Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wayshuba wrote:
So it is a combination of GW acting like Kodak and thinking everyone still wants the same film cameras they bought in the early 90s, while other companies are selling really nice digital cameras for the 2010s.

Well, sure... Except that GW makes the best digital cameras (multipart plastic miniatures) and other companies are still selling film cameras they bought in the early 90s (metal models).....

Jussayin.

Also, Agree completely with CIssac. That Deathwing box can make about 13 terminators if you have other bits lying around. And guess what? Most GW veterans have other terminator bits just lying around... Be it from old ass models or an over abundance of Black Reach Terminators. Or hell, even the new DV terminators can be pretty easily weapon swapped.

And I think GW plans on this, as they know there are going to be plenty of vets that can take that $60 deathwing box and make more than just the 5 models included...

 Pacific wrote:

Funny you should say that - I've heard someone say that they couldn't go back to playing 40k again after Infinity, as it felt like playing a 16-bit version of a game after playing something on a Playstation or N64.

Although that's clearly nonsense as I have to say there is stuff on the SNES and Megadrive that still kicks ass even today

Perhaps you did not realize, but the original playstation was originally a cooperative design between Nintendo and Sony to make a CD version of the SNES. Nintendo decided people would not want to have to use a seperate memory card or have easily scratched discs for their games.

The playstation had, literally, the exact same capabilities as the SNES did, Nintendo just dropped the SNES for a better system and made very few English games that showed the full range of what the system could do. Check out some of the later Japanese games for the Super Famicom (their version of the SNES, spelling may be wrong).

N64 actually was a far better machine than the playstation, but games developers were developing games for both systems, so did not do as much as they could have for the most part - the same happens with a lot of the newer games that are multi-platform nowadays.

GW management is stuck in a mental rut, and is loosing touch with their clients think. The issue is threefold:

1: GW is following the trend of front-loading the starter box to haul in new customers. This is a fine strategy, with a caveat: the better value the starter is, the worse value the normal GW products look like in comparison. A new customer isn't going to give 2 gaks that the Deathwing Command Squad is multipart vs. the awesome new fixed pose ones in DV. They don't even have the codex to compare. All they know is that for $40 more than the new terminator box, they got a rulebook, dice, bikes, tactical squad, character models, and a Chaos army. The price for the add-ons seems downright insulting when you stop to consider it.

2. As mentioned before... DV needs the codex before you unlock the core rulebook. This would be like buying a $60 retail box for World of Warcraft and being restricted to the starting zone in with a level cap of 10, then for 1/2 the cost of the retail box, you can buy a download code that unlocks your levels from 10-max, but you have to buy seperate codes for each character. Then, if you want additional dungeons/zones, you can buy those too, again, for 1/2 as much as the starter. I realize that video games are not exactly analagous to the wargaming industry, but the fact remains that if you expect users to buy the DLC, they better have good content - or expect low sales. Almost every game that has had advertised functionality removed and turned into DLC has suffered accordingly.

3. GW dictates to their customer base what they should buy. This is a recipie for disaster. I realize this is a contentious assertion, as the army books theoretically allow for a wide variety of army builds. However as the army books ARE written with a slant towards shifting models, one can hardly consider this true freedom of choice. This attitude made sense when veterans with existing armies made up a substantial proportion of their client base, but now that they are almost exclusively targetting new customers - one wonders why they continue with such unevenly balanced books to shift sales, since if every unit was able to stand on its own merits, then sales would be equally distributed over the whole line. New customers won't know what the latest and greatest is... they just know the hobby is cool and they want to participate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
-edit- Actually, now that I think about it more, the trend of shifting armybook balance towards the new units might be because GW is noticing decreased sales to the secondary market - ergo, they are FORCED to push the new units which have not made it to the secondary market yet. If this is the case (and it is conjecture), then GW's management have their heads further up their arses than I could imagine.

Merely fixing game balance would help stem that exodus of existing players, redistribute sales across the whole line AND reduce the flood of models to the secondary market. Then again, I am not an expert.

I never understood the appeal of having lots of extra bits in a single box - if I could have just the models I wanted to buy, and shave $5-$10 off the price, I'd much rather take the box without the options and just what I wanted in it without all of the extraneous bits. If you're never going to use them, where is the extra value? It just strikes me as extra cost.

Really, the only time you can actually say there is extra value is if you can magnetize a kit so you can use one model kit for several different purposes - the Warmachine plastic warjack kits can easily be magnetized to operate as several different jacks, and the same can be said for the new Warriors of Chaos Chariot, which only varies as to if it is the Gorebeast or Chaos Steeds pulling it. That is what is extra value out of a kit to me, not a bunch of extra parts that I'm just going to throw out.

