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.

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/01/03/21651#comments

First off let me just say that I love TTGN and read it nearly every day.

However, after reading the editorial section on GW did anyone else get the feeling that the editor was being a bit harsh on GW? He focuses on their mistakes and slams the game systems. The bright point is as he says, that they didn't do as bad as everyone expected.

Am I missing something?

From the point of view of this gamer it seemed like a very good year. There were a lot of exciting new developments such as apocalypse, and 5th edition 40K, and best of all, the fantastic new big kits like the baneblade and upcoming Stompa. The company continues to produce the highest qualtiy plastic kits on the market and they have ramped up the release of their products so that we have a lot of new stuff on a consistant basis.

Is everything great? No, but are things a hell of a lot better than they were? In my opinion, yes and they appear to be getting better.

Maybe I am just an institutionalized fanboy at this point but I felt that the company got an overly harsh review especially when compared to nearly every other company reviewed. Every other company recieved postive reviews such as the smaller independant companies, or Rhkam and Mongoose both of whom nearly went belly up. I know that it is the writer's opinion and he is absolutely welcome to it, but I feel that it is a bit slanted in this case. He goes on to make the statement that apocalypse and 5th ed got fans back into 40K and then says that it failed to reinvigorate the game? Seem to be a rather large contradiction to me. Apocalypse is an entirely new way to play the game, I don't see what else one could ask for? Dancing girls and models that pour you a beer? A completely new gaming system? Chess still plays well last time I checked.

The Editor may have felt that the rule system is stale, but I for one do not, and I am sure there are a lot of gamers out there who share that opinion. I have been playing GW games since the 80's and the game is still fun to me. I feel that the editor was a bit harsh in his condemnations.

I do not mean this as a character slam at all as I really appreciate the work that goes into TTGN, I am just posting thoughts on the article and would like to hear how others feel about it.

He's entitled to his opinion, and has every right to be wrong.

Rackham pulled a phoenix. Mongoose and WizKids both basically folded up. FFG shrank to taking cast-offs. *Clearly* those other guys know what they're doing... :S

GW did just fine this year, and will do very well next year. The idea that they shouldn't have, or were otherwise disappointing is bizzare. Apoc and 5E are excellent. Apoc is awesome. 5E is the cleanest ruleset GW has produced in quite a while. Missing the fact that Orks and Apoc hugely reinvigorated 40k and GW reveals the editor to be a blithering idiot.

God forbid he say something positive that reflects the facts.

Reecius wrote:Am I missing something?

Yah. Everyone thought GW was going to tank this year and that the company was going to continue to spiral.

They didn't do that. Did they do anything that will ultimately build the company? No.

Seem to be a rather large contradiction to me.

Not really. They kept their older fans and perhaps built some excitement for 5th ed but if you look at that work from an external perspective it doesn't seem to really have done anything other than stop them hemorrhaging fans.

I may not have been as clear as I should but I think the issue with Apocalypse and 5th Ed is that it stopped a serious drain of fans. But it doesn't seem to have brought in any new ones and the excitement from Apocalypse and 5th Ed doesn't seem to have built the 40K fanbase in the way GW needs.

The Editor may have felt that the rule system is stale, but I for one do not, and I am sure there are a lot of gamers out there who share that opinion.

Stale in terms of the mechanics that it uses. The system is relatively unchanged and GW has now had two new editions of the game where they could have done something fresh. Remember how many people were excited about the rumours of an "advanced" 40K?

They could have worked to give people craving a more modern game something to play. Instead the rules seem to have regressed if anything (a good thing in some people's minds) and the most interesting thing GW has done for 40K in some time is Apocalypse which seems to be largely an excuse to ignore your codex :-)

If you are a fan of the game and you play it on a regular basis it is without a doubt that you will have a very different opinion about 40K than someone like me who plays the odd game and really just misses having official support for Epic:Armaggedon.

