Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

It's silly to defend GW for these things though when you look at their gross margins, which are higher/comparable to Apple's. They don't *have* pay out large dividends, they choose to do that. And compare their margin to other players in their space; Hasbro, for instance.

I agree, it's complicated and not soulless, but GW 100% could take a small hit, especially if it benefited them going forward. I don't think they'll be able to sell expensive, short lived, erroneous books into perpetuity.

Margins are only that high if you're looking at pandemic sales though, which mostly went through the website - their highest margin outlet.

I do think change is possible though - Ordana's point seems most likely to happen.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.

GW were printing a lot of supplements in 7th right? What was different about 8th? Simpler core rules and more playtesting, Errata and FAQ.

 stonehorse wrote:
The whole debacle with the Wraith Knight just highlights the GW approach to playtesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.

 kodos wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.

GW were printing a lot of supplements in 7th right? What was different about 8th? Simpler core rules and more playtesting, Errata and FAQ.

Warhammer-Community happend

not "more" playtesting, Errata/FaQ but "at all" as there was no playtesting, no Errata and no FAQ until the end of 7th
and if there was a FAQ, there were random answers doing the very opposite and instead of solving problems created more

with 8th there was the turnaround of "we don't care about the game or the community" to "this time we try"

 Sim-Life wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
The whole debacle with the Wraith Knight just highlights the GW approach to playtesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.

I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
The whole debacle with the Wraith Knight just highlights the GW approach to playtesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.

I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.

While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
The whole debacle with the Wraith Knight just highlights the GW approach to playtesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.

I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.

While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.

But the idea that new models are broken is demonstrably false. Its really the opposite if anything.

 stonehorse wrote:
While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.

 Gert wrote:
Space Marine Centurions and Primaris Reivers were both absolute garbage on release and the vast majority of releases are simply just ok, not broken.
Warp Talons, OK. Dinobots, good but not broken. Bunch of Primaris stuff, good but not broken.

a_typical_hero wrote:
the_scotsman just gave a overview of the last dozen or so releases a page back.

You can continue the list with most Primaris releases for this edition.

It is demonstrably false

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.

Models sell. No one is sweeping the tables with these guys, but they still sold out, because they're god damn amazing:



Enough people bought the Snagga box to sell that out and now those models are collecting dust.

There's a whole segment of hobbyists that buy models just to make them look amazing for painting competitions.

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.

None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.

None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.

I think an explanation of what you understand under "bait & switch" is necessary to have a proper discussion. In it's original form that would only be applicable to limited release boxes to a degree. When you originally gave the example of the Wraith Knight, people assumed you are talking about "releasing new stuff that is more OP than the previous things so people will buy the new models". The WK is not an example of bait & switch with the usual definition.

 stonehorse wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.

None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.

I think an explanation of what you understand under "bait & switch" is necessary to have a proper discussion. In it's original form that would only be applicable to limited release boxes to a degree. When you originally gave the example of the Wraith Knight, people assumed you are talking about "releasing new stuff that is more OP than the previous things so people will buy the new models". The WK is not an example of bait & switch with the usual definition.

3rd edition Necron Codex Destroyers were the workhorse of the Codex. Used the movement and shooting rules for Eldar Jetbikes, fantastic stat line, and a ridiculously gun weapon. All backed up with a wonderful model.

Roll on to the next Necron Codex in 5th edition and Destroyers saw a huge reduction in power, while going up in points if I recall correctly. Meanwhile those new Tomb Blades with the new expensive plastic kit were as good as Destoyers were previously, and cheaper.

Then comes along the next Necron Codex, and guess what happened? Destroyers were back to being good, while Tomb Blades were middle of the road.

I've been playing 40k since 2nd edition, in those decades I have seen countless examples of the above happen across various factions. GW have employed bait & switch tactics as their model to sell over priced plastic.

The Wraith Knight was referencing how play testing doesn't happen in isolation, the sales department will be applying pressure of what they want to sell... that doesn't mean that every new release is stellar, some come with rules that are D.O.A. however those are too far & few. Those ones I personally think are models that the playtesters/rule designers had little to no interference from the sales department, and indicate that the way GW play their games in house, is far removed from how people in the wider community play their games... Gav Thorpes views on Eldar Guardians from 3rd edition springs to mind as an example of that.

Tyel wrote:
Do you think GW should say leave Destroyers as the best unit and everything else comparably bad for edition after edition?

Hecaton wrote:


GW is doing well because of inertia. There are other better games with better monetization schemes, but GW is close to "too big to fail" (at least within the minis gaming space). It isn't helped by the fact that the influx of consensus-minded people into the gaming space over the last ten years or so has dramatically increased the amount of "gamers" who see GW's ubiquity and gakky corporate attitude as plusses.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What you saw in older editions was an unorganized flailing of competing ideas that had no quality control or care for the outcome.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's changed so much now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's changed so much now.

It kinda of has. They still have a long road ahead, but 9th has seen quite a diversity of placing armies and lists.

 stonehorse wrote:
The whole debacle with the Wraith Knight just highlights the GW approach to playtesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.

tneva82 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
The whole debacle with the Wraith Knight just highlights the GW approach to playtesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.

Not much changed. Playtesters weren't asked about board sizes and points were all done with no input asked or taken by the time playtesters got the rules.

