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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Given that they still have those "one-click bundles" that save you no money (see: Varanguard collection @ $300 for 9 when they are $100 for 3) , I'm staying skeptical on GW saving anything. If they had any sense, those would be the first to go because they are insulting.

I've often wondered if anyone buys those collections that are nothing more than click-savers. Part of me is pretty skeptical, but since they keep on putting up new... uh... bundles, *someone* must be buying them?

 Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Given that they still have those "one-click bundles" that save you no money (see: Varanguard collection @ $300 for 9 when they are $100 for 3) , I'm staying skeptical on GW saving anything. If they had any sense, those would be the first to go because they are insulting.

I've often wondered if anyone buys those collections that are nothing more than click-savers. Part of me is pretty skeptical, but since they keep on putting up new... uh... bundles, *someone* must be buying them?

I'm sure someone buys them, but I feel the negative impressions people get seeing bundles that save you literally nothing probably does more damage in terms of company opinion than "that one-click saved me literally tens of seconds!" convenience could ever offer.

They seem almost a ploy for people who can't do math/have no control over their purchasing habits.

 Accolade wrote:
[...]They seem almost a ploy for people who can't do math/have no control over their purchasing habits.

a.k.a. Gamesworkshop's target demographic.

 Accolade wrote:

 Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Given that they still have those "one-click bundles" that save you no money (see: Varanguard collection @ $300 for 9 when they are $100 for 3) , I'm staying skeptical on GW saving anything. If they had any sense, those would be the first to go because they are insulting.

I've often wondered if anyone buys those collections that are nothing more than click-savers. Part of me is pretty skeptical, but since they keep on putting up new... uh... bundles, *someone* must be buying them?

I'm sure someone buys them, but I feel the negative impressions people get seeing bundles that save you literally nothing probably does more damage in terms of company opinion than "that one-click saved me literally tens of seconds!" convenience could ever offer.

They seem almost a ploy for people who can't do math/have no control over their purchasing habits.

I guess GW wants impulse buyers.

Well done, GW.

''Engel des Todes''

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well done, GW.

''Engel des Todes''

Huh? I haven't bought any GW stuff in a long time so can't really say if it sarcasm, awkward translation, or actually something they have done well. Could you explain?

Mario wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well done, GW.

''Engel des Todes''

Huh? I haven't bought any GW stuff in a long time so can't really say if it sarcasm, awkward translation, or actually something they have done well. Could you explain?

Engel des Todes means "Angel of Death". Engel des Odes means "We didn't proof read the cover"

So disappointed it isn't Angels of Odour.

Joyboozer wrote:
So disappointed it isn't Angels of Odour.

Or Angel of Odies, the disappointing pseudo-religious follow up to Garfield.

Have GW started to save themselves? I don't know, but I do know that for the first time in over a decade I'm considering buying their stuff again. As are others in my play group. To potentially reclaim customers who stopped buying your stuff over a decade ago can't be anything but good.

 Kojiro wrote:
Have GW started to save themselves? I don't know, but I do know that for the first time in over a decade I'm considering buying their stuff again. As are others in my play group. To potentially reclaim customers who stopped buying your stuff over a decade ago can't be anything but good.

They've lost plenty of others. To potentially lose customers who stopped buying your stuff after a decade or two can't be anything but bad.

Oh no doubt. But this thread is about saving themselves now, not what they've done previously (which I agree with you wholeheartedly was terrible). I stopped buying a long time ago, now I'm interested again, in specialist games at least.

So I'll give tentative credit where it's tentatively due. They could still screw it up.

 Kojiro wrote:
Have GW started to save themselves? I don't know, but I do know that for the first time in over a decade I'm considering buying their stuff again. As are others in my play group. To potentially reclaim customers who stopped buying your stuff over a decade ago can't be anything but good.

What exactly is bringing you back? How can you possibly justify the prices they ask you to pay in Australia?

Epic and Necromunda. There's a reason I used words like 'potential', 'tentatively' and 'I don't know'. I think this particular direction is a good one, certainly an improvement over previous ones.

I'm not saying I'm whole heartedly in. That I'll be spending thousands on new models. Only that I am, for the first time in a very long time, interested. There's every chance the price will make me simply laugh and ignore it. That perusing the rules will make me cringe at how poorly thought out they are. As I said, I don't know. But for a long time I've looked at each new release and idea and thought 'hahaha no. Not even remotely.' But maybe the rules will be good. Maybe the minis will be affordable (doubtful to be honest, we'd likely substitute stuff). Regardless, I'm now a potential customer where I was absolutely not.

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh no doubt. But this thread is about saving themselves now, not what they've done previously (which I agree with you wholeheartedly was terrible). I stopped buying a long time ago, now I'm interested again, in specialist games at least.

So I'll give tentative credit where it's tentatively due. They could still screw it up.

It's worth taking a wait and see approach here. There was a lot of hype and noise about resurrecting specialist games, but there's several ways they can go, some are fantastic, some are interesting but not what people are expecting, and some are simply depressingly realistic.

They could resurrect the games in all their glory. Bring the rules back, keep their current incarnation but maybe give them a once over to tighten them up. Then relaunch the model ranges with the current aesthetic. That's the most optimistic viewpoint.

They could 'resurrect' them as one off boxes. Blood Bowl has long been rumoured to be getting this treatment, and would kind of work (4 teams in the box, rules for normal one off games, rules for a 'campaign' among the 4). Some are already one off boxed games so would work anyway, like Warhammer Quest or Space Hulk. Others would be shoehorned into that style of package for better or worse. This approach means there's no need for support, just fire and forget.

