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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, we'll see what happens come 6th Ed. You're going to sell your stuff at that point?

Nah...I doubt I'd ever sell the minis I currently have painted etc. I've always collected mini's since the early 80's which is why my first purchase was the Lelith mini. Despite the scale difference, you get no better mini from GW during that time frame that was as dynamically posed and well sculpted.

But don't get me wrong...I have to agree the current ed is the most tightly written ruleset GW has put out at least w/ regard to the RB. It seems their revision process is more attuned to just making a new Edition.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- external testers leak copies like a sieve that potentially depress hardcopy sales

I thought they were a miniatures company? Who cares about rulebook sales?

Yeah, really...I don't see how you can claim to make all your money through miniatures and not care at all about rules, but then be so damn protective of them. Let them freaking leak out, then we can do their jobs for them and fix it before it goes to print at least.

GW makes their money on IP.

As the rule books contain IP, GW is obliged to protect it.

I remember a time when people were whining about shelling out an extra 20 bucks for (get this) a re-worded and clarified re-printing of the 3rd Ed. CSM codex.

Of course back then people were talking about how awesome the Wargear book was. Man times sure do change.

And I'm not sure there is another company as aggressive in protection of it's IP than Workshop.

Oh, i'm on the wagon that they are a mini's company and that they sell a ridiculous number of models to people out there who will never play competatively and who just want to get together on weekends in their garages, drink beer, and roll dice. That means they need a ruleset that works and they have that.

Oh, and 5th edition is the best thing to happen to 40k since.....well.....ever really. Though it is a close second to the ending of 2nd edition herohammer in space!

I personally don't think GW are failing.

I think they do everything right. Except for the game rules. And the fact that old fluff was better than new fluff.

But what is specifically sucky about the rules problem, is that they have in the past made very good rule sets. Space Hulk, Advanced space Crusade, Epic 40k, all had really good rules.
I hear lotr has good rules too, though I haven't played.

In fact I wonder if they keep the 40k rules sucky, merely to appease all the idiots who would whine if they changed them?

I struggle to believe they don't update the rules because it would take too much time to do so - I think most of them write rules and sketch genestealers in their spare time. (When they aren't painting models of course). Essentially I think it must take more effort to stop the staff bettering the rules than to keep things as static as they are.

Hulksmash wrote:And I'm not sure there is another company as aggressive in protection of it's IP than Workshop.

Really? Have you not heard of Fox before?

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW makes their money on IP.

As the rule books contain IP, GW is obliged to protect it.

So release betas without any artwork or fluff... simple.

I think that most people are missing is that from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.

Are they successful with their miniatures company yes, they are. Are they successful in managing their IP to a degree.

Let's first address some key arguments.

1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another ; yes gamesworkshop produces one product that supplements another the fact is though as a player and hobbyisst you need only one copy of one itme the rules and multiple copies of another to play the minatures .

Now if the rules reflected only one item needed for play and a tit for tat incentive Gamesworkshop would not nearly be as successful it is through arbitray requirments of the rules in the substance of point values that we are told by games work what amount of their miniatures to purchase in order to use that .

Now , the rules are a catalyst for purchasing miniatures and for furthering the sale of minatures.


The rules and codexes are advertisements in essence for the purchaising of product.


A good example of this would be to look at less successful armies and examine why they fail. For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.


In short rulebooks and codexes are advertising for product and designate ultimately for what product a player will be purchasing.

2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive

I actually already adressed this issue , but I'll state it again that with the advent of disgital medium corrections made can be minimum ; you do not have to purchas e a new print set you simply programe the computer to reprint the document.

You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like ; it is more akin to a large digital laser copmputer printer. Yes, news papers are still printed this way to a degree; for sheer volume and costs production demands it.

However with products that have multiple color pictures and type a digital medium is generally used in both of these instances. Even though the mechanics of actual printing my be different.

3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales

Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Companies all over the world and in differnet genres have discovered what GW tends to ignore that the release of a beta product does not ultimately cause a product to fail but the failing is htat when obvious grievious errors in the poroduct are bnot fixed before release.
Now fist and formost a stripped down version of beta rules does not harm sales at all in any consequential way as although one or two players may soley use it the large majority will purchasethe finished product and that the finished product will most likely have enough vhanges to make the beta product uselless.