Ultimately if you like 5th Ed and like what GW is doing with the game then who gives a what I think :-) Have fun, enjoy the game and ignore me :-)

My perspective is more of the outsider who looks at a setting and franchise that a lot more people could get involved in but GW doesn't seem to have the will to grab for that market.

JohnHwangDD wrote:God forbid he say something positive that reflects the facts.

Facts are all relative when talking about a game you really like. :-)

Locally I saw a lot of people interested in 5th Ed and Apocalypse and saw that energy die off. 5th Ed wasn't really enough for a lot of people. It was a move in the right direction for a lot of fans though and I think that at least GW has addressed the issue of stopping their hardcore fans from leaving the game.

But that ultimately isn't going to save them and they need to do something to get newer gamers involved and I don't see where that is going to happen with the changes that GW has shown us so far.

Hey pixlegeek, liek I said, I love your webtsite and I was not trying to put you down, it just felt like your personal feelings about GW colored your review or that you were basing it off of your local gaming area as opposed to a broader perspective.

Now, maybe I am doing the same thing, but my situation playing in southern california is the exact opposite of yours. No one I know wanted 40K advanced or had even heard of it, or if they had had not mentioned it to me.

And who thought GW was going to tank? It appears that you are more invloved in the business side of it than I am with your connections but here 40K is far and away the big game, followed i would say equally by fantasy and warmachine, then flames of war. At least that is what I see.

All the people I play and speak with love Apoc, love the new models and generally are pleased with 5th, with maybe a few complaints like kill points and str 5 deffensive weapons.

Now this is just my opinion and you are free to disagree with it, but I feel and see that the company is if anything getting stronger, but that could just be something local to my area.

Reecius wrote:Hey pixlegeek, liek I said, I love your webtsite and I was not trying to put you down

No worries. We're just chattin' :-)

Reecius wrote:And who thought GW was going to tank?

A lot of people. Many still think it will if it can't bring in new gamers. Or find another way to create a revenue stream from 40K. The video games help but who knows how much money they are making from them.

It appears that you are more invloved in the business side of it than I am with your connections but here 40K is far and away the big game, followed i would say equally by fantasy and warmachine, then flames of war.

Local play styles can always colour these discussions. Warmachine and Hordes are huge where I am and 40K isn't really anywhere near as popular as if used to be. Still a big game though but stasis isn't what GW needs.

All the people I play and speak with love Apoc

I have the two GW books and the FW book as well. Great fun, great imagery but I picked them up mostly as inspiration for Epic.

But Apocalypse is about keeping hardcore gamers and not about bringing in new blood though.

@pixelgeek: If GW staunches the flow at a time when everybody else is hemmoraging, they're doing well. Apoc basically *is* advanced 40k, or 40k for long-time players. The new 40k boxed set is great for new gamers. So I just don't see the problem.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Apoc basically *is* advanced 40k...

There is nothing advanced about Apocalpse. Apocalypse is 40K but larger and with less restrictions.

The Advanced rules that were rumoured prior to 5th Ed would have been a more detailed game. Probably the exact opposite of Apocalypse.

Apoc adds the Strategic Assets.

EDITED BY MOD as unneeded personal attack.

Its ok, opinions are personal and kind of subjective... Its ok to slam GW if you dont like its business model or product...but heck! If theres one company, that falled as deep as it can get, in 2008 it was rackham.

Also I kind of missed some words on Infinity Specially since their miniatures were voted some of the best and I feel 2008 gave them a boost in popularity and sculpt quality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Apoc adds the Strategic Assets.

I don't think that's what people had in mind when they thought "Advanced 40k." I think
they had more of 2nd edition and not a handicap to assist understrength apoc armies.

I think that the editorial was written with the ending in mind, and then the facts were massaged to fit the preconceived ideas of the author. It seems that the author went into it with two main ideas:
1) that GW is failing, bound to fail, or is on the fast track to failure town, and
2) That the 40k basic ruleset is bad, old, stale, etc.