 RuneGrey wrote:
I never understood the appeal of having lots of extra bits in a single box - if I could have just the models I wanted to buy, and shave $5-$10 off the price, I'd much rather take the box without the options and just what I wanted in it without all of the extraneous bits. If you're never going to use them, where is the extra value? It just strikes me as extra cost.

Really, the only time you can actually say there is extra value is if you can magnetize a kit so you can use one model kit for several different purposes - the Warmachine plastic warjack kits can easily be magnetized to operate as several different jacks, and the same can be said for the new Warriors of Chaos Chariot, which only varies as to if it is the Gorebeast or Chaos Steeds pulling it. That is what is extra value out of a kit to me, not a bunch of extra parts that I'm just going to throw out.

It depends on what you are looking for, really. I like extra bits, and GW is good at providing that. However, I do like extra bits that are worth something to me in that they are standalone pieces, such as an extra weapon, or head option, or other standalone pieces of kit. What I don't like are bits that are relatively useless once the model is assembled a certain way, like the extra half faces of the Carnifex kit. There may be uses for those, but they don't stick out to me.

I do not like that GW goes out of its way to make sure that variant option bits are virtually impossible to use once the model is assembled a certain way. That definitely feels like giving customers the shaft. In many of GW's large multi-option kits in the last several years I have seen that trend. Its like GW wants to make sure that you can't kitbash out an extra model from spare bits. Thanks for putting time and effort into charging me more money for something I can't use.

I feel like these lower end estimates for the buy-in to 1500+pts in Warhammer40k is a bit of Cherry picking. When I played (and this was before the last couple rounds of price increases) it cost me way more than that. I was only trying to be marginally competitive too.

If I'd wanted something remotely close to a list that could win I'd have had to spend a lot of money scourging around for the really popular weapon bitz that were way expensive on the secondary market. Unless I wanted to scratch build all that stuff.

I can pull something similar with Warmahordes if I really wanted:

2 Player Battle Box (Split with another Player): ($50 MSRP) / $35.00 online
Typical 6-man Infantry Unit (~$28MSRP)/ $18.00 onlnie
Heavy Kit ($35.00 MSRP)/ $25.00 online

Suddenly I'm in the game at 35pts for under $120 MSRP or $80 in "Real" prices. It's not really a great list however. So I'm not really sure it's the fairest representation of getting into the game. It's cherry picking.

I suspect it might be better than what you'd get out mashing together 40k starters if the current ones are anything like the 5th edition ones. Which would have left you with a god awful mess that really couldn't win much.

Under $200 will get you tournament ready in any faction at 35pts and maybe even 50 in something like legion.

 RuneGrey wrote:
I never understood the appeal of having lots of extra bits in a single box - if I could have just the models I wanted to buy, and shave $5-$10 off the price, I'd much rather take the box without the options and just what I wanted in it without all of the extraneous bits. If you're never going to use them, where is the extra value? It just strikes me as extra cost.

I mentioned it before, and maybe you missed it, but I was able to turn my 5-man Deathwing box into 13 unique models. Just because RuneGrey isn't going to use them doesn't mean there aren't a ton of other people that will use them. I'd rather pay the $5 extra and convert a bunch of old models than spend $55 twice so I can make 3 less models. Again, I think this an integral part to 'the hobby' that GW gets and other companies miss out on.

Wyrd is finally getting this with their plastics: I've been tempted to buy two of Mr Graves and the Relic Hunters boxed set simply because they offer me different looks for my models. Infinity has also seen how this can benefit with some of their new models. The Ariadna Intel Spec Ops model gives you the option to make 6 different models mixing the head and weapon choices. If I end up getting them, I'll probably get two so I can at least utilize both heads.

There are tons of people that like the extra bits so they can make every model unique. I know with my Space Marine squads I go out of my way to ensure that no one in the same squad has the same bare head. If they offered a Space Wolf head sprue with 50 unique heads on it, I'd be all over it.

Really, the only time you can actually say there is extra value is if you can magnetize a kit so you can use one model kit for several different purposes - the Warmachine plastic warjack kits can easily be magnetized to operate as several different jacks, and the same can be said for the new Warriors of Chaos Chariot, which only varies as to if it is the Gorebeast or Chaos Steeds pulling it. That is what is extra value out of a kit to me, not a bunch of extra parts that I'm just going to throw out.