Almost all product manufactures release some sort of at least prototype in order to create fervor for their product.

This is just successive pricing as well as Revised editions would need to be purchased it would also garner and maintain intersts in the publications made by games workshop and what was printedi n their monthly magazine if revisions and such were put forth in this manner

gamers who like a perfect set of rules will not play GW games - they will play something else. Those of us that think the rules could be improved but still play proove that there is no need to make perfect rules. Yes there are plenty of people out there who refuse to play GW because the rules are poor, but they are a small minority. Also remember that GW rules are there to give the models a use - GW admit this themselves in WD. Hence the 4 year turnaround, new rules = new armies - check out the promo stickers on the boxes in store for proof. The rules are a small aspect of our hobby. I'm still using the last marine codex and have a large marine army. There's problems if you play in tournaments but realistically how many gamers % wise do this? not that many. Our hobby is about enjoying a game, those who are worth most in sales to GW are this group of people who create crazy things - masive terrain sets, leviathans etc. By the nature of the gamer the rules, as long as they work, are relativly unimportant. I completly skipped 4th edition of the game and still enjoyed the hobby. We're always going to have new rules, they help bolster sales and give reason to by that unit with a new rule. GW are a business not a hobby. They are there to make money from us for the shareholders. if that means putting out a very usable if not perfect rule set then that's what they'll do. It's relativly cheap to right a new rule set, but the cost to take it that stage further and perfect it as pointed out earlier is simply not worth the time, effort and money. Same goes for the who debate about 'are GW products to expensive?' - no, we buy therefore they are correctly priced. 'Do we need a perfect rules set?' - no, we play GW.

As for book = models - there are many people who collect the models first rather than a playable army, and even those who game regulary have models they have bought for the sake of it. I have a banblade because it's cool - I've not used it in a simgle game. Same goes for my Mumak, 2 squads of marines, a bg capital ship, half an epic army, half a warmaster army, several Inquisitor models, an eldar battalion, and countless other models I've got sitting around. We buy what we want. yes that is influenced by rules to some extent, but not buy perfect rules. Those who leave GW due to rules aren't worth enough to make it economical to create a perfect rules set.

Bottom line is if you enjoy it you'll keep playing and spending, if not go elsewhere. if you like cars you wouldn't buy a plane instead. Same principal.

Hollismason wrote: ...but also from eliminating bad grammar spelling mistakes etc..

How do most publishers handle this ; well if you examine most publishing companies produce what is called a Advance copy which has not gone through a final editorial process but is produced soley for the purpose of review by informed public and critics. An advance copy serves several purposes first it allows the public a preview and it also allows the company to " beta" test their product on how it will be recieved.

It also allows the company to correct any last minute mistakes looked over by the editorial team before the final product goes to press. Believe it or not alot of books get edited...

Comedy Gold!!!!

GW and Warhammer has been *only a product for over fifteen years now (possibly longer). A Product not a labor of love. Unfortunately most labor's of love have gone the way of the Dodo. GW survives and thrives despite many years of questionable or downright crappy rules because they hit on an alternate and much needed niche' in the already established historical miniatures market. GW has also been great at cultivating the desire for their crap. To say they are failing is somewhat comical. What are their goals? Certainly not to make the best set of miniature rules out their, certainly to stay in business. Well, they're still in business.

*only a product meaning it ceased to be a labor of love, not a reference regarding how long they've been in business, which is much longer.

Flagg07 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?

EXACTLY!

As an example, let's say they write a wonderfully balanced top tier codex for IG, making Commisars, Ratlings and Ogryns viable options due to points cost, special rules and how these units play out in the game. It's safe to say there would be an increase of sales for these items.

I disagree! A perfect set of rules would never need to be updated, FAQs-ed, altered, changed or need a sequel. A perfect line of miniatures that encompassed all unit types would also fall into this catagory. Sure, sales may increase in the short term but then what? Millions (are there that many of us) of us would be satisfied, play in all the tournies, threads would only be about tactics, techiniques and styles. We'd go about our gaming lives and the designers would need to get paid to attend tournies just to make enough to eat. Then, of course, we'd get bored and find another game to play. It's human nature.

