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.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Who do they have now and what is their pedigree?
Priestley and Cavatore (and presumably Chambers, but I don't know what he's done) are still producing quality games for other companies, so it's not even a case of GW not having any of the big talent left - all of that big talent is competing against them. The market for rules is a lot more competitive than it was 30 years ago, and now we have some unnamed writers that seem to be producing what we currently see. Lets face it, none of the new rulesets have been stellar, have they?
I'm saying that the writers themselves aren't up to scratch, but they presumably don't have the presence to resist management dictats in the same way that the old writers did
There's a lot of stuff we'll probably never know about the design studio and 40K
Was the push for the merger of Apocalypse into 40K management lead in an attempt to push sales of models ? Or was it design team lead because that's how they like the game ?
Is the lack of balance and poor quality rules down to rushed timescales and no play-testing, or is it down to a lack of ability in the design team ?
Edit - Perhaps the closest insight we get into the design team is this post on B&C from Aaron Dembski-Bowden
Rule X for Faction Y is no good? Well, the clear, perfect solution to their complete lack of playtesting is definitely this homebrew rule; forgetting of course that almost every group will come up with their own opinion of how to fix it, if it even needs fixing at all. People pine for the informal days of the "golden era" Studio, ignoring the fact that there have always been rules people disagreed with and GW has always encouraged people to generate their own scenarios, rules, and so on. It's just as informal now in a lot of ways as it always was, but now - with mass-communication - rules people disagree with aren't seen as "I'll change this one for my group", they're seen as "This is underpowered/wrong/GW are incompetent/Andy Chambers would never have done this".
They expect you to house rule everything. Which is fine to an extent, but only works in small groups of like minded friends. The sign of GW turning a corner for me is when they acknowledge play outside of that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 09:24:04
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Who do they have now and what is their pedigree?
Priestley and Cavatore (and presumably Chambers, but I don't know what he's done) are still producing quality games for other companies, so it's not even a case of GW not having any of the big talent left - all of that big talent is competing against them. The market for rules is a lot more competitive than it was 30 years ago, and now we have some unnamed writers that seem to be producing what we currently see. Lets face it, none of the new rulesets have been stellar, have they?
I'm saying that the writers themselves aren't up to scratch, but they presumably don't have the presence to resist management dictats in the same way that the old writers did
Stellar they Arnt even competent all they know how to do is add more random rolls.
Got forced into playing lost patrol and it was a dire 10 minutes ill never get back, I really wish friends would stop wasting their money on this crap.
Azreal13 wrote: So, by that logic, if we don't know who they are, we can't make any sound judgement of their actual ability vs the pressures put on them by the corporate element of the business?
Which was my original point. I mean, I'm probably what would be considered a half decent painter, but if someone handed me a tank and said "here, have this ready by lunchtime" I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be turning in anything representative of my real ability.
More that they have a limited reason to give the customers their A-Game.
It used to be that working for GW had a certain cache - and was worth it in the market when you finally did leave GW.
Being Cubicle 5, Second Floor - The One With The Garfield Cartoons gives less reason to go a little beyond expectations.
So, instead we get Age of Sigmar. (I swear, the original version was written on tray liners during a lunchbreak....)
There is a reason why people remember Priestley, Cavatore, et ali - they were good game designers, and people knew what to expect when they saw a name attached to the book.
Yes, it leads to Matt Wards and Jervis Johnsons as well, where folks might avoid a book because of the writer, but even that comes down to the company not having someone balancing the rules. (I actually mostly like Jervis Johnson's work - but he tends to make underpowered armies and teams - because that is what he likes playing.)
Though it does sound as if we are basically arguing about something that we agree with each other on... the Faceless Minion Method is a symptom of the corporate oversight.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Bottle wrote: This is an old state of affairs. GW are already opening up again on who was involved in the rules for new projects, and even better - getting them to talk about their rules on Warhammer TV.
Lol.
Enable subtitles.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Bottle wrote: You can try and poke fun at it if you want, you're still poking fun at an old state of affairs as I mentioned. I like the Warhammer TV content and the designer's notes in the new White Dwarf are good too. YMMV, but it's a distinct change in how GW present the rules team again (which probably hit an all time low a few years ago at a 40K open day when it was revealed they are just handed fully painted models and told to make rules for them and set the points value at "what feels right" or something along those lines IIRC).
That will hold water if the new 40k rules release will show some fixing and streamlining of the rules instead of more band aids.