And it directly relates to what I've said above, but while it's entirely within my abilility to magnetize stuff, I don't always want to. You know what you can do with the extra bits on your Warjack Kits? You can make really cool Battlefield Gun Emplacements. I think these are great! Privateer Even gives you some options for using them in game. But sadly, they won't be on the radar of many because they're more for narrative play and not for competitive play. Which is a huge shame, because the Privateer Hobby Blog is amazing.

Again, just because you're going to be throwing stuff out doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of people that participate fully in 'the hobby' and use those bits and bobs to create unique models, scratchbuild, or convert.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
I feel like these lower end estimates for the buy-in to 1500+pts in Warhammer40k is a bit of Cherry picking. When I played (and this was before the last couple rounds of price increases) it cost me way more than that. I was only trying to be marginally competitive too.

If I'd wanted something remotely close to a list that could win I'd have had to spend a lot of money scourging around for the really popular weapon bitz that were way expensive on the secondary market. Unless I wanted to scratch build all that stuff.

I can pull something similar with Warmahordes if I really wanted:

2 Player Battle Box (Split with another Player): ($50 MSRP) / $35.00 online
Typical 6-man Infantry Unit (~$28MSRP)/ $18.00 onlnie
Heavy Kit ($35.00 MSRP)/ $25.00 online

Suddenly I'm in the game at 35pts for under $120 MSRP or $80 in "Real" prices. It's not really a great list however. So I'm not really sure it's the fairest representation of getting into the game. It's cherry picking.

I suspect it might be better than what you'd get out mashing together 40k starters if the current ones are anything like the 5th edition ones. Which would have left you with a god awful mess that really couldn't win much.

Under $200 will get you tournament ready in any faction at 35pts and maybe even 50 in something like legion.

GW has rules for Killteam missions that are STUPENDOUSLY fun to play. There are tournaments for a free version of Killteam at Adepticon. Just because 1850 is the "tournament standard" doesn't mean it's the only way to "really" play the game.

Again, GW has no interest in being "tournament ready." They've said as much. I don't get why everyone is intent on forcing that on the system as the only way to play.

Having read a lot of this thread (but honestly not all 56 pages) I'd have to say that yes, GW has priced me out of their game systems. $80+ just for a core rulebook, plus $50 per codex? And that's just to get my armies up to speed with the new edition, let alone adding even a few of the new units to my armies in order to keep them up to speed (I don't own even a single flyer, and from what I hear they're kind of required these days). I'm sorry, but even with other companies that are more expensive on a per-model basis I just feel that I'm getting more bang for my buck.

For example, I can justify spending $15-$20 on a new squad for Dust Warfare, but I cannot drop $35-$60 on a squad for Warhammer 40k. Even Malifaux or Infinity, which are, I will admit, much more expensive on a per-model basis than GW, present a much smaller barrier to new players in terms of buy-in cost. I got my Dust Warfare rules for $20, and my Infinity rules for free. That's a lot cheaper than $80, even if the rules are in .pdf format. And before you go telling me that you don't get a hardcover book for that price, I would direct you to the GW Apple Store, and to check out their prices for non-hardcover rulebooks.

Really, what I'm saying is there are better values out there in pure terms of how much money you need to get into a game. Before you say "well those games just don't give you as many miniatures in the end as 40k or WHFB" I would direct you to check out War & Conquest, where I can get the rules ($50), army list ($0) and miniatures ($100) for a samurai army for the same price as a GW starter set ($100) and army book ($50) which doesn't give you more than a bare-bones starter for your army, More miniatures, and a better price point.

To the argument that GW makes the best quality miniatures on the market, I'd put any of the Malifaux plastics up against a GW plastic any day of the week, and I'll happily compare an Infinity (apparently obsolete) metal mini against a Finecast mini. GW does not make the finest miniatures on the market any more. It could even be argued that they haven't made the best looking models in years. Remember the old metal Confrontation minis? If not, take a minute and go look them up, then compare them to any GW mini from the same time period. Rackham just plain wins.

I'm sorry to say it, as I grew up playing GW games (I've been playing since 40k 2nd ed. dropped) but GW has just plain fallen off for me. They're too expensive on a per-purchase basis, as well as a total buy in one. I know you can spend as much, if not more, money on other systems, but the unfortunate fact is that you don't have to.

But that's just how I see things.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

To the argument that GW makes the best quality miniatures on the market, I'd put any of the Malifaux plastics up against a GW plastic any day of the week, and I'll happily compare an Infinity (apparently obsolete) metal mini against a Finecast mini. GW does not make the finest miniatures on the market any more. It could even be argued that they haven't made the best looking models in years. Remember the old metal Confrontation minis? If not, take a minute and go look them up, then compare them to any GW mini from the same time period. Rackham just plain wins.
.