Have I ever played a game of Fantasy or 40k where a rules quandry hasn't come up? Honestly, only once or twice.

Have said rules quandries ever impacted upon my enjoyment of the game? Honestly, again, only once or twice, and on each occasion it was my opponent being overly litigious about such things that ultimately ruined my enjoyment. It would be nice if there were no such quibbles, but thats asking quite a lot from any company.

However, the important thing is, I genuinely enjoy the vast majority (talking 99% here) of my games, so I really don't worry about things so much.

My gaming is pretty much a purely social affair. My gaming circle and I will play at the shop, once I have my board up and running, also round mine. The rules have been shonky for so long, it's an accepted part of the pre battle drill to double check our interpretation of oddities, like ASF in Fantasy, or which bits of cover give what save in 40k.

Yes, I can see rules disputes popping up as being detrimental to the enjoyment of a Tournament setting. But the rules came first, then the Tournaments. The game is designed as a reward for a far larger hobby than just beating your mates. As others have said, the rules are a loss leader enabling the higher sales of models. They were never intended to stand up to Tournament level scrutiny.

GW offers rules sets which enable me to use my model collection on the board. I very much enjoy said rules as part of my social life. In this respect, they are highly successful.

namegoeshere wrote:I personally don't think GW are failing.

I think they do everything right. Except for the game rules. And the fact that old fluff was better than new fluff.

But what is specifically sucky about the rules problem, is that they have in the past made very good rule sets. Space Hulk, Advanced space Crusade, Epic 40k, all had really good rules.
I hear lotr has good rules too, though I haven't played.

Your own argument works against you. Every game you mentioned except LotR, GW has dropped for periods of time due to poor sales performance.

LotR isn't performing so well since the cinematic trilogy ended. GW is hoping the new Hobbit prequel will stimulate sales. If it doesn't the game and most of its peices will probably become special order only. If sales are to low and remain so they might even consider dropping the liscencing agreement. IMHO, I think that would be a mistake and very unlikely, as well, because GW is a very savy corporation that has shown an amazing ability to think in the long term.

namegoeshere wrote:In fact I wonder if they keep the 40k rules sucky, merely to appease all the idiots who would whine if they changed them?

Careful, that sounds an awful lot like a whine. Not trying to be insulting, just pointing out the irony.

namegoeshere wrote:I struggle to believe they don't update the rules because it would take too much time to do so - I think most of them write rules and sketch genestealers in their spare time. (When they aren't painting models of course). Essentially I think it must take more effort to stop the staff bettering the rules than to keep things as static as they are.

Do you go home and work your regular job in your spare time. Just because someone is a banker doesn't mean he's gonna go home and do math.

Hollismason wrote: I think that most people are missing is that from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.

Are they successful with their miniatures company yes, they are. Are they successful in managing their IP to a degree.

I think your missing the point that they are a very successful company/corporation and are fairing much better in these economic times because they realised that pursuing only short term gains can kill a company.

Hollismason wrote:1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another ; yes gamesworkshop produces one product that supplements another the fact is though as a player and hobbyisst you need only one copy of one itme the rules and multiple copies of another to play the minatures .

There are other successful mini companies out there. Just probably not on the same level as GW.

Hollismason wrote:Now if the rules reflected only one item needed for play and a tit for tat incentive Gamesworkshop would not nearly be as successful it is through arbitray requirments of the rules in the substance of point values that we are told by games work what amount of their miniatures to purchase in order to use that .
Now , the rules are a catalyst for purchasing miniatures and for furthering the sale of minatures.

The rules and codexes are advertisements in essence for the purchaising of product.

A good example of this would be to look at less successful armies and examine why they fail. For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.

In short rulebooks and codexes are advertising for product and designate ultimately for what product a player will be purchasing.

Yes, exactly, the rules and therefore the game is one giant promotion. You have to remember that all the rule are part of the advertising of the product and as such are more promotional material than published books. When you understand that then you can draw the parallel between how GW protects their trademarked promotional product and how companies like Coke or Pepsi protect their trademarks.

When you say that GW fails as a publishing company, it's like saying coke fails as a publishing company. Thats because they are not publishing companies. They are corporations both protecting and releasing promotional products. Before you say that the soda companies test before release, ask yourself this, "Would they test market first if it required releasing the recipe?"

