With all the eldar hate going around.....

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.

**jasper76**

ImAGeek wrote:
I think that's more down to momentum than anything else. They grew big in a time where they had very little competition, so it's going to take time for other companies to come anywhere close. But I think other companies are definitely catching up these days, every other game seems to be growing rapidly.

Assigning this to momentum could very well be valid.

I'll tell you the reasons for my personal reluctance to invest time and money into other sci-fi games:

(a) First and foremost, my regular gaming compadres don't play them, and are still having plenty of fun with 40k. It makes more sense for me to invest my $ and hobby time in a game where I actually have opponents (chalk this up to momentum).
(b) I enjoy the hobby part (sprues, clippers, superglue, and paint) even more than the playing part, and while they charge too much, GW IMO is producing boxes that come stuffed with extra bits and bobs, compared to the competition as far as I'm aware. I get the most enjoyment out of the hobby out of making conversions and bashing things together. Not that I'm great at it, but its a load of fun. Competitors could do alot for themselves by adding more options to the kits they sell.
(c) With the exception of some Reaper miniatures, there has not been a sci-fi competitor yet that I've gone into my FLGS, seen a box, and thought to myself, I must have that.
(d) As cheesy as it is, I think the 40k fluff on the whole is fun and memorable. I've been told the premise behind the fluff of many TT sci-fi competitors, and I can't remember almost any of it...and that says something.

**MWHistorian**

I was a casual and GW's crappy rules pushed me out. I like fair games when both players have a good chance of winning. I cant get that from 40k. Every other game ive tried has been far superior.

**koooaei**

Massawyrm wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Do you have any proof of this?

Not a stitch of it.

A quick biography to back all this up. In the 00's I was a prominent film critic for AIN'T IT COOL NEWS, which was, at the time, the largest movie/geek website in the world. After I wrote the world's first review of D&D 4E and it garnered *insane* traffic, Harry decided to let me write about whatever game stuff I wanted to. The 4E piece ended up getting me interviewed about D&D on NPR and I even ended up giving an answer on WAIT, WAIT, DON'T TELL ME. Needless to say, all this put me on the radar of a lot of game insiders. Companies and their employees used to leak me stuff or send me games so I would talk about it on the site. Several of those folks were GW employees. For a while they were even secretly sending me the old "Black boxes" that used to go to affiliate stores. At the same time I fell in with the BoLS crew, who played at the same local store. We used to swap info all the time.

All this to say that a lot of what I shared is old insider info that I know no one can be fired now for sharing.

GW used to run on a 5 year plan. They *DO* in fact do market research and have for years - that's how they knew the average lifespan of their players. But that's not info they share with the public. As to ebay, up until late last year, used versions of the new large models (Wraithknights, Riptides and the like) were selling for only $10-$20 cheaper than new, plus shipping. Smart gamers knew they could get new models from online retailers for roughly the same cost from discount online dealers, so GW was still making their money. Run a search for them now and you can find a terribly painted WK for $65, with the next closest shot at one running you $85. You can pay $85 for a used WK, or $92 for a new one from the Warstore. GW employees, by the way, did publicly talk about their new low count, higher cost sales at the start of 6th, but quickly shut up about it after the backlash. The stuff I'm saying about 7th is all conjecture based upon my previous years of experience dealing with game companies. EVERYONE was and is worried about ebay. The secondary market is what helped kill D&D 4e, allowing folks to keep finding a wealth of old 3.5 books (though pathfinder had more to do with it - but the Hasbro mess is another insider boondoggle I can go on and on and on about.)

As to the tournament stuff - again, that's insider stuff. There's a reason GW started pulling their instore support of tournaments and events. They weren't generating sales or interest with storefront gaming anymore. They ended up taking a bath on their year of support for model and terrain building contests (which were AWESOME...but few people showed up to, even in major markets.) They finally ousted their CEO who famously said "The internet is a fad," when arguing why GW wouldn't support online materials and frequent FAQ updates for 5th. And then they tried to be an industry leader with an experimental strategy that gave us the shortest edition turnaround in history.

So before you discount this because I can't link to a GW document, google my biographical information (I wrote under the name Massawyrm and still lurk online with it), and when it checks out, ask yourself: why would a dude who isn't involved in the industry anymore spend a chunk of his morning spinning a yarn to defend a company he owes nothing to? I'm either wasting my time on an elaborate troll in a minor thread on Dakka, or I just happen to love talking about this stuff and know a bit more behind the scenes than some ordinary internet dude. So take that as you will.

That's a great insight!

**Akiasura**

Massawyrm wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Do you have any proof of this?

Not a stitch of it.