For gw playtesters are more of typo spotters

 vict0988 wrote:
Some playtesters tried out Drukhari with D6 damage dark lances and were never told before release that the dark lance was getting changed to D3+3 damage, that sounds a lot like "don't bother testing if the changing Wraithknight weapons from S10 to SD is going to make them broken".

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Some playtesters tried out Drukhari with D6 damage dark lances and were never told before release that the dark lance was getting changed to D3+3 damage, that sounds a lot like "don't bother testing if the changing Wraithknight weapons from S10 to SD is going to make them broken".

To me, it sounds more like the classic 'we're not allocating discrete time for testing and incorporating the results of testing, so we're going to keep making changes on the backend and some of the feedback from testers might maybe make it in'. Happens a lot in institutions that don't actually value user testing.

James: ...But anyway, so we had to make a game that would fit into the November release slot. Now, the prices of getting a game manufactured, remember that this is all manufactured in China. Specialist Games stuff was all done, I don’t know if it still is now, but it was all done in China because there was no capacity in the factory at GW.

Lupe: So all the plastic sprues and stuff were done in China?

James: Yes, it was another company that was kind of seconded and they were really high quality and made really good stuff. They were the one company to do things to GW standard and they were given a contract to do [the specialist games releases]. So the price of doing that, getting on a boat back to the UK, getting it into our warehouses to be distributed across the world in time for release day means that you need a good solid six months between the game being released and the game being manufactured and done.

Basically, I was told in December “you’re starting [necromunda] at the end of December, and it needs to be done by April. It needs to go to the manufacturers in April.”

...

James: So initially there was a directive. This was another one of those things that was quite frustrating. We had about three or four directives which were all quite contradictory. One voice saying “This game needs to feel like old-school Rogue Trader. Bring back Rogue Trader characteristics and go for the old-school vibe and that sort of thing.” Which is why Necromunda characters have got Intelligence, Willpower, Cool, and Leadership, which are terrible stats because they’re all kind of the same thing. [Laughs] There’s no clear delineation between them. That was an edict, and had to be that.

Similarly, another voice was saying that the game needed to fit into a box and be sold as a box game because the trade sales team wanted to have a product they could sell on the shelves as a standalone box game. Okay, but that’s not really Necromunda though is it? Oh, but you also need to do separate rules for doing 3D combat. Okay that’s more like Necromunda, but that feels like a different version of the same thing.

So I initially wrote the rulebook, which treated the core box as a self-contained board game. There’s a set of line of sight rules that are abstractions, because you can’t use true line of sight on a 2D board, because walls get in the way. And you can’t expect players to just pretend the wall is there. In an ideal world the rules for 2D walls would say “just pretend the walls are there and use true line of sight” but that’s never quite gonna work, so instead there’s a set of rules about the way line of sight works.

Then I wrote the Gang War supplement, which was this big 128 page thing, which had the 3D rules, the campaign rules, and the 6 gangs. The “proper Necromunda experience”, if you will. The problem was that because of the tight deadlines, the book had already been ordered with the printers, and they’d used Death Zone or something as a guide, so basically they could only do a 60-odd page book. And so it got split into Gang War 1 and Gang War 2. The problem is that a lot of Gang War 1 is administrative stuff that should’ve been in the rule book anyway, i.e. the rules for 3D games and the full gang lists. So, Gang War 1 as it went onto the shelf, to my mind, is not a very good value book, because it’s all stuff that should’ve been in the core book anyway.

...

James: Yeah, Gang War 2 was all the fun stuff which we put in and there was hazardous terrain and things. That was all put in to make the Gang War supplement feel more exciting, because otherwise what you’re getting was just dull stuff. The core rulebook though, the core box game, that was written as it came out, because that the brief was for a standalone product.

So one thing I’ve seen people point out is that the points values, the credit costs of things are very wildly different between the core box and Gang War, and the justification we used at the time was that the ones in the standalone box game are there for standalone one-off games, the ones in Gang War are for campaigns. The possibly more honest answer is we had literally zero testing time for the ones in the core box – I only just managed to come up with the system and type up the document The costs in Gang War came later, and were the result of some testing after the core box had already been sent to print. Even then we had no real idea, because Gang War 1 was still part of that crazy, four month dash.

Lupe: So there’s almost no valuable testing time in that bit?

James: Yeah exactly. I mean, when you compare it to Titanicus, which we tested endlessly, we had regular weekly testing sessions… Necromunda was a game that we tested when we could. Like whenever a couple of us could get together we would do it. And we had none because I didn’t have time, I was writing the frigging thing!

James: ... The Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus [back in 7th] which should have one combined set of rules, they got two sets of special rules, because otherwise you don’t sell two books of special rules, you sell one.

Lupe: And interestingly they got combined back together in 8th.

James: And they should have been, they always should have been. The reason they were split was because of a logistics thing. It was when White Dwarf was weekly and they could only show one week’s releases at a time, and if you put out an army book in week one then you’ll show off the releases for the next one, and “secrecy is paramount” , you can’t show off the future releases. If you put it out in week two, it looks like the releases in week one were coming out without an army book, and that doesn’t make sense. And it was this whole ridiculous… the tail has often wagged the dog in Games Workshop in different ways, and this was a fantastic example of that.

Lupe: OK, sorry, can I just clarify: the reason that in 7th edition they were two separate armies was publishing requirements of White Dwarf?

James: There you go. It was like the Skitarii didn’t have any characters. I had to write that codex. There were no HQ choices, so how do we do it? We had to make up a new detachment for them. Similarly things like the Skitarii didn’t have any transport options.