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.

Ok not sure if this is in the right place, so if it is not then can a mod please move it to the appropriate place cheers

Ok so I was wondering about GW and their line of 40k minis and it got me thinking about how their rules are worded out, and how they said that they don't look too much into making a tight rule set because they want to sell models more than they do rules.

This got me thinking, because of how Iconic their 40k line of minis are (e.g Space Marines) and how aggressive they are over their IP, can they really call themselves just a model company? They have a vast and rich background about 40k and the aesthetic of the models are Iconic for example the SM, I know people who don't play the game but can instantly recognise the SM because they are that distinct. Add to the fact that if you were to create or incorporate element of 40k into your own designs or were to create extra decorative bits to your SM for example, GW will come across as very aggressive with their IP (I remember someone on Dakka saying that GW went to court with PP because the warjack models look liked dreadnoughts, but unsure if this event occurred), for example the classic "Spots the Space Marine" case, that book had nothing to do with GW's SM yet GW went very aggressive against the Author (and look how that turned out ). I know with Mantic they encourage using their minis in other games that are not theirs and even into your own if you like making rules, but with GW if they are so called a model company why are they so aggressive when you use one of their minis in another system?

So can GW still call themselves a model company, even though they have a big established fanbase, background and Iconic minis as an excuse to write poorly written rules? what are your views on this? would love to know your opinion

Cheers to all comments

I abstain because none of the answers sum up my opinion.

"Games Workshop is not JUST a modeling company, but their rules set by and large does not need reworking. Just clarifications here and there."

Sure they can call them self what every they want, it will not change how people see them or the IP laws for that matter.

"Just a model company" is nothing more than a way of saying "we produce garbage rules/fluff/etc but it's your fault for expecting decent products" without scaring all the shareholders away.

Noir wrote:Sure they can call them self what every they want, it will not change how people see them or the IP laws for that matter.

This. It's a conflict between the studio's goals and the customer's expectations. The majority of fans have long since proven that they wish for more than GW seems willing to deliver, but that does not mean that GW has to care.

Does GW actually call themselves just a modelling company? if not, then no.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I abstain because none of the answers sum up my opinion.

"Games Workshop is not JUST a modeling company, but their rules set by and large does not need reworking. Just clarifications here and there."

Pretty much sums up my opinion too.

Not just a modeling company, but the rules could use work (though i still find the games enjoyable).

I don't understand the question. Surely the rules should be made as well as possible by the people who're writing them? There may be 5 times as many moddellers as rules writers (I made that number up),but that doesn't mean that the rules guys shouldn't do their best possible job.

Unless you mean you want them to spend more on rules guys...but since they're already churning out codexes and supplements at 1 every 2 months, I don't think making them churn out *even quicker* would accomplish much.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Does GW actually call themselves just a modelling company? if not, then no.

"We're a model company, not a rules company" is their response any time someone questions their rules, so the 'just' part is something OP has added himself but GW are contently saying it without actually wording it exactly that way.

The problem is GW doesn't see the rules being a good balanced rule set as an avenue to model sales.

They will eventually have to come to that realization, because not enough people will buy models because they are great models(and they are) but the real money is in people wanting models to play a great game.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I abstain because none of the answers sum up my opinion.

"Games Workshop is not JUST a modeling company, but their rules set by and large does not need reworking. Just clarifications here and there."

Seems fair.

That was kind of arrogant and insulting statement because it makes active players look like morons, buying multiples of the same model to fit their ruleset. Without rules and game all this hobby and their massive sales stop existing.

Well according to Mr T Kirby CEO and Chairman of GW plc.
'Games workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children.'

And Jevis Johnson has said, ' the rules are just the icing on the cake for minature collectors.'And that ' ..over 2/3 of GW customers NEVER actually get around to playing a game.'

So as GW appears to be writing rules for people who never play the game , or who ' think the rules are not that important.'
We can see just how high a standard they set for rules and army books they send to print.

No editing beyond poorly applied copy/ paste.
No structure to their writing , no Glossary of words/terms.(' Lazy writing' , as some call it.)
No evidence of any professional proof reading.