A quick biography to back all this up. In the 00's I was a prominent film critic for AIN'T IT COOL NEWS, which was, at the time, the largest movie/geek website in the world. After I wrote the world's first review of D&D 4E and it garnered *insane* traffic, Harry decided to let me write about whatever game stuff I wanted to. The 4E piece ended up getting me interviewed about D&D on NPR and I even ended up giving an answer on WAIT, WAIT, DON'T TELL ME. Needless to say, all this put me on the radar of a lot of game insiders. Companies and their employees used to leak me stuff or send me games so I would talk about it on the site. Several of those folks were GW employees. For a while they were even secretly sending me the old "Black boxes" that used to go to affiliate stores. At the same time I fell in with the BoLS crew, who played at the same local store. We used to swap info all the time.

All this to say that a lot of what I shared is old insider info that I know no one can be fired now for sharing.

GW used to run on a 5 year plan. They *DO* in fact do market research and have for years - that's how they knew the average lifespan of their players. But that's not info they share with the public. As to ebay, up until late last year, used versions of the new large models (Wraithknights, Riptides and the like) were selling for only $10-$20 cheaper than new, plus shipping. Smart gamers knew they could get new models from online retailers for roughly the same cost from discount online dealers, so GW was still making their money. Run a search for them now and you can find a terribly painted WK for $65, with the next closest shot at one running you $85. You can pay $85 for a used WK, or $92 for a new one from the Warstore. GW employees, by the way, did publicly talk about their new low count, higher cost sales at the start of 6th, but quickly shut up about it after the backlash. The stuff I'm saying about 7th is all conjecture based upon my previous years of experience dealing with game companies. EVERYONE was and is worried about ebay. The secondary market is what helped kill D&D 4e, allowing folks to keep finding a wealth of old 3.5 books (though pathfinder had more to do with it - but the Hasbro mess is another insider boondoggle I can go on and on and on about.)

I have a hard time believing that GW does any market research. They admit as much in several public documents, and it's an absurd thing to claim if it's not true. It's like being a 25 year old male and claiming to be a virgin; I'm likely to believe it, because good lord, why would anyone lie about it? What is there to gain?

I don't remember GW publicly talk about their new sales plan, or any kind of backlash. What kind of backlash was it? GW isn't exactly a big deal, globally speaking. Was it from the share holders, or forums, or some facebook page?

This is also the first I've heard about secondary markets killing 4e. I don't see how players finding 3.5e books cheap (everyone I knew downloaded them when 4e released) has a lot to do with 4e. If 4e was a superior product, it would have sold enough on its own rather then losing to an older edition.
Most players largely disliked 4e because they felt it wasn't D&D. The power set up, the samey feel of the classes, the lack of out-of-combat options, and the MMO feeling were widely complained about. It didn't do well because it was a bad system that wasn't well received by players, not because an older edition somehow cheapened it.

Massawyrm wrote:

As to the tournament stuff - again, that's insider stuff. There's a reason GW started pulling their instore support of tournaments and events. They weren't generating sales or interest with storefront gaming anymore. They ended up taking a bath on their year of support for model and terrain building contests (which were AWESOME...but few people showed up to, even in major markets.) They finally ousted their CEO who famously said "The internet is a fad," when arguing why GW wouldn't support online materials and frequent FAQ updates for 5th. And then they tried to be an industry leader with an experimental strategy that gave us the shortest edition turnaround in history.

So before you discount this because I can't link to a GW document, google my biographical information (I wrote under the name Massawyrm and still lurk online with it), and when it checks out, ask yourself: why would a dude who isn't involved in the industry anymore spend a chunk of his morning spinning a yarn to defend a company he owes nothing to? I'm either wasting my time on an elaborate troll in a minor thread on Dakka, or I just happen to love talking about this stuff and know a bit more behind the scenes than some ordinary internet dude. So take that as you will.

I don't personally care who you are. I'm looking at what you're saying and taking it at face value, judging the truth of the statements based on what information is available.
I used to work in a secondary market, in medicine. Sometimes people were shocked at several of the things I told them about how the market works, but I could point at a few things and make logical connections that backed up the claims. If you can do the same, it'll certainly completely turn around everything everyone knows about GW, and what GW says about itself.