As to the Dark Eldar, they are a case of where a failed poorly executed promotion damaged a wonderful concept with a mediocre product line. The thing to note here is that GW not only took action to minimize their losses but learned from that mistake.

Hollismason wrote:2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive

I actually already adressed this issue , but I'll state it again that with the advent of disgital medium corrections made can be minimum ; you do not have to purchas e a new print set you simply programe the computer to reprint the document.

You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like ; it is more akin to a large digital laser copmputer printer. Yes, news papers are still printed this way to a degree; for sheer volume and costs production demands it.

However with products that have multiple color pictures and type a digital medium is generally used in both of these instances. Even though the mechanics of actual printing my be different.

No, we are imagining kids filesharing then printing high quality hardcopies long before the intended release thus depressing the sale of the product prematurely due to the anticipation of the new Codex. So GW losses money on the promotional collectable pamphlet(Codex) and the product(minis) sales drop. If you don't believe me check the sales history of armies once their updated codex is announced. This doesn't even mention that we are a group of fairly skilled hobbiest that can convert old pieces to represent the cool new stuff. This further kills the product release.

From a corporations point of view it is incredibly necessary to control the timing of these promotions as they are the launch of products that took years of work and very large sums of money.

Hollismason wrote:3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales

Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Companies all over the world and in differnet genres have discovered what GW tends to ignore that the release of a beta product does not ultimately cause a product to fail but the failing is htat when obvious grievious errors in the poroduct are bnot fixed before release.
Now fist and formost a stripped down version of beta rules does not harm sales at all in any consequential way as although one or two players may soley use it the large majority will purchasethe finished product and that the finished product will most likely have enough vhanges to make the beta product uselless.

First, realize that the business model for computer games is about as much of an antithesis to business models of tabletop minatures as you can get. The only things they share are that geeks are their primary market and that they are out to make money.

Lets make this a little more simple. How long do computer games last before your expected to buy an all new game? I think estimating 5 years is being fair. What would happen if you told gamers that they would have to buy complete to the every last model new armies every 5 years. They'd drop the game, therefore the hobby in a heartbeat. You just can't compare the two, its like comparing apples and battletanks.

A good example of when you try to mix the two. Look at computer risk, monopoly, or scrabble. They are all available as computer games and all perform underwhelmingly. Why? Because people end up playing solo games all the time with no human interaction. If they are together in person they break out the old boards and play as a tabletop rather than a desktop. The translation from tabletop to desktop is the reason why DoW is so different from the tabletop game. So different in fact that they are handled by to completly seperate companies. If you don't belive this, call up GW with a question about DoW and see how far you get.

Second, to address your first point. It happens all of the time. Untested games rushed to the store shelves so poorly written that they won't even run unless you immediately go the the web site and start downloading patches. Sometimes it will be six months later and major bugs will be prevalent. It may have gotten better in the past two rears but from 2001-2007 I must have bought a half-dozen game that had to me patched for me to be able to run. It's one of the reasons why I pulled away from computer games.

focusedfire wrote:

1) Your own argument works against you. Every game you mentioned except LotR, GW has dropped for periods of time due to poor sales performance.

LotR isn't performing so well since the cinematic trilogy ended. GW is hoping the new Hobbit prequel will stimulate sales. If it doesn't the game and most of its peices will probably become special order only. If sales are to low and remain so they might even consider dropping the liscencing agreement. IMHO, I think that would be a mistake and very unlikely, as well, because GW is a very savy corporation that has shown an amazing ability to think in the long term.

2) Careful, that sounds an awful lot like a whine. Not trying to be insulting, just pointing out the irony.

3) Do you go home and work your regular job in your spare time. Just because someone is a banker doesn't mean he's gonna go home and do math.

1) Space hulk had limited army ranges, Epic had little miniatures, lotr lacks dinosaurs. Surely these are the reasons they fail, not the fact they are better games than 40k? Not being cheeky, I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to why their rules would be a drawback.

2) My whining is good whining, theirs is bad whining

3) If I became a banker out of love rather than prudence , probably.

