine can have a dozen pieces on him. A bigger model requires a bigger sprue. More pieces and bigger pieces require more machine time which is a huge driver. It can be the difference between a mold costing $1,000 and $100,000. Renedra who has done work for Mantic and the Perrys still relies on 3:1 scale models to physically transfer to metal molds. A less detailed method compared to the 3D modeling of companies like GW.
No, GW is literally Satan for increasing costs. Why can't they operate under the same budget Mantic does??? /s
Reducing arguments based on facts and evidence to "hatred" really is your go-to isn't it?
If you've got no comeback, I'd just not post if I were you, you wouldn't want to look like one of those white knights who resort to ad homs and straw men the instant they run out of anything resembling a coherent argument, would you?
I mean posting..
their minis are only worth $5.
Immediately after I've just written that I feel GW can justify a premium for their models doesn't come across as you're really grasping the argument does it?
Azreal13 wrote: Reducing arguments based on facts and evidence to "hatred" really is your go-to isn't it?
If you've got no comeback, I'd just not post if I were you, you wouldn't want to look like one of those white knights who resort to ad homs and straw men the instant they run out of anything resembling a coherent argument, would you?
Why? It's pretty obvious you don't listen to reasons or facts, only the "GW is evil" narrative. Seriously, look at the quality of miniatures like the Perrys and Mantic, and then go look at the new stuff GW is putting out like Magnus and the Sylvaneth. They're in a completely different class than anything put out, except maybe by Privateer Press.
I'll give you their base units are overpriced, no one's arguing that, but saying that the minis should cost roughly the same as what companies like the Perrys do is absolutely false. Silent25 hit the nail on the head with the amount of sprues/pieces per model and that just adds to the cost.
They look different! The tech is fundamentally the same!
GW spend approximately one quarter of their income on making and designing new kits. This is fact.
They make approximately 10% profit on making selling models. This is also fact.
Therefore almost two thirds of the money they generate is spent on things that isn't making and designing new models. Another fact.
Therefore they must charge a lot more for their kits than other companies to meet the obligations they have or make a huge loss.
They spend almost twice as money on things that aren't making new models as they do making new models.
Their overhead is a major driver of their pricing, far in excess of any money spent on making their product.
I'll give you their base units are overpriced, no one's arguing that, but saying that the minis should cost roughly the same as what companies like the Perrys do is absolutely false.
They're all HIPS injection mounded kits, the tech is the same.
These are 40 for £20.
Spoiler:
These (your example) are £18 for 10.
Spoiler:
Now, I'd concede that there's a certain level of detail in the GW kit that's missing in the Perrys, but to justify almost 4x the cost per mini?
Not in a million years.
The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.
Which is my (and not only mine) point. GW has a large financial obligation outside of the business of making and designing miniatures. This is the key driver to their high prices, trying to justify it with differences in tech or aesthetic choices doesn't hold water because the inherent cost of those things doesn't make up anywhere near the amount of difference in costs to explain it.
Azreal13 wrote: They're all HIPS injection mounded kits, the tech is the same.
These are 40 for £20.
Spoiler:
These (your example) are £18 for 10.
Spoiler:
Now, I'd concede that there's a certain level of detail in the GW kit that's missing in the Perrys, but to justify almost 4x the cost per mini?
Not in a million years.
The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.
Which is my (and not only mine) point. GW has a large financial obligation outside of the business of making and designing miniatures. This is the key driver to their high prices, trying to justify it with differences in tech or aesthetic choices doesn't hold water because the inherent cost of those things doesn't make up anywhere near the amount of difference in costs to explain it.
Yeah, while the GW models are clearly sharper in detail, a price difference of almost 400% is a little ridiculous.
Azreal13 wrote: They're all HIPS injection mounded kits, the tech is the same.
These are 40 for £20.
Spoiler:
These (your example) are £18 for 10.
Spoiler:
Now, I'd concede that there's a certain level of detail in the GW kit that's missing in the Perrys, but to justify almost 4x the cost per mini?
Not in a million years.
Debateable. I wouldn't agree 4x, but I think it's easily 2.5x or 3x, especially the newer kits.
The overhead is higher, but to my knowledge Perry minis don't have full fledged stores, Warhammer World, etc.
Which is my (and not only mine) point. GW has a large financial obligation outside of the business of making and designing miniatures. This is the key driver to their high prices, trying to justify it with differences in tech or aesthetic choices doesn't hold water because the inherent cost of those things doesn't make up anywhere near the amount of difference in costs to explain it.
Again, debatable. Saying it's the key driver of prices is iffy because A) the detail of kits has improved and B) GW having a presence outside of making and designing minis is only considered a negative because GW is still viewed as a miniatures company, even though their IPs have expanded into books, games, etc. No one complains about Disney's absurd price gouging on movies because Disney is viewed as an entertainment company and things like Disney World are business expenses to keep Disney on top.
Azreal13 wrote: They look different! The tech is fundamentally the same!
Having had to become familiar with plastic injection molding design for work through classes and industry shows. I will tell you the tech can be very different and there are a number of costs that can effect it. You're arguing that a subcompact and sports car should cost the same because both are cars.
No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.
I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, debatable. Saying it's the key driver of prices is iffy because A) the detail of kits has improved
I'm sorry, you're going to have to join the dots for me between "the models are better" and "GW have to spend millions on rent and utilities every year before they even open the doors."
and B) GW having a presence outside of making and designing minis is only considered a negative because GW is still viewed as a miniatures company, even though their IPs have expanded into books, games, etc. No one complains about Disney's absurd price gouging on movies because Disney is viewed as an entertainment company and things like Disney World are business expenses to keep Disney on top.
We know that they're still a miniatures company because a) that's what they call themselves and b) that's where they make most of their money. I've no idea what you're talking about with Disney, I went to see Rogue One this week and paid the same for a ticket as I would for any other movie, maybe it's different in the US?
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.
I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.
Still you are arguing on an arbitrary cost difference between the two. It's still saying, "A sports car should be only twice as expensive as a subcompact because it's only twice as complex as a subcompact. They are both cars so there is no reason why one should so much more than the other."
If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"
If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.
I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.
Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"
If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.
I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.
Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"
I'm not arguing on anything arbitrary.
£20 for 40 Perry models, £18 for 10 GW of similar size and complexity.
That's what I'm arguing on, a price difference in the order of 400%.
That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked is my opinion, which, you know, I'm allowed to have.
That the Perry kit is a recent release and that the GW kit has not only long since recouped its development cost but actually had its contents reduced without a commensurate drop in price further inform some my opinion that the premium asked isn't justified.
Personally I think the skill needed is much higher making historical models.
If you're making a ww2 tank and have the wrong amount of panels or rivets or gun type or barrel size etc etc, you've got a shed load of angry historical people villifying your product. GW can just slap more skull acne on a model and it's considered fine. Much less effort in design.
At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.
Gimgamgoo wrote: Personally I think the skill needed is much higher making historical models.
If you're making a ww2 tank and have the wrong amount of panels or rivets or gun type or barrel size etc etc, you've got a shed load of angry historical people villifying your product. GW can just slap more skull acne on a model and it's considered fine. Much less effort in design.
I think you're giving historical model makers more credit than they deserve. It isn't that hard to find imagery of WW2 weapons, tanks, and reproduce in plastic mold form. In fact, I'd argue it's so easy, tons of companies do it already.
At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.
And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?
If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.
I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.
Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"
I'm not arguing on anything arbitrary.
£20 for 40 Perry models, £18 for 10 GW of similar size and complexity.
That's what I'm arguing on, a price difference in the order of 400%.
That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked is my opinion, which, you know, I'm allowed to have.
That the Perry kit is a recent release and that the GW kit has not only long since recouped its development cost but actually had its contents reduced without a commensurate drop in price further inform some my opinion that the premium asked isn't justified.
Just to put your point of "That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked" in perspective.
How can the Perry's ask for £20 for 40 Perry models when I can get these solders for £2.5 for 36!
Spoiler:
Yes I admit the Perry figures are more detailed but nothing justifies a 750% premium! They are both plastic injected figs!
Detail can be a big factor that goes back to my original point of additional machine time to get that detail drives up the cost of a fig. That we're seeing similar pricing from other high detail plastic figures like Kingdom Death, Wyrd, and PP means that those costs are not arbitrary. I will also insist that GW's plastic quality is still better than any of those companies.
Gimgamgoo wrote: At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.
And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?
In general terms... no? Certainly not when it comes to the figures.
As a general rule - and I acknowledge there are some exceptions - most people you would classify as "anti-GW" will give credit when GW produce a sculpt they like. They might gripe about the price, or the rules attached to it, but the sculpt will normally get credit if credit is due...
