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.

Balance is otiose in a wargame

 wuestenfux wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's just your longwinded way of saying that AoS needn't be balanced, right Talys?

Since GW is a miniature making company in the first place, balancing is something that could be done by the gaming community. There are a few approaches like http://www.scrollbuilder.com/

You are correct. It can done. Some might even consider this "value added", as it increases the amount of time you have to invest in the hobby. It turns off others however, as most expect a product to function out of the box, and not require a lot of finesse and user modification to make its function approximate what they were sold. Even though the fan-based fixes can be comprehensive, and can be widely adopted - they are by no means universally adopted, nor do they absolve the manufacturer from responsibility for providing a functional product in the first place.

It'd be like a car company only providing one engine type for their entire range, regardless of vehicle function. Sure the car drives, but it doesn't function properly in its advertised role. Sure you could fix it using aftermarket parts, but you shouldn't have to. The fact that GW's competitors are all doing it properly really highlights GW's "Meh: take it or leave it" approach towards rules writing.

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
For instance, I would rate "success" in terms of number of fans, profitability, and longevity, weighted in that order. But other people might have a totally different method of prioritization.

GW has spent the Kirby Years at war with its fandom, and overall profitability during the post LOTR boom has been decreasing, despite raised margins on kits and aggressive cost cutting. By your metrics, GW hasn't really been a "success" in the last few years. But then again... we can't see all the data can we. GW has longevity, so they must be doing everything right.

Looks like Rowntree is starting his stint in the right direction. I actually took a second, third and FOURTH look at those $100 bundles. NOTE: Still didn't buy though, as during the Age of Strife (the Kirby Years), I built up an impressive backlog of Heretical Miniatures from the Eye of Chaos.

They're all good points. Success is also relative. Successful versus your own best year? Versus a competitor, and so on.

Could GW be MORE successful? One would think so. How successful is it versus its competitors? I have no idea how much money Fantasy Flight Games and Privateer Press make, so from a profit standpoint, it's impossible to tell; and from a number of fans, well, GW's fanbase -- from what it sounds like on the Internet, anyhow -- is shrinking, but we don't know how it stacks up against the competitors.

Success is also about reaching the goals you set for yourself, whatever they are. By that measure, I'd call, for instance, Dreamforge a success. You don't need to sell tons of stuff and become a huge international force to be reckoned with, to be successful.... if that's not what you want.

Incidentally, products can mature or fade away from the spotlight and still be considered hugely successful. For instance, Apple has just dramatically cut its number of iPhone 6S/6S+ to be manufactured, because the demand for these phones is quite weak. Windows must fight to stay relevant into today's marketplace. Both are generating less profits and buzz than they did in their best years. Yet nobody would call either the iPhone or Windows anything other than wildly successful.

It all goes back to it being hard to say whether one company is more successful than another, without first defining what that means. It's much easier to figure out what companies and products AREN'T successful: if they don't make money, don't have supporters, and die, you can strike them off the list

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
For instance, I would rate "success" in terms of number of fans, profitability, and longevity, weighted in that order. But other people might have a totally different method of prioritization.

GW has spent the Kirby Years at war with its fandom, and overall profitability during the post LOTR boom has been decreasing, ...

People keep saying this, but it is not true.

Profitability was better in the last annual report than for 10 years.

It's sales that are down.

How long till the next report?.

 loki old fart wrote:
How long till the next report?.

Jan 12th iirc for the half year report. This thread is about the preview of that report.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's just your longwinded way of saying that AoS needn't be balanced, right Talys?

Since GW is a miniature making company in the first place, balancing is something that could be done by the gaming community. There are a few approaches like http://www.scrollbuilder.com/

They are a games company.

Balancing the rules is their job.

It is like contracting a company to build a road, and they drop off 55 tons of asphalt, 25 tones of concrete, and a cement mixer - but no steamroller, and then don't build the road.

They are not doing their job.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Weird - typing that out made me realize that is what is bothering me - that they just plain aren't doing what is admittedly the most time consuming part of their job - balancing the rules and the lists.

And it offends me.

It offends me that they have a job, and are being lax about performing it - in the exact same way that getting cold french fries at a McDonald's would offend me.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's just your longwinded way of saying that AoS needn't be balanced, right Talys?

Since GW is a miniature making company in the first place, balancing is something that could be done by the gaming community. There are a few approaches like http://www.scrollbuilder.com/

They are a games company.

Balancing the rules is their job.

It is like contracting a company to build a road, and they drop off 55 tons of asphalt, 25 tones of concrete, and a cement mixer - but no steamroller, and then don't build the road.

They are not doing their job.

The Auld Grump

Aye.