**MWHistorian**

As for why 4th Ed D&D failed. It wasn't Amazon.
http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3298611
http://giantsbridge.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-fourth-edition-died.html
http://greylotus.org/2009/04/13/dd-4th-edition-what-went-wrong/

**Wayniac**

From another thread, these are examples of what GW considers fluffy armies that are in tune with the spirit of the game, whatever that means. These are all from the Crusade of Fire campaign supplement:

Chaos Space Marines (World Eaters): Daemon Prince, Berserkers in Rhino, 2 big units of Terminators, Berserkers (footslogging), Bloodletters, Helbrute/Dreadnought, Bloodthirster, 2x Predators

Space Marines (Howling Griffons): Captain + Command Squad w/Razorback,Terminators, Librarian, Dreadnought, Tactical Squads, Assault Marines, Devastators, Landspeeder, Predator

Space Marines (Imperial Fists): Lysander, Librarian w/Veterans, Boarding Marines (?), Terminators w/Land Raider, Terminators, Tactical Squad w/Rhino, 2x Vindicator, Stormtalon, Techmarines, 2x Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind, Predator

Dark Eldar: Duke Sliscus, Lelith Hesperax, Jetbike unit, Scourges, Incubi, Wyches in Raider, Warriors in Raiders (x2)

Space Marines (Flesh Tearers): Chapter Master Gabriel Seth, Command Squad in Stormraven (?), Sanguinary Guard, Assault Marines, Chaplain w/Death Company, 1x Tac Squad, Predator

Chaos Space Marines (Red Corsairs): Huron Blackheart, 2x 3-man Bikes, 1x 6-man Bike, 2x CSM w/Rhino, Terminators, Vindicator, Predator, Unknown Chaos character*

* Purposely did not take daemon engines as he felt Red Corsairs were recent converts and would operate closer to a Marine chapter.

Space Wolves: Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf, Wolf Pack (?), 2x Grey Hunter packs (1x Drop Pod), Dreadnought, 2x (?) Wolf Scouts, Predator

Chaos Space Marines (Word Bearers): Dark Apostle, Possessed w/Rhino (?), 2x CSM Squads, Maulerfiend

Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion): Dark Apostle, Chaos Lord, CSM Squads, Cultists, Forgefiend, Heldrake, Helbrute

How well do you think any of these would fare on the table today? That's part of the problem. Someone who builds an army like this (arguably the "proper" way inasmuch as that can be said about anything in a game) is going to get steamrolled, because reasons.

That's a problem. That hurts casual gamers much more than competitive gamers because casual gamers are more likely to take lists that look like the above than nonsense like spamming Scatterbikes or Riptides.

**ClassicCarraway**

Akiasura wrote:

I have a hard time believing that GW does any market research. They admit as much in several public documents, and it's an absurd thing to claim if it's not true. It's like being a 25 year old male and claiming to be a virgin; I'm likely to believe it, because good lord, why would anyone lie about it? What is there to gain?

I have a harder time believing that a publicly traded company does NO market research whatsoever. Here is the quote from the 2014 annual report that I'm assuming is being referenced:

"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning
teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things
are otiose in a niche."

So saying they do not do any market research is not entirely accurate. Demographics is just a part of what is considered market research. He is basically saying they already know who their target audience is, why waste time and money researching it further, and he's right. I don't really believe that the target demographic has ever changed for GW since they started focusing primarily on tabletop games and miniatures.

That same report does indicate that they do some geographical market research but doesn't really go into much detail.

"The third element is the global nature of our business. Niche market customers are pretty thin on the ground and they need to be
searched out all over the world. The main growth in our business will be as a result of this geographic spread."

So again, they obviously do some form of market research, even if it is just to determine where they can sell their products more.

Based on alot of the changes we've seen in 40K over the last year or so, I think its disengenuious to claim GW never listens to its customer base. They clearly do as so many of the changes have coincided with repeated online community demands (we wanted wave serpents fixed, they fixed them, we wanted many Necron units and rules cleaned up and/or nerfed, they did just that, we wanted mono-chaos books, we got them, we wanted AdMech in the main game, ta-daaaa, we got it). The problem is, they also have to consider the botttom line for their investors, so those nerfs we so desparetly demanded are often accompanied by less requested changes that can spur sales.

**TheKbob**

I'm gonna call anyone claiming insider information that has no proof behind an anonymous screen tag a non starter. No facts or evidence means we can't confirm nor deny the statement thus it's a zero sum situation.

As for GW, they obviously aren't listening. The most popular edition from the word on the streets, from friends, club pages, Facebook groups, and many forums including Dakkadakka, was 5E, their "failure" tournament ruleset. Barring a few necessary fixes, they were on track to having a solid ruleset that was affordable, manageable, and sound. Armies were armies, everything wasn't nickel and dimed to death, and the community thrived.

We now have measurable evidence that 6E and 7E are failures. The highest volume of releases in the company's history, one with massive cutbacks and "leaning out", still returns declining sales and profits. Desperate attempts at ligitigation versus innovation also are marks of a failing small company; when you're claiming you own big shoulder pads, halberds and Greek/Roman heraldry as IP, stuff is rotten.

Warhammer has never been a great game. It's now a markedly worse product as it does not work as it's intended goal. Their business strategy is an outdated relic that shifts a massive burden of cost to the player base. It was mentioned they fixed wave serpents, so they listen, right? Well, that could have been a FAQ six months after significant real world testing. Instead it's in a $60 errata that, oops, makes everything els broken.