In his defense, the author did a good job of dismissing GW's relative successes this year, but IMO it was a highly personal opinion piece masquerading as a more wide lens opinion piece. I would have written the essay a little more personally:

"Despite my fears that GW would have a terrible year, they seem to have at least starting applying band aids to their loss of players in Orks, Space Marines, and most importantly Fifth Edition. Despite being restricted to tweaks and polish on an aging rules structure, Fifth edition is the cleanest and tightest rules 40k has ever had, and allows GW to keep the deep pool of currently legal army codices on the shelf for another 4-6 years. While GW is having success appealing to it's base of hard core fans, a lack of vision regarding bringing in new players, or adding genuine advanced rules to keep veteran players, might yet spell doom for an industry leader."

That was just in five minutes, but I think it's a bit less unfair to GW. And don't get me wrong, GW is a brightly colored failure pinata, full of hilarious candy when struck with the bat of cynicism. IMO it's still a bit unfair to so categorically dismiss 2008's releases.

Polonius wrote:In his defense, the author did a good job of dismissing GW's relative successes this year, but IMO it was a highly personal opinion piece masquerading as a more wide lens opinion piece.

Of course its an opinion piece :-) That is why there is an "Editorial" image at the top of the article.

That was just in five minutes, but I think it's a bit less unfair to GW. And don't get me wrong, GW is a brightly colored failure pinata...

You're being inconsistent. If the company is a "brightly colored failure pinata" then why is it necessary to be fair to them? If they screwed up that badly then why is it that someone needs to be "fair" to them?

IMO it's still a bit unfair to so categorically dismiss 2008's releases.

Why? The best thing they did was a terrain piece that we have praised quite a lot but aside from that what has GW done this year that is worth praise? What has GW done to solve their business problems?

NAVARRO wrote:Its ok, opinions are personal and kind of subjective... Its ok to slam GW if you dont like its business model or product...but heck! If theres one company, that falled as deep as it can get, in 2008 it was rackham.

Rackham failed deeply in 2007 though. They coasted in 2008 and we have to see what they do in 2009.

I don't know, I thought it was a reasonable review of GW's year.

I'm obviously not a fanboi though I like to think my decades of gaming and business knowledge give me enough perspective not to colour my opinions with gratuitous haytin.

Apocalypse had a mixed reception. Broad opinion on Dakka is 50/50 split between people who love it and people who think it's rubbish. You can say that the Dakka audience is biased, however, Apoc certainly won't attract non-40K players into the game, being a mega system building on top of 40K, that requires even more personal investment than the core rules.

The 5e rules were definitely an advance on 4e. They could have been better than they were, and are still unsupported by FAQs. However, GW obviously put some thought into the editing and so on and can be expected to improve further. Roll on 6e in 2012.

His point about 40K ignoring the mechanical advances of rules in the past 20 years is true. But GW would have to rewrite the system from the ground up to change this. This is probably impossible and may not be needed and runs a danger of alienating current users. There's no signs of 40K seriously losing popularity because of the rules. If I was GW, I would not monkey around with the basics.

The Baneblade isn't useable outside Apoc so again, a nice thing for Apoc fans but having no appeal to 40K users generally or outside the current userbase.

On the plus side, GW's financials started looking healthier than they have for some years. This is the result of better business management rather than changes in creative endeavours.

pixelgeek wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Its ok, opinions are personal and kind of subjective... Its ok to slam GW if you dont like its business model or product...but heck! If theres one company, that falled as deep as it can get, in 2008 it was rackham.

Rackham failed deeply in 2007 though. They coasted in 2008 and we have to see what they do in 2009.

Even after the big anouncement back in 07 there was some buzz and interest to how final caor ppp would be... but in 08 it was the year of the "truth" for them... shatered all hope providing mediocre products, failed deadlines, switched distributors, at43 inconsistent release shedules, Jean bey canned to the worst position possible "art director", great bring more of the same PPP
Look at forums then and now...
But really its no big deal...