Gimgamgoo wrote: Personally I think the skill needed is much higher making historical models.
If you're making a ww2 tank and have the wrong amount of panels or rivets or gun type or barrel size etc etc, you've got a shed load of angry historical people villifying your product. GW can just slap more skull acne on a model and it's considered fine. Much less effort in design.
I think you're giving historical model makers more credit than they deserve. It isn't that hard to find imagery of WW2 weapons, tanks, and reproduce in plastic mold form. In fact, I'd argue it's so easy, tons of companies do it already.
At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.
And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?
I expect a large amount of your 'GW haters' have a vast collection of GW models/figures/toy soldiers.
The only thing I dislike about GW is their bizarre grip on the people that play GW games to not accept other games or figure styles.
GW can make whatever figures and games they want as far as I care. If they produce something I like, I'll buy it. I won't however be held in thrall by them to anyone game system or manufacturer.
And in a Phineas and Ferb voice, the answer to the OP is clearly "No... no we can't".
If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.
I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.
Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"
I'm not arguing on anything arbitrary.
£20 for 40 Perry models, £18 for 10 GW of similar size and complexity.
That's what I'm arguing on, a price difference in the order of 400%.
That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked is my opinion, which, you know, I'm allowed to have.
That the Perry kit is a recent release and that the GW kit has not only long since recouped its development cost but actually had its contents reduced without a commensurate drop in price further inform some my opinion that the premium asked isn't justified.
Just to put your point of "That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked" in perspective.
How can the Perry's ask for £20 for 40 Perry models when I can get these solders for £2.5 for 36!
Spoiler:
Yes I admit the Perry figures are more detailed but nothing justifies a 750% premium! They are both plastic injected figs!
Detail can be a big factor that goes back to my original point of additional machine time to get that detail drives up the cost of a fig. That we're seeing similar pricing from other high detail plastic figures like Kingdom Death, Wyrd, and PP means that those costs are not arbitrary. I will also insist that GW's plastic quality is still better than any of those companies.
Kindly stop misrepresenting my arguments. Nowhere have I said any scale of premium is impossible to justify.
But if you're going to take this line, I'll just cite using rocks and twigs from the garden and declare all other options a massive waste of time and we'll call the discussion done.
If you want to carry on comparing fundamentally similar products aimed at a fundamentally similar market made by a fundamentally similar process, then by all means..
You may even want to share some of this knowledge of HIPS injection moulding to explain why GW is better and warrants the asking price?
Gimgamgoo wrote: At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.
And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?
In general terms... no? Certainly not when it comes to the figures.
As a general rule - and I acknowledge there are some exceptions - most people you would classify as "anti-GW" will give credit when GW produce a sculpt they like. They might gripe about the price, or the rules attached to it, but the sculpt will normally get credit if credit is due...
Indeed.
For example, I have not seen a single solitary person say anything bad about the model quality of the recent Genestealer cultists.
Even the most blazing "GW-hater" will agree that the GW range contain awesome models as well as hideous stuff.
The "GW-fanboys" are the ones prematurely writing off entire ranges.
As if these:
While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.
So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?
Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.
Kindly stop misrepresenting my arguments. Nowhere have I said any scale of premium is impossible to justify.
But if you're going to take this line, I'll just cite using rocks and twigs from the garden and declare all other options a massive waste of time and we'll call the discussion done.
If you want to carry on comparing fundamentally similar products aimed at a fundamentally similar market made by a fundamentally similar process, then by all means..
You may even want to share some of this knowledge of HIPS injection moulding to explain why GW is better and warrants the asking price?
I'm pointing out the problem with the argument you are making. Yes you are making an opinion, but the fact that you are using an inferior product to justify why another's price shouldn't be so high is a poor example.
I have already stated difference in how machine time affects the cost of the mold and that drives the costs upward. That by your own admission, the Perry figures made recently aren't as detailed as a fifteen year old kit from GW should tell you something about work being done on these molds. The Perrys can't replicate the detail of figures they did 15 years ago at another company means they are unable to justify the cost going into make those molds.
Just to compare the Perry sprue and the GW sprue. First off, as already pointed out, there is more detail in the GW sprue. That means more machine time was done on it, more money. Likely requiring a finer machine bit which likely wears out faster and needs to be replaced, more money. The Perrys use Renedra who still use 3:1 models to transfer and machine to mold. GW uses CAD software. This adds a software and licensing cost on top of sculptor costs. They use a 3D printer to produce prototypes, another cost.
Was water cooling used in the mold for temperature control? That reduces warpage. More machine time. How long is the sprue allowed to cool before it's ejected? That also reduces warpage and that slows down production time, so that means they are not able to produce as much. To recoup production costs they have to charge more. Is post work done on the molds? More labor costs. GW's production is in house so they have a key interest in controlling quality. Renedra is a contractor in this case, their priority is finishing the production run as fast as possible to get onto the next client. As long as the warpage is withing contractual obligations, they are fine. A common trick contracts try to pull on you is to send you approval for a piece by next daying the piece to you and demanding immediate feedback. It can take a few weeks for a piece to warp to it's maximum deformation.
The GW sprue is larger requiring a larger mold and block of material to work with. More costs for material. The larger mold means the machine is larger used. Larger machines are more expensive. Larger machines require more power to operate and more maintenance. All which require more money.
Lastly, GW's production is in house, so all maintenance and repair costs are passed into overhead which is passed into the product. The Perrys only need to use Renedra for a single run each time, so only a portion of overhead costs are passed onto them. Bringing production in house doesn't reduce cost, it increases quality. By sticking with contractors you avoid all the costs associated with owning and maintaining those machines, but very often at a sacrifice to quality control.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Zywus you're also pointing to GW figures that are a decade or plus old. A bit of cherry picking in comparisons against more recent models. Also you are comparing a plastic to a resin. Resin figure quality is almost always superior to plastic.
silent25 wrote: Just to put your point of "That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked" in perspective.
How can the Perry's ask for £20 for 40 Perry models when I can get these solders for £2.5 for 36!
Spoiler:
Yes I admit the Perry figures are more detailed but nothing justifies a 750% premium! They are both plastic injected figs!
Detail can be a big factor that goes back to my original point of additional machine time to get that detail drives up the cost of a fig. That we're seeing similar pricing from other high detail plastic figures like Kingdom Death, Wyrd, and PP means that those costs are not arbitrary. I will also insist that GW's plastic quality is still better than any of those companies.
The army men are single piece made from a much softer plastic.
Comparing Perry vs a lot of GW kits, they're both hard plastic, they have similar fidelity, they are multi-part kits.
When making the comparison between Perry plastics and GW plastics we aren't really comparing some of GW's more complicated kits that require several large sprues to make only a few models nor are we comparing the low-run plastic character clampack models. Perry doesn't make stuff that is comparable to that so no comparison can be drawn. If you want to make a comparison like that you have to look to a company other than Perry.
We're comparing the likes of basic Orcs, Termagants, Cadians, Empire Spearmen, etc. That basic infantry that makes up the bulk of many 40k/WHFB armies which aren't higher quality or higher detail than Perry's stuff, they aren't manufactured with any significant difference, but cost 4 times the price.
@Zywus you're also pointing to GW figures that are a decade or plus old. A bit of cherry picking in comparisons against more recent models. Also you are comparing a plastic to a resin. Resin figure quality is almost always superior to plastic.
But you already stated that GW figures made 15 years ago are superior to anything the Perry's could possibly make.
My main observation from your longer post though...
You confuse "detail" with "clutter".
If I buy a historical model that is meant to be in a plain robe, I don't want it covered in embossed runes, skulls or spikes and chains. If I can see the clasp fastening the robe, that's the detail I needed. That doesn't mean the sculpter or mold maker has less skill or technicality to a GW one. It means they've made what they wanted to achieve and produced what the customer wants or is historically accurate.
A figure covered in busy clutter for the sake of it, does not necessarily mean a better quality figure. Please get down from that rather high horse you seem to be on.
@Silent25.
The last time I asked my friend who worked at GW Nottingham manufacturing site.
He told me that the cost of plastic injection moulding sprues was about 2% of the retail price.
In fact the cardboard box they put the sprues in was more expensive to produce than the sprues inside it!(In terms of design material and artwork etc.)
This is why is is MUCH cheaper for GW to send out a complete replacement box of minatures, than to refund the purchase price.
The cost of manufacturing the metal mold plates is quite high, but no where near as high as it was before all the C.N.C milling and CAD moddeling technology GW bought.(It is MUCH more cost efficient than the old technology that Rendra still use.Thats why GW PLC bought it !)