If GW performs actual market research, they'd not be looking at demographics alone. They'd be looking at what is their competitors doing. In models, GW is flat out losing or lost ground entirely unless you need heroic scale dude marines. Outside of the iconic factions, other companies are doing it either cheaper, better or both. As for rules? No one uses the codex format. It's archaic, inefficient, and absolutely game breaking. You're not able to fully test a new codex every two months when other companies test the same amount of models over six to twelve months. Add on the ludicrous cost, and it's no reason to purchase them.

If you're a casual gamer, there are cheaper fixes. If you're a casual modeler, again, much cheaper or better fixes. All GW has is inertia and Spess Mehrinzzz. And while 40k is a killer setting, it to is entirely lifted and is primarily a derivative work of a juvenile level of story telling; it's like candy, fun, flavorful, but not fulfilling. Every other game world is offering a living, breathing, and changing setting versus the stale 5 minutes to midnight, nothing ever happens setting of 40k.

Even their online strategy is flawed, to say the least. They still have their "Internet, Pokemon, and profits are fads" CEO as chairman of the board, so that's not going to change.

There's pretty much little positive in anything GW is doing right now. They're gonna keep mashing that spam codex/model button until they finally bottom out in this downward spiral they are on. Hopefully we get another cool 40k video game or something out of it before that time.

**Akiasura**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

I have a hard time believing that GW does any market research. They admit as much in several public documents, and it's an absurd thing to claim if it's not true. It's like being a 25 year old male and claiming to be a virgin; I'm likely to believe it, because good lord, why would anyone lie about it? What is there to gain?

I have a harder time believing that a publicly traded company does NO market research whatsoever. Here is the quote from the 2014 annual report that I'm assuming is being referenced:

"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning
teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things
are otiose in a niche."

So saying they do not do any market research is not entirely accurate. Demographics is just a part of what is considered market research. He is basically saying they already know who their target audience is, why waste time and money researching it further, and he's right. I don't really believe that the target demographic has ever changed for GW since they started focusing primarily on tabletop games and miniatures.

Nothing about this says they do any market research. No focus groups? No demographic research? I've seen people claim that GW focuses on teenagers, but can this really be true? The game is too expensive for most teens I am aware of. I have played in several countries and up and down the east cost. Never have I seen the teens outnumber the adults in a 40k group.

This basically reads as "we already know what the people want; they want to buy our miniatures".

ClassicCarraway wrote:

That same report does indicate that they do some geographical market research but doesn't really go into much detail.

"The third element is the global nature of our business. Niche market customers are pretty thin on the ground and they need to be
searched out all over the world. The main growth in our business will be as a result of this geographic spread."

So again, they obviously do some form of market research, even if it is just to determine where they can sell their products more.

Realizing you want to sell your product globally isn't market research, its common sense. More customers is more money.
And look at how the game went over in China and with the Aussies. Poorly, to say the least.

Again, nothing here contradicts my claim that they do no market research. Most of what you quoted seems to support it.

ClassicCarraway wrote:

Based on alot of the changes we've seen in 40K over the last year or so, I think its disengenuious to claim GW never listens to its customer base. They clearly do as so many of the changes have coincided with repeated online community demands (we wanted wave serpents fixed, they fixed them, we wanted many Necron units and rules cleaned up and/or nerfed, they did just that, we wanted mono-chaos books, we got them, we wanted AdMech in the main game, ta-daaaa, we got it). The problem is, they also have to consider the botttom line for their investors, so those nerfs we so desparetly demanded are often accompanied by less requested changes that can spur sales.

Really? They are listening to us?

Where are the happy chaos players? Where are my chaos legion rules I have wanted since they were taken away from me? I am not alone in this, the forums at one point were FILLED with posts about this. It only got worse after the SM codex.

Waveserpents were nerfed, and everything else boosted to absurd levels of power. Look at the forums, do they look happy to you in regards to eldar?

DA are still marines -1 for yet another edition. BA are as well.

Necrons nerfed? I must have missed the nerf to wraiths, who were already a strong unit.

We got A mono chaos book, and it did not feature the world eaters. When people mention the mono books, its usually in reference to the legion that follows them. Not because the daemons needed anything like that.

Cruddance allowed to do Nids. Why!?

What happened to the AM and DE was a tragedy. They were robbed of a lot of flavor, despite whatever else you may say about them.

GW is not listening.

**Massawyrm**

Akiasura wrote:
How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.

This is demonstrably false. GW's best years were 2012 & 2013, with 2013 (when 6th was in full swing) being the company's best year in its history. 2014 saw a big drop, which while a worse year than 2010, was still a better year than 2005 - 2009, and 2011. For reference here is the 2011 AR, the 2013 AR, and the 2014 AR.