I'll believe GW are a model company when I can buy a 40k civilian model that doesn't have game rules. Or a bust. Or a 52mm display piece. Or even if they just moved back to metal away from mass produced plastic.

I will believe it only when the stop publishing rules for models and produce only scale models and fluff books.

As long as the produce rules I have the same minimal expectations I have from all game companies, produce a working balanced game.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I will believe it only when the stop publishing rules for models and produce only scale models and fluff books.

As long as the produce rules I have the same minimal expectations I have from all game companies, produce a working balanced game.

This. I'll believe the "primarily a model company" line when they put their money where their mouths are and drop the games entirely. No more rules, period. Just model kits and fluff books. No purpose for their kits beyond painting and display.

Of course, that won't happen. GW's kits aren't good enough to keep up with those intended for serious scale modelers. I'm not even talking about Gundam kits (which are still a fair comparison). Even Forgeworld kits look like toys next to something like this or this.

 Guildsman wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I will believe it only when the stop publishing rules for models and produce only scale models and fluff books.

As long as the produce rules I have the same minimal expectations I have from all game companies, produce a working balanced game.

This. I'll believe the "primarily a model company" line when they put their money where their mouths are and drop the games entirely. No more rules, period. Just model kits and fluff books. No purpose for their kits beyond painting and display.

Of course, that won't happen. GW's kits aren't good enough to keep up with those intended for serious scale modelers. I'm not even talking about Gundam kits (which are still a fair comparison). Even Forgeworld kits look like toys next to something like this or this.

That would be nice then i don't need a squad or an army, just one of everything i like, that is what they want right?

 Guildsman wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I will believe it only when the stop publishing rules for models and produce only scale models and fluff books.

As long as the produce rules I have the same minimal expectations I have from all game companies, produce a working balanced game.

This. I'll believe the "primarily a model company" line when they put their money where their mouths are and drop the games entirely. No more rules, period. Just model kits and fluff books. No purpose for their kits beyond painting and display.

That's not the way it works. The "gw hobby" if you want to call it that (ie, the hobby as GW imagines it), isn't one one where people are buying one of each model and painting them, and going "nice space marine, bro".

It's about aspiring to the type of army collections that GW showcases -- after all, how else is someone going to spend tens of thousands of dollars with GW over years and decades? In order to have those collections make sense, you need a context; hence the game rules, and also a purpose to buy and build the each brand new model, which, of course, is ever-more-powerful than its predecessor. And bigger.

Having the aspirational army, you then go and play with some or all of it. Or none of it. But the game is clearly part of the hobby, in GW's mind, because it gives hobbyists a context in which to build what would add up to a house in some parts of the world, or at least a really nice sports car

In case there's any confusion as to what I mean...



Does it really matter that it's impossible to actually play a game with all those models?

I find it ironic that you say GW's rules are meant to give you an army structure to aspire to even if just collecting, then as an example show a AoS army which the rules, by their very nature, have zero structure to what comprises an army.

I mean, I get the argument, but the example was terrible.

No not really, GW may think and wish whatever it wants, but if they want to be a models company, well they have to compare to the other model companies out there.

GW does not need the rules to make modelers collect armies all they need is fluff to give them context to do what you say.

The fact is GW's models and fluff does not stand on their own, they are not that good to make the sales they need, the game is what sells the models and the fluff is what retains the customers.

GW may lie to themselves and to their investors all they want, they are a games company selling toy soldiers nothing more nothing less.

 -Loki- wrote:
I find it ironic that you say GW's rules are meant to give you an army structure to aspire to even if just collecting, then as an example show a AoS army which the rules, by their very nature, have zero structure to what comprises an army.

I mean, I get the argument, but the example was terrible.

AoS does have army lists. There is a set of scrolls for every legacy army, and a growing set of scrolls for the Chaos and Sigmarine forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I find it ironic that you say GW's rules are meant to give you an army structure to aspire to even if just collecting, then as an example show a AoS army which the rules, by their very nature, have zero structure to what comprises an army.

I mean, I get the argument, but the example was terrible.

AoS does have army lists. There is a set of scrolls for every legacy army, and a growing set of scrolls for the Chaos and Sigmarine forces.

That's not structure, it's just a shopping list. Structure is telling you how many of each of those units in what combinations make a list. That's what AoS lacks.

It's enough structure for someone who doesn't know or maybe care about a tight, formal army list (like in DBA or FoG) to justify buying a particular set of models for their army.

A lot of people are fine with it.

 -Loki- wrote:
I find it ironic that you say GW's rules are meant to give you an army structure to aspire to even if just collecting, then as an example show a AoS army which the rules, by their very nature, have zero structure to what comprises an army.

I mean, I get the argument, but the example was terrible.