I think you should do a side by side comparison of the GW single sprue clampacks and the Malifaux ones. I think if you do, you'll find that the details on the GW ones are much more crisp and, as a whole, the models go together with less green stuffing required. And I own most of the Malifaux plastics.

The Rackham models are fantastic, you're right. Potentially the best metals I've ever worked with. That quality came with an anal retentive attention to detail that was a contributing factor to the company going under. Rackham metals were also more expensive than GW metals when they were being produced new. Jussayin.

I don't intend for this post to be antagonistic because I think you bring some valid points, but I think people are far too picky about Citadel/GWs tagline "the finest miniatures in the world." Mentos are called the freshmaker and I can verify that after a nice oniony or garlicy meal, they certainly aren't making my breath that fresh.

So, I've just had a quick go at making up an exact copy of my 1500pt Imperial Guard army, with a minimal of wasted models.

£489.30

Imperial Guard Cadian Battleforce
3 Imperial Guard Chimeras
Guardsman Marbo
1 Leman Russ Battletank
1 Imperial Guard Manticore
2 Imperial Guard Valkyries
3 Mordian Iron Guard Squads
4 Mordian Iron Guard Flamers + Meltas
4 Mordian Iron Guard Grenade Launchers
1 Mordian Sergeant
1 Mordian Lascannon
4 Mordian Autocannons
1 Steel Legion Commissar
1 Mordian Lieutenant


Wasted Models: 1 Sentinel.
Needed Additional Models: 2 Melta Guns, 2 Plasma guns

Sure, I could try adjusting and money saving by using purely Cadians and the 5 man packs. But I'd bet, we'd still be at about £400 and would have a whole lot more 'leftover' models.

EDIT: Dropping all the Mordians, Adding in another Battleforce, 4 packs of 5 man cadians, another heavy weapon squad, 2 sets of special weapon guard: £435.10
Edit2: Just did my Blood Angels army at 1500 points. Although I did a lot of converting, roughly speaking: 2 Battleforces, Sanguinary Guard, Devastator Squad, 2 Jump Pack packs, Land Raider Crusader, Librarian in Terminator Armour, Assault Terminator squad.

 Compel wrote:
So, I've just had a quick go at making up an exact copy of my 1500pt Imperial Guard army, with a minimal of wasted models.

£489.30

Imperial Guard Cadian Battleforce
3 Imperial Guard Chimeras
Guardsman Marbo
1 Leman Russ Battletank
1 Imperial Guard Manticore
2 Imperial Guard Valkyries
3 Mordian Iron Guard Squads
4 Mordian Iron Guard Flamers + Meltas
4 Mordian Iron Guard Grenade Launchers
1 Mordian Sergeant
1 Mordian Lascannon
4 Mordian Autocannons
1 Steel Legion Commissar
1 Mordian Lieutenant


Wasted Models: 1 Sentinel.
Needed Additional Models: 2 Melta Guns, 2 Plasma guns

Sure, I could try adjusting and money saving by using purely Cadians and the 5 man packs. But I'd bet, we'd still be at about £400 and would have a whole lot more 'leftover' models.

EDIT: Dropping all the Mordians, Adding in another Battleforce, 4 packs of 5 man cadians, another heavy weapon squad, 2 sets of special weapon guard: £435.10

Replace all of the above infantry with With war games factory´s gray coats and it will be even cheaper.

Hmm, my posting is going a bit haywire, anyhows...

I just did my Blood Angels army at 1750 points. Although I did a lot of converting, roughly speaking: 2 Battleforces, Sanguinary Guard, Devastator Squad, 2 Jump Pack packs, Land Raider Crusader, Librarian in Terminator Armour, Assault Terminator squad.

£279.00

Better value, but not exactly cheap.

also, whats with the massive difference in battleforce value? the sm one is good, like a solid 600pt starter force that just requires a character to be a legal force. but then the guard one, which is only half a platoon? they need to at least put a russ back into it, or else just make it an entire infantry platoon. the eldar battleforce is pretty crap too. I haven't looked at eldar since I played 3rd edition, don't know what they are like now. better? GW could do a lot with battleforces, as i can see how the sm or chaos or dark eldar ones are really good as both starter armies for newbies or quality add ons for vets. they just seem unfairly balanced.

It is a given that high model/vehicle armies are going to be expensive than low model/vehicle armies.