As with the rest of your claims, they are entirely anecdotal or a repetition of unfounded speculation that's been bouncing around the echo chamber of the forums for years. GW is always failing, always on the verge of bankruptcy, doesn't do any market research, and if they would just make it a better game, it would thrive. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what the financials say. (SPOILER WARNING: it's not what the financials say.)

You don't have to agree with my 7th ed analysis here, but the extraordinary claim isn't that GW knows its business and does market research; it is that a publicly traded, multinational company *doesn't* do a lick of research. A claim you actually can't back up no matter how many times you invoke the burden of proof fallacy.

The long and the short of it is that for 30 years, GW was a company built primarily on the premise of storefront sales and it is suffering the growing pains of having to adapt to an online marketplace. The decisions they're making, both good and bad, are attempts to find where they belong in an increasingly online world. Come July we'll find out how 7th is treating them and we'll be able to get a better idea of whether or not their new allied army, small steady release strategy is working.

**Azreal13**

Massawyrm wrote:

You don't have to agree with my 7th ed analysis here, but the extraordinary claim isn't that GW knows its business and does market research; it is that a publicly traded, multinational company *doesn't* do a lick of research. A claim you actually can't back up no matter how many times you invoke the burden of proof fallacy.

You wouldn't expect the chairman of said multinational PLC to appoint a director without at least giving their CV the once over, but there you go...

**Accolade**

There is nothing casual about dropping $135 at minimum for paper rules for a tabletop game. Nothing.

**Hive City Dweller**

I'm just thinking out loud here but aren't there player made rule sets out there which achieve better balance and level the playing field that people can use instead of official rules? When it comes to casual play all you have to do is agree on a rule set and stick to it. If said rule set is more balanced it makes the game more engaging for both parties. I know the tournament scene only uses official rules, but for causal play (which is what I play) I see no reason why your friends or mates at your FLGS can't do this.

The reason I honestly love GW is because they make the best models in the world. Nothing else comes close, in terms of quality, the variety of units, art style, and their fluff isn't half bad either. (Most iconic gaming IP other than D&D)

To me it's always been about the models first, then the game-play second. Sure, army specific rules influence my army choice, but even the best alternative game system feels like they are 10 years behind GW technologically in the modelling department.

As someone who enjoys winning, has built two 2000pt armies and is working on a third, and is excited about the amount of beautiful models GW has been making over the last decade, I will find a way to enjoy the hobby, and if all that it takes is printing a few pieces of paper with modified rules from the internet and using it to augment my games then I say it's a good deal.

**Akiasura**

Massawyrm wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.

This is demonstrably false. GW's best years were 2012 & 2013, with 2013 (when 6th was in full swing) being the company's best year in its history. 2014 saw a big drop, which while a worse year than 2010, was still a better year than 2005 - 2009, and 2011. For reference here is the 2011 AR, the 2013 AR, and the 2014 AR.

Your links don't refute the claim that 2005-2009 were better years, since the links are after that. We'd need to adjust for inflation, but I wouldn't mind seeing them. For the record, this was the burden of proof fallacy. I'm making a claim, and asking you to back up the negative.

Massawyrm wrote:

As with the rest of your claims, they are entirely anecdotal or a repetition of unfounded speculation that's been bouncing around the echo chamber of the forums for years. GW is always failing, always on the verge of bankruptcy, doesn't do any market research, and if they would just make it a better game, it would thrive. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what the financials say. (SPOILER WARNING: it's not what the financials say.)

Let's be clear, you started the conversation with an appeal to authority (yours) without a shred of proof being offered.
I never portrayed my opinions as anything other than anecdotal. GW has been losing money for the first time in a long time. The financials do suggest such a thing.
As for the rest, you are strawmanning pretty hard here. I'm not claiming GW is going bankrupt, or that a better game would make them thrive (I think that genie left the bottle already, for the record). I have claimed that they don't do market research, which so far, has yet to be refuted by anyone here.

Massawyrm wrote:

You don't have to agree with my 7th ed analysis here, but the extraordinary claim isn't that GW knows its business and does market research; it is that a publicly traded, multinational company *doesn't* do a lick of research. A claim you actually can't back up no matter how many times you invoke the burden of proof fallacy.

Many companies don't do much market research. I have done work in the past with fortune 500 companies that do not do market research at all. Again, my experience, but publicly traded multinational companies do not HAVE to do research, depending on the product they carry. GW seems to believe their minis are so good they do not have to.
Again, I am not making the claim. GW has made that claim, see the link above provided by someone else. Normally proving a negative is quite difficult if not impossible.
You are asserting that they do market research. I am asking for proof of such a claim. This is not the burden of proof fallacy.