WHFB was released when I was at university in the early 1980s. At that time, GW was a general game and figure publishing company. They sold a variety of fantasy and war games in their shops, they were publishing games like RuneQuest under licence, they published Citadel Miniatures mainly for RPG type games, and they started publishing their own rules (WHFB) and games such as Judge Dredd and Talisman (not sure when these came out.)

It is impossible to say from their history whether GW regard rules or figures as more important. Nowadays, if you ignore Historical and Specialist, they only publish WHFB, 40K and LoTR. All these games are rules + figures marching in step.

Speaking from experience, training and education as a publisher and manager, I can see no reason why GW can't do better publishing 40K if they want to. So I assume they don't want to, and have good reasons for it. Probably connected with the point mentioned earlier that their core market is 13-year old boys, and there is a fresh crop every year to replace the ones who have moved on.

Hollismason wrote: I think that most people are missing is that from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.

Are they successful with their miniatures company yes, they are. Are they successful in managing their IP to a degree.

Let's first address some key arguments.

1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another ; yes gamesworkshop produces one product that supplements another the fact is though as a player and hobbyisst you need only one copy of one itme the rules and multiple copies of another to play the minatures .

Now if the rules reflected only one item needed for play and a tit for tat incentive Gamesworkshop would not nearly be as successful it is through arbitray requirments of the rules in the substance of point values that we are told by games work what amount of their miniatures to purchase in order to use that .

Now , the rules are a catalyst for purchasing miniatures and for furthering the sale of minatures.


The rules and codexes are advertisements in essence for the purchaising of product.


A good example of this would be to look at less successful armies and examine why they fail. For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.


In short rulebooks and codexes are advertising for product and designate ultimately for what product a player will be purchasing.

2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive

I actually already adressed this issue , but I'll state it again that with the advent of disgital medium corrections made can be minimum ; you do not have to purchas e a new print set you simply programe the computer to reprint the document.

You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like ; it is more akin to a large digital laser copmputer printer. Yes, news papers are still printed this way to a degree; for sheer volume and costs production demands it.

However with products that have multiple color pictures and type a digital medium is generally used in both of these instances. Even though the mechanics of actual printing my be different.

3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales

Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Companies all over the world and in differnet genres have discovered what GW tends to ignore that the release of a beta product does not ultimately cause a product to fail but the failing is htat when obvious grievious errors in the poroduct are bnot fixed before release.
Now fist and formost a stripped down version of beta rules does not harm sales at all in any consequential way as although one or two players may soley use it the large majority will purchasethe finished product and that the finished product will most likely have enough vhanges to make the beta product uselless.

Almost all product manufactures release some sort of at least prototype in order to create fervor for their product.

This is just successive pricing as well as Revised editions would need to be purchased it would also garner and maintain intersts in the publications made by games workshop and what was printedi n their monthly magazine if revisions and such were put forth in this manner

I thought like you did until I worked for GW. Let me pick out what's wrong with your thinking, and why GW doesn't see it that way:
1. They care about rules enough to the certain point they are now. To get beyond that point costs resources. However, every new gamer brings $500 in a month on average. Veteran gamers don't mean squat compared to new blood. Writing perfect rules makes no difference to new gamers; they simply don't know any better. To put it bluntly, it's not worth the effort. It doesn't make more money for the effort. And you haven't supplied numbers in a mini business to support your theory. It's just simply not true. Better rules do not equal more sales. Go study game balance theory and game cycles. A perfectly balanced game is just as bad as a perfectly broken game. It leads to what's called game breakdown in the game cycle.
Hard numbers: Everyone knows how bad the dark angel's are. My store sold every last Dark Angel army box the store got...over 100 army boxes. The region couldn't keep Dark Angels in stock. Everyone knew the codex was garbage. Chaos didn't do nearly as well...hmm...Hell, the dark angel's release outdid Orcs, and we all know which codex is better. Heck, do you know what sells the most? Space marines. Space marines were with Dark Angels pretty much dead last at GT's last year. Perfect game balance does not equal sales.


2. You've never run a print business. Paper is expensive. Ink is expensive. Most importantly, what's the justification? If I reprint Dark angel's with a few sentences different, will I make more money? No, of course not. Instead I'll just spend more. It's dumb, of course they don't do it. It doesn't matter if it's easy to do. It's still dumb.