The large moulds GW use are made to fit their own machines.And cost about £10k-£15k.These metal moulds last ages,(some have produces millions of sprues.)
Under the old plastic moulding method , when GW were still selling lots of white metal minatures,because metal moulds cost ten times as much as this to make!(And were smaller size due to the cost of manufacturing.)
GW plc gross costs excluding logistics and retail are about 24% of turn over.(Appx 8% cover ALL manufacturing costs.The other 16 % covers ALL remaining non retail or logistic costs.)
I can not fault the way GW plc invested in top end plastic manufacturing technology!Nor do I question the comparative quality of thier kits in terms of technical methods used.
Its just GW plc specifically stated the move to plastic minatures was '..to lower the cost of entry to new customers.As plastic production rewards high volumes of sales, so expect the core units of your army to be converted to plastic in the near future...'
Which lasted until the 'Gold Swords' experiment , let the sales department know they could charge what they liked for plastic minatures.And a few people would still buy them.
If GW was 'a minatures company first and foremost', it would ditch the retail chain and just produce excellent minatures at competitive prices and use volume of production to make massive profits off cheap to make quality minatures.
IF GW plc is a games company, they would write excellent rules to inspire gamers to play and engage other people in thier great games.(Word of mouth marketing.)
Supported by high quality minatures at competitive prices , due to high volumes of sales from the excellent games.
Some Hobby centers to engage with new players could be supported under this types of set up.
(Eg sort of how GW used to be ages ago..)
Then GW plc would be better. EG Citadel Minatures or actual Games Workshop.
Until GW plc can decide what it is supposed to be , and make focused efforts to move in a clear direction.It will continue to be as ''fat and lazy' as Tom Kirby himself called it in 2007.
So, just because I'm curious; which material is more expensive to work with - metal, or plastic?
I ask, because I'm trying to figure out if the YĀN HUǑ being 150SEK (Swedish kronor) versus the Acolyte Iconward's 180SEK makes sense based on materials used. After all, GW did claim that they replaced metal with Finecast because it was cheaper (and then hiked the prices) before getting rid of Finecast in favor of plastic.
The sad part is there's nothing wrong with that resin if used correctly, their quality was crap because they tried to use spin molds with a material designed to be poured.
And even with replacements at 13p a gallon there was no excuse for the price hikes.
@Mangod.
From the info I have.
Metal and resin moulds are quite cheap to make and are most cost effective for small runs.
(As the moulds wear out much faster than the hard metal moulds used for injection plastic moulding.)
The white metal used is the most expensive material, with resin being significantly cheaper and lighter .(To reduce shipping costs.)
Both hold similar amounts of detail which is slightly better than the best multipart injection moulded plastic.
This higher quality definition and cheaper short run for these materials make them the ideal for character/special detailed display models, that people buy a few of.
(When Mantic replaced poured metal to poured resin for thier special units they halved the cost per minature to the customer.)
The plastic manufature cost much more to set up , but after the initial costs each sprue only uses a few pennies worth of plastic.(GWs set up can produce 1000s of sprues per day.)
So most companies that use plastic manufacture use them for high volume runs.(EG the core units in an army that people buy lots of.)
However, it seem GW plc pricing runs contrary to the economies of scale all other plastic manufacturers use.
hobojebus wrote: The sad part is there's nothing wrong with that resin if used correctly, their quality was crap because they tried to use spin molds with a material designed to be poured.
And even with replacements at 13p a gallon there was no excuse for the price hikes.
I'm pretty sure finecast was injection moulded, not spun cast (look at the sprue layout of finecast models, it screams "injected" not "spun").
Spin casting probably would have had a better chance It's almost impossible to avoid getting bubbles in resin when it's mixed, so those bubbles need somewhere to go. When you inject in to a mould like it appears finecast has been done, those bubbles just get trapped.
silent25 wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: @Zywus you're also pointing to GW figures that are a decade or plus old. A bit of cherry picking in comparisons against more recent models. Also you are comparing a plastic to a resin. Resin figure quality is almost always superior to plastic.
Not at all. While those GW figures are older, they are still more expensive than the ones I compared with. While the figures are older, they are what GW are selling now (well, not the archers, since GW lose that comparasion on walkover nowadays ) . If your models start to look outdated, that's your problem, not the customer's. Lower the price, update the sculpts, or lose the comparison. Anyway, the age and price of the models I picked are irrelevant for the point I was making.
Namely that: not even "haters" dismiss the quality of the entire GW range (although people might not be prepared the price GW is demanding for their figures), while on the other hand "fanboys" tend to disregard everything not GW despite there being serious competition with basically any single kit GW makes.
It's funny you mention resin vs HIPS, since this tend to be the last refuge of cornered GW apologists since no one else can match GW's quantity of HIPS kits. When people point out the (arguable) superiority of quality and (less arguably) superior price to £ ratio of competing kits. The last holdout is often something to the tune of "But the GW kit is HIPS and thus superior because plastic glue, conversion ease etc.".
Mangod wrote: So, just because I'm curious; which material is more expensive to work with - metal, or plastic?
Metal and resin have lower start up costs but involve more time consuming manual work to actually cast the parts. So the cost of casting 1 model is high, but the cost of casting the next 100 doesn't get massively cheaper.
Plastic has a high start up cost because you need injection moulding machines a machined metal moulds to withstand the pressure of the casting process, but once you've machined your moulds and set up the casting machine and cast 1 model, it costs very little to cast an additional 100 models.
So metal and resin are cheaper for short runs, plastic is cheaper for big runs.
Davor wrote: While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.
So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?
Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.
Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.
The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it
Davor wrote: While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.
Indeed, GW models may be too expensive for people to find sufficient value in. I was referring to those models as they're the most recent ones I can recall whose design (in a vacuum, and not connected to any pricing or rules issues) were met with near-universal praise. Pointing out that it's a fallacy to claim people are slagging GW design off unfairly. If anything GW gets away with many of their design decisions (wonky proportions, silly over-greebling, plain ugly stuff) far too easy, since they have a coterie of addicts that buy whatever they release just because it's GW stuff.
Davor wrote: While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.
So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?
Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.
Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.
The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it
Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).
Davor wrote: While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.
So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?
Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.
Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.
The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it
Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).
It is still expensive even with the overkill box to say nothing of if I can't get that box. Saying oh well the price is fine if you buy this other board games and use the figures doesn't really help the problem
Davor wrote: While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.
So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?
Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.
Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.
The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it
Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).
It is still expensive even with the overkill box to say nothing of if I can't get that box. Saying oh well the price is fine if you buy this other board games and use the figures doesn't really help the problem
Of course it does. You get exactly the same HQ as if you are buying the according box. And you get 28 hybrids + 4 aberrants which you don't need to buy separately. That is already a substantial part of most GSC armies. And that for 140 € (before discount) which is better than most other armies receive. Quite a lot of people would be very happy to get such a possibility to start their armies.
Yes but it doesn't change the fact that actually building on to the Army is in my opinion prohibitively expensive. The problem has never been starting, it's been once you graduate to actually building up a decent Army for regular gaming
Well, I disagree. It's something to start and gradually build on. Especially the possibility to combine with Tyranids and Imperial Army makes it rather easy to build GSC.
And if you have several hundred dollars of disposable income it's by no means "prohibitive".
I bought so far a Goliath and an additional box of Hybrids and slowly but surely getting to a full size GSC army (--> Slowly because I'm most likely one of the slowest painter on earth).
Wayniac wrote: Yes but it doesn't change the fact that actually building on to the Army is in my opinion prohibitively expensive. The problem has never been starting, it's been once you graduate to actually building up a decent Army for regular gaming
I would recommend getting out of the mind set that you need to build a tournament sized army to play with. Collect GSC for Kill Team, Inq28, Combat Patrol or maybe just play at 1000 points. £25 for 10 Hybrid Neophytes is great value in my eyes. The Acolytes are a bit pricey but DW:OK gives you enough for a good price. GSC are a horde army, and horde armies are going to be amongst the most expensive to make a 2000 point army with - that's just the nature of wargames - but you don't have to be boxed in to playing at 2000 points.
Except when people don't want to play less. Trust me, I'm usually the (lone) voice arguing for small point games. I prefer 1k points for AoS and ~1250 for 40k (enough to have one centerpiece but not overpowering). It does absolutely nothing when everyone else is "Yeah no I want 2k points so I can use <insert kewl formation here>". At that point, either I give up or I give in to what the "majority" wants. Kill Team, Inq28 (nobody does this at all I've seen) or Combat Patrol (nobody does this either) doesn't mean anything if I'd be sitting at the GW store all day with nobody willing to play, people already seem to hate playing Kill Team (I usually see people outright refuse to play it, they'd rather wait another and see if anyone shows up for "real" 40k than play a game of Kill Team in the interim). You are super optimistic I think because of your area. Mine is, while not as bad as others (auticus' springs to mind), mainly higher points and that's it. If you play less, either you team up with someone to play against the guy who wants 2k points, or you just don't get a game at all. I'm working on trying to change that mindset, but it's insanely hard when I'm the only one arguing for it.