 Compel wrote:
Hmm, my posting is going a bit haywire, anyhows...

I just did my Blood Angels army at 1750 points. Although I did a lot of converting, roughly speaking: 2 Battleforces, Sanguinary Guard, Devastator Squad, 2 Jump Pack packs, Land Raider Crusader, Librarian in Terminator Armour, Assault Terminator squad.

£279.00

Better value, but not exactly cheap.

Agree, very similar to what i've done. battleforce, devastator squad, librarian, combat squad and tac squad so far, land raider and storm talon are next buys. Weirdly i ended up with enough parts for an extra five marines except legs, found some on ebay though so free extra 5 marines which i'm thinking of converting to powerfist/stormshield vanguard. by the way, are they any good? 3+ inv. save seems excessively powerful to someone who hasn't played since 3rd edition.

Generally speaking the problem is, anytime you start building up nasty units like that... You end up realising assault terminators are cheaper and better.

However, it might be worth having a vanguard just with a storm shield and bolt pistol, then a different vanguard with the fist.

 Amaya wrote:
It is a given that high model/vehicle armies are going to be expensive than low model/vehicle armies.

Thing is, unless you're MEQs (maybe Necrons now that they're a thing) you're going to have a high body count, more vehicles or possibly both. Even in the former case you've got to kind of weigh down your dudes with inefficient wargear choices to get the points per model up to decent values relative to $ investment. Which can be seriously inefficient.

I realize that GW may claim to not aim to be a tournament-centric game, but if you're playing in a public meta you've got to have some level game to bring unless you've been blessed with A) Opponents with varied enough collections to have a more relaxed build than their main one, and B) Are generous enough to want to play these against the new guy. If either isn't true, true you're just going to get curb stomped into oblivion since that's what you have to play against. This is especially true since 85%+ of a 40k battle is decided at the list building stage.

Oh yeah. This is not the easiest hobby to get into by any means. I know a guy who lost something like his first 50-60 games in a row. Eventually he became one of the better local players. The learning and expense curve is not very forgiving. I'm sure everyone has wasted money on models that amounted to nothing on the tabletop.

 Compel wrote:
Generally speaking the problem is, anytime you start building up nasty units like that... You end up realising assault terminators are cheaper and better.

However, it might be worth having a vanguard just with a storm shield and bolt pistol, then a different vanguard with the fist.

Cheers, good advice. Yeah it was more that i just had these bits lying about so i thought i could save myself the money and make a cc unit that has basically the same save and melee ability, even if points wise they are more. Have another question, i'm wading my way through the new rule book and under transports it says a transport can only carry one infantry unit and/or an independent character. so what's the point of the crusader or regular raider carrying 12 or 16 models? no unit is that size. i seem to remember in apocalypse you can carry multiple units in super heavy transports, is that simply not an option in regular 40k? i know raiders have terminators in mind but even then why would you want an 8 man squad?

Sorry for taking this further off topic, but i appreciate the reply!

ASFAIK there is no limit as to how many ICs can be attatched to a squad.

I believe Space Wolves and Black Templars both have troop choices that can reach or exceed 16, so they could use the full capacity of the more spacious Land Raiders.

 cincydooley wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:
So it is a combination of GW acting like Kodak and thinking everyone still wants the same film cameras they bought in the early 90s, while other companies are selling really nice digital cameras for the 2010s.

Well, sure... Except that GW makes the best digital cameras (multipart plastic miniatures) and other companies are still selling film cameras they bought in the early 90s (metal models).....
..

It's really not true anymore. GW models are increasingly low quality (in combination with overpriced), looking poorly designed/"chaotic" (too many attachments/skulls/flames/so on)/clunky (often resembling large toys rather then models), and stuff like finecast is just poorly crafted low-quality garbage.

The last GW model released that I think looks any good was the Tervigon/Flying Hive Tyrant, which was like a year ago. The WoC, CSM, DA, and now Daemon releases have all been rather poor.

Oh cool, didn't know that. damn, want to keep them vanilla! basically want a crusader with my two devastator squads, fisty vanguards and librarian, rolling fortress of doom lol. Cheers again for the advice, so much has changed since 3rd!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Harriticus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:
So it is a combination of GW acting like Kodak and thinking everyone still wants the same film cameras they bought in the early 90s, while other companies are selling really nice digital cameras for the 2010s.

Well, sure... Except that GW makes the best digital cameras (multipart plastic miniatures) and other companies are still selling film cameras they bought in the early 90s (metal models).....
..