Azreal13 wrote: They've taken on a lot of extra designers to cover specialist games alongside the FW team.
Besides, they're in the same building, if you think they're somehow in a bunker isolated from everyone else, you're misguided.
It's a different mindset, more "it's ready when it's ready" and it is that, more than any significant difference in talent, that allows FW to do what it does.
I'm not touching the whole "FW in regular games" thing, otherwise the whole topic will spiral off at a tangent.
I sit in the same building as many different departments, but don't touch their projects.
Congratulations?
GW design studio has none of the decent talent left. They all left and started putting out competing games.
Ohhhh, so basically if it isn't Chambers, Priestley or Calvatore, they don't count? Gotcha.
Joyboozer wrote: Is the lowest form of humour now classified as adding subtitles to either that or the hitler video?
Nah, that's not even close to doing a lazy re-hash of previously written material, changing a few things here and there following the "what feels right" doctrine, and then trying to sell the new China printed product for a luxury price. That gotta be the lowest form of humour possible.
Yet it seems many people find it hilarious, considering how willing they are to throw money at it.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly since the conscious uncoupling of GW and FFG, all the things with my name in them have vanished from Drive Thru RPG.
Well, that's a damn shame. I know we have had our disagreements, but I want you to know that if you were working on the Dark Heresy team, writing the best 40k fluff texts around, your work is not only appreciated but admired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly since the conscious uncoupling of GW and FFG, all the things with my name in them have vanished from Drive Thru RPG.
Well, that's a damn shame. I know we have had our disagreements, but I want you to know that if you were working on the Dark Heresy team, writing the best 40k fluff texts around, your work is not only appreciated but admired.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/12 19:15:00
Bottle wrote: Which releases in particular are you referring to? That's not the case for the big releases this year like Deathwatch, Genestealer Cult, the General's handbook or Sylvaneth.
Tau. Perhaps it was from late 2015? Can't remember now.
In any case, any of the zillion supplements released for 40k lately may qualify. Mostly sub-par material, with mediocre art and laughably bad fluff, designed mostly as a "fast food product" that will likely be forgotten as soon as a new edition lands.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Rereleasing the same codex with a few new units in was a scum bag move, telling people who objected to buy the £45 book instead if they didn't want to rebuy a book they already owned was so much worse.
You going to have to give more than one example, because there are countless examples from 2016 supporting the opposite. The supplements "may qualify"? It sounds like you've not read them and you argument is largely dated and baseless to be frank. The Tau doesn't even support your case because it came out before GW changed direction (it's from September 2015). GW have made so many positive moves this year.
I've read them, although I have not bought them, so my argument is nor dated nor baseless.
What you call "positive moves" have turned 40k into an even more bloated mess of an even more expensive game.
GW's biggest problems have been, for a long time, terrible rules and insane prices. None of those have been adressed, and they're getting worse and worse with each new release.
In regards to AoS, I still see it as a pretty poor game, something that band aids won't solve. The only way to consider it a "good" game is to have never played virtually any other skirmish game the market has to offer, which of course is standard practice for GW-centric gamers.
Also, I run a very small and personal tailoring business, and even I have a facebook page and an e-mail address, which I check daily (answering questions and orders on a personal basis). Wow I guess that must make me a revolutionary businessman, since GW having some social media impact (where they ask you to "stay positive") is usually hailed as such by their hardcore supporters.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
notprop wrote: Indeed I have. And there is nothing those reports that would indicate a failing company. Their capital held and ability to generate more makes GW demonstrably buoyant.
Can you tell me between which two lines I should be reading?
Now look at the same report and subtract royalty revenue. When a company that sells products is only "buoyant" due to external revenue rather than sales of their goods, there are internal structural issues at play.
Management, if they're worth their salary, is aware that there are systemic issues that are resulting in decreased sales volume. I would put forward that the recent glut of box deals is likely are direct result of the current financial situation.
GW is currently in no danger of folding; I own stock, I'm not concerned and I'm not selling (again). Yet.