Lanrak wrote: @Mangod.
From the info I have.
Metal and resin moulds are quite cheap to make and are most cost effective for small runs.
(As the moulds wear out much faster than the hard metal moulds used for injection plastic moulding.)
The white metal used is the most expensive material, with resin being significantly cheaper and lighter .(To reduce shipping costs.)
Both hold similar amounts of detail which is slightly better than the best multipart injection moulded plastic.
This higher quality definition and cheaper short run for these materials make them the ideal for character/special detailed display models, that people buy a few of.
(When Mantic replaced poured metal to poured resin for thier special units they halved the cost per minature to the customer.)
The plastic manufature cost much more to set up , but after the initial costs each sprue only uses a few pennies worth of plastic.(GWs set up can produce 1000s of sprues per day.)
So most companies that use plastic manufacture use them for high volume runs.(EG the core units in an army that people buy lots of.)
However, it seem GW plc pricing runs contrary to the economies of scale all other plastic manufacturers use.
So GW might be screwing themselves over by making one-off models like Forgefather Vulkan He'stan in plastic, when plastic used to be reserved for stuff that needed to be sold in bulk, i.e. Tac Squads?
It's possible to use a cheaper method of making plastic injection moulds. Chiefly by using a cheaper, softer, metal, which takes a lot less effort to machine.
The softer metal will wear out more quickly, but for character models where the production runs are likely to be shorter, that's not too much of an issue.
Kindly stop misrepresenting my arguments. Nowhere have I said any scale of premium is impossible to justify.
But if you're going to take this line, I'll just cite using rocks and twigs from the garden and declare all other options a massive waste of time and we'll call the discussion done.
If you want to carry on comparing fundamentally similar products aimed at a fundamentally similar market made by a fundamentally similar process, then by all means..
You may even want to share some of this knowledge of HIPS injection moulding to explain why GW is better and warrants the asking price?
I'm pointing out the problem with the argument you are making. Yes you are making an opinion, but the fact that you are using an inferior product to justify why another's price shouldn't be so high is a poor example.
"Inferior" is highly subjective. By what magnitude is substantially more so. One could even argue that the purpose intended for both and Imperial Guard squad and the Perry Civil War minis is to fill out the rank and file bulk of an army, something where extra (excess?) detail is largely redundant and in fact designing a product that sells at a much lower price makes it the superior option.
I have already stated difference in how machine time affects the cost of the mold and that drives the costs upward. That by your own admission, the Perry figures made recently aren't as detailed as a fifteen year old kit from GW should tell you something about work being done on these molds. The Perrys can't replicate the detail of figures they did 15 years ago at another company means they are unable to justify the cost going into make those molds.
Can't or simply haven't to keep costs down? Either way, you've still failed to attach numbers to this extra machine time. You're also assuming that machine time for a GW employee somehow costs more or the same as machine time from a third party manufacturer. This is really unlikely as GW will pay the cost (and only the cost) of running the machine whereas a third party will be making a profit per hour of machine time their client has used.
Just to compare the Perry sprue and the GW sprue. First off, as already pointed out, there is more detail in the GW sprue. That means more machine time was done on it, more money. Likely requiring a finer machine bit which likely wears out faster and needs to be replaced, more money. The Perrys use Renedra who still use 3:1 models to transfer and machine to mold. GW uses CAD software. This adds a software and licensing cost on top of sculptor costs. They use a 3D printer to produce prototypes, another cost.
What, and the 3:1 process is free? GW have their design staff on salary, I'm sure they pay less per sculpt than practically anyone else in the industry. Again, without numbers, the point about bits, machine time etc, is meaningless. Are they spending an extra 3%? An extra 10%? Again, owning their own production facilities means they're only paying what it costs them to make it, whereas Perrys et al are paying someone else to do it, this will offset the cost difference notably.
Was water cooling used in the mold for temperature control? That reduces warpage. More machine time. How long is the sprue allowed to cool before it's ejected? That also reduces warpage and that slows down production time, so that means they are not able to produce as much. To recoup production costs they have to charge more. Is post work done on the molds? More labor costs. GW's production is in house so they have a key interest in controlling quality. Renedra is a contractor in this case, their priority is finishing the production run as fast as possible to get onto the next client. As long as the warpage is withing contractual obligations, they are fine. A common trick contracts try to pull on you is to send you approval for a piece by next daying the piece to you and demanding immediate feedback. It can take a few weeks for a piece to warp to it's maximum deformation.
Again, we encounter the direct vs indirect manufacturing savings, but as this is largely speculation and you've no basis to say Renedra don't do any of this, it can't really be considered.
The GW sprue is larger requiring a larger mold and block of material to work with. More costs for material. The larger mold means the machine is larger used. Larger machines are more expensive. Larger machines require more power to operate and more maintenance. All which require more money.
Oh, bigger, better machines are more expensive to run? Again, a totally baseless argument without numbers, and a tenuous one when even a significant difference in costs will be relatively small when averaged out over a run of thousands of models.
Lastly, GW's production is in house, so all maintenance and repair costs are passed into overhead which is passed into the product. The Perrys only need to use Renedra for a single run each time, so only a portion of overhead costs are passed onto them. Bringing production in house doesn't reduce cost, it increases quality. By sticking with contractors you avoid all the costs associated with owning and maintaining those machines, but very often at a sacrifice to quality control.
Who do you think ultimately pays the repair and maintenance costs of a contractor's machines? Hint: The money doesn't come out of thin air.
Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Lol seconded.
Recent Perry plastics blow old GW plastics out of the water. Heck, they give at least half of what GW put out this year a run for it's money. And that's before we even start to consider cost.
Which plastics look better?
These:
or these?
Spoiler:
The perry minis are 40 guys for £20, while 5x2 of those monopose naked dwarfs in stiff unnatural poses are £35.
The perry models would fit right into the setting of WHFB and most fantasy settings worth their salt. I'm not sure I'd agree those mutant lumps look like fantasy. Maybe some kind of diorama about intoxicated and blind clay sculpters trying to interprate the fantasy trope of a Dwarf. But not really "Fantasy".
Weren't we talking about quality of sculpts anyway? At least that's what I've been doing. Not about if other manufacturers models looked more like GW models then GW models themselves.Obviously GW models will do that by definition.
Does anyone honesly say that the perry models here is not competitive with those mishapen lumps of dwarf-flesh when it comes to important aestetic factors such as believable proportions and poses, customizability etc.
It's always the same in these arguments.
-Someone claims GW makes the best models.
- Someone else shows arguably superior (but obviously competetive) models.
- The non-GW models are dismissed because they don't look exactly like GW models
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Lol seconded.
Recent Perry plastics blow old GW plastics out of the water. Heck, they give at least half of what GW put out this year a run for it's money. And that's before we even start to consider cost.
Which plastics look better?
These:
Spoiler:
or these?:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The perry minis are 40 guys for £20, while 5x2 of those monopose naked dwarfs in stiff unnatural poses are £35.
I do feel that the comparison is somewhat unfair, since the Perry ones are meant to be human medieval infantry, while the Fyreslayers are... well, whatever you want to class AoS as. A better comparison would be the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms.
I still maintain that the symmetrical beards on the Dwarfs make them look terrible, although that's subjective.
Zywus wrote: The perry models would fit right into the setting of WHFB and most fantasy settings worth their salt.
Weren't we talking about quality of sculpts anyway? Not about if other manufacturers models looked more like GW models then GW models themselves.
Does anyone honesly say that the perry models here is not competitive with those mishapen lumps of dwarf-flesh when it comes to important aestetic factors such as believable proportions and poses, customizability etc.
It's always the same in these arguments.
-Someone claims GW makes the best models.
- Someone else shows arguably superior (but obviously competetive models)
- The non-GW models are dismissed because they don't look exactly like GW models
Now, i'm going to say that the superior part is VERY arguable (and you'll find a lot of people willing to give your their "fine" points). Still I'm going to point out that the fyreslayer kit is more detailed than the perry one if anything else. The archers look like 5 pieces per model, the fireslayers are 8 pieces per model and they have (if not really appealing let's honest, fyreslayer players have my condolences) more detail to them,
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Lol seconded.
Recent Perry plastics blow old GW plastics out of the water. Heck, they give at least half of what GW put out this year a run for it's money. And that's before we even start to consider cost.