Massawyrm wrote:

The long and the short of it is that for 30 years, GW was a company built primarily on the premise of storefront sales and it is suffering the growing pains of having to adapt to an online marketplace. The decisions they're making, both good and bad, are attempts to find where they belong in an increasingly online world. Come July we'll find out how 7th is treating them and we'll be able to get a better idea of whether or not their new allied army, small steady release strategy is working.

True, though I do not have much hope for the financial report. Many companies have had to deal with the digital age, some better than others. GW seems to be remarkably poorly, all things considered. Even the making of their website seems to have been handled...poorly.

**Azreal13**

Hive City Dweller wrote:

The reason I honestly love GW is because they make the best models in the world.

If you honestly believe this, I heartily suggest you spend more time looking at other manufacturers (and not just the obvious big ones.)

GW score the odd hit, but, while it is admittedly a subjective and non-quantifiable topic, I think you'll find there's a lot of stuff out that would pretty much universally be considered to kick GW's butt the majority of the time.

**Blacksails**

Especially if you look outside plastic.

**Hive City Dweller**

Azreal13 wrote:
Hive City Dweller wrote:

The reason I honestly love GW is because they make the best models in the world.

If you honestly believe this, I heartily suggest you spend more time looking at other manufacturers (and not just the obvious big ones.)

GW score the odd hit, but, while it is admittedly a subjective and non-quantifiable topic, I think you'll find there's a lot of stuff out that would pretty much universally be considered to kick GW's butt the majority of the time.

I've looked around and own a lot of 3rd party products, especially from companies that make sculpts GW doesn't produce. (Ie female heads)

But I am honestly open to looking at other models as well, I will be happy to look at anything if you could point me in the right direction.

**Azreal13**

Well, in the absence of any real direction of what you collect, try here..

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/373197.page

**Brothererekose**

Barthus wrote:
I wonder if the diehard competitive guys will finally realize that 40k no longer functions as a competitive game?

a. Of course the entirety of 40k doesn't function competitively. But that is not a problem. TOs have hobbled and limited 40k years past, and will continue to do so. They did so to the last eldar book, like they hobbled Apoc, ForgeWorld, 2+ re-rollables (and that was out of the eldar and daemon books) and more.

b. And the competitive scene thrives. LVO was FrontLineGames's biggest event so far, 250+ for 40k. My local store, Game Empire Pasadena is having larger and bigger events. Given the Invites and traffic on Facebook, more and more events are available to attend here in Calif. Two or three RTTs a month this year, from San Diego through the Bay Area and Sacramento. Competitive play is still out there and growing, and the book that you think is wrecking it is only two weeks old, so its real impact has only been on the Internet Hypotheticals.

Why not wait until a few RTTs or GTs have been won by chumps (like me) wielding the new eldar?

I am going to change directions, to point something out:
Broadside Bash was a GT last weekend. : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1826738/BSB2015Results40k.pdf

One eldar list in the top ten. No, the new eldar book was not used, but that is not my point. The tourney was not won by orks, but by that PajamaPants guy, playing an ork army. Two ork lists were in the top 10. The Dark Angels player, placing 9th, uses IG as allies. He beat me at LVO. I recognize most of the names on that list, and know who is who. It's not their armies. It's their skills. How is that for blowing the expected meta?

LVO 2015 was won by 'Nids, well not 'Nids, but by a guy who is usually in the top 10 at GTs (forgot his name). Nick or Alex something ... or was that both top 2 players?

What makes for competition is smart players. Good generals. Not lists.

If you see my name in the top ten at BAO, playing eldar, then yes, the book has killed competitive 40k. Otherwise, if RTTs and GTs stop happening, and people stop attending these events, It is not the book. Mat Ward. Phil Kelly or 5e Grey Knights (I learned to beat them!).

I'm gonna point my finger at threads like this.

PS:
I whole-heartedly believe in the First Amendment of the US constitution. Speak/Express/Post on my brothers!

**Hive City Dweller**

Azreal13 wrote:
Well, in the absence of any real direction of what you collect, try here..

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/373197.page

I have seen this list before, it's a huge summary of alternative figures.

What I'm wondering is what you consider to be superior to GW sculpts specifically.

**Swastakowey**

Try Victoria Miniatures, Scibor and Ghost miniatures.

Ghost: detalik.ru/ghost-miniatures
Victoria: http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/
Scibor: http://sciborminiatures.com/

These would be among the top I think. But there are a lot more. Hard to chose the best really. Depends what you are after...

**Hive City Dweller**

Swastakowey wrote:
Try Victoria Miniatures, Scibor and Ghost miniatures.

Ghost: detalik.ru/ghost-miniatures
Victoria: http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/
Scibor: http://sciborminiatures.com/

Not bad, especially the Scibor minis are ace!