It's really not true anymore. GW models are increasingly low quality (in combination with overpriced), looking poorly designed/"chaotic" (too many attachments/skulls/flames/so on)/clunky (often resembling large toys rather then models), and stuff like finecast is just poorly crafted low-quality garbage.

The last GW model released that I think looks any good was the Tervigon/Flying Hive Tyrant, which was like a year ago. The WoC, CSM, DA, and now Daemon releases have all been rather poor.

Yeah, whats with the multipart vs clip kits? i remember you used to get the clip ones with paint sets back in the day. The new ons in the dv set actually look pretty cool, maybe GW should sell more of the clip ones for guys like me who are new and generally can't paint to save themselves anyway, but like the game for the gameplay. if they can pack the dv set with so much, it must mean the clippys cost sod all to make. I'm prepared for all you vets to object to this btw lol

 Harriticus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:
So it is a combination of GW acting like Kodak and thinking everyone still wants the same film cameras they bought in the early 90s, while other companies are selling really nice digital cameras for the 2010s.

Well, sure... Except that GW makes the best digital cameras (multipart plastic miniatures) and other companies are still selling film cameras they bought in the early 90s (metal models).....
..

It's really not true anymore. GW models are increasingly low quality (in combination with overpriced), looking poorly designed/"chaotic" (too many attachments/skulls/flames/so on)/clunky (often resembling large toys rather then models), and stuff like finecast is just poorly crafted low-quality garbage.

The last GW model released that I think looks any good was the Tervigon/Flying Hive Tyrant, which was like a year ago. The WoC, CSM, DA, and now Daemon releases have all been rather poor.

Can you provide an unbiased example of where quality has actually declined in a quanitifiable fashion? Personally, I think they are looking more cartoonish and I dislike the aesthetic that GW is moving towards, but the level of detail seems to be improving or at least consistent with recent works. I would agree with the sentiment that there are other miniature companies providing superior figurines.

I wonder how much of this stuff can be blamed on GW being a PLC - it seems to me that if they were private and didn't have a board of directors or a bunch of shareholders to answer to, there'd be a lot less of this sort of thing going on.

 Micky wrote:
I wonder how much of this stuff can be blamed on GW being a PLC - it seems to me that if they were private and didn't have a board of directors or a bunch of shareholders to answer to, there'd be a lot less of this sort of thing going on.

At the end of the day the ONLY thing a public company is there to do is MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER PROFITABILITY.

There are an insane amount of ways to do this. The most basic and common would be to provide a great product that your customers want, while constantly acquiring new customers and reducing costs. Now does this sound like what GW is doing? Apple can charge what they do for the phones and computers and shiny iPads because the market wants the product and is willing to pay the price for it. When new and better products come on the market Apple can adapt and overcome or go the way they did in the 90s and almost go under.

I personally believe that GW is very much like the Apple of the 90s they are at a crossroads if they see it or not. If they address the issues of their rules, Finecast, pricing and pissed off fans they have a chance. If not someone else will buy the IP and hopefully do a better job with the games.

 cincydooley wrote:
Everyone is talking about rules here and now, but does anyone think that part of the popularity is the fact that of those "big 3 or 4" and not including historicals, GW is making the most appealing kits?

I'd rather buy their multi part plastics than most of the Warmachine or Hordes kits, simply because they're plastic and have options. I've refused to buy the Trollblood Sluggers because there were only 3 sculpts in the 5 man box.

You've got to remember that for plenty of people, the rules are secondary or tertiary and the building and painting and collecting are the main reasons they're in the hobby.

If Privateer came out with a multipart plastic kit for an infantry unit like the Winterguard, they'd sell a metric gak-ton of them. And not to just Warmachine players. However, they're content with using metal and restic, and their restic was, at least initially, pretty poor. The kits have gotten better, but they certainly weren't up to the standards of the GW multipart plastics released at similar times.

And now Wyrd is stepping up to the plate and releasing high quality plastic kits. IMO, they're not AS good as the GW (the detail seems to be less defined, and some of cuts made to get a model on the sprue are...interesting) but I'd rather work with them than the Privateer Models. At this point in wargaming history, there are just a lot of people that want uniqueness to their models but don't want the hassle of converting metal. Despite some of the very real pitfalls, this was one of the primary benefits of Finecast.

And that's really, IMO, the only shortcoming of Infinity. Great models. Great rules, but man.... I hate dealing with the big chunks of metal in the larger models. If they moved some of those to resin, they'd be golden.

Again, I think we have to consider that for many people the rules aren't at the forefront of what they're looking for. In that respect, the cost per model really is applicable, regardless of how many you need to play.