Which plastics look better?
These:
Spoiler:
or these?:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The perry minis are 40 guys for £20, while 5x2 of those monopose naked dwarfs in stiff unnatural poses are £35.
I do feel that the comparison is somewhat unfair, since the Perry ones are meant to be human medieval infantry, while the Fyreslayers are... well, whatever you want to class AoS as. A better comparison would be the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms.
I still maintain that the symmetrical beards on the Dwarfs make them look terrible, although that's subjective.
Does Perry have any dwarven models?
Well, my point wasn't to compare similar sculpts. It was to point out the ludicrousness of claiming the entire Perry plastic line is inferior to the entire GW plastic line.
The closest similar models they both make would indeed be the GW men at arms, which are old and massively less realistically scaled (and more expensive while they were sold)
Perry don't make dwarfs, though other manufacturers do (too many to list here). And some do it a million times better than whatever GW has "blessed" the world with cranking out those horrible AoS dwarfs.
"More detail" is not synonymous with "superior" when people actually mean "more greeble."
If you mean that the eyes, or other fine details in the face, for instance, are better defined on the Fyreslayers then fair enough, I've not seen them unpainted so I'll have no choice but to concede that point.
But let's not conflate "plastered in a bunch of stuff" as "better." Those are artistic choices, and not a measure of relative quality.
The last time I asked my friend who worked at GW Nottingham manufacturing site.
He told me that the cost of plastic injection moulding sprues was about 2% of the retail price.
In fact the cardboard box they put the sprues in was more expensive to produce than the sprues inside it!(In terms of design material and artwork etc.)
This is why is is MUCH cheaper for GW to send out a complete replacement box of minatures, than to refund the purchase price.
The cost of manufacturing the metal mold plates is quite high, but no where near as high as it was before all the C.N.C milling and CAD moddeling technology GW bought.(It is MUCH more cost efficient than the old technology that Rendra still use.Thats why GW PLC bought it !)
The large moulds GW use are made to fit their own machines.And cost about £10k-£15k.These metal moulds last ages,(some have produces millions of sprues.)
Under the old plastic moulding method , when GW were still selling lots of white metal minatures,because metal moulds cost ten times as much as this to make!(And were smaller size due to the cost of manufacturing.)
GW plc gross costs excluding logistics and retail are about 24% of turn over.(Appx 8% cover ALL manufacturing costs.The other 16 % covers ALL remaining non retail or logistic costs.)
I can not fault the way GW plc invested in top end plastic manufacturing technology!Nor do I question the comparative quality of thier kits in terms of technical methods used.
Its just GW plc specifically stated the move to plastic minatures was '..to lower the cost of entry to new customers.As plastic production rewards high volumes of sales, so expect the core units of your army to be converted to plastic in the near future...'
Which lasted until the 'Gold Swords' experiment , let the sales department know they could charge what they liked for plastic minatures.And a few people would still buy them.
If GW was 'a minatures company first and foremost', it would ditch the retail chain and just produce excellent minatures at competitive prices and use volume of production to make massive profits off cheap to make quality minatures.
IF GW plc is a games company, they would write excellent rules to inspire gamers to play and engage other people in thier great games.(Word of mouth marketing.)
Supported by high quality minatures at competitive prices , due to high volumes of sales from the excellent games.
Some Hobby centers to engage with new players could be supported under this types of set up.
(Eg sort of how GW used to be ages ago..)
Then GW plc would be better. EG Citadel Minatures or actual Games Workshop.
Until GW plc can decide what it is supposed to be , and make focused efforts to move in a clear direction.It will continue to be as ''fat and lazy' as Tom Kirby himself called it in 2007.
.
I think your friend is confusing the cost to run a mold vs the cost of designing and machining a mold. You can run that mold thousands of times without replacement. Running the mold just requires the tech to hook the mold up, put in the pellets, and hit run. Sprues are ejected into a receiving tray. It's not complicated or expensive at all and why it's attractive to go with injection molding.
@ Azrel13. Really? Retreating to needing actual price numbers now when statements of additional time and materials are show? Nice moving of the goal posts.
Zywus wrote: The perry models would fit right into the setting of WHFB and most fantasy settings worth their salt.
Weren't we talking about quality of sculpts anyway? Not about if other manufacturers models looked more like GW models then GW models themselves.
Does anyone honesly say that the perry models here is not competitive with those mishapen lumps of dwarf-flesh when it comes to important aestetic factors such as believable proportions and poses, customizability etc.
It's always the same in these arguments.
-Someone claims GW makes the best models.
- Someone else shows arguably superior (but obviously competetive models)
- The non-GW models are dismissed because they don't look exactly like GW models
Now, i'm going to say that the superior part is VERY arguable (and you'll find a lot of people willing to give your their "fine" points). Still I'm going to point out that the fyreslayer kit is more detailed than the perry one if anything else. The archers look like 5 pieces per model, the fireslayers are 8 pieces per model and they have (if not really appealing let's honest, fyreslayer players have my condolences) more detail to them,
I give the fyreslayer the edge in sharpness and amount sculpted details (although one could argue that they're too busy and over-greebled, so only the sharpness would be a positive for someone who feels that). I can't see why number of pieces have any value. What's important is how the models look when assembled.
The Perry's has a obvious edge in the poses looking natural and being costomizable.
My point though wasn't whether one kit is better than the other. It's that Perry's (and many other kits) are, if not better (which is obviously subjective), competitive from a technical standpoint even with some GW kits releases as late as this very year.
Perry don't make dwarfs, though other manufacturers do (too many to list here). And some do it a million times better than whatever GW has "blessed" the world with cranking out those horrible AoS dwarfs.
I've seen theses guys offered for what amounts to £1 each (20 for a little over £20 per box.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Azrel13. Really? Retreating to needing actual price numbers now when statements of additional time and materials are show? Nice moving of the goal posts.
We're done with this conversation.
Frankly I was done when you trotted out the picture of actual toy soldiers, but yes, GW pay less for machine time because they own the kit and employ the staff directly, so you can't actually put forward a compelling argument that GW spend more on this stuff, even if they're using what's technically a more expensive process. The costs are not equal, therefore the comparison of time taken is not equal either.
Herzlos wrote:
Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).
Again, you have proven my point. While yes I have spent thousands of dollars on GW or around there I am buying the "cheaper" or more "economically" more efficient products than the actual products that GW is producing now. I am sure GW would love for me to buy more stuff than just the "starter boxes" or "game boxes" but I haven't. It's funny I have bought more because GW has changed by making ways of getting cheaper minis, but I still don't buy because GW hasn't changed or changed for the worse when it comes to releasing individual kits.
Again it's like a drug dealer giving out free samples. GW hooks us in with the "starter sets" or "game boxes like Overkill or Deathmasque" and then start selling you the more expensive stuff.
SKR.HH wrote:[Of course it does. You get exactly the same HQ as if you are buying the according box. And you get 28 hybrids + 4 aberrants which you don't need to buy separately. That is already a substantial part of most GSC armies. And that for 140 € (before discount) which is better than most other armies receive. Quite a lot of people would be very happy to get such a possibility to start their armies.
And what happens when you can't buy Overkill anymore? Then what? What if you don't want those minis but you want the other ones that are not in the box? We are back to square one. Again the answer is not having "starter sets" or "game boxes" to fix things. They are a band aid solution for now. Thing is, you eventually have to fix the problem and economy boxes are not the answer.
@SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW...
My thought is if you put the SC pieces on the same frame as the vanilla commander of the same type, and make a master frame which is more like 8 smaller frames that can be separated, kind of like what the old Space Marine frames looked like in 3rd Edition, then they could completely mitigate the LTD run problem and eliminate the necessity for resin OR metal, and cut cost except for separating out the different subframes before packaging.
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
Herzlos wrote:
Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).
Again, you have proven my point. While yes I have spent thousands of dollars on GW or around there I am buying the "cheaper" or more "economically" more efficient products than the actual products that GW is producing now. I am sure GW would love for me to buy more stuff than just the "starter boxes" or "game boxes" but I haven't. It's funny I have bought more because GW has changed by making ways of getting cheaper minis, but I still don't buy because GW hasn't changed or changed for the worse when it comes to releasing individual kits.
Again it's like a drug dealer giving out free samples. GW hooks us in with the "starter sets" or "game boxes like Overkill or Deathmasque" and then start selling you the more expensive stuff.
SKR.HH wrote:[Of course it does. You get exactly the same HQ as if you are buying the according box. And you get 28 hybrids + 4 aberrants which you don't need to buy separately. That is already a substantial part of most GSC armies. And that for 140 € (before discount) which is better than most other armies receive. Quite a lot of people would be very happy to get such a possibility to start their armies.