I own a few Victoria miniature and find their human faces to be quite disappointing. To be clear, I'm not here to defend GW, but it's just unrivaled at the moment when it comes to sculpt quality. I would also throw in a plug for Statuesque miniatures, which in my mind are absolutely brilliant. That's where I get all my female heads for 28mm. http://www.statuesqueminiatures.co.uk/p/8774376/sma012-heroic-scale-female-heads.html

Alas they are metal, so harder to work with especially when it comes to converting, and mixing and matching.

But, anyways I've taken this wayyy of topic. Sorry about that.

**Azreal13**

Hive City Dweller wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Well, in the absence of any real direction of what you collect, try here..

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/373197.page

I have seen this list before, it's a huge summary of alternative figures.

What I'm wondering is what you consider to be superior to GW sculpts specifically.

That's not really a question I can answer, as it is very much a case by case basis.

For instance, I find the Hi Tech minis counts-as Mutilators and Obliterators far superior (and with more options) to the GW ones, but I wouldn't say the whole Hi Tech range is better than comparable GW's sculpts. I think Mierce make some of the best models on sale, and as a daemons player they've been a good source of alternates, but they're very much fantasy orientated so wouldn't offer much if you collect any other 40K faction. Evil Craft, Spell Crow and The Dark Works make excellent CSM bits (and whole CSMs in the case of Evil Craft) Kromlech make great Orks and some decent Daemons as well. I really love the Dream Forge Games Eisnekern range, and I'd certainly look to them if I ever start a Guard army.

But the fact is, nobody makes all the best sculpts, especially not GW, and to make such a blanket claim is just flat out wrong IMO.

**Hive City Dweller**

Azreal13 wrote:
Hive City Dweller wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Well, in the absence of any real direction of what you collect, try here..

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/373197.page

I have seen this list before, it's a huge summary of alternative figures.

What I'm wondering is what you consider to be superior to GW sculpts specifically.

That's not really a question I can answer, as it is very much a case by case basis.

For instance, I find the Hi Tech minis counts-as Mutilators and Obliterators far superior (and with more options) to the GW ones, but I wouldn't say the whole Hi Tech range is better than comparable GW's sculpts. I think Mierce make some of the best models on sale, and as a daemons player they've been a good source of alternates, but they're very much fantasy orientated so wouldn't offer much if you collect any other 40K faction. Evil Craft, Spell Crow and The Dark Works make excellent CSM bits (and whole CSMs in the case of Evil Craft) Kromlech make great Orks and some decent Daemons as well. I really love the Dream Forge Games Eisnekern range, and I'd certainly look to them if I ever start a Guard army.

But the fact is, nobody makes all the best sculpts, especially not GW, and to make such a blanket claim is just flat out wrong IMO.

I agree that making blanket statements is in poor taste, especially when it comes to subjective things like aestetic appeal. What one person finds excellent, others may decry as rubbish so yes indeed I shouldn't say that.

Excellent minis all that you suggested.

**Talys**

Massawyrm wrote:s
While the second statement there is true, the first statement is false. GW understands where the money is in the new post-ebay economy - it's in turning 40k into Dungeons & Dragons for people who don't like roleplaying. They don't want stores full of the unwashed playing their games anymore - they want people playing in their garages. Models have gotten bigger, terrain has become narrative and part of list building, and their new focus is on box set starter kits for two players. They want to sell you a $125 box set with enough starter minis for two players, so someone will invite a buddy over to kick around their garage and then pump money into building a table with terrain, bigger armies and more books. Everything now is about "Holy Crikey, dude! My Imperial Knight just blew up your Baneblade!" "Yeah, well it can suck on a vortex missile!"

The tourney scene is bad for business. It's loaded with bandwagoning list spammers who buy a bunch of models, play the list for 3-6 months, then dump them on ebay at a discount to recoup part of their money to spend on the next new hotness when the meta changes. GW doesn't care about them any more. They want teenagers and beer swilling 30-somethings with disposable income playing at home. That's the game now.

As a beer-swilling 30-something with disposable income, I'm having a hell of a time in my garage.

LOL... replace "Garage" with "Basement", and I'd pretty much agree. There is a very avid and often vocal cadre of tourney players, but I think they are a tiny proportion of the people who play either at home or at a local friendly league. I, like you, cannot imagine transporting all of the pieces required to make the game fun somewhere else, unless that somewhere else at least has really nice terrain. Which, almost invariably, means someone's home.

For me the whole "I'm a better wargamer than you" thing ended in the 90s, mostly because it was so much easier to compete (and on an equal footing) on computer games. In our meta, having and playing cool models and awesome armies pretty much trumps everything. For our group, rules be damned -- the game isn't about the models, it's almost *all* about the models.