Man where are all these people you all keep talking about who like to paint Models??? off all the people I have played with over the years I have found 3, that likes to paint as much as me.. I have found 2-5 that atleast give it a little effort.. The rest play with unpainted models, or they paint it up as fast as they can.. Or they look at my models and try to sneak in a few of theirs when im down at my local club painting, so I will get exited about painting their models and end up doing it for them... In my experience like 90% likes to play and 10% likes to paint... Its funny to read all these people saying they suport GW for the models... Who actually paints?? and think its fun? I know I do but I have through all my life been in the MINORITY in the gaming community's I have been a part of hahah...

text removed.
reds8n

I've read a good portion of the thread, and while I may be new to the hobby, I figure I can still give some input on this from the perspective of those of us who are just starting. Before continuing, I should say that I jumped into the hobby with virtually no research,

I bought roughly a 500 point IG army second-hand and now regret my decision upon finding out that it is of minimum size. A friend of mine who went with orks has only reflected my thoughts back at me. With around $70 already in the hole for models, I am unwilling to invest more into it. Even at roughly 2/3's of retail price, I still feel like the value of what I received did not match the price tag. In retrospect I think I should have gone with Warmachine, or maybe Dust. At least with those I can field the bare minimum army for the price of a couple hundred points of 40K models, assuming I'm buying retail. (~$50 for minimum with Warmachine, ~$30 with Dusk from what I gathered).

It's not that I dislike 40K or GW; the reason I went with 40K in the first place is because of how well known it is and how much I like it.... which is a lot. However, after putting a bit of effort into investigating the various systems available I believe that it is only a matter of time before GW is lagging behind the competitors as they gain renown. But hey, just the thoughts of two newbies...

Nucflash wrote:
]

Man where are all these people you all keep talking about who like to paint Models??? off all the people I have played with over the years I have found 3, that likes to paint as much as me.. I have found 2-5 that atleast give it a little effort.. The rest play with unpainted models, or they paint it up as fast as they can.. Or they look at my models and try to sneak in a few of theirs when im down at my local club painting, so I will get exited about painting their models and end up doing it for them... In my experience like 90% likes to play and 10% likes to paint... Its funny to read all these people saying they suport GW for the models... Who actually paints?? and think its fun? I know I do but I have through all my life been in the MINORITY in the gaming community's I have been a part of hahah...
.

I promise they exist. I'd paint even more if I didn't live in Ohio or had an in house workshop where I can prime. Working on my first titan right now and I've got my base coats on my first batch of Heresy Space Wolves right now.

And I have about 150 points of Cygnar painted up to a pretty quality standard. I usually only play with my painted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kasrkin_Seath wrote:
I've read a good portion of the thread, and while I may be new to the hobby, I figure I can still give some input on this from the perspective of those of us who are just starting. Before continuing, I should say that I jumped into the hobby with virtually no research,

I bought roughly a 500 point IG army second-hand and now regret my decision upon finding out that it is of minimum size. A friend of mine who went with orks has only reflected my thoughts back at me. With around $70 already in the hole for models, I am unwilling to invest more into it. Even at roughly 2/3's of retail price, I still feel like the value of what I received did not match the price tag. In retrospect I think I should have gone with Warmachine, or maybe Dust. At least with those I can field the bare minimum army for the price of a couple hundred points of 40K models, assuming I'm buying retail. (~$50 for minimum with Warmachine, ~$30 with Dusk from what I gathered).

It's not that I dislike 40K or GW; the reason I went with 40K in the first place is because of how well known it is and how much I like it.... which is a lot. However, after putting a bit of effort into investigating the various systems available I believe that it is only a matter of time before GW is lagging behind the competitors as they gain renown. But hey, just the thoughts of two newbies...

Appreciate your anecdote but GW really isn't in any danger of lagging behind the others. Privateer can make some headway, but they have miles to go before their player base is remotely close to that of 40k. It isn't going to happen with Dust. At best it's going to be popular in the tactics version. I did all the demoing for it at GenCon and we only did a single unscheduled demo of the Warfare rules at the largest gaming convention in the country. Tactics and boardgamers is where the money will be with that brand.

Wayshuba wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:
...snip...
Lastly, I will add this. The main reason Warhammer and 40k became so big was new players seeing a lot of other players playing the game. Now, in my FLGS at least, it is mainly historicals (primarily FoW, Bolt Action, Black Powder) and/or Warmahordes.
...snip...

What amuses me most about this is that the historicals you mentioned are all written/run by ex-GW staff (as far as I understand it, FoW was even offered to GW but declined because kids aren't into historicals). Imagine what'd have happened if they'd stayed in house, or how GW will cope if they are losing all of their talent.