And what happens when you can't buy Overkill anymore? Then what? What if you don't want those minis but you want the other ones that are not in the box? We are back to square one. Again the answer is not having "starter sets" or "game boxes" to fix things. They are a band aid solution for now. Thing is, you eventually have to fix the problem and economy boxes are not the answer.
This is a hypothetical problem because at the moment they are available. Maybe they will receive a new Starter Box before Overkill vanishes, who knows?
Perry don't make dwarfs, though other manufacturers do (too many to list here). And some do it a million times better than whatever GW has "blessed" the world with cranking out those horrible AoS dwarfs.
I've seen theses guys offered for what amounts to £1 each (20 for a little over £20 per box.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Azrel13. Really? Retreating to needing actual price numbers now when statements of additional time and materials are show? Nice moving of the goal posts.
We're done with this conversation.
Frankly I was done when you trotted out the picture of actual toy soldiers, but yes, GW pay less for machine time because they own the kit and employ the staff directly, so you can't actually put forward a compelling argument that GW spend more on this stuff, even if they're using what's technically a more expensive process. The costs are not equal, therefore the comparison of time taken is not equal either.
Did you actually ever bought those? Well, I did. And they are a pain in the ass to clean and assemble. I won't touch them even if I get money for them!
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
No, It depends entirely on what setting. There are plenty fantasy IPs out there that are very human-centric.
Don't think that the tolkienesque, humans, elves, dwarves and orcs represents some kind of golden standard or acceptance criteria for 'but, fantasy!'.
Furthermore, it depends entirely on your army. Peasants and armoured soldiers are perfect in any army requiring peasants and or armoured soldiers, Those perry minis are perfect for any pseudo-medieval, or medieval human army, irrespective of genre or IP.
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
And dwarfs don't? That argument doesn't in any way disqualify the Perry miniatures from being suited to a fantasy setting - I mean, we accepted Bretonnia as being fantasy for several years, didn't we?
SKR.HH wrote: This is a hypothetical problem because at the moment they are available. Maybe they will receive a new Starter Box before Overkill vanishes, who knows?
How many starter boxes do you expect people to buy? And even then, what about those models that are not sold with a starter at all?
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
No, It depends entirely on what setting. There are plenty fantasy IPs out there that are very human-centric.
Don't think that the tolkienesque, humans, elves, dwarves and orcs represents some kind of golden standard or acceptance criteria for 'but, fantasy!'.
Furthermore, it depends entirely on your army. Peasants and armoured soldiers are perfect in any army requiring peasants and or armoured soldiers, Those perry minis are perfect for any pseudo-medieval, or medieval human army, irrespective of genre or IP.
Also, in the Lord of the Rings humans outnumber all other races except Orcs and in the books the elves and dwarfs were not involved in the major battles against Sauron and his forces (Helms Deep, Osgiliath, Pelennor Fields, the Black Gate).
Humans have a pretty long history in Fantasy works of being the race that bears the brunt of repelling evil.
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
Maybe some fantasy settings, not others. The fantasy world I've been most immersed in recently has been The Witcher and that's mostly humans who would be well represented by a kit bash of Perry's figures.
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
Maybe some fantasy settings, not others. The fantasy world I've been most immersed in recently has been The Witcher and that's mostly humans who would be well represented by a kit bash of Perry's figures.
Perry figures would also work very well for Game of Thrones, especially the armies of the main Westeros kingdoms.
Wayniac wrote: Yes but it doesn't change the fact that actually building on to the Army is in my opinion prohibitively expensive. The problem has never been starting, it's been once you graduate to actually building up a decent Army for regular gaming
I would recommend getting out of the mind set that you need to build a tournament sized army to play with. Collect GSC for Kill Team, Inq28, Combat Patrol or maybe just play at 1000 points. £25 for 10 Hybrid Neophytes is great value in my eyes. The Acolytes are a bit pricey but DW:OK gives you enough for a good price. GSC are a horde army, and horde armies are going to be amongst the most expensive to make a 2000 point army with - that's just the nature of wargames - but you don't have to be boxed in to playing at 2000 points.
Except when people don't want to play less. Trust me, I'm usually the (lone) voice arguing for small point games. I prefer 1k points for AoS and ~1250 for 40k (enough to have one centerpiece but not overpowering). It does absolutely nothing when everyone else is "Yeah no I want 2k points so I can use <insert kewl formation here>". At that point, either I give up or I give in to what the "majority" wants. Kill Team, Inq28 (nobody does this at all I've seen) or Combat Patrol (nobody does this either) doesn't mean anything if I'd be sitting at the GW store all day with nobody willing to play, people already seem to hate playing Kill Team (I usually see people outright refuse to play it, they'd rather wait another and see if anyone shows up for "real" 40k than play a game of Kill Team in the interim). You are super optimistic I think because of your area. Mine is, while not as bad as others (auticus' springs to mind), mainly higher points and that's it. If you play less, either you team up with someone to play against the guy who wants 2k points, or you just don't get a game at all. I'm working on trying to change that mindset, but it's insanely hard when I'm the only one arguing for it.
Yeah, from what I have heard your area is really tough. Have you not made a gaming buddy that enjoys the same style of play as you? Inq28 isn't something you can play as a pickup game (or in a GW store) - I am playing a mini campaign in January with a friend. As for pick up games - I have never found an opponent unwilling to play what I want (so if I want a quick game I rock up with 1000pts and if I want a big game I bring 2000pts). I am getting back into 40k this year, and definitely doing it on my own terms (as in I don't want to keep my GSC <100 models - and if that means it's a low point army I will only play low point games with them.
I guess I must be lucky with my area but opponents are always accommodating. I hope you meet at least one opponent that likes smaller games too.
I am trying. Most people seem to want only bigger games. I did chat with someone (he plays Guard and has Minotaurs space marines) who mentioned liking smaller points, so that's a plus and at least one potential lead. Potentially a couple (they play Wolves and Blood Angels) who seem to not have a ton of models either (not sure of what exact points) who might be persuaded into it also (in which case I'd like to find another xenos player for my "team"). It's a work in progress, but very hard as there isn't much communication between people beyond "want a game". I know for a fact one of the regulars would refuse, he ONLY likes 2k points or higher because he exclusively uses a demi-company, and most of the people I see play tend to want that style as well (big games with lots of flyers/tanks, that usually have to stop at turn 3 because the store closes). The one I was watching today was another 3v3 game, probably 4k points or so that had like barely any terrain either because the 6x4 table was so cluttered with models. I don't get how people can enjoy playing like that.
You basically need to find three or four guys willing to do it, put out public games with those guys in a campaign or something, and thats how you will pull the guys on the fence over to being willing to play that style with you.
There are probably a lot of guys willing to play smaller points, but they follow the lead of the more vocal community leaders who will advocate for tournament style games. Once other events are seen where guys are playing in them that are something else, they become viable events and you will find your numbers grow a little bit.
SKR.HH wrote: And which one look like fantasy? Spoiler It's not the Perry ones.
Depends on your idea of fantasy. You mean D&D-esque? Yeah the Perry ones. You mean over the top high fantasy with weird krazy things happening? Still probably the Perry ones, but now you're getting closer into the GW aesthetics.
Why are people comparing Perry Miniatures with GW at all? Until a few years ago they worked for GW and were responsible for a lot of the LoTR miniatures and multiple sets of the "human" faction (Empire, Bretonnia, some IG, …if I remember correctly). The difference between their Perry Miniatures work and their GW work is mostly a question of stylistic choice and not about the tools. Both don't use fancy slide mould with undercuts, multiple colours, or other fancy features but seem to be two part moulds with a simple cavity.
If you compare the plastic kits they worked on for GW with the ones they did for Perry Miniatures then the quality should be relatively the same (with the exception of art direction). It's not like the work they did for GW years ago got magically "better" because they sat in an official GW office. One could simply compare their old GW work and with their Perry Miniatures work for a more objective comparison (price/miniature or sprue or whatever you want to compare).
Just to give you folks an idea how cheap it is to produce plastic minatures with GW set up at Nottingham.
A few years back GW did a costing exercise of out sourcing plastic production to China.
And found it was 30% cheaper to keep manufacturing plastic in Nottingham.
The only reason GW plc have to charge so much for their plastic minatures is the B&M retail chain eating up over 50% of their gross profit!
SKR.HH wrote: And which one look like fantasy? Spoiler It's not the Perry ones.
Depends on your idea of fantasy. You mean D&D-esque? Yeah the Perry ones. You mean over the top high fantasy with weird krazy things happening? Still probably the Perry ones, but now you're getting closer into the GW aesthetics.