3. Fallacy <- hard numbers on blood angels disprove it. GW is not a computer game. Your thinking is how people in the anime industry justify fansubs, and i hate to say it, but fansubs are slowly killing the anime industry. Gw has already figuered out how to hype the codecies by releasing one rumor at a time...they don't need to release whole documents to do that. That, and the way GW releases rumors is easier on the wallet for them.

Hard facts and numbers, not opinions.

Let me give you an example that might make it easier to understand. Think of the rules and codecies as a catalog. A catalog doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to tell you what you can purchase. It takes a lot of effort to make a perfect catalog, but in the end, it's a catalog! You do good enough and spend resources on your product.

That's all it is. Besides, like I said before, even if they wanted to they couldn't make a better one anyways. Blah blah about editors and game designers again in one of my posts above.

namegoeshere wrote:1) Space hulk had limited army ranges, Epic had little miniatures, lotr lacks dinosaurs. Surely these are the reasons they fail, not the fact they are better games than 40k? Not being cheeky, I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to why their rules would be a drawback.

It goes to the sciences of business and human motivation. There is a book called, Why We Buy, by a gent named pascal underhill. You read this book and all of the nagging things about how things are marketed and sold, that we suppress because its to frightening to think about, are discussed in this book. This is the guy who turned selling and marketing into a quantifiable science. This guy is the goto guy for a lot of your to merchandisers and retailers. The list of corporations that are his customers is staggering. Seriously, this guy is the reason why milk is always in the back of the store here in america.

Sorry, got a little of subject there.

IMHO, The basic human needs and desires that GW capitalizes upon is challenge, the desire for the newer&better, team fandom, and a basic human tendency towards being a little anal.

1)A perfect ruleset doesn't lend itself to challenge. Once everyone learns the rules, you have fun for a while but eventually you growed boered of the same old/same old. Steak every meal sounds good. But, about day 4 for me is where I'm ready for something else.


2)A perfectly written ruleset doesn't allow for updating or the introduction of new models. Why? Because the new models will probably upset the balance. The fastest way to lose customers is to ruin something deemed perfect. Now if there are already flaws present then the new model is accepted as an attempt to fix. That attempt may fail horribly but it didn't ruin something that was perfect so no harm/no foul. No new models = no challenge and no new players for your favorite army=bored disgruntled fans. So a perfect rule set would kill all four of these human drives right off the bat.

3) Team fandom, every army will be imbalanced a little versus others. perfect rules would eliminate this and remove much of the flavor of the existing armies.

4) I already discusses the anal thing.


You look at the games you just mentioned. when they were or will be rereleased. Look at whats really changing. Epic still has tiny models and space hulk will probably get a greater variety of usable models as that limitation is part of what killed it but if the game doesn't come to more than going down a hall and fight it will quickly grow boring. Ruleset was good and simplistic and grew boring very quickly.

There is more but I need to help the wife. Later

Oh good we're in the quote fight phase of the discussion, it's my favorite part. Not to read of course just to watch.

Hulksmash wrote:And I'm not sure there is another company as aggressive in protection of it's IP than Workshop.

How about Sony? They're RIAA members, but that isn't enough, so they install rootkits on their Customer's PCs.
____

Osbad wrote:So release betas without any artwork or fluff... simple.

As above, that (falsely) presumes that the beta generates some actual value that justifies the preparation, release, and follow-up.
____

Hollismason wrote: from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.

What you're missing is that GW (and most of us) could care less whether GW "fails" as a publisher, because that's not how they're measured.

It's like upbraiding me for failing as a weightlifter, or some other secondary / tertiary activity that I happen to engage in. The answer is "so what?". If being a weightlifter doesn't pay my bills, it doesn't really matter. Sure, maintiaining general health is important to me being able to hold down a regular job, but that's secondary to what I really do.

Hollismason wrote: 1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another

For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.

25+ years of GW success as an independent games company shows that your disagreement is meaningless. "Great minis and adequate rules" seems to be a good formula that matches effort against total dollar profit from each segment.