An "aspirational army" in AoS, that is, a set of models to represent a complete army, would be the Warrior Chamber -- the AoS equivalent of a Space Marine Chapter.. So you need a Lord-Celestant, Lord Relictor, Auxiliary command, 3 angelos retinues, 6 paladin retinues, 9 redeemer retinues, and 6 justiciar retinues. In the warscrolls, it tells you how much of each model you'd take in each, how they can be equipped, and so on. By the time you're finished (and sixty years older...) you'll have something that looks like what they lay out on the table. Well, the Stormcast part anyhow

Now, obviously, 99.9% of AoS players will opt instead to buy a car or a couple of years of tuition. More realistically, the rules in AoS, have things Warscroll Battalions, like Thuderstrike Brotherhood or Heroes of the Host, that are essentially the AoS version of Formations. You take 1 X 1 Y and 0-1 Z, and you get special abilities A B and C.

Bottom line is, just because there aren't points, and just because you can take models from different factions and mix them together to play doesn't mean that there's no army structure. It's no different, really, than Armies on Parade that you see on White Dwarf, where space marine armies have Imperial Knights and other Titans. It's no different than having a Treeman Ancient in your Stormcast army.

So, to fulfil all that for the collector, all one needs is one of these...



Not a rule in sight.

The rules are not necessary to give a collector the structure to collect a force, a few fluffy art pieces detailing an army's disposition at this or that battle, an image of the whole structure of the organisation, some photographs of models in those sorts of arrangement and you're done, your collectors are inspired. There are people out there who will go to the lengths necessary to model not only a specific model of vehicle, but a specific individual vehicle, these guys aren't being driven to do so because that specific plane, boat etc has unique in game bonuses, but because they're inspired by the history and achievements of that one individual, so why will GW "modellers" be any different?

The rules give people an excuse for buying a new unit because they are going to actually use it in a game.

Here's the psychology:

1. Look at this awesome army! You could have one like it!!
2. Fluff reasons for why the fortress has eight pointed walls, and the Sigmarines are coloured gold.
3. War scrolls for buying army units. Buy a Lord on a Dragon. Buy a flying squad. Buy a giant goo monster.
4. Game rules for playing with them.

You may not like various aspects of this but this is the GW offering and it's certainly successful with a lot of people.

Personally, I would point to the continuing decline in sales (though not profits) since GW changed 40K over to this style of HHHobby, and say that it may not have a long term future. But, OTOH, it may do, because sales may stabilise at a lower level, say £100M a year, that still pays out £12M profit, which would be a pretty good business.

I feel GW could be even more successful with a wider, more balanced portfolio of games.

Because their fluff isn't as good as history? Hard to be inspired by (pick your color armor) space marine conquers x planet singlehandedly...especially when you play a xenos army. FW does a better job at it but the books are still very Mary Sue.

I don't think think it's as good as history either, or as good as much real-world myth or fantasy/SF literature.

But I am not all of GW's customers.

Which all feeds back into the original point that whatever GW or certain people say, they are not a model company, they're a model gaming company,

Their games are an integral part of what they do, and a declining revenue stream suggests that the quality of those rules needs to be of at least a certain standard in order for a percentage of their customers to continue to invest in their collections.

Yes, whether they like it or not, they are a company that produces mediocre games and some nice models. Until recently that was enough but they have real competition now in the form of several, smaller games makers who beat them in one or several aspects to the point it has been cutting into their bottom line. It's change or die for GW and they appear to be honestly trying to change; whether what they're doing is enough remains to be seen.

 agnosto wrote:
Yes, whether they like it or not, they are a company that produces mediocre games and some nice models. Until recently that was enough but they have real competition now in the form of several, smaller games makers who beat them in one or several aspects to the point it has been cutting into their bottom line. It's change or die for GW and they appear to be honestly trying to change; whether what they're doing is enough remains to be seen.

The thing is: what exactly is the aim of this change? Do they really want to drive away the "competitive crowd" and keep the unshakable die hard fans that will buying the ever more expensive kits? Do they truly think that willingly leaking away a fair percentage of their customer base to their competitors and hope for the best is a sane path to go?

"They're not a gaming company!" is a load of nonsense.

As long as they're releasing rules, they're a game company, and it is their job to create rules that work, not half-ass it whilst hiding behind the "We're a model company!" shield.

No, apparently they're not a gaming company because minimum wage.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, apparently they're not a gaming company because minimum wage.

HUH?

Care to explain?

It's a mini Dakka meme, one poster (who's many faces seem to have finally stopped showing up) tried a bizarre argument in defence of GW's prices once upon a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consequently any argument which seems to rely rather hard on non sequitur or leaps of logic can be termed "minimum wage."

'S Ok Az. I got it.