Las wrote:Most of the outrage comes from the fact that the game played very well during 7th up until the release of this book.

Reading the Dakka forums in 2014 and early 2015, you would have never known this

**Massawyrm**

Talys wrote:
For me the whole "I'm a better wargamer than you" thing ended in the 90s, mostly because it was so much easier to compete (and on an equal footing) on computer games. In our meta, having and playing cool models and awesome armies pretty much trumps everything. For our group, rules be damned -- the game isn't about the models, it's almost *all* about the models.

Nail: head.

The chief problem with competitive gaming is that online games can solve balance issues with a quick patch, something tabletop games can't. Too much tinkering and the FAQs become longer than the codexes they are trying to repair. Esports have a serious edge when it comes to competitive gaming. There's no getting away from that.

**Talys**

Swastakowey wrote:
Try Victoria Miniatures, Scibor and Ghost miniatures.

Ghost: detalik.ru/ghost-miniatures
Victoria: http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/
Scibor: http://sciborminiatures.com/

These would be among the top I think. But there are a lot more. Hard to chose the best really. Depends what you are after...

The problem is that these:

Spoiler:

Simply cannot compete with this:

Spoiler:

I'm not saying one is better than the other; just that they aren't comparable -- because the thing is, if you like an army that's a mix of stuff as small as a grot or as large as a titan, there really isn't any other setting out there. If Scions, Wyverns, Reavers, Death Jesters, Assassins, Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, Plasma Obliterators, Flyrants, Doom Scythes, and Tesseract Vaults are not your thing... 40k won't make you happy. And if you don't want to spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars and hundreds of hours working on an miniature army, 40k probably won't make you happy either.

**kburn**

The biggest draw for GW is the quality of their minis, and their aesthetic, which seems to appeal to the widest range of people. This is huge given that people who paint their armies spend 70% of their time painting. This is what prevents me from moving on to warmahordes.

Infinity has nice minis, but somehow the aesthetic doesn't appeal to as wide of an audience as 40k. Also, the rules are funny, and all armylists turn out to be more or less similar. 10 dudes with abilities to attack and counter the exact same abilities your opponent has to counter yours.

Mallifaux has the most niche aesthetic, which is why I haven't looked at it.

Ultimately, even 40k forces you to take 20 tactical marines/50 gaunts/50 boyz as a standard, which makes it boring. I've just gone on to paint stuff which are bad on the table, but I find cool, like terminators, nid warriors, fexes, walkrants, dreads.

Stopped playing anything and paint only. I've switched to playing boardgames, which is gaining far more traction, and is actually more fun (IMO)

**Talys**

Massawyrm wrote:
Talys wrote:
For me the whole "I'm a better wargamer than you" thing ended in the 90s, mostly because it was so much easier to compete (and on an equal footing) on computer games. In our meta, having and playing cool models and awesome armies pretty much trumps everything. For our group, rules be damned -- the game isn't about the models, it's almost *all* about the models.

Nail: head.

The chief problem with competitive gaming is that online games can solve balance issues with a quick patch, something tabletop games can't. Too much tinkering and the FAQs become longer than the codexes they are trying to repair. Esports have a serious edge when it comes to competitive gaming. There's no getting away from that.

Yes, exactly! I have so much more fun playing competitive computer games because the setup time is zero, the good ones (like StarCraft) are rapidly rebalanced, and you can actually meet people (strangers) with similar skill levels. With a tabletop miniature game, for the amount of time it takes to get together with friends and set up and play, I want to have fun -- which is definitely not just looking for a strategy to get a 5 game winning streak against my buddies.

**kburn**

Talys wrote:

Yes, exactly! I have so much more fun playing competitive computer games because the setup time is zero, the good ones (like StarCraft) are rapidly rebalanced, and you can actually meet people (strangers) with similar skill levels. With a tabletop miniature game, for the amount of time it takes to get together with friends and set up and play, I want to have fun -- which is definitely not just looking for a strategy to get a 5 game winning streak against my buddies.

What I don't get is the amount if eldar players running around saying it is/was an army that requires skill to use, git gud if you lose, when there are games like starcraft (one), which they have been patching for 15+ years, and is still not balanced.

Actually, at this point, I'm not even sure about the whole point of wargaming. Maybe GW is right sinking everything into model aesthetic, and nothing into rules, because eventually, everyone would rather play computer games, which are quicker to set up, far more balanced, and can earn you sponsors and money if you actually get good.

For socialisation, boardgames do far better with mates. They don't need to read 300+ page rulebooks, and you can play it with anyone, which is why its booming.

Warmachine has taken up a niche with rules, by making spells/abilities/feats long winded, and require some thought, so its slow and long enough that it doesn't translate well into a computer game.

The other games are sort of balanced, but offer nothing VS computer games.