Many would argue that the primary problem with Dark Eldar is their miniatures, considering that, rules-wise, Dark Eldar are shown to remain competitive in practically every major event in which someone bothers to enter them. Again, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

Hollismason wrote: 2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive
You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like

We're imagining a world in which it's a pain to re-typeset and re-edit things that are already generating sufficient adequate revenue to cover themselves. GW isn't POD -- they mass-print and distribute internationally. They don't just do one version - they do several language-specific versions.

Hollismason wrote: 3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales
Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.

Almost all product manufactures release some sort of at least prototype in order to create fervor for their product.

Computer product is now monetized under a subscription model, in which the customer only lays claim to a bit of data storage on a mass server. Software can be locked down - if you want to play WoW, you've got a problem if you don't keep paying the subscription fee. GW product is physical and tangible "buy once, use forever".

As noted, GW sneak peeks their minis to build fervor. And they leak rules information. If this marketing works for them, why do they need to release full betas?

First off, I will admit, I didn't take time to read all of this thread. But......

Is it some sort of fad hating on GW? I don't get it.

Also, how can you complain on playtesting. You all can't wait for the next codex, edition, ect to be released. But with a game as open as 40k, with so many options, It would take years to test every possible issue and find ways to fix them.

I agree that GW produces excellent miniatures and lackluster rules. Two things drive me crazy about GW rules.

First, are the GW fans who simply refuse to acknowledge that the rules are lackluster in the first place. These people tend to come in two groups. Those who don't care about the sloppy rules or those who are ignorant about the sloppy rules. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. It's aggrivating to play against someone when they don't have have a grasp on even the fundamental rules issues (I'm not talking about new, inexperienced players here). Example: playing an Ork player and they ram your Land Raider with their death-roller armed Battlewagon and then procede to roll 2d6 for the ramming attacks. It annoys me that they assume that the rules work only the way they think they work. They aren't even aware that there is a huge debate over how to interperet the rules in this case. Of course, if you try to point out these grey areas in the rules to these people then you get labelled as TFG and are accused of trying to rules lawyer to gain unfair advantage.

Secondly, is GW reaction to the holes in their rules (or rather, lack of reaction). Seriously, how difficult is it for GW to put up a faq on their website with definitive answers to rules questions? I mean, the Deathroller ramming issue has been around since the release of the Ork codex. When are they going to put up something official saying "this is how it works" one way or the other. They just need to hire one guy who thay can authorise to respond to these rules questions and have him electronically publish online living faq's. I know they have the e-mail rules question guy, but many people don't feel that he's official enough. They need to publish therse answers publicly.

A lot of people mention that they have been successful for many years by doing it the way they currently do it. That doesn't mean that the way they do things can't be improved. Having a tighter rules set does not have to be cost prohibitive. They can maintain their current business model and integrate better rules without changing everything about the way they do business.

@holden:

1. Actually I think the other POV is that the rules are perceived as sufficient for what they need to do, rather than "lackluster".

2. If it doesn't drive sufficient additional revenue, why should GW waste effort on FAQs? Why should they hire that one guy if he generates less than one guy's worth of revenue?

Having better rules needs to pay for itself, that's business. If the rules were in dire need of "fixing" or "FAQing" (i.e. depressing sales), then I'm sure GW would address it.

But, if GW is turning a profit, then additional / "better" rules probably aren't needed.

Of course, the stock is doing great with a steady drop since 2005, with the lowest its ever been last year by a large margin.

Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the jitters on the world wide stock market in the least, does it? Oh no.

2005-2007, they issued profit warnings. LotR bubble burst earlier, and faster than they had predicted leaving them floundering somewhat.

2008 saw the impact of their cost cutting measures, which sadly came at a time when the whole stock market was plummeting thanks to the Greedy Bankers (who have, piss takingly, said sorry today...)

But no, it's all to do with the rules. Of course it is. I mean, the loss leader is always responsible for drops in stock.

Fiendcrackar! wrote:Is it some sort of fad hating on GW?

It's better than being one of the GW sycophants this place attracts... or that Warseer breeds.


Holden:

1. Actually I think the other POV is that the rules are perceived as sufficient for what they need to do, rather than "lackluster".

John here would fit into your second category.

BYE

And of course, by syocphant, HBMC means someone who happens to enjoy GW games, and spends a lot of money on them, as opposed to someone who purports to hate their games, yet spends a ridiculous amount of money on them....