GW plc believe they can sell their product to 'goobering fans' at what ever price point they want to set.Because their prime demoghraphic are 'price insensitive'.
Eg will pay any price GW care to set.

So GW are a 'toy soldier company' that produces sales pamphlets that some people mistake for a rules sets. .

 jonolikespie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Does GW actually call themselves just a modelling company? if not, then no.

"We're a model company, not a rules company" is their response any time someone questions their rules, so the 'just' part is something OP has added himself but GW are contently saying it without actually wording it exactly that way.

Do you have a source for this? I thought GW were pretty good at answering rules queries.

xruslanx wrote:
I don't understand the question. Surely the rules should be made as well as possible by the people who're writing them?

That's exactly what the discussion is about, GW does not make rules as well as possible, because they find that little Timmy buying a box of marines that he maybe will never use, never build and never even paint makes more for them than the gamer or a person who really likes their fluff who wants to buy a whole army from them.

Basically GW logic..

My problem is that they say they are a modelling company, but they are not why? because they know that they have a good background, they know they have Iconic minis and will be very aggressive if someone would use said minis in another system or for another use other than their games or background. If they were "just another modelling company" they would be advertising that there would be more uses than just their own games, for example Mantic encourage using their minis in other systems, if you were to say use SM in another system or even recommend using GW minis in a game you were creating, and GW spotted this then they would be bashing down your door with armed lawyers ransacking your house with a pleasant C&D letter that they would very so kindly nail to your forehead with a sledgehammer (ok that was a tad extreme, but you get the picture).

Here goes the unpopular opinion of the thread:

I love GW model's, rarely are they misses for me.

I love 40K as a game, the community works out kinks but for a complicated game with a ton of rules layers it holds up very well and is enjoyed competitively. Especially their recent hardcover codex's. Excluding CSM they have all preformed very well both in balance and in flavor/fun.

(I just think the CSM book is boring and a little underpowered, boons rarely affect the game and their psychic powers are rarely available yet alone USED because they are so mediocre. Also their characters suck :( )


Whether they call themselves just a modeling company is irrelevant to me, I love playing their game and collecting their models.

They are very good at making money and I respect that. Quoting CEO's is just being plain semantic and often is taken out of context, the truth is the companies stance on being rules focused vs models is unclear and thats the way they want it.

To put it into perspective, and this is coming from someone who plays a LOT of different games, 40k is the only one with single author's of their rulebooks. I realize there is a certain amount of playtesting done by a couple more people just because you can't effectively play vs yourself but usually games have teams dedicated to forming and ironing out rules.

GW is an interesting beast indeed.

 happygolucky wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I don't understand the question. Surely the rules should be made as well as possible by the people who're writing them?

That's exactly what the discussion is about, GW does not make rules as well as possible, because they find that little Timmy buying a box of marines that he maybe will never use, never build and never even paint makes more for them than the gamer or a person who really likes their fluff who wants to buy a whole army from them.

So you think GW HQ ring up the guys who write the rules and go "hey guys, make these rules as gakky as possible"? Also, source for GW targetting at kids. I think it's obvious that they're aimed at adults. Kids might buy a starter box or some tactical squads, but the new big releases are quite clearly aimed at adults who can drop £200 on new shinies come the next payday.

xruslanx wrote:
So you think GW HQ ring up the guys who write the rules and go "hey guys, make these rules as gakky as possible"?

No, but writing good rules takes a lot of work. GW doesn't explicitly say "make some garbage", they just say "you have one day to write this codex" and the outcome is inevitable. Their policy is very clearly "why spend any more time than necessary on the rules when the kids will keep buying even if they're garbage".

Also, source for GW targetting at kids.

GW's own investor guide, where they describe their target market.

I think it's obvious that they're aimed at adults. Kids might buy a starter box or some tactical squads, but the new big releases are quite clearly aimed at adults who can drop £200 on new shinies come the next payday.