That said, I have a somewhat expert opinion on how they could generate further savings and increase the bottom line; I've shared my views with management but alas I don't own enough stock to make my point stick. The retail chain remains an unlucrative loadstone around the company's neck. By attempting a one-size-fits-all approach in the various regions served, they're creating unsustainable areas of service; in example, the North American market is just too geographically large to adequately place a GW-branded store in every major population center. This UK-centric approach to infrastructure does not work well and just creates a financial imbalance in the company. This combined with the harsh trade stance (i.e. no online carts simply because law allows such abuse) results in limited exposure to a broader market. Look, 20 years ago the game store was the central hub of all things tabletop; however, times have changed and the market has changed with it. People no longer restrict their shopping activities to the FLGS, they're more price conscious and sensitive to pricing pressures than in the past (mainly due to the ease of online shopping and social media); GW can change with the times or eventually go the way of the dodo. They've shown some positive changes in the past year or so and with a positive balance sheet, they have a bit of luxury in taking time to swerve their Titanic around the iceberg sitting in plain site.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
I don't think the "start collecting" boxes count as addressing the issue because:
1. The price for everything else is still insane
2. The bundled boxes are only really cheap when compared to rest of the GW range; they are still relatively expensive, for what you get, compared to the rest of the hobby.
It's a step in the right direction, no doubt about that, but it's a stretch to claim that prices aren't still nuts.
Perry (ex GW sculptors) Miniatures do miniatures in the same scale, same material and produced using the same method from around 0.55 per model.
AFAIK they don't own their own machinery, so that price likely includes the cost of paying someone else to manufacture them.
GW might have brought some costs down, but there's plenty of room to manoeuvre when's it comes to cost per model. I dare say if they didn't have the massive overhead of a largely cost neutral retail chain, they could make Perry look expensive.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The bundled boxes are certainly a step into the right direction, the problem is, at the same time each new release gets more expensive (hello Kharn), so right there we have a step into the completely opposite direction.
Same thing with rules. The FAQs have answered some questions, but have also introduced new ones, plus some ludicruous decisions (the drop pods one comes to mind). All in all they look like a half-assed effort, more aimed towards pleasing the demanding crowd in the short term than to truly fix the game. And at the current rate, a new edition will hit the stands before they incorporate those FAQs and erratas into their main website. Many people refuses to use them on the grounds that they're an experimental draft at best, and it's hard to argue against that.
@ Az, at this stage I fear GW have simply driven themselves into a corner. They simply can't afford to cut prices in a meaningful way, because they've driven their business model to a point where it's kept afloat by whale-milking practices. To suddenly change this would be 1) a direct acknowledgement that they were doing things wrong for many years (which they'll never do so openly), and 2) extremely risky, it could save the company on the long run but at the same time it could be potentially disastrous in the short term.
So prices will keep going higher and higher, as it happened in the dying days of WHFB (remember the witch elves box for 45€?).
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Barely any of GW's models are as low as 85p. Skinks maybe? The cheapest human sized models are 1.50. Imperial Guard are 1.80 and they're a horde army for feths sake
You can compare that with Perry's Afrikakorp or Desert Rats models that actually have more variety and include support weapons in the same box for 53p per model.
To assemble a group of Cadians that matched a £20 set of Afrikakorps or Desert Rats, you'd be paying £78.
Even if you buy Start Collecting sets of Cadians, you could buy 3 of them and get the same amount of infantry + 3 Leman Russes for £150, but you could buy the same £20 Afrikakorps and 3x Tigers which are about the same size as Leman Russes for £80 total anyway, it's not even a bundle or anything that's RRP buying them separately.
Where GW beats the competition is they offer a wide range from 1 source complete with rules and a decent sized existing community. Elsewhere in the world you can assemble a metal army for less than the price of a plastic Imperial Guard or Empire force.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 22:11:04
Bottle wrote: Rather than having "resolved" the expensive pricing, what I meant by addressing is that they are making steps to offer cheaper sets to gamers..
The Start Collecting sets and other bundles of the sort are a sign that Roundtree knows there's an issue with prices and wants to fix it. Individual model releases outside of those bundles climb ever higher, a sign that he can't do one jot about prices outside of a few bundles. Years and years and years of Kirby telling investors that lowering prices would hurt the brand seem to have sunk in.
Bottle wrote: Rather than having "resolved" the expensive pricing, what I meant by addressing is that they are making steps to offer cheaper sets to gamers..
The Start Collecting sets and other bundles of the sort are a sign that Roundtree knows there's an issue with prices and wants to fix it. Individual model releases outside of those bundles climb ever higher, a sign that he can't do one jot about prices outside of a few bundles. Years and years and years of Kirby telling investors that lowering prices would hurt the brand seem to have sunk in.
Yeah... Exactly.For example the Deathwatch Watch master and the Genestealer Iconward are more expensive then the last chars they sold... For feths sake get over the stupid pricing of Kharn...