In my opinion GW did amazingly well if you compare it with rackham.

No one in all fairness can say that things like new Orks, cold ones, drop pod etc isnt interesting or some of sweetest piece of plastics outhere... also this year there was huge discounts ( not common at GW) on some apoc armies or formations box sets...
Not biased here because 2008 was the year i splashed money on other companies ranges, Infinity, Mercs, freebooter, warmachine, fow to name a few.

NAVARRO wrote:In my opinion GW did amazingly well if you compare it with rackham.

Compare them to AIG and they did even better! ;-)

NAVARRO wrote:No one in all fairness can say that things like new Orks, cold ones, drop pod etc isnt interesting or some of sweetest piece of plastics outhere...

Sold to almost the exact same customers they had before. Its the same business model they have had for years and it isn't growing the company. Put out all the sweet models you want but if new gamers are playing WM instead of 40K or WFB then what good are sweet new models?

NAVARRO wrote:also this year there was huge discounts ( not common at GW) on some apoc armies or formations box sets...

They indeed finally did something that people have been telling them to do for years. But this is what they should have done in 2006 and 2007 and not now.

Well, I don't know to what extent GW is bringing new gamer in. So, if that is your sole criteria for judging the company, then you probably know more than I do on the subject. It seems to me that when you own a huge chunk of market share in a shrinking market, hanging on to what you have is pretty good, but I'm not an industry expert.

I don't think I'm inconsistent in saying that you're unfair to GW despite it often failing at things. GW's structural weaknesses are so well known, they're basically a given at this point: old clunky rules, high prices, homogenized sculpts. Pointing out that 5th edition isn't the most innovative ruleset in war gaming isn't exactly hard hitting analysis. I think a more interesting look would have been to analyze how Fifth Edition improved on the rules while still keeping all the codexes and models legal. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they went far enough, but I think your commentary was a bit superficial. Fifth edition, in the context of what GW was trying to accomplish, is an achievement. I know, "but it only sells to the people that played fourth." I don't know if that's true, I don't know what you know about it, but I have to assume that you know more than I do.

And that's my main problem, in the end. Your piece didn't really tell me anything new, or give a new view on things. It's not a bad piece, just not nearly as good as I think it could have been.

The new ruleset may not have reinvigorated sales totally (though they certainly helped to stem losses and bring in new blood) the model and kit releases this year did. Or at least one did. At every FLGS I attend the AOBR box has been hailed as a godsend, getting many new players into the game and selling out reliably even now so long after its introduction. Apocalypse was designed to prevent longstanding players from wondering why to continue buying, and in that it succeeded, but it can't really bring in new players. The assault on black reach box was such an insane value proposition however that many new players were created. I think this was a landmark year for GW, plugging holes is the first thing you do to stop a ship from sinking, then you start scooping out the water. 5E and apoc were the hole plugging, and AOBR and the new codexes will be the bilge pumps. Once the business has stabilized they can release that rumored more tactical and in depth rulesystem for 40k, and maybe even bring back a specialist game.

I think perhaps the article is a bit too harsh in some ways towards GW, I really don't think you give them enough credit for the top notch minis that they have brought out this year/are about to bring out. You mnetion the new ( and very welcome) plastic kit Warlord games etc have brought out-- and they are nice. But the GW ones are better in terms of sculpting precision and just sheer amount of gubbins in/om the sprues. I think they also should perhaps be given credit for bringing out things like the new bags, markers etc etc. Yes, hoary old vets like us either make our own or buy from pre-existing suppliers. But it shows it's a viable market for them to move into and is something that GW players have gone on about for ages. Hell, some still do.

I think they do deserve some criticsim for the continued slow release of the army books etc, and I do still think the company is far too tight lipped at times over what is coming when ( then again I have no idea how this info impacts on sales-- look what happened to Rackham when they announced their new stuff) and a very annoying silence with regards to rule loopholes, FAQS etc etc.