As I've said before kids might only buy £200 that one time, but it's a lot easier to get kids to buy stuff. A 12 year old begging for a birthday present isn't going to be familiar with all of the competing options or have the patience to say "no, I'll save my money for something better". Adults, on the other hand, are much pickier about how they spend their money. Yes, I can spend £200 on the latest GW release, but I can also spend it on renting an airplane for a few hours and have way more fun. So GW has to work really hard to convince me to occasionally spend £200, and they may never succeed again.

This is a common fallacy. If it were true, why would GW even time model releases by Codex? They'd just release a bunch of units and maybe append an internet download ruleset as an afterthought.

The way they get people into the game is by selling a boxed game, ffs.

They release FAQs and change things that are broken or abusive, albeit slowly.

Reaper is a miniatures company. Games Workshop is a games company.

The fact remains they have no miniatures not tied to a ruleset.

If GW were reasonable about IP, they could claim this.

They're a patent troll company that just happens to make models and some badly planned rules for them.

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Does GW actually call themselves just a modelling company? if not, then no.

"We're a model company, not a rules company" is their response any time someone questions their rules, so the 'just' part is something OP has added himself but GW are contently saying it without actually wording it exactly that way.

Do you have a source for this? I thought GW were pretty good at answering rules queries.

Walk into a GW store and say "I think 40ks rules could be a lot better", that's the exact reply you'll get.
It's not an answer to a rules query, it's a blanket statement to justify sub par rules.

The most accurate way to describe GW would be a tabletop hobby company. Most model companies supply kits only. A select few, like Tamiya and Revell, also supply glue, tools and paints for their kits. GW supplies, kits, paints, glues, tools, finishing products, rulebooks, painting tutorials, fiction literature, an aftermarket company (black library and Forgeworld function as GW subsidiaries), dice, measuring tapes, templates and even places to pratice the tabletop hobby. What`s more, they require you to use 'their' designated tools and paints when working in 'their' store. No single other 'modelling company' does this. The statement itself is nothing more than a way of communincating to their customers in a more or less diplomatic way that they focus more on selling a product than on satisfying the wishes of a niche within their customer base for a differently balanced gaming experience. Because they cover literally all the bases that are part of the hobby, they have an interest in dominating all these aspects and establishing a monopoly of sorts. This has led to some 'unfriendly' moves such as cracking down on 3rd party sellers that supplied their product, thereby forcing more of that business to them directly.

Anyone who compares their business model with other tabletop gaming companies (Corvus Belli, Privateer Press) or scale modelling companies (DML, Trumpeter, Hasegawa, Tamiya) will see that GW is a completely different animal

 jonolikespie wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Does GW actually call themselves just a modelling company? if not, then no.

"We're a model company, not a rules company" is their response any time someone questions their rules, so the 'just' part is something OP has added himself but GW are contently saying it without actually wording it exactly that way.

Do you have a source for this? I thought GW were pretty good at answering rules queries.

Walk into a GW store and say "I think 40ks rules could be a lot better", that's the exact reply you'll get.
It's not an answer to a rules query, it's a blanket statement to justify sub par rules.

So your source is what some random blackshirt said to you?

In that case, heavy bolters are S6 and space marines never fail armour saves.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I abstain because none of the answers sum up my opinion.

"Games Workshop is not JUST a modeling company, but their rules set by and large does not need reworking. Just clarifications here and there."

Seems fair.

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Does GW actually call themselves just a modelling company? if not, then no.

"We're a model company, not a rules company" is their response any time someone questions their rules, so the 'just' part is something OP has added himself but GW are contently saying it without actually wording it exactly that way.

Do you have a source for this? I thought GW were pretty good at answering rules queries.

Walk into a GW store and say "I think 40ks rules could be a lot better", that's the exact reply you'll get.
It's not an answer to a rules query, it's a blanket statement to justify sub par rules.

So your source is what some random blackshirt said to you?

In that case, heavy bolters are S6 and space marines never fail armour saves.

Obvious fallacy is obvious.

Don't stop though, you're far too entertaining,

It's called a "company line" the same line which has been repeated many times in this thread, along with the evidence of where it came from.