Actually I think it is more than that. Warlord Games was started by two ex GWers. So they have wrapped up the whole package - well done rules, by experienced designers, gorgeous books (for a normal price), regular miniature releases (at sane prices), etc.

From what I can tell, Warlord is mostly made up of ex GW staff, down to the casters.

Also, in speaking with those at my FLGS, the main reasons the historicals have taken off - 1.) GW rules haven't moved in ages, they just change things to sell models and third edition was better than current one, 2.) the new army books (and prices) seem to be the real kicker that has turned people off when coupled with the new model prices (though everyone laughs at the ludicrous pricing on the core rulebooks as well) and 3.) quite frankly, the historicals in the last few years have really had some quality and marketing put behind them to make them less niche and more mainstream.

So it is a combination of GW acting like Kodak and thinking everyone still wants the same film cameras they bought in the early 90s, while other companies are selling really nice digital cameras for the 2010s.

I'd agree with that. The 40K I'm playing now feels very much like a clunky version of the 40K I used to play in the 90's, but with more complications shoehorned in and more figures. Whereas from what I've read of Hail Caesar (Ancients), Bolt Action (WW2) and Saga (Dark Ages, though I'm not sure there's any GW connection, it's from Gripping Beast), the games are a lot more engaging and faster to play, with some quite interesting mechanics based around fun 'beer and pretsels' gaming.

Pin markers to affect units Moral which affects their performance fits in with small arms fire skirmish games. You keep your opponent pinned with one unit so they can't harm you and move in with another to wipe them out when they are softened up involves a bit more strategic depth than deciding which unit to charge with first and take the snap fire.

Issuing orders and rolling to see how they are performed based on a leadership value (as intended, badly, too well) also makes things interesting as controlling units on a battlefield becomes fairly unpredictable but no too much.

Having fatigue markers which affect combat effectiveness also adds an interesting challenge; do you rest your unit to recover or just go for it? It's a lot more realistic than having units run across a battlefield at full speed and begin combat as if they haven't moved.

The quality and value of historicals has come along some way as well, previously armies like ancients and napoleonics were scary to collect because of the volume of metal figures you needed, with with plastics it's pretty affordable (if you can face gluing together hundreds of figures!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:
So it is a combination of GW acting like Kodak and thinking everyone still wants the same film cameras they bought in the early 90s, while other companies are selling really nice digital cameras for the 2010s.

Well, sure... Except that GW makes the best digital cameras (multipart plastic miniatures) and other companies are still selling film cameras they bought in the early 90s (metal models).....

Nah. I've got multipart plastics and metal models that are at least as good as GW, and resins that are far superior. A few years ago your analogy might have been valid but everyone else has moved on vastly since then whilst GW has stagnated.

Also, Agree completely with CIssac. That Deathwing box can make about 13 terminators if you have other bits lying around. And guess what? Most GW veterans have other terminator bits just lying around... Be it from old ass models or an over abundance of Black Reach Terminators. Or hell, even the new DV terminators can be pretty easily weapon swapped.

And I think GW plans on this, as they know there are going to be plenty of vets that can take that $60 deathwing box and make more than just the 5 models included...

But they are pricing it as if you can make everything they provide. Yes many vets will have enough bits to make 13 terminators from the kit. But many others won't (I don't, and my BA playing friend doesn't), and dislike the idea of paying more for extra bits they'll never need.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

Appreciate your anecdote but GW really isn't in any danger of lagging behind the others. Privateer can make some headway, but they have miles to go before their player base is remotely close to that of 40k. It isn't going to happen with Dust. At best it's going to be popular in the tactics version. I did all the demoing for it at GenCon and we only did a single unscheduled demo of the Warfare rules at the largest gaming convention in the country. Tactics and boardgamers is where the money will be with that brand.

Warhammer Fantasy has already fallen behind Warmachine/Hordes in some of the popularity charts, so I can't say I agree that GW is in no danger of lagging behind. 40K is still by far the most popular game, but it's lead seems to be diminishing fairly rapidly to it's competitors*, so unless they do something drastic it's only a matter of time before it starts critical mass.


*It's not growing, it's competitors are.

everyone else has moved on vastly since then whilst GW has stagnated.

I appreciate that the quote is specifically about model quality but it can be applied to most aspects of the hobby, from the awful rules to the total lack of online social interaction. GW want gaming to be like it was 20 years ago (when ironically people liked them for their varied range of games and their attitude).