That said, seeing as the author seems to share my delight in an easy 2-nil win over Preston yesterday, with the gleeful prospect of knocking the toffees out in the next round, I support him 100% !

I have to agree with everything Polonius said. As for new players, what GW started with "Battle for Macragge" they have perfected with "Assault on Black Reach." If that isn't the most awesome starter set of any game known to man, then I don't think you're looking hard enough.

As to the tone in your article and your belief that GW is tanking, I'd like to see your source. If you haven't noticed, the world economy is crap right now, so every company is doing poorly. GW seems to be doing much more than merely treading water at this point.

EDIT:

Also, you say the mechanics have no changed in 20 years, but that is clearly not true either. Rogue Trader (1988) and Warhammer 40k 2nd (1992?) were completely different games than Warhammer 40k 3rd (1998). While you still have the same stats, the basic rules are completely and radically different in all respects. If anything, it would be more correct to say that the current iteration of the game has been around for about 10 years now. And, every release since then has seemed to be GW refining what they feel is a good core foundation in the 3rd ed mechanics.

I feel that 5th plays the best out of the bunch thus far by the way.

Polonius wrote:Your piece didn't really tell me anything new, or give a new view on things.

Well it is a year-end review so its hardly going to have news is it? :-)

whitedragon wrote:As to the tone in your article and your belief that GW is tanking, I'd like to see your source.

I believe that I said that people thought GW was going to tank. As to sources, I think if you look on this messageboard and many other news sites for the last two or three years you will have seen this opinion expressed.

If you haven't noticed, the world economy is crap right now

It is now. It wasn't for most of 2008.

Also, you say the mechanics have no changed in 20 years,

That isn't what I said.

whitedragon wrote:While you still have the same stats, the basic rules are completely and radically different in all respects..

That is clearly not the case.

I feel that 5th plays the best out of the bunch thus far by the way.

Can't argue with that. RT was an RPG. Second Ed was fun but wildly unbalanced. Third Ed wasn't bad but prone to tweakers and power gamers. Fourth Ed was a mes. Fifth doesn't appear to be that bad.

pixelgeek wrote:

Polonius wrote:Your piece didn't really tell me anything new, or give a new view on things.

Well it is a year-end review so its hardly going to have news is it? :-)

For a guy that seems a bit touchy about being misquoted or read, you seem to not read what I write. I also wrote "or give a new view on things." If you're saying that your article was a completely personal opinion that was meant solely to rehash old themes and add nothing new to the discourse, then my apologies, as it was a success at that.

reds8n wrote: You mnetion the new ( and very welcome) plastic kit Warlord games etc have brought out-- and they are nice. But the GW ones are better in terms of sculpting precision and just sheer amount of gubbins in/om the sprues.

I don't think that historical gamers like Gubbins as much as 40K gamers :-)

reds8n wrote:I think they also should perhaps be given credit for bringing out things like the new bags, markers etc etc. Yes, hoary old vets like us either make our own or buy from pre-existing suppliers.

This is actually an interesting issue. Because what it does is start to eat away at the markets of the secondary businesses that have sprung up around 40K and WFB supplying those same bags and accessories.

GW has decided to take a bite out of that market and are attempting to become a single source shop for everything that gamers need to play their games.

From an accounting perspective it makes sense but I can't imagine that it is making them a lot of friends in the rest of the industry.

Charon used to make cases for GW and I am not sure where they are getting them now but I suspect it isn't Charon and I can't see that companies like Charon are happy about this. (May be wrong about that though)

reds8n wrote:That said, seeing as the author seems to share my delight in an easy 2-nil win over Preston yesterday, with the gleeful prospect of knocking the toffees out in the next round, I support him 100% !

Can't wait to see them thump the toffees!

Polonius wrote:For a guy that seems a bit touchy about being misquoted or read...

Not familiar with the concept of smilies? I added one so you could see that I was in fact not touchy about it at all and was having a bit of a laugh.