The more depressingly realistic approach, given their current legal wrangling, is to 'resurrect' them by giving the old models resin releases to keep costs down (to them, but up for customers), make no changes, just reprint things and put them on the website. No intention to expand, just make them available in resin to hold the IP down. This is simply looking at their current attempts to hold onto their IP moat. They already lost Heroquest in Europe, and regardless of them ever wanting to touch that IP again, it was part of their moat.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well done, GW.

''Engel des Todes''

Maybe they meant Engel des ödes

 larva_uk wrote:

Mario wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well done, GW.

''Engel des Todes''

Huh? I haven't bought any GW stuff in a long time so can't really say if it sarcasm, awkward translation, or actually something they have done well. Could you explain?

Engel des Todes means "Angel of Death". Engel des Odes means "We didn't proof read the cover"

Exactly. Proof reading should belong to the business.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh no doubt. But this thread is about saving themselves now, not what they've done previously (which I agree with you wholeheartedly was terrible). I stopped buying a long time ago, now I'm interested again, in specialist games at least.

So I'll give tentative credit where it's tentatively due. They could still screw it up.

It's worth taking a wait and see approach here. There was a lot of hype and noise about resurrecting specialist games, but there's several ways they can go, some are fantastic, some are interesting but not what people are expecting, and some are simply depressingly realistic.
...
....

To be realistic, GW have not yet revived Specialist Games. We don't know how it will be done or how long it will take. So no-one has been recruited back as a customer because there isn't anything to buy.

GW's recent form has been variable. The SPulk revival was a huge success, Dread Fleet was a disaster, Assassinorum seems likely to be a failure and has been criticised for poor quality parts. Battle of Cattle seems like it will be a good success, though this is partly because it is a great value bundle of 30K figures for use on WH40K/30K, rather than its inherent value as a board game.

From one angle it doesn't matter to GW or to players if people buy a lot of a board game boxed set not because they want to play the game, but to get the figures. It's still money to GW and value to users. From the other viewpoint, it would be sad for new and revived SGs to be effectively just bundle deals for Fantasy or 40K figures. GW need to diversify away from their current three products, LoTR, WH40K and AoS.

Therefore, In my view, GW need to make the games worth while to play in their own right.

I'm not sure about GW itself, but Black Library's/GW: Digital's sale of ibook and ebook codexes is a good start.

 Skinnereal wrote:
I'm not sure about GW itself, but Black Library's/GW: Digital's sale of ibook and ebook codexes is a good at good start.

And their focus on limited edition hardcover novellas and ebook short stories instead of damn novels is killing a lot of interest in the BL side of the business...

GW is really good at having ideas and then brutally murdering them with greed and poor implementation. While I would love it if they could make necromunda and morheim into passable games.. history shows us they don't have that much depth in their creative department.

Well, a move in the right direction would be the unification of 40k and AoS just like WM and Hordes.
Since GW makes crappy rules anyway this should not be a big deal.

Once and for all, I want to dispel the myth that Dreadfleet was a disaster.

It wasn't.

I bought half a dozen copies, sat on them for months, and then sold them later on for vastly inflated prices

By any measure, that is not a disaster

PS. I did paint them all up, so the high price was justified.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Once and for all, I want to dispel the myth that Dreadfleet was a disaster.

It wasn't.

I bought half a dozen copies, sat on them for months, and then sold them later on for vastly inflated prices

By any measure, that is not a disaster

PS. I did paint them all up, so the high price was justified.

If I sold an air guitar online for $43,797 it wouldn't prove that air guitars are good instruments.

Having to throw away product because it is not selling is basically the definition of a disaster in retail.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Once and for all, I want to dispel the myth that Dreadfleet was a disaster.

It wasn't.

I bought half a dozen copies, sat on them for months, and then sold them later on for vastly inflated prices

By any measure, that is not a disaster

PS. I did paint them all up, so the high price was justified.

If I sold an air guitar online for $43,797 it wouldn't prove that air guitars are good instruments.

Having to throw away product because it is not selling is basically the definition of a disaster in retail.

That's capitalism for you. If you're not happy, and want to change things, start reading some Karl Marx, and then organise a revolution in say, Russia, or something

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, a move in the right direction would be the unification of 40k and AoS just like WM and Hordes.
Since GW makes crappy rules anyway this should not be a big deal.

That's a terrible idea. It'd be like asking Spartan to put together Dystopian Wars and Uncharted Seas.

WM/H are set on the same world, with the only real difference in rules being the Fury/Focus and Warbeast/Warjack divide.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, a move in the right direction would be the unification of 40k and AoS just like WM and Hordes.
Since GW makes crappy rules anyway this should not be a big deal.

I believe it will eventually happen, and perhaps sooner than we may expect.

The result won't be pretty, though.

 Korinov wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, a move in the right direction would be the unification of 40k and AoS just like WM and Hordes.
Since GW makes crappy rules anyway this should not be a big deal.

I believe it will eventually happen, and perhaps sooner than we may expect.

The result won't be pretty, though.

Agreed. It won't be pretty.
But I'd like to play my WHFB/AoS cavalry also in 40k.

Why? That makes absolutely no sense. 40k isn't WFB.

 Kirasu wrote:
Why? That makes absolutely no sense. 40k isn't WFB.

AoS with round bases makes it different from WHFB and gets it closer to 40k.
I think one would need some duality of rule implementation just as in WM and Hordes, where focus and fury management show some duality.