D&D offers multiple races... Humans is only one of them. If you want to play humans... fine (even though it eludes me why you don't play historicals in the beginning if you seem to like that particular aesthetics)...
SKR.HH wrote: And which one look like fantasy? Spoiler It's not the Perry ones.
Depends on your idea of fantasy. You mean D&D-esque? Yeah the Perry ones. You mean over the top high fantasy with weird krazy things happening? Still probably the Perry ones, but now you're getting closer into the GW aesthetics.
D&D offers multiple races... Humans is only one of them. If you want to play humans... fine (even though it eludes me why you don't play historicals in the beginning if you seem to like that particular aesthetics)...
Because there is more to fantasy universes than what clothes the peasants press-ganged into the army wear.
How on earth did we get this far on this line and not mention North Star's Frostgrave stuff?
Spoiler:
Unquestionably Fantasy themed (it's only a small, young range as far as plastic goes, but Gnolls are already part of it) and £20-22 for 20 models, with options (the cultists come with undead parts for instance.)
Mario wrote: Why are people comparing Perry Miniatures with GW at all? Until a few years ago they worked for GW and were responsible for a lot of the LoTR miniatures and multiple sets of the "human" faction (Empire, Bretonnia, some IG, …if I remember correctly). The difference between their Perry Miniatures work and their GW work is mostly a question of stylistic choice and not about the tools. Both don't use fancy slide mould with undercuts, multiple colours, or other fancy features but seem to be two part moulds with a simple cavity.
If you compare the plastic kits they worked on for GW with the ones they did for Perry Miniatures then the quality should be relatively the same (with the exception of art direction). It's not like the work they did for GW years ago got magically "better" because they sat in an official GW office. One could simply compare their old GW work and with their Perry Miniatures work for a more objective comparison (price/miniature or sprue or whatever you want to compare).
Exactly. Having elves instead of humans doesn't justify a price increase, especially not at the level of GW's prices. Nor does GW's aesthetic choice to copy/paste skulls and purity seals over every surface of the model. The Perry stuff is equal to GW's by every objective standard, and the only differences are subjective individual taste.
Azreal13 wrote: How on earth did we get this far on this line and not mention North Star's Frostgrave stuff?
Spoiler:
Unquestionably Fantasy themed (it's only a small, young range as far as plastic goes, but Gnolls are already part of it) and £20-22 for 20 models, with options (the cultists come with undead parts for instance.)
Not only that, but they're not UBER FANTASY. It's a shame that there's a partion of the hobby community that thinks GW's stuff most accurately represents high fantasy because it's just so over the top.
Lanrak wrote: The only reason GW plc have to charge so much for their plastic minatures is the B&M retail chain eating up over 50% of their gross profit!
That would only be true if you think they'd have the same sales volume if they closed their stores. Their stores only made a small loss, so if closing all their stores also meant they lost all those sales, they wouldn't really be in any position to lower prices.
The main reason GW charge as much as they do is because that's what they want to do. They think that's what's going to make them the most amount of money. They could keep the price per box the same but double the number of models in a box and it wouldn't cost them a hell of a lot because the actual cost of casting is small. The question would be whether people would buy more or less boxes that way.
Some might buy less because they would have previously bought 4 boxes of Cadians where as with double the number of models they only have to buy 2, other people would buy the same because they were only ever going to buy 1 box, but now they get 20 models instead of 10, still other people would buy more because previously they wouldn't have bought any because they saw a Cadian army as being too expensive buy now see it as affordable.
When it comes to plastic models it's less about how much you sell each individual model for and more about how much money you can extract out of customer's wallets. The likes of Perry, Warlord and so forth don't sell their boxes more cheaply, they simply pack more models in to them.
If your business revolves around whales who must buy 100 Space Marines and they can only be Space Marines and nothing else, then charging the most money per model is going to get you the biggest profit. In a world where people have finite time, finite money and broader interests, charging more money per model isn't necessarily the way to go.
This is all talking about mass produced plastic models, when talking about resin or metal models they don't have the same economy of scale so as a manufacturer you have to think more about price per model.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: hat would only be true if you think they'd have the same sales volume if they closed their stores.
It's a pretty good approximation, at least for the US market. GW stores are few and far between, and clearly inferior to the independent stores. I can't imagine GW is making many sales from those few stores that wouldn't immediately be replaced by sales through independent stores and/or the GW website.
Their stores only made a small loss, so if closing all their stores also meant they lost all those sales, they wouldn't really be in any position to lower prices.
It's not just the loss, it's the sheer amount of money the retail chain costs. GW has to set MSRP so that a sale through a GW retail store makes a profit, or at least the smallest possible loss. If you take away all the obscene costs of running the retail chain GW can sell through alternative channels at a lower MSRP and still make a profit. That's why a lot of independent stores sell GW products at 10-20% off MSRP, they aren't burdened by GW's failed retail business so they can make a profit off a lower sale price per kit.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: hat would only be true if you think they'd have the same sales volume if they closed their stores.
It's a pretty good approximation, at least for the US market. GW stores are few and far between, and clearly inferior to the independent stores. I can't imagine GW is making many sales from those few stores that wouldn't immediately be replaced by sales through independent stores and/or the GW website.
Globally just over 41% of GW's revenue comes from GW stores, if you assume that trade sales are made at 60% of retail price, it still accounts for approximately 33% of product shifted.
I'm not convinced all of that that 33% would jump over to the webstore or FLGS's.
Their stores only made a small loss, so if closing all their stores also meant they lost all those sales, they wouldn't really be in any position to lower prices.
It's not just the loss, it's the sheer amount of money the retail chain costs. GW has to set MSRP so that a sale through a GW retail store makes a profit, or at least the smallest possible loss. If you take away all the obscene costs of running the retail chain GW can sell through alternative channels at a lower MSRP and still make a profit. That's why a lot of independent stores sell GW products at 10-20% off MSRP, they aren't burdened by GW's failed retail business so they can make a profit off a lower sale price per kit.
Well customers can already buy from those discounted locations, if we're talking about prices being inflated because of GW's high wholesale price, that can only be reduced if sales from the retail stores transfer over to webstore or FLGS when the retail stores close.
If they don't, GW won't be able to reduce their wholesale price and so independents who already sell at a discount won't magically be able to increase their discount. GW would simply reduce their revenue by a similar amount to their expenses and the net effect on profits wouldn't be small, they'd just be shifting far less product for the same profit.
Now if you do think the 33% of product shifted through stores would still be shifted through other channels, sure, I agree, they could lower their prices, but I'm just not entirely convinced that would happen.
If we do the maths here.
(Approximately rounding up etc.)
If GW plc turn over £120m.
That means the GW stores generate approx £50m of that turn over.(Allowing for maximum profit from sales, up that to about £60M)
And the stores cost them £65 approx to keep open.
Other outlets , independent retailers and the web store cost at most £1 in admin costs.And generate at least £60M in sales.
Fixed overheads cost GW plc about £30-£35M.(Including logistics.)
So worst case scenario and GW the loose all retail chain sales.
GW plc spend £35 to generate £60M turn over.Nett Profit £25M.
GW plc spend £100M to generate £120M .Nett profit £20M and lots of negative attitude.
I am not saying GW plc can just close its retail chain overnight and halve prices and all would be fine.
But NOT recognizing the value of the internet for retail and marketing to grow you business, is what has left GW plc out of touch with its customer base , and over priced when compared to companies that utilized the internet effectively.
The shift to a stronger on line presence in the late 1990s early 2000s, just leaving hobby center recruitment shops that paid their own way.Would have left GW plc is a much stronger position today.
Lanrak wrote: And the stores cost them £65 approx to keep open.
Where did you get that number? The last financial report placed retail profit at -£3.4M and retail revenue of £48.4M, which was a bigger loss than 2015 were it was -£1.5M and £49M.
So if they closed all their stores they'd be up a few million in profit, but not enough to significantly alter prices. Even in your estimates where you have stores making a £5 loss, the most they could drop prices and maintain profit would be an 8% reduction, that's hardly explaining why a Cadian is 324% more expensive than a similar model from Perry.
It's certainly not a silver bullet to lower prices and I don't think it's a good explanation of why GW's prices are high. GW's prices are high because GW set them high because they think they're at the peak of the revenue vs. price chart. They don't think lowering prices will get them enough additional sales to make up for the reduction in revenue-per-product.
Maybe 5 or 10 years ago here in Australia specifically I could have believed if GW closed their stores customers would have kept buying from independent stores and they could have lowered the wholesale price so FLGS's could lower their prices. I don't believe that would be the case anymore, FLGS's have been put off by GW enough that they no longer actively advertise GW products.
I was just using the figures I was given from some one at GWHQ.
All costs excluding retail =33% of revenue.
Subtract the Gross profit appx 15%, this leaves over 50% of turn over being used to keep the B&M stores open.
There was a clear choice in the late 1990s to move from the expensive B&M store retail model, and compete in the open market.(Internet and independent retailers.
Moving GW product in to the open market would mean quite a bit of work for GW to get their products on a competitive footing.
Keeping the B&M stores open allowed GW to isolate their customers from the open market, and brainwash them into thinking GW was the entire hobby.
I said over 5 years ago GW plc had painted them selves into a corner with their retail strategy. It is limiting the market share they can get, and they are too invested to lose any revenue from changing from it at this late stage.
In a growing market GW plc is still not growing market share as far as I can tell.Other companies without the heavy overhead of thier own retail chain are growing with the market.
I believe to only way GW plc can actually grow again is decide if its a minatures company, or a games company.
And use the proven route to success for these business types.
Telling everyone they are unique, when GW plc has just been badly managed for decades, is not going to cut it much longer IMO.
SKR.HH wrote: This is a hypothetical problem because at the moment they are available. Maybe they will receive a new Starter Box before Overkill vanishes, who knows?
Who knows? So no comments about GW prices for $30 for one mini or over $50 for 5 minis you can't get in Overkill eh? I am going to start calling you Mr Deflector. Doesn't actually address what is being talked about and talking about something else. Or are you only picking and choosing what you want to debate about so your point is correct?
Lanrak wrote: I was just using the figures I was given from some one at GWHQ.
All costs excluding retail =33% of revenue. Subtract the Gross profit appx 15%, this leaves over 50% of turn over being used to keep the B&M stores open.
There was a clear choice in the late 1990s to move from the expensive B&M store retail model, and compete in the open market.(Internet and independent retailers.
Moving GW product in to the open market would mean quite a bit of work for GW to get their products on a competitive footing.
Keeping the B&M stores open allowed GW to isolate their customers from the open market, and brainwash them into thinking GW was the entire hobby.
I said over 5 years ago GW plc had painted them selves into a corner with their retail strategy. It is limiting the market share they can get, and they are too invested to lose any revenue from changing from it at this late stage.
In a growing market GW plc is still not growing market share as far as I can tell.Other companies without the heavy overhead of thier own retail chain are growing with the market.
I believe to only way GW plc can actually grow again is decide if its a minatures company, or a games company. And use the proven route to success for these business types. Telling everyone they are unique, when GW plc has just been badly managed for decades, is not going to cut it much longer IMO.
I think at this point GW has decided they're a miniatures company that use games to sell those miniatures. Which is not necessarily a bad thing except the rules for their biggest seller are a mess because they've been stuck in a rules rut since 1998 (3rd edition).
I do think it's a natural progression that GW would lose market share. There was a time when they were the only games in town but they didn't take the opportunity to corner the market and make it hard for start ups. Instead they receded in to 40k and left the table open for competitors to grab market share.
But I tend to think of them largely as separate ruts.
You have GW's rules rut which comes about from having the same 40k rules since 3rd edition.
You have the retail rut which came from trying to conquer the world with their stores instead of using them to compliment independents.
You have their pricing rut which came from them pretending they were a Ferrari.
You have their stock size rut which comes from them relying on new releases to drive one third of their revenue (which is somewhat good for customers, but is cumbersome from a supply/storage/distribution perspective and adds to their rules woes).
auticus wrote: GW's overhead is why mantic can afford to sell models for cheap and GW cannot. Mantic is a handful of guys in a tiny office with little to no overhead.
But GW has economics of scale to go with. They are the ones that are inheritently better suited for producing cheap high quality plastics by sheer weight of numbers. Mantic is the one that should be struggling to that as they don't shift as many boxes by far.
It's GW putting price they think customers are willing to pay. Simple as that. Why ask 50 when customer pays 100?
@AllSeeingSkink.
I think we agree on the basic errors GW plc management have made ,(under the Kirby years.)
When GW actually let the game developer develop and support games that were fun to play out of the box/book.GW had its widest reaching customer base, as they catered for a wide range of ages and game play preferences.
When GW partnered with companies that gave them massive global marketing,(M B Games and New Line Cinema.)They had their biggest periods of growth.
I believe as GW plc had never bothered with any 'actual ' marketing, because these companies did it so well, T.Kirby simply thought it was his understanding of 'the niche within a niche ' business he was running that had lead to success.
Odd then that in 2007 he said GW had 'grown fat an lazy on the back of easy success', but carried on with the same 'fat and lazy' options until he was removed as C.E.O years later.
I got the impression T.Kirby had no idea how to run the large business GW plc had become, but he felt he should profit as much as possible from it while he made it a more manageable size for him to deal with, before he was replaced.... And so the choices he made reflected that.IMO.
You posted..
''I think at this point GW has decided they're a miniatures company that use games to sell those miniatures. Which is not necessarily a bad thing except the rules for their biggest seller are a mess because they've been stuck in a rules rut since 1998 (3rd edition).''
If they used games with great game play to sell minatures like game companies do.They would not need to prop up customer interest/ retention with so many new minature releases every year, at ever higher prices, to give their diminishing customer base more stuff to buy.And they would not have to isolate their customers in the 'GW hobby'
At this point GW plc use inspiring sounding rules to support new minature releases, not games with rules focused on game play.
.
Unfortunately inspiring rules to sell the latest releases, are not resulting on clarity brevity and intuitive rules to deliver the game play people expect.
I think this is why they wanted to sell their products in isolation,in their own retail chain.Because in comparison to other rule sets 40k rule books and codex books are over priced and fail to be as functional as they should be.
The cost of this isolationism (over half the gross profit GW plc make.)Is the reason GW plc have to increase prices.
@tneva82.
You are completely right about the economies of scale .
If GW plc stuck to their original plan for plastic manufacture , GW would not have needed to up prices over the rate of inflation.As a pure minatures company, GW plc could undercut the price of every competitor in the plastic soldier market!
I am not saying they should do this, but they could do this.(GW own plastic manufacturing plant has paid for itself.When its cheaper for GW to manufacture in their Nottingham site than out source production to China, it gives you an idea how cost effective GW plc manufacturing investment was! )
The choice was improve the rules to appeal to a wider audience to grow GW customer base by word of mouth.(Like they used to do in the early 1990s.)
This would support the economies of scale and let them keep prices fixed for years as higher profit off higher volume of sales.
Or.
Focus on the much smaller market of collectors who did not care about rules , but would simply be inspired to buy by the art and narrative GW plc fed them.
This would allow a shrinking of product lines , and smaller customers base, but higher profit off each minature sold.
Unfortunately for GW plc the core of fanatic price elastic collectors was not as big as they had hoped.And so GW plc has had to raise prices so fast to make up for falling sales volumes , their sales volumes are shrinking even faster.(Generally.)
Azreal13 wrote: How on earth did we get this far on this line and not mention North Star's Frostgrave stuff?
Spoiler:
Unquestionably Fantasy themed (it's only a small, young range as far as plastic goes, but Gnolls are already part of it) and £20-22 for 20 models, with options (the cultists come with undead parts for instance.)
Every time I see this I think the guy on the right has just said "I'm gonna stick this up their bum" and the middle dude is horrified.
Azreal13 wrote: How on earth did we get this far on this line and not mention North Star's Frostgrave stuff?
Spoiler:
Unquestionably Fantasy themed (it's only a small, young range as far as plastic goes, but Gnolls are already part of it) and £20-22 for 20 models, with options (the cultists come with undead parts for instance.)
Every time I see this I think the guy on the right has just said "I'm gonna stick this up their bum" and the middle dude is horrified.
wuestenfux wrote: I found that this has been the most disturbing picture regarding GW.
In this way, GW got better.
SOON
Anyway, until GW fixes 40k and make it back into the infantry focused game it was in 4th, I'm not saying its better.
Seconded.
I also miss the infantry based game in 40k. Now we have an apoc-like game at 1850 pts. That's too much and kills the game.
However, we played some 30k games mostly with infantry. Marines vs. Marines is a smooth game. No fear to get annihilated by turn 1.
Herzlos wrote: 3rded. 40k was an infantry game when I started it. The few tanks in the game were serious threats
Probably the reason so many 40k players seem to have moved to Bolt Action. The game era/background isn't the same but the gameplay is so much more like 40k was and should have become.
We all 'know' the next edition of 40k won't go back to that style of game, with the amount of huge kits GW now peddle. If anything it will be more 'unbound' gameplay with use of all the best stuff you can buy from any faction in a huge mix.
, and my 
).