Do try to pay attention to them even if they aren't animated Orks.

pixelgeek wrote:

Polonius wrote:For a guy that seems a bit touchy about being misquoted or read...

Not familiar with the concept of smilies? I added one so you could see that I was in fact not touchy about it at all and was having a bit of a laugh.

Do try to pay attention to them even if they aren't animated Orks.

I wasn't talking about in your post to me, but to other people. But, well, I can see you're digging into a smug little position here, so I should probably bail on this thread.

From an accounting perspective it makes sense but I can't imagine that it is making them a lot of friends in the rest of the industry

Which I'm sure GW are weeping about right ?


Not directed at you here specifically, but GW can't seem to catch a break here. They don't make things like this and people moan and say what an obvious business oppurtunity it is.

Then they do it and cop flak for taking trade away from the companies that were making them ?

Aside from that : Fine site Mr. Geek, glad to see it is still going strong. May I suggest it might be worth inviting a few other industry figures from various companies to offer their comments and thoughts for 2009 and 2008.

pixelgeek wrote:The best thing they did was a terrain piece that we have praised quite a lot but aside from that what has GW done this year that is worth praise?

What has GW done to solve their business problems?

Um, *what* terrain piece are you talking about? The WFB Buildings set? *Great* set. The Chapel is awesomely designed and engineered. It is beautiful! And the way it goes into the Manor? Genius!

As for solving their "business problems", GW released Apocalypse and followed that up with 5E, AoBR, and Orks:
- 40k is a mature game, so the primary task is to keep players interested as their collections grow. Apoc is a *resounding* success in both retaining customers and getting them to spend more. Sheer Genius!
- 40k needed a clearer, cleaner ruleset, and 5E addressed everything in the FAQ, along with the nigggling little stuff. 40k finally moved from messy VPs to clean and clear Objectives. This is a *great* ruleset for 40k.
- 40k needed a good starter. AoBR does that in spades by not wasting sprue on Terrain, instead packing in the maximum amount of SM and Orks possible. And it has incredibly clever models. This thing deservedly sells incredibly well, better than BFM ever did.
- 40k needed to give non-Marines a push to diversify things, and the long-awaited Ork release did just that. Brilliant vehicles, great characterful rules. Strongly competitive. Got people to start new Ork armies, spend serious greenbacks on greenskins.

The idea that GW wasn't poised to do well is simply strange. They released Apoc last holiday season, and it was a resounding success. The released a second book, and it also did well enough. Apoc-only FW is selling like crazy. More Apoc is slotted for early next year.

Now maybe all you see is GW holding on. Fine. Given that:
- GW has the largest share, with the most to lose,
- Warmachine and Flames are hanging on
- everybody else seems to be going down in Flames
Most reasonable watchers would conclude that GW is doing just fine.

____

Kilkrazy wrote:Apocalypse had a mixed reception. Broad opinion on Dakka is 50/50 split between people who love it and people who think it's rubbish.

His point about 40K ignoring the mechanical advances of rules in the past 20 years is true. But GW would have to rewrite the system from the ground up to change this. This is probably impossible and may not be needed and runs a danger of alienating current users.

Dakka is chock full of Tournament players compared to the general public. Of *course* opinion here is more split than elsewhere. Outside the Tournament "circuit", Apoc is a resounding success. That's why GW doesn't give a damn about doing a Tournament FAQ, while they're pumping resources into Apoc. Remember, GW is nothing if not transparent. If you follow the new releases, it's obvious where GW is making money. Apoc is a huge money-maker. Dave Taylor was canned and Tournament support was cut. Very simple.

GW actually has picked up a lot of the mechanical advances since RT was released. To claim otherwise is clearly false:
- do we count turns in vehicle movement? No.
- do we personally "Guess" distances? No
But 40k has a certain feel and it would be hard to change it radically. See the hubbub over Kill